Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda Packet 2007-09-25
City Council Tony Ferrara Ed Arnold Joe Costello Jim Guthrie Chuck Fellows Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member agenda Steven Adams City Manager Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Kelly Wetmore City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: 4. INVOCATION: 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 7:00 P.M. CUB SCOUTS PACK 13 DEN 2 DR. MAYER-HARNISH 6a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY -SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking 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 Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action.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 September 1, 2007 through September 15, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deaosits (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of August 31, 2007. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings of August 14, 2007, and the Regular City Council meeting of August 28, 2007 as submitted. 8.d. Memorandum of Understanding (McCLISH/CARMEL) Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum of Understanding. 8.e. Consideration of a Consultant Services Agreement with the Wallace Grouq for the Desalination Funding Studv (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Approve the Agreement with Wallace Group; 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement; and 3) Appropriate an additional $3,317 from the Water Facility Fund for the Study. AGENDA SUMMARY -SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'dl: 8.f. Recommended Action: Approve Agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources for the Desalination Funding Study Grant; and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 8.g. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting Public Works Fees and Service Charges (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the FY 2007-08 Public Works Field Division Fees and Service Charges. 8.h. Consideration of Grant of Temporary License and Agreement with PG&E for Use of Citv Property (STRONG) Recommended Action: Approve and Authorize the Mayor to execute a Grant of Temporary License and Agreement for Use of City Property with Pacific Gas and Electric for a temporary Park-N-Ride lot located at the northeast corner of Old Ranch Road and West Branch Street. 8.i. Old Ranch Road (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Award a contract to R. Burke Construction in the amount of $60,835.00 for grading of the park and ride lot at West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road; 2) Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $6,085.00 to R. Burke Construction for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; 3) Award a contract Lee Wilson Electric Company in the amount of $22,300.00 for installation of lighting; and 4) Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $2,230.00 to Lee Wilson Electric Company for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Use of State 2007-08 Citizens Oution for Public Safety (COPS) Funds (ANNIBALI) Recommended Action: 1) Approve the Chief of Police's recommendation to utilize the FY 2007-08 COPS funds to continue the multi-year program for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's base radio communications equipment; and 2) Authorize the expenditure of $61,834 carried over from the City's FY 2006-07 COPS Program. 9.b. ~ornrnercia~ Reran, vmce gnu RCSIUCIIUAI vwewunnsn~. '+uuuwn~ - vo a ~n Properties, LLC: Location 415 E. Branch Street (STRONG) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and revised proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project to be developed in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center). AGENDA SUMMARY -SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. 11. NEW BUSINESS: None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA) (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (3) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Other (c) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board (2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (3) Fire Oversight Committee (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee (5) Other (d) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) (3) Other (e) COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS: (1) South County Youth Coalition (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (3) Other AGENDA SUMMARY -SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 5 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. a. Request to consider future agenda item and/or discussion on concerns regarding reduction 'of local cable television franchisee office hours (COSTELLO) 14. 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. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 17. 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. 18. ADJOURNMENT xx~~~~ar+~xxx•+ir~wr~~x~f• This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.org 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. City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org. 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIF CATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period September 1 through September 15, 2007. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is a $666,896.82 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 133017-133178 $ 189,163.60 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 477,733.22 BACKGROUND: Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Finance Department staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City's Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual of February 2000. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendation; • Do not approve staffs recommendation; • Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY2007-2008 budget. U:IMSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMSICASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Disbursements.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES: • Finance Department monitors payment of invoices for accountability, accuracy and completeness using standards approved by the Council. • Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants. • Discounts are taken where applicable. DISADVANTAGES: • Rejection of the recommendation could result in additional cost incurred by the City for late payment fees and bank charges. • Additional staff time would be required to recoup the funds already disbursed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. September 1-September 15, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register 2. September 14, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Disbursements.doc apckHist 09117/2007 12:29PM CheckNistory Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ATTACHMENTI Page: 1 Bank code: boa Check q Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133017 09/04/2007 001058 TONY M FERRARA 083107 08/31/2007 305.55 305.55 133018 09/04/2007 001058 TONY M FERRARA 090407 09104/2007 49.78 49.78 133019 09/05/2007 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 090507 09/05/2007 25.00 25.00 133031 09/07/2007 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC 103576070 08/29/2007 53.94 53.94 133032 09/07/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 134465 08/29/2007 32.95 32.95 133033 09/07/2007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA) 6996 08/27/2007 353.86 353.86 133034 09/07/2007 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, 2350904 08/07/2007 101.58 2350998 08/08/2007 9815 199.73 133035 09/07/2007 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 41163 08/28/2007 103.21 41165 08/28/2007 75.50 178.71 133036 09/07/2007 003053 CID CABRIALES 083107 08/3112007 286.16 286.16 133037 09/0712007 005830 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 07082304 08/23/2007 425.00 425.00 133038 09/0712007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-189991 08/30/2007 42.44 7314-189316 08/27/2007 30.41 72.85 133039 09/07/2007 005771 CATEGORY FIVE PROF 081707 08/17/2007 6,500.00 6,500.00 133040 09/0712007 003168 CELLULAR ONE 01284 08/31/2007 138.16 138.16 133041 09/0712007 006039 CHEVRON & TEXACO CARD 07898072884708 08/03/2007 399.91 399.91 133042 09/07/2007 001925 CLEARWATER COLOR 45816 07112/2007 43.76 43.76 133043 09/07/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 12846095 08121/2007 57.94 12854960 08122/2007 5.78 63.72 133044 09/07/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP XC5C8N416 09106/2007 226.26 226.26 133045 09/07/2007 006333 FIA CARD SERVICES 8/20-9702 08/20/2007 780.60 8/20-0918 08/20/2007 726.29 8/20-6313 08120/2007 681.88 8/20-4383 08120/2007 138.92 Page:1 apCkHist 0911712007 12:29PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 2 Bank code: boa I ' Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 8/20-6297 08/20/2007 136.58 8/20-6263 08/20/2007 136.49 8120-7615 08/20/2007 109.84 8120-7583 08/20/2007 104.68 8/20-6289 08120/2007 90.77 ~ 8/20-6305 08/20/2007 63.61 ~ 8/20-2611 08/20/2007 49.73 8120-6362 08/20/2007 21.54 3,040.93 133046 09/07/2007 000662 GENERAL SERVICES ADMIN E9637864 08/20/2007 1,025.09 1,025.09 133047 09/07/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 090607 09/06/2007 40.00 40.00 133048 09/0712007 000311 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 0012630-IN 08/23/2007 495.00 495.00 133049 09/07/2007 000971 RON JOHNSON 873141 08/28/2007 63.14 63.14 133050 09/07/2007 006115 JPG CONSTRUCTION INC PW 2006-05 08129/2007 29,131.02 29,131.02 133051 09/07/2007 000402 MAIL BOXES ETC 36903 08/23/2007 30.08 30.08 133052 09/07/2007 006336 ART MARTINEZ 26846 08/29/2007 180.00 180.00 133053 09/07/2007 005151 MICHAEL MARTINEZ 081407 08/14/2007 269.01 269.01 133054 09/07/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 220180 09/01/2007 94.79 218861 08/22/2007 66.77 919394 08/22/2007 54.38 219565 08/27/2007 42.37 K19986 08/31/2007 28.36 219923 08/30/2007 20.45 215433 07/27/2007 17.23 214845 07/23/2007 1399 219847 08/29/2007 11.84 215730 07130/2007 11.84 214998 07/24/2007 10.56 219665 08/28/2007 9.68 K20225 08/28/2007 6.99 215909 07/31/2007 5.95 219789 08/30/2007 5.38 Page:2 II' apCkHist 09/17/2007 12:29PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 3 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 219581 08/2712007 5.36 214941 07/2412007 3.76 219930 08/30/2007 3.22 219728 08/28/2007 1.07 219729 08/28/2007 1.07 415 .06 133055 09/07/2007 006334 TAMMY MOYNAGH 9042007 09104/2007 25.00 25. 00 133056 09107/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 181399 08/31/2007 36.03 36. 03 ~ 133057 09107/2007 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 933066312070 08/29/2007 97.89 97. 89 ' 133058 0910712007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 398901088-001 08/2412007 71.76 398220245-001 08/24/2007 39.12 110. 88 133059 09/07/2007 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY AUTH#240002 08/2812007 68.62 AUTH#240001 08/2812007 3.21 71. 83 133060 09/07/2007 001834 PAPA -PESTICIDE 090507 09/0512007 130.00 130. 00 133061 09107/2007 005186 NAN PENNOCK 082807 08/2812007 155.35 155. 35 133062 09/0712007 000492 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 08/2412007 217.17 217. 17 133063 09/07/2007 000513 BEAU PRYOR 090707 09/0712007 100.00 100. 00 133064 09/07/2007 006335 STEVE RASMUSSEN 090407 09/0412007 119.88 119. 88 133065 09/07/2007 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SERVICE 3075D 09/0112007 1,277.85 1,277. 85 133066 09/07/2007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 090607 09/06/2007 24.00 24. 00 133067 09/07/2007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 090607 09/0612007 16.00 16. 00 133068 09/07/2007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 090607 09/06/2007 120.00 082907 08/29/2007 60.00 180. 00 133069 09107/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 083007 08/30/2007 16.00 16. 00 i 133070 09/0712007 001696 SOUZA CONSTRUCTION, INC PW 2007-02 08/2212007 65,511.00 65,511. 00 133071 09/07/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 082807 08/28/2007 40.00 40. 00 ~ 133072 09/07/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY S1046636.002 07124/2007 176.63 Page: 3 i apckHist 09/17@007 i 12:29PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 4 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total S1054505.001 08/27/2007 9 .90 186.53 ~ 133073 09/07/2007 000636 RICK TERBORCH 083107 08/3112007 37 .83 37.83 ~ 133074 09/07/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 65747981 06/11/2007 49 .80 49.80 133075 09/07/2007 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 14838 08122/2007 100. 00 100.00 133076 09/10/2007 006041 CLEARS INC 091007 09/10/2007 325. 00 325.00 ~, 133077 09/10/2007 002876 JONI MC BRIDE 091007 09/10/2007 165. 40 165.40 133078 09110/2007 000286 GROENIGER & COMPANY 723592 08/22/2007 3,524. 46 3,524.46 133079 09/11/2007 006340 BAY OSOS PROPERTY MGMT Ref000079879 09/06/2007 32. 36 32.36 133080 09111/2007 006302 NEETA BONFIELD Ref000079876 09106/2007 124. 65 124.65 133081 09111/2007 006339 CHRISTA IOPEZ Ref000079878 09106/2007 3. 71 3.71 133082 0911112007 006338 ERNEST PIERCE Ref000079877 09106/2007 95. 25 95.25 133083 09/11/2007 006337 JILL & ERIK TWEEDIE Ref000079875 09/06/2007 651. 73 651.73 133084 09/11/2007 005355 CHANNEL COUNTIES 090407 09/04/2007 180. 00 180.00 133085 09/11/2007 004548 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP 10974 09105/2007 14,203. 60 14,203.60 133086 09113/2007 002627 STEVEN ADAMS 091007 09/10/2007 292. 00 292.00 133087 09/13/2007 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC 103265273 08/3112007 27. 25 27.25 133088 09/13/2007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 3438 08/2312007 543. 63 543.63 133089 09/13/2007 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 48061 09/04/2007 552. 24 552.24 i 133090 09/13/2007 006341 ANGELLO'S FLOOR 4095 07/15/2007 4,003. 30 1258 09/04/2007 400. 00 4,403.30 133091 09/13/2007 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 28400 08/30/2007 258. 55 28336 08/0712007 5. 33 263.88 i 133092 09/13/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 78L00036 08/21/2007 816. 06 816.06 ~, 133093 09/13/2007 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0018658-IN 09/05/2007 43. 46 43.46 Page: 4 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 5 09/17/2007 12:29PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor 133094 09/13/2007 006342 DEBBI ASHBY 133095 09/13/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI 133096 09/13/2007 002180 AVAYA, INC 133097 09/13/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 133098 09/13/2007 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL 133099 09/13/2007 006343 BRIANNA BOYD 133100 09/13/2007 005726 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC 133101 09/13/2007 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 133102 09/13/2007 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 133103 09/1312007 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 133104 09/13/2007 000134 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE 133105 09/13/2007 003853 CALIFORNIA LIGHTING 133106 09/13/2007 000994 CALVARY CHAPEL CHURCH 133107 09/13/2007 005890 CANNON ASSOCIATES 133108 09/13/2007 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 133109 09/13/2007 006344 CENTRAL COAST QUILT 133110 09/13/2007 001990 CHARTER 133111 09/13/2007 000163 CHERRY LANE Status ClearNoid Date Invoice 090507 T6933341 T6923568 T6933342 2726060346 091107 SI5352128 090507 705220 77685 74868 40412 091307 635903 7015 090507 41861 189512 7314-191521 189525 7314192014 090507 090207 22512 22484 22132 Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 09/05/2007 08/1112007 08/08/2007 08/11/2007 09/01 /2007 09111 /2007 08/20/2007 09/05/2007 08/16/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/16/2007 09/13/2007 08/08/2007 08131/2007 09/05/2007 07/31 /2007 08/28/2007 09/06/2007 08/28/2007 09/07/2007 09/05/2007 09/02/2007 08/31 /2007 08/29/2007 08/16/2007 30.00 29.72 28.35 13.86 41.22 49.61 567.86 30.00 508.80 209.00 100.00 277.51 90.00 2,064.00 314.02 70.00 833.75 99.82 72.92 61.42 7.48 193.75 194.95 553.84 32.27 30.13 30.00 71.93 41.22 49.61 567.86 30.00 508.80 309.00 277.51 90.00 2,064.00 314.02 70.00 833.75 241.64 193.75 194.95 Page: 5 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 6 09117/2007 12:29PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 22119 08/15/2007 16.00 632.24 133112 09/13/2007 002509 CHIEF SUPPLY 138462 08/28/2007 1,530.30 1,530.30 133113 09/13/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 9037-92807 09/03/2007 4,250.00 8267-0807 08/2712007 420.00 8257-0807 08/27/2007 350.00 5,020.00 133114 09/13/2007 005997 COOK PAGING INC 6842417 09/01/2007 480.00 480.00 133115 09/13/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 04414 08/27/2007 25.00 25.00 133116 09/13/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 12749889 08/07/2007 482.64 12888614 08/27/2007 93.23 12897602 08/28/2007 7.30 12942671 09/05/2007 3.72 586.89 133117 09113/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP CXPD8NN3 09/05/2007 203.03 203.03 133118 09/13/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 942076 08/31/2007 154.55 165571 09/05/2007 82.80 237.35 133119 09/13/2007 006296 DYER'S DIESELRO 22739 08/16/2007 349.75 22792 08/23/2007 40.82 390.57 133120 09/13/2007 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 444645 08/16/2007 938.93 436293 08/08/2007 368.67 437737 08/09/2007 97.02 435745 08/07/2007 78.80 441973 08/14/2007 48.91 451004 08/23/2007 11.96 445501 08/17/2007 1.65 1,545.94 133121 09/13/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1364181 09/04/2007 295.19 295.19 133122 09/13/2007 006345 KRISTIN FISHER 090507 09/05/2007 60.00 60.00 133123 09/13/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 25967 08/29/2007 21.55 25964 08/28/2007 9.70 25961 08/27/2007 2.16 33.41 133124 09/13/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 8/30-140 08/3012007 65.48 Page: 6 apCkHist 09/17/2007 12:29PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 7 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 914-200 E 09104/2007 28 .72 8/30-211 08/30/2007 27 .51 9/4-208 E 09/04/2007 11 .59 9/4-214 E 09/0412007 10 .52 143.82 133125 09/13/2007 006346 HENRY GATES 090507 09105/2007 30 .00 30.00 133126 09/13/2007 001060 GRACE BIBLE CHURCH 090507 09/05/2007 140 .00 140.00 133127 09/13/2007 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 070800713201 08/20/2007 85 .00 070800013101 09/01/2007 28. 00 070800713101 09/01/2007 25. 00 138.00 133128 09/13/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 105221 08/15/2007 556. 83 105275 08/16/2007 470. 91 1,027.74 133129 09/13/2007 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS & 25156 08/15/2007 42. 95 42.95 133130 09/13/2007 000317 HONEYWELL INT'L INC 888767 08/22/2007 1,231. 44 1,231.44 133131 09/13/2007 006347 NEDA HUFFMAN 090507 09/05/2007 30. 00 30.00 133132 09/13/2007 006348 KENT HULETT 090507 09/05/2007 60. 00 60.00 133133 09/13/2007 006327 1NTERSPIRO1NC 123633 08/31/2007 746. 94 746.94 133134 09/13/2007 000343 1RRIGATION WEST (DBA) 0022117 09/05/2007 190. 91 0022089 08/30/2007 2. 28 193.19 133135 09/13/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 159767 09/10/2007 100. 65 100.65 133136 09/13/2007 000365 LINDA KEY 091107 09/11/2007 311. 48 311.48 133137 09/13/2007 006349 RANDAL KOSTER 090507 09/05/2007 30. 00 30.00 133138 09/1312007 006350 TODD LEMAY 090507 09/05/2007 30. 00 30.00 133139 09/1312007 005608 TRINA LORANCE 090507 09!05/2007 30. 00 30.00 133140 09/13/2007 000405 CATHY MALLORY 091107 09/11/2007 44. 15 44.15 133141 09/13/2007 006351 TERRI MATHES 090507 09/05/2007 30. 00 30.00 133142 09/13/2007 001950 TERESA MC CLISH 090407 09/04/2007 364. 00 364.00 Page:? apckHist 09/17/2007 12:29PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 8 Bank code: boa Check q Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133143 09/13/2007 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE 0018997 08/28/2007 36.12 36.12 133144 09/13/2007 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 133182 08/22/2007 113.14 132928 08/1612007 85.12 132737 08/1312007 81.89 132754 08/13/2007 81.89 132811 08/14/2007 70.04 132864 08/15/2007 66.81 4gg,gg 133145 09/13/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 220904 09/07/2007 57.89 221409 09/11/2007 43.09 220559 09/04/2007 3227 219947 08/30/2007 25.25 920856 08/31 /2007 23.37 216097 08/01 /2007 22.14 220103 08/31 /2007 18.31 220658 09/05/2007 9.69 220698 09/05/2007 8.06 219939 08/30/2007 7.53 220496 09/04/2007 7.52 220504 09/04/2007 3.22 921432 09/05/2007 2.68 261.02 133146 09113/2007 001097 JESSICA MORENO 090507 09/05/2007 30.00 30.00 133147 09/13/2007 006352 TERRY MORENO 090507 09105/2007 30.00 30.00 133148 09/13/2007 006136 NATIONAL DATA & 07-8086 08/24/2007 275.00 07-8087 07/03/2007 275.00 550.00 133149 09/13/2007 005744 OCEANO COMMUNITY AG-11 09/06/2007 560.00 560.00 133150 09/13/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 399396832001 08/31/2007 40.53 399397413001 08/31/2007 38.60 399585985-001 08/3112007 36.73 399784201-001 08/31/2007 -7.60 108.26 133151 09/13/2007 000478 PACIFIC APPAREL & SPORTS 5770 08/31/2007 158.01 158.01 133152 09/13/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 194097 08/20/2007 14,669.10 Page: 8 apCkHist 0911712007 12:29PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 9 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 8/16-704689 08/16/2007 14.06 14,683.16 133153 09/13/2007 006321 DONNA PETREE 091207 09/13/2007 126.00 126.00 133154 09/13/2007 006359 JEANINE PORTER 090607 09/06/2007 125.00 125.00 133155 09/13/2007 002670 RICOH LEASING 07094337451 08/27/2007 163.04 163.04 133156 09/13/2007 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 6863 08/28!2007 255.37 255.37 133157 09/1312007 006357 CHRISTINA RUIZ 090607 09/06/2007 15.37 15.37 133158 09/13/2007 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 248640 09/06/2007 150.74 150.74 133159 09/13/2007 000579 JOYCE SARUWATARI 091107 09/11/2007 95.28 95.28 133160 09/13/2007 003303 SCHOLASTIC, INC M3755321 08/06/2007 86.33 86.33 133161 09/13/2007 005721 SHEPARD EYE CENTER 090507 09/05/2007 60.00 60.00 133162 09/13/2007 006353 KRISTINA SLOAN 090507 09/05/2007 30.00 30.00 133163 09/1312007 006358 LUIS SOTELO 091007 09/10/2007 125.00 125.00 133164 09/13/2007 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 19119950 09/01/2007 207.72 1920103 09/01/2007 106.76 1926965 09/01/2007 106.76 1925478 09/01/2007 5.62 426.86 133165 09/13/2007 000613 STATEW IDE SAFETY & 56648 08/24/2007 464.18 56647 08/24/2007 246.68 710.86 133166 09/13/2007 000616 STERLING 23209 08/23/2007 699.72 69972 133167 09/13/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 1055334-001 09/0412007 20.11 20.11 133168 09/13/2007 006354 SHERRI SULLIVAN 090507 0910512007 30.00 30.00 133169 09/13/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1021881 08/31/2007 230.05 230.05 133170 09/13/2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 286873 08/28/2007 249.83 285931 08/17/2007 215.41 465.24 133171 09/13/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 68008809-001 09/04/2007 144.52 Page: 9 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10 09117/2007 12:29PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133172 09/1312007 000678 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 133173 09/13/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 133174 09/13/2007 006355 SCOTT AND JULIE WALWYN 133175 09/13/2007 006356 JOHN AND KIM WATKINS 133176 09/13/2007 000688 WEST COVINA NURSERIES 133177 09113/2007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 133178 09/13/2007 004897 WOOD RODGERS INC 151 checks in this report 67571743-002 67947295-001 017107 0577677842 0576954502 090607 090507 300257 0706 58526 08/17/2007 124.51 08/3112007 64.95 333.98 08/17/2007 24.00 24.00 08/1712007 45.57 08117/2007 45.56 81.13 09/06/2007 183.41 183.41 09/05/2007 169.00 169.00 08/0712007 141.14 141.14 08/2412007 1,593.75 1, 593.75 08/13/2007 5,448.75 5,448.75 boa Total: 189,163.60 Total Checks: 189,163.80 Page: 10 ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 8124/07 - 916107 09114!07 FUND 010 430,990.40 5101 Salaries Full time 209,274.21 FUND 220 18,194.05 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 22,764.12 FUND 284 882.02 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 9,629.15 FUND 285 882.07 5105 Salaries OverTime 21,259.97 FUND 612 6,710.60 5107 Salaries Standby 382.77 FUND 640 20,074.08 5108 Holiday Pay 24,316.00 477,733.22 5109 Sick Pay 6,653.94 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback 4,240.17 5112 Sick Leave Buyback - 5113 Vacation Pay 9,478.52 5114 Comp Pay 5,072.62 5115 Annual Leave Pay 5,915.55 5121 PERS Retirement 79,102.54 5122 Social Security 22,589.14 5123 PARS Retirement 420.18 5126 State Disability Ins. 674.46 5127 Deferred Compensation 725.00 5131 Health Insurance 45,833.13 5132 Dentallnsurance 5,107.56 5133 Vision Insurance 1,159.58 5134 Life Insurance 588.67 5135 Long Term Disability 58.47 5143 Un'rform Allowance 749.97 5144 Car Allowance 975.00 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance - 5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 487.50 477, 733.22 8.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUSPERVISOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT SITS DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council receive and file the attached report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of August 31, 2007, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b). FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no funding impact to the City related to this report. However, the City does receive interest revenue based on the interest rate of the investment(s). BACKGROUND: This report represents the City's investments as of August 31, 2007. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of August 31, 2007, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Recommended Alternative -Approve staff's recommendation to receive and file the attached report listing the current investment deposits. - Do not approve staff's recommendation - Provide direction to staff ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Govemment Code Section 53646 requires the Director of Financial Services to submit to the City Council a monthly report, providing the following information: 1. Type of investment. 2. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc). 3. Date of maturity. 4. Principal amount. U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\INVESTMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Investments.doc clnr couNCIL CONSIDERATION OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 5. Rate of interest. 6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months. 7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy. ADVANTAGES: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments are undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. DISADVANTAGES: Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due to market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non- negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the default of an issuer. To minimize such risks, diversifications of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment instruments are being used as much as is practical and prudent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received Attachments: Portfolio Summary U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\INVESTMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Investments.doc CITY OF _~ • • CALIFORNIA/~T • ~~= CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary August 37, 2007 City of Arroyo Grande 214 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93430 Phone: (805)473-5400 Interest Investments Book Value Interest Rate Rate PY Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date % of Portfolio Local Agency Investment Funds Certicates of Deposit -Banks 16,266,589.30 5.25% 4.95% 94.24% First Standard Bank 99,000.00 5.46% December 2, 2006 365 December 2, 2007 0.57% Bank of Santa Clarita 99,000.00 5.50% March 10, 2007 365 March 10, 2008 0.57% Redding Bank of Commerce 500,000.00 5.00% April 9, 2007 12 Mos. Apri19, 2008 2.90% Redding Bank of Commerce 99,000.00 5.00% April 9, 2007 366 April 9, 2008 0.57% Mission NB 99,000.00 5.65% July 11, 2007 365 July 11, 2008 0.57% Metro United Bank 99,000.00 5.85% September 12, 2006 730 September 12, 2008 0.57% State Bank of India MATURED 0.00% Total Certificates of Deposit $ 995,000.00 Totallnvestments $ 17,261,589.30 5.76% 100.00% 8.c. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Council Member Jim Guthrie, Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member Chuck Fellows, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager Unrepresented Employees: Management and Part-time Employees b. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title: City Attorney 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 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 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Chuck Fellows, Jim Guthrie, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Interim Chief of Police Steve Andrews, Director of Building and Fire Mike Hubert, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Doug Perrin, and Acting Community Development Director Teresa McClish. 3. FLAG SALUTE Loni Kuentzel, representing the Arroyo Grande Valley Kiwanis Club, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Dr. Paul E. Jones, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Fellows moved, Council Member Costello 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. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Steve Ross, Garden Street, thanked staff and the City Council for the most enjoyable Arroyo Grande Car Cruise Night ever. He further thanked the City's Police Officers in making it a safe event and the merchants along E. Grand Avenue for supporting the event. Maddv Quaglino, representing United Methodist Children's Center, invited the Council to participate in building a playground for their school for which they have received grant funds. 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. No public comments were received. Action: Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.g, with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, August 14, 2007 AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Fellows, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period July 16, 2007 through July 31, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special City Council Meetings of July 3, 2007 and July 10, 2007 as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07-013; Authorizing Closure of City Streets and Use of City Property for the 70th Annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival Applicant: Pat Fairbanks/Arroyo Grande Harvest Festival; Location - Olohan Alley. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4031 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 07-013 AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS AND USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR THE 70TH ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY HARVEST FESTIVAL, SEPTEMBER 27-30, 2007." 8.d. Consideration to Purchase Two Weinman Water Booster Pumps from BC Pump Sales & Service, Inc., for the Rancho Grande Booster Station. Action: Authorized the purchase of two Weinman water booster pumps in the amount of $12,684.01 from BC Pump Sales & Service, Inc. for the Rancho Grande Booster Station. 8.e. Consideration to Award a Contract to;Waterboys Plumbing for the City's Plumbing Retrofit Program. Action: 1) Awarded a contract to Waterboys Plumbing, Inc. in the amount of $155,525.00; and 2) Authorized the Mayor to execute the contract. 8.f. Consideration of Approval of Land Lease Agreement with Clearwire US, LLC. Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute a Land Lease Agreement between the City and Clearwire US, LLC, for use of approximately one hundred (100) square feet of property located at 1221 Ash Street, Arroyo Grande, California (the "Soto Sports Complex") as well as space for an antennae on an existing light pole. 8.g. Consideration of Appointments to Architectural Review Committee and Historic Resources Committee. Action: Approved the recommendation of Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold to appoint Fred Baur to the Architectural Review Committee, replacing Gary Scherquist; and to appoint Gary Scherquist to the Historic Resources Committee, replacing Gordon Bennett, effective October 1, 2007. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Resolution Designating a Portion of Elm Street Park as an Off- Leash Pet Area, Approval of a Memoraridum of Understanding with the Five Cities Dog Park Association and Authorization for the City Manager to Approve Minor Changes to the MOU. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, August 74, 2007 Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Perrin presented the staff report and recommended Council 1) Adopt a Resolution Designating a Portion of Elm Street Park as an Off Leash Pet Area; and 2) Approve a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the Five Cities Dog Park Association ("FCDPA"); and 3) Authorize the City Manager to approve minor changes to the MOU determined beneficial to the design and operation of the Dog Park. Cynthia Ecklund, President of the Five Cities Dog Park Association, gave a presentation that included the Association's Mission Statement; its purpose to develop an off-leash recreational opportunity for people and their canine companions; and reviewed the Association's proposal to develop and maintain an off-leash dog park at the southern portion of Elm Street Park. Staff and Ms. Ecklund responded to questions from Council concerning the City's liability as it relates to public use of the dog park; provisions within the Agreement concerning improvements and maintenance of the site to be provided by the Association; on-street parking; issues related to providing separate areas for small and large dogs; whether or not dog training classes could be provided at this location; and the Association's plans to fence the site and provide biodegradable waste bags, waste receptacles, and waste removal. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Dorothy Jones, a resident of the adjacent apartment complex, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council comments included support for the proposal; clarification that the Memorandum of Understanding contains the City's required indemnification provisions; that maintenance and sanitation issues will be adequately addressed by, the Association; that fencing and established hours of operation will address neighborhood concerns; and that the dog park will be a valuable asset to the community. Action: Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DESIGNATING A PORTION OF ELM STREET PARK AS AN OFF LEASH PET AREA". Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, Fellows, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Action: Council Member Costello moved to apprdve a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the Five Cities Dog Park Association. Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, Fellows, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Action: Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to authorize the City Manager to approve minor changes to the MOU determined beneficial to the design and operation of the Dog Park. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Arnold, Costello, Fellows, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 9.b. Consideration of an Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009; Applicant -Tony Janowicz; Location - 795 East Cherry Avenue. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009. She also distributed a letter to the Council which was just received from the applicant's attorney, Glen R. Lewis (on file in the Administrative Services Department). Staff then responded to questions from Council concerning setback requirements; reasons for designating Lierly Lane as a rural residential street; constraints on the property; and clarification regarding existing structures on the property. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Mark Vasquez, representing the applicant, Tony Janowicz, agreed with most of the conditions set forth in the staff report; acknowledged the constraints on the property; referred to condition #47 and noted the applicant cannot grant a 6 ft. public utility easement on the easterly side of Lierly Lane because he does not own that portion of the road, and requested the condition be reworded to require a 6 ft. public utility easement on the westerly side of Lierly Lane only; requested that mitigation measure 12.1 be modified to be consistent with condition #47; and explained that the proposal is to retain the existing residential use on the site with a new structure in a location to benefit the City, the property owner, and the neighborhood. He then gave an overview of the proposed project and its benefits to the City, the neighborhood as it relates to the Neighborhood Plan, the farmers, and the applicant. He requested the Council consider and approve the project as proposed. Tony Janowicz, project applicant, spoke in support of the project as proposed. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, spoke in support of approving the project as proposed, noting that the existing residence is a tear-down; the size of the, proposed house should not be reduced; and the project would improve the area as well as improve access to Subarea 2. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: - He sought an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision due to three important policy issues that Council should consider; 1) impact of the proposed project on the Neighborhood Plan, 2) the agricultural buffer, and 3) the significant change of an existing structure inside the buffer; - Expressed concern that an increase in intensity of use impacts the purpose and effectiveness of the buffer; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Would have preferred creation of the agricultural buffer prior to any consideration of specific projects; - Supports active and ongoing maintenance of the landscape buffer; - Concerned about replacement of a home within the buffer and its increase in size; - Would like to see a reduction in the size of the house; - Would like to see the use of two-stories in order to increase square footage and adding useful outside space. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Prefers that there are no residential structures within the agricultural buffer zone; however, he acknowledged that residential use is appropriate in a residential zone; - Acknowledged that the existing residence is anon-conforming structure due to its location within an agricultural buffer, and could support an appropriate structure on the property that sits back as far as possible from the street and the agricultural operations; - Can reluctantly support this residential project. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: - Expressed concern for the public health and safety associated with the buffer and protecting the farmer's right to farm; - Referred to the agricultural buffer policy and stated he could not support approval of the proposed project; - Expressed concern that proposed residence is 130% larger than the existing residence; - Cannot support a new, larger home that is within the buffer area; - Suggested that the City, the owners of the adjacent farmland, and the applicants would benefit from looking into alternatives to the proposal such as a density transfer, or at least not intensifying the use of the parcel to such a great extent; - Would support continuing the item to a date uncertain to determine if a density transfer would be possible. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: - Reflected on past discussion when he was on the Planning Commission concerning the agricultural buffer and its potential impact on existing residences that were located within the buffer zone as it relates to future expansion; - Noted that there is no other reasonable use for the property than residential; - Believed that this was a reasonable application and a reasonable size home; did not believe a two-story home would be more beneficial and would be more of an impact to the neighboring residence; - Stated the project meets the minimum setback of ten feet; - Stated the project would improve the neighborhood; the applicant is willing to provide and maintain the agricultural buffer; - Said it was unfair to require the applicant to build a new 800 square foot home; - Does not see this as having any negative impact on the agricultural buffer issue in regard to future subdivisions; - Can support the project as proposed with the exception of the one condition relating to the six- foot public utility easement on the westerly side. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Page 6 Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Noted that the decision is precedent setting; - Need to evaluate what the overall goal is as it relates to the agricultural buffer policy; - Wants to limit development and activity in the buffer area; - Spoke about correlation between economic viability and anon-conforming structure; - Noted that the agricultural buffer policy was in place prior to transfer of ownership of the property to the applicant; therefore, he expressed concerns with the proposed development as it relates to location and size; Noted that widening of E. Cherry would occur prior to any improvements in Subarea 2; - Stated that a smaller structure and more landscaping will provide a better balance; - Supports taking tentative action to deny the project without prejudice in order to go back and take another look at the site, the size of the structure, the additional parking requirement, and being more mindful of the agricultural impacts by moving the structure further away from the buffer zone. Action: Council Member Fellows moved to take tentative action to deny Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009 and direct staff to develop a modified resolution and findings, and provide direction on appropriate and reasonable home replacement size and location that would not add to agricultural impacts. Mayor Ferrara seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Ferrara, Costello, Guthrie NOES: Arnold ABSENT: None Further discussion ensued regarding direction to. staff that accessory buildings should not be considered in determining size of the replacement structure. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM None. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 11.a. Consideration of Establishing a Policy Designating a Summer Month in the Future for Cancellation of Council Meetings. City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended Council consider the concept of establishing a practice and/or policy designating a summer month in the future for cancellation of Council meetings and provide direction to staff. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period. Discussion ensued relating to the pros and cons of canceling a month of meetings during the summer. Following discussion, it was suggested that one Council meeting be canceled in July 2008 and to determine, following that date, whether to continue the practice. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Action: Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to cancel the first meeting in July 2008 (July 8, 2008). Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Arnold reported that the EVC was working on a tourism economic study and distributed a packet of information listing community assets and requested that staff distribute the packet to the Village Improvement Association, the South County Historical Society, and any others who may want to add to the list. Council Member Fellows requested that the Council consider placing the agricultural buffer policy on a future agenda for discussion. Some concern was expressed about unwrapping the entire policy; however, the Council agreed to a discussion item on a future agenda and directed staff accordingly. Mayor Ferrara commented on a recent program, at the League of California Cities Executive Forum where Jim Bergman and Bob Lund gave a presentation on the America In Bloom program. He said that positive feedback was received from participant evaluation sheets and commended all the people involved in the local Arroyo Grande in Bloom program. He said the committee could use more volunteers on Saturday mornings and invited those who are interested to show up at 8:00 a.m. at the park and ride lot located on EI Camino Real. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Steve Ross, Garden Street, commented that the City's agricultural buffer policy, as adopted by Ordinance, is 100 feet not 130 feet. He stated the 130-foot buffer was specific to the Cherry Creek subdivision and potentially Subarea 2. He further commented on the proposed Janowicz project as it relates to the existing structures on the site and defined living space. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk page 8 (Approved at CC Mtg MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 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 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Chuck Fellows, Jim Guthrie, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold, and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Interim Chief of Police Steve Andrews, and Director of Building and Fire Mike Hubert. 3. FLAG SALUTE Members of Arroyo Grande Police Department Explorer Post 542 led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor George Lepper, Peace Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS S.a. Oath of Office Administered to Chief of Police Steve Annibali. City Clerk Wetmore administered the Oath of Office to the City's new Chief of Police, Steve Annibali. Chief Annibali then briefly addressed the City Council, staff and members of the community. 5.b. Mayor's Commendation -Jeremy Kaufman, Public Works Maintenance Worker. Mayor Ferrara announced that this item would be postponed to a future meeting as Mr. Kaufman could not be present tonight. 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. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Lori Wells, a resident since 1981, stated that she was moving out of State and she presented the Council with a panoramic photo taken from the top of the Mesa overlooking the City of Arroyo Grande. 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. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 28, 2007 Page 2 Harrv Goodnight, representing Oak Park Estates Homeowners Association, referred to Item 8.n. and spoke in support of the proposed letter from the City to the Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCO) in response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Los Robles Del Mar project. No further public comments were received. Council Member Fellows pulled Item 8.i. Mayor Ferrara referred to Item 8.n. and noted a minor modification in the letter to LAFCO to correct all references of "DEIR" to "DSEIR" which is the correct acronym for Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Action: Council Member Fellows moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.n., with the exception of Item 8.i., with the recommended courses of action. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period August 1, 2007 through August 15, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of July 31, 2007. 8.c. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Fire Station Expansion General Obligation Bond Property Tax Levy Rate. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4033 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE FY 2007-08 PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE APPROVED BY VOTERS ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002". 8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of July 10, 2007 as submitted. 8.e. Authorization to Reject Claim Filed Against the City -Claimant: State Farm Insurance (Dias). Action: Rejected claim and authorized the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. 8.f. Consideration of Approval of Agreement for Legal Services. Action: 1) Approved the revised Agreement for Legal Services with Carmel & Naccasha; and 2) appropriated an additional $15,000 for legal services. 8.g. Consideration of Salary and Benefit Adjustments for Management Employees. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4034 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 AND FISCAL YEAR 2008-09". Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8.h. Consideration of Compensation Adjustments for Part-time Employees. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4035 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE C/TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A SALARY AND BENEFIT PROGRAM FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-OS AND FISCAL YEAR 2008-09". 8.j. Consideration to Approve an Interagency Agreement between City of Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, a'nd the City of Arroyo Grande for the South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study. Action: 1) Approved an Interagency Agreement in regard to the South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study; and 2) authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement. 8.k. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Replacement Fire Base Station Radios and Communication Equipment. Action: Authorized staff to purchase replacement base station radios and communication equipment for the Fire Department from Sterling Communications for $12,169. 8.1. Consideration to Award a Contract to Toste Grading and Paving for Resurfacing Portions of Fair Oaks Avenue and Nevada Street. Action: Awarded a contract to Toste Grading and Paving in the amount of $27,000 for resurfacing portions of Fair Oaks Avenue and Nevada Street. 8.m. Consideration of Approval of Land Lease Agreement with Clearwire US, LLC. Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute a Land Lease Agreement between the City and Clearwire US, LLC, for use of approximately eighty-three (83) square feet of property located at 200 Hillcrest, Arroyo Grande, California (the "Reservoir Site"). 8.n. Consideration of Comments to the Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCO) in Response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Los Robles Del Mar Project. Action: Approved and authorized submittal of the attached letter providing comments to LAFCO in response to the DSEIR for the Los Robles Del Mar project. 8.i. Consideration of Proposed Supplemental Environmental Project in Response to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Administrative Civil Liability Complaint. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to formally submit the supplemental environmental project proposals in response to the Civil Liability Complaint issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In response to a question by Council Member Fellows about what the City is going to do to prevent future spills of this nature, Director of Public Works Spagnolo gave an overview of the steps taken by the Public Works Department to prevent the possibility of future spills, including an increase in sewer line maintenance in areas adjacent to the creeks; documenting specific procedures regarding response to complaints regarding potential sewer line backups; replacing existing pipes identified in the Capital Improvement Program and Wastewater Master Plan; and capping/bolting manhole covers in certain areas. Action: Council Member Fellows moved to approve Item 8.i. with the recommended course of action. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS 10.a. Consideration of the City's Drainage Master Plan. Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report and recommended the Council approve the 2006 Drainage Master Plan. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Grep Martin, Newsom Springs Road, expressed concern about any impacts to his property from the proposed projects identified in the Plan. Director Spagnolo responded that Mr. Martin's property is located outside the project area and would not be affected. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period Council comments ensued including support for approval of the updated Drainage Master Plan and acknowledgment of the drainage projects completed since 1999. Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to approve the 2006 Drainage Master Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Fellows, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transif Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). SLOCOG Board discussed STIP funding and criteria for upcoming projects; SLORTA discussion included issues that have arisen concerning the new maintenance facility with regard to substantially increased costs for the tenant improvements. (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). The Plant is running fine and working well; will be requesting discussion on energy saving measures as a result of information received at the recent Energy Conference. (3) Other. None. b. MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report. (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Attended the subcommittee meeting for the tourism study; will be releasing an RFP for the study within the next month. (3) Other. Attended the Energy Conference held at Cal Poly. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 28, 2007 Page 5 c. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. No report. (2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). No report. (3) Fire Oversight Committee. Reported that the Battalion Chief position should be filled soon; the Cities are preparing to recruit for an Engineer; cooperative efforts between the agencies is going well; there are ongoing efforts to improve training. (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report. (5) Other. Attended the Energy Conference held at Cal Poly. d. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). Has not met; however, new bus route schedule has been implemented; reported that grant funding had been received for bus stop improvements and Arroyo Grande will receive some of those funds for potential improvements in the area of the High School and the Village. (2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report. (3) Other. None. e. COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS: (1) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report. (3) Other. Attended the Energy Conference held at Cal Poly. 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: a. Request for staff to prepare analysis and plan for addressing remaining Development Code items that are inconsistent with the General'Plan. (GUTHRIE) Council Member Guthrie requested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to prepare an analysis and plan for completing the Development Code update to achieve consistency with the General Plan. b. Request to place on a future agenda review of the agricultural buffer policy. (FELLOWS) Council Member Fellows stated that he did not wish to unwrap the entire agricultural buffer policy; however, he would like to discuss clarifying the language in the policy and get an update on what other jurisdictions have implemented as a minimum buffer distance. Following brief discussion, the Council concurred to direct staff to place the issue on a future agenda to specifically discuss the minimum buffer distance. 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: In response to a request by Mayor Ferrara, Council Member Costello offered to represent the City at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new youth community center located at New Life Community Church on September 8`h. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 28, 2007 Page 6 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: Nancv Castle, AGP Video, referred to the recent Energy Conference held at Cal Poly and stated it would be rebroadcast on Channel 21 and on the Internet at www.slospan.org. She also noted that the City could program the conference on its local Channel 20. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk (Approved at CC Mtg ) 8.d. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL A/ FROM: TIM CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ,+v TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER Tj~ ` SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ARROYO GRANDE WATERSHED AND CREEK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU). FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding from the City may be required (as with some of the other participating agencies) as part of a watershed maintenance preservation and management program. Any such funding will require separate Council consideration and action. BACKGROUND: At the July 26, 2006 Council meeting, staff presented a working draft of the proposed MOU, which the Council authorized for distribution to stakeholder jurisdictions. Attached is the proposed MOU, which includes changes recommended by Council and minor modifications from various stakeholders. Due to clerical modifications required by San Luis Obispo County Counsel, the revised MOU is being re-circulated for signatures from stakeholder agencies. The MOU is intended to provide a multi-agency framework to develop recommendations and policies and to devise strategies to fund programs for the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek. The watershed includes approximately eighty-six square miles downstream of the Lopez Lake Dam, including the Arroyo Grande, Los Berros, Tally Ho, Tar Springs and Meadow Creeks and sub watersheds. As crafted, the MOU includes tasks specific to individual agencies according to jurisdictional objectives and expertise. Minor modifications may continue to be made by each jurisdiction specific to their own tasks and duties as considered by each jurisdiction's approving authority or board during the execution signature phase of the MOU. The final MOU with all participating jurisdiction signatures will be made available for general distribution. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: • Approve the revised MOU. ^ Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The revised MOU includes changes requested by San Luis Obispo County Counsel that address concerns brought up be several agencies, primarily that the MOU would require participating agencies to budget and spend funds. The changes, while minor, provide participating agencies with a level of comfort while still achieving the coordination necessary for proactive watershed management. ADVANTAGES: Approval of the revised MOU will result in a more coordinated approach to maintenance and preservation of the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed and in identifying and obtaining grant and other funding for associated projects. DISADVANTAGES: One disadvantage of participating in the MOU is that it increases demand on the City's staff and financial resources. However, the MOU does not commit the City to any specific funding or allocation of resources. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review was required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda was posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received as of the time of preparation of this report. Attachments: 1. Proposed Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum Of Understanding ATTACHMENT1 ~- ARROYO GRANDE WATERSHED AND CREEK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING September 19, 2006 Revised June 8, 2007 This Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made this 19th day of September, 2006, by and between the following organizations, all of which are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties:" 1. City of Arroyo Grande ("AG") 2. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone I/lA (Zone 1/lA) 3. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 3 (Zone 3) 4. County of San Luis Obispo ("County") 5. City of Grover Beach ("Grover") 6. City of Pismo Beach ("Pismo") 7. Oceano Community Services District ("OCSD") 8. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District ("SSLOCSD") 9. Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District ("RCD") 10. Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") 11. Central Coast Salmon Enhancement ("GCSE") 12. California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") 13. California Department of Parks and Recreation ("CDPR") 14. Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") 15. United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") I. PREAMBLE/BACKGROUND The Parties enter into this MOU to develop recommendations to fund programs and develop policies for the maintenance, protection, and enhancement of the Arroyo Grande Watershed and the creeks within the Watershed including the approximate eighty-six (86) square mile area downstream of the Lopez Lake Dam, and including but not limited to, Arroyo Grande, Los Berros, Newsome Springs, Corbett Canyon/Tally Ho, Tar Springs, and Meadow Creeks and sub-watersheds (collectively the "Watershed"), and to recommend specific roles and responsibilities to implement those programs and policies. It is recognized that past changes in the Watershed, some of which are presently occurring, due to many factors including, but not limited to, agricultural operations, urbanization, including dam construction, converted floodplains, reconfiguration of creek channels, removal of riparian forests, modification of upslope chaparral and oak woodland, flood control improvements, and pollutant loading, have impacted an environment that is critical to human health, the economic future, safety and welfare, habitat and wildlife values, and recreation and tourism of the communities within the Watershed. CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page i of io The Parties that enter into this MOU also recognize that some, but not all, of the Parties have existing responsibilities and obligations within the watershed and that this MOU is not intended to diminish the autonomy of those agencies in carrying out their existing obligations or responsibilities or the findings and discretion of those agencies. Nevertheless, all Parties are pursuing development of recommendations pursuant to this MOU so that watershed management can be implemented in the future more efficiently and effectively in a collaborative manner rather than solely through the autonomous actions of independent agencies. II. MISSION The purpose of this MOU is to ,provide an overall understanding, and accountability consensus between the Parties, in order to better protect, manage and enhance the Watershed, creating a sustainable future for the surrounding communities and the environment. Cooperative watershed management provides a powerful resource for developing innovative and creative solutions to critical problems and for leveraging resources to ensure efficient and effective use of public funds. III. PRINCIPLES The Parties agree on the following principles and overall policies: A. Reduce Watershed conflicts (with regard to both the community and the environment); B. Recognize and support the provisions of responsible water supply, sediment and erosion control, flood management, pollution control and environmental protection for the Watershed; C. Provide a practical and effective means of maximizing benefits and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on agricultural resources, riparian, wetland and other ecosystem habitat within Watershed; D. Have clear goals and, when applicable, measurable objectives; E. Seek input from the affected communities and implement accordingly; F. Operate on .the principle of continuous monitoring and improvement of the Watershed; and G. Develop programs capable of implementation, within budget, minimizing cost while maximizing results, and make efficient use of the limited resources available. IV. COOPERATION A. The Parties recognize and agree that each of the parties hereto are considered to be stakeholders with a vested interest in the maintenance, protection and enhancement CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 2 of ro of the Watershed. Each of the Parties recognizes that by working together and providing 'meaningful cooperation, all Parties may equitably benefit from the actions herein described. B. The Parties agree to cooperate with regard to the terms and conditions and policies set forth in this MOU. For the purposes of this MOU, the term cooperate may include providing staff time, access rights when applicable, proportionate funding, as may be established pursuant to section VII of this MOU or as may otherwise be agreed by Parties to this MOU, meaningful discussion, space for meetings, conduct meetings, workshops and focus groups, diligent processing of all permits or necessary approvals, report to each of the other Parties of actions within the respective agency which materially relate to the Watershed, strive to continually improve each agency's understanding of the Watershed system and modify efforts and policies accordingly, and other like activities which will facilitate the cooperative effort and will accomplish the goals and objectives set forth herein. V. TASKS COMMON TO ALL PARTIES The Parties recognize and agree that each of the respective agencies shall collectively be responsible for coordinating and accomplishing the following task descriptions: A. Utilize existing and future watershed and creek studies to prioritize and conduct activities within the An•oyo Grande Creek Watershed, including, but not limited to: Overseeing the process of the maintenance efforts and implementation of the Arroyo Grande Creek Management Plan dated March, 2005, working collectively to address problems identified in the Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study, 2005 ("Swanson Study") and the Oceano Drainage and Flood Control Study; B. Approve program budgets for each agency and modify those budgets as additional funding is obtained; C. Partner on, and pursue funding mechanisms to finance projects and programs that benefit the Watershed, including but not limited to grants from the California Resources Agency and the Califomia Environmental Protection Agency through the Integrated Watershed Management Program ("IWMP"), Coastal Conservancy, California's Ocean Action Plan, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Federal funding programs and other specific funding sources identified in the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan; D. Continued identification of the desired condition and beneficial uses of the Watershed; and E. Compile and use available resource information, including but not limited to the Swanson Study, regarding the Watershed and methods of preserving and enhancing its environment. CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 3 of io VI. TASKS SPECIFIC TO INDIVIDUAL PARTIES The Parties recognize and agree that each of the respective agencies shall individually be responsible for coordinating and accomplishing the following specific task descriptions: A. AG -Provide places for and facilitate meetings, partner on grant applications, assist in developing other funding sources, and improve land use development standards, drainage plans and storm water management plans and provide referrals to parties, to protect the Watershed and Creek environments within the City. B. Zone 1/lA -Provide information and status of its programs, including but not limited to flood mitigation projects the district is pursuing and provide input on other projects in the watershed that may impact the capacity of flood control facilities. C. Zone 3 -Provide regular information on the status and monitoring related to the prepazation of an Arroyo Grande Creek Habitat Conservation Plan for the operation and maintenance of Lopez Reservoir. D. Couuty -Present engineering related issues on activities relating to County maintained roads and the County Airport, partner on grant applications, assist in developing other funding sources, and improve land use development standards to protect the Watershed within the County's jurisdiction. E. Grover -Partner on grant applications, assist in developing other funding sources, and improve land use development standards, drainage plans and storm water management plans and provide referrals to parties, to protect the Watershed and Creek environments. F. Pismo -Partner on grant applications, assist in developing other funding sources, and improve land use development standazds, drainage plans and storm water management plans and provide referrals to parties, to protect the Watershed and Creek environments. G. OCSD -Partner on grant applications, assist in developing other funding sources, and development, operation and maintenance of its facilities to minimize impacts to the Watershed. H. SSLOCSD -Development, operation and maintenance of its facilities to minimize impacts to the Watershed and implement measures to better maintain the continued operation of the plant under flood conditions. I. RCD -Partner on grant applications; provide outreach, education and technical assistance to Watershed landowners and Parties, for creek maintenance and environmental monitoring; pursue innovative solutions to water quality and CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 4 of io conservation opportunities; coordinate environmental permitting for Watershed projects, and provide project planning, management and monitoring as required. J. NRCS -Provide technical expertise and staff resources to assist in Watershed management and assist private landowners in minimizing impacts to the Watershed, as staff is available. K. CCSE - Provide environmental monitoring and fisheries assessment and dissemination of research information and findings identified in the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Plan; provide community education, facilitate public dialogue and outreach, develop Watershed stewardship programs, and partner on grant applications and the development of other funding resources. Facilitate and coordinate the An•oyo Grande Watershed Forum Steering Committee. L. CDFG -Provide technical expertise and staff resources in Watershed management and assist private landowners in minimizing impacts to the Watershed. Assist with the permitting process. M. CDPR -develop and implement policies and progress within the Oceano Dunes State Recreational Vehicle Area intended to minimize impacts to the Watershed. N. RWQCB -Implement regulatory and planning tools to protect riparian comdors, to include providing guidance to Parties on permitting and certification requirements for proposed projects developed to minimize impacts to the Watershed. Provide funding of easement and acquisition projects within the Watershed, and provide opportunities for interaction with and between Parties and landowners, with the goal of promoting appropriate non-point source pollution management,activities. 0. USFWS -Provide direction and expertise on issues concerning potential impacts to identified endangered species within the Watershed, and provide expedited review of projects and proposals developed by the Parties, to minimize identified impacts to the Watershed. VII. FUNDING The Parties recognize and agree that RCD may coordinate grant funding efforts and may assist in securing, where applicable, the necessary State and /or Federal grants which will be used to help fund Watershed maintenance, protection and enhancement efforts and programs. The Parties also recognize that and acknowledge that assessments have been established within Zone 1/ lA, which initially (FY 2006-07) provide funding in the amount of $350,000 per year, subject to annual adjustments. The Parties acknowledge and agree that said assessments do not constitute a specific funding source for implementation of this MOU other than the specific programs of Zone 1/lA which are generally referenced in Section VI(B). The Parties shall CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 5 of io endeavor to make available other reasonable and proportionate funding and resources necessary to implement Watershed maintenance, protection, and enhancement efforts and programs, including through staffing, grants, voluntary contributions and/ or other similar resources. VIII. DECISION MAHING A. The Parties will use a consensus decision-making process. A consensus does not mean the recommendation or action is every Party's first choice; it means that every Party is reasonably satisfied with or has no strong objection to that recommendation or action and will support the decision; B. All Parties will be encouraged to participate in and have membership available on the Arroyo Grande Watershed Forum Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Team ("Steering Committee") that was formed in the year 2000, during the development of the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan (2005) and to express their opinions and concerns at the meetings, prior to decision making; C. Sufficient time will be provided for the Parties to seek advice from constituents, other responsible agencies, or other experts, when desired, before a decision is made. IX. EFFECTIVE DATE, TERMINATION & MODIFICATION 1.This MOU allows, but does not obligate, the parties to this agreement to expend funds by entering into cooperative agreements or by individually undertaking the activities listed above. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between the parties will be handled through a separate cooperative agreement between the parties and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures including those of the Federal Acquisitions Regulations. 2.This MOU in no way restricts any party from participating in similar agreements and/or activities with other public or private entities. 3.Any party may terminate their participation in this MOU at any time by providing a 90-day written notice to all other parties. 4. New parties may be added to the MOU through a consensus of the group and by their submitting a list of activities that will be performed for the MOU and a signature sheet for this agreement. CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 6 of io 5. By signing this agreement, the recipients assure that the program or activities provided for under this agreement will be conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal civil rights laws, rules, regulations, and policies. 6.This MOU will become effective when executed by all Parties. It will remain in force from the date of execution of this agreement unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the agreement for an additional specific period of time. 7.This MOU maybe amended by the Parties through written mutual agreement. (SIGNATURES PAGES FOLLOW EXHIBIT -A J CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 7 of io Exhibit "A" IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES TO AVOID OR MITIGATE IMPACTS TO THE ARROYO GRANDE CREEK WATERSHED Arroyo Grande Creek Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and EA/IS (http://slocountywater.ore/County%20Service%20Areas%20and%20Zones/zone3/aecreek. htm See Section 4.0 Alternatives 1 Proposed (Preferred) Action, pages 4-1 - 4-11. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan -Geomorphic and Hydrologic Conditions Assessment by Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology, December 8, 2004 ((http://www. coastalrcd.orQ/1 Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan, March, 2005 ((http://www.coastalrcd.org/) See Section on Recommended Projects pgs 62-73. CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 8 of io City of Arroyo Grande By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor Date: Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Date: Approved as to form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Date: City of Pismo Beach By: Mary Ann Reiss, Mayor Date: City of Grover Beach Stephen C. Lieberman, Mayor Date: San Luis Obispo County By: Jerry Lenthall, Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors. Date: Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District Neil Havlik, President, Board of Directors Date: San Luis Obispo County Flood Control District Jerry Lenthall, Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors. Date: South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District By: John Wallace, District Administrator Date: Central Coast Salmon Enhancement By: Stephnie Wald, Project Manager Sarah Paddack, Executive Director Date: Natural Resources Conservation Service By: Ed Burton, State Conservationist, NRCS Date: CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page 9 of ro U.S. Nish and Wildlife Service Oceano Community Services District By: Jim Hill, President Date: By: Steve Thompson California & Nevada operations (CNO) Manager Date: California Regional Water Quality Control Board By: Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer Date: California Department of Parks and Recreation By: Mike Chrisman, Secretary of Resources By: Ruth Coleman, Director Date: California Department of Fish and Game By: Richard B. Rodgers, President Ryan Broddrick, Director Bill Loudermill, 4-Central Region Manager Date: CREEK MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Page io of io 8.e. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CITY ENGINEER{ BY: MIKE GALVIN, INTERN ~/`~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE WALLACE GROUP FOR THE DESALINATION FUNDING STUDY DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. approve the Agreement with Wallace Group. B. authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. C. appropriate an additional $3,317 from the Water Facility Fund for the Study. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of the Agreement is $99,951. Of this amount, $45,000 will be paid for from a State Department of Water Resources (DWR) grant. The remaining cost $54,951 will be shared equally, with the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District (OCSD). Therefore, the cost to the City of Arroyo Grande will be $18,317. This project is in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A total of $4,000 is funded from the Water Fund and $11,000 from the Water Facility Fund. An additional $3,317 will be need to be appropriated from the Water Facility Fund. BACKGROUND: In November 2006, the City.of Arroyo Grande was informed by the State that the Department of Water Resources approved the Proposition 50 Desalination Grant for the 2006 funding cycle. The grant was submitted on behalf of all three of the participating agencies. The amount of $45,000 was approved for the South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study. The Wallace Group was among the four consulting firms who submitted a proposal to provide consulting services for the project. Each proposal was ranked based on the five evaluation criteria including understanding of the work to be performed, experience with similar assignments and staff expertise, The Wallace Group was selected as the highest ranked firm by the participating agencies. A negotiated cost of $95,285 to perform the study was reached at the time the proposals were submitted. However, due to the extended time to prepare an agreement with the Department of Water Resources to secure the Proposition 50 grant, the Wallace Group is requesting a cost increase of $99,665, as a result of increased operating costs. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE WALLACE GROUP FOR THE DESALINATION FUNDING STUDY SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the Agreement and appropriate the additional funding. - Modify the Agreement with Wallace Group. - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: A request for proposals was distributed to engineering firms that specialize in desalination projects. Four proposals were received and evaluated by each of the participating agencies. The Wallace Group was selected to prepare the study because of their local knowledge and experience and their highly qualified team of sub- consultants, each of which provides technical, environmental and financing experience. Based on the evaluation from each participating agency, the Wallace Group was the highest ranked of the four proposals received. ADVANTAGES: There are several advantages to approval of the Agreement by the City Council. First approval will allow the City of Arroyo Grande and it's partner agencies to take the first step in alleviating the potable water deficiency in the SSLOC area. Secondly, approval will allow the Wallace Group to consult on the Study. The Wallace Group has a proven track record with the City of Arroyo Grande. DISADVANTAGES: The recommended action does not in itself contain any foreseeable disadvantages. The only potential disadvantage is that the City is bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PULBIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City web site on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachment: 1. Agreement for Consultant Services with Wallace Group AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of September 25, 2007, between Wallace Group ("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 September 26, 2007 and shall remain and continue in effect until September 26, 2008, 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 Director of Public Works, or his designee shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. John Wallace, P.E., or his designee 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. Page 1 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. (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 involvency 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; Page 2 (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 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 therefrom 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, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, 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. Page 3 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 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 afl 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. (d) Indemnity Provisions for Contracts Related to Construction. Without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this Agreement, Consultant shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City's active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Consultant will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City. Page 4 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 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. Page 5 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 thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant andlor 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. (c) Consultant covenants that neither he/she nor any officer or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an office, employee, agent, or subcontractor. Consultant further covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its subcontractors shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning Page 6 property in the City or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement. 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 Don Spagnolo, P.E. 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 To Consultant: Wallace Group John L. Wallace, P.E. 612 Clarion Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 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 Page 7 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. 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 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CONSULTANT Bv: Tony Ferrara, Mayor Attest: Its: (Title) Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney Page 9 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK Page 10 R R South San Luis Obispo County P Desalination Funding Study This section presents the proposed work plan for the South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study. SSLOC FUNDING STUDY PROJECT TASK DESCRIPTION ~ 1.0 Preliminary Design -1Ne will prepare the SSLOC Desalination Funding Study, which ~ will provide the overall preliminary design criteria for all components of the desalination plant, intake facility, brine disposal, and product water delivery system. 1.1 Hydrogeologic assessment. The Funding Study will identify the quantity and quality of available source water for the proposed desalination facility. The study area ~ will be restricted to the Oceano area along Arroyo Grande Creek from U.S. Highway [01 to the Pacific Ocean. Emphasis will be placed on the WWTP site and the adjacent ® lagoon and beach environment. To accomplish the above, the following sub-tasks will ~ be completed: p 1 1 1 Data Compilation and Review Readily available geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical reports will be obtained for the study area including water well and boring log, SSLOCSD plant geotechnical reports, active and inactive well locations, water level data, ground water quality data, surface water steam-Flow ~ records for Arroyo Grande Creek, and nearshore bathymetry data. Cross sections delineating aquifers in the area available from the DWR (2000) will be used as ~ a basis for conceptualization of hydrogeologic conditions in the area. A USGS dedicated seawater intrusion monitoring well cluster also exists in the area from ® which aquifer properties, water level, and depth dependant water quality data are ~ available. Existing water rights agreements for the area, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" will be reviewed with respect to pumping restrictions and allocation. 1 1.2 Data Analysis. Analysis of the above data will be performed with respect to the adequacy of the available data, data gaps, and ability and methods to fill data gaps. The hydrogeolic environment will be conceptualized, aquifer systems delineated, a preliminary water balance performed, and opinions presented in the Funding Study Opinion on well locations, number, depths, design, water quality stability, and costs will be provided relative to the project goal of 4,200 AFY of source water (based on SO% recovery for 2,200 AFY product water). The Funding Study will also provide a preliminary scope of work and costs for anticipated field work to validate the preliminary conclusions relative to source water and anticipated permit requirements to perform the work. 1.2 SeowaterlntakeFacility. We will further evaluate alternatives for intake, including brackish `Hater wells, beach wells and open intakes. Rom the prior study, a beach well gallery intake is the likely candidate. The Funding Study will evaluate and provide preliminary design of a seawater beach well gallery intake facility. Design will include details on pipe sizing and material, pump sizing and models, hydraulic capacity of the entire system, and vrill collaborate veith information praeided from the hydrogeologic assessment. 1.3 Reverse Osmosis Fifter5ystem. We vrill provide an=valuation r,.f the r=verse osmosis filter system in detail including, Gate-of-the-art Technologies ar~d rnembrne advances energy requirements and reco'/ery sysrems and operations and maintenance requlrements. The Funding Study grill aLo provide details about the overall desalination system including percent recovery, biir2 rejection rr=;;nd WORK PLAN WALLACE GROUP i c South San Luis Obispo County pesalination Funding Study contenirations,rupply wares quality and pre-treatment requirements, and other process considerations. The funding Study will provide the preliminary design of [he reverse osmosis filter equipment including approximate dimensions of filter modules and appurtenant equipment, details regarding feedwater pump size and power requirements and an overview of [he energy recovery system. The following is an outline of the specific activities related to the seawater desalination plant equipment preliminary design: 1.3.1 PreliminaryWoterQuoliryReview.We will review water quality information from the Ciry of Arroyo Grande. City of Grover Beach, and Oceano Community Services District. The objective of this evaluation will be to establish water quality goals for the treatment fadlity which are compatible with those agencies' current water supplies. it is assumed that agency staff will provide input regarding their disinfection strategies and that this preliminary evaluation will be based on a review of Consumer Confidence Reports. Possible California Department of Health Services (CDHS) permitting issues will be identified. t.3.2 Pretreatment Evaluation. We will determine likely raw water quality parameters based on the analysis by Fugro. Using this information we will develop a conceptual cost opinion for the beach well(s) based on input from Fugro. We will also determine possible pretreatment approaches and will present conceptual capital and operations/maintenance costs in the Funding Study. 1.3.3 Development of Desalination Approach. We will review the previous Desalination Feasibility Study and will recommend alternative desalination strategies or technologies, if appropriate. We will provide conceptual capital and operations/maintenance costs for membrane desalting processes.Opportunities and technologies for energy recovery will be identified, and conceptual cost opinionslpotential savings will be determined. 1.3.4DeterminotionofPost-Treatment Requirements. We will evaluate facilities required for disinfection, corrosion control, and to meet the agencies' other water quality objectives. We will address pumping facilities required to deliver treated water into the Cransmission pipelines. ].4 Ocean Outfoll andt3rine Disposal System. The Funding Study will provide a detailed analysis of the capacity constraints, impacts to permitted dilution ratios, review of joint contract between the Gty of Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD, and an ® assessment of the need for a brine equalization tank prior [o discharge.The study will ' include information pertaining to discussion with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding alterations to the existing SSLOCSD NPDES permit. 1.5 Product Water Distribution System. The Funding Study will outline the details of each agency's existing water distribution system to determine the best location Eor tie-in to recei•:+e desalination product water. We grill evaluate the cos[-benefit analysis of distributing +rrater directly into each agency's distribution system or extending product vaater piping Co the aaency's closest water storage resen+oir. We ~riill also evaluate distribution of vdater to a single delivery pain[ (Oceano) vdih inter-agency agreements or "in-lieu" alternative options for receiving vaarer allocations. 1.6 Site Analysis Ylallace Group :viii consult vrith the SLO Count, Planning Department [o outline the specific requirements for the planning, design, and ConSir ur[ion IS5Ue5 in Order to obtain a ConS[NCtiOn/hUllding permit iOr the de<alindtion plant at the SA GCSG'aJ`P~JTP IoCa'Cion. The g[e'anaiy5is :vill address the specific design and cnnstaxticn con<iderrions needed for building vrirhin the flood zone. WORK PLAN t_` WALiACE GROUP uth San Luis Obispo County >salination Funding Study a Regulations and Permitting -The Funding Study will define and identify the :ecific requirements needed to obtain regulatory permits pertinent to the construction, utallation, and operation of a seawater desalination plant on the California coast. This askwill include information necessary to move forward with permit applications and submittal processes, and will identify expected timelines. In order to accomplish these tasks, data compilation and review will be necessary. As part of this task, vve will obtain available biological, gealocic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical reports that would provide background information on environmental issues for the SSLOC Desalination Plant project and the adjacent lagoon and beach environment. In addition, one field evaluation will be prepared by biological staff to confirm the biological resource that may be impacted on the site and to identify potential resource permitting issues. One on-site reconnaissance survey will be performed by DD&A staff to evaluate "sensitive" habitats included in the CNDDB list of "sensitive" or regulated habitat types. The initial site assessment wifl also include an overview of on-site habitats for the potential presence ofspecial-status plant and animal species. 2.1 RegulatoryAgencyCoordination. We will compile a list of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction on the proposed desalination project and coordinate with agencies to determine timeBame, cost and requirements for obtaining appropriate permits for proposed desalination project. Our responsibilities will be for the resource agencies as defined below: We will define which environmental permits and agreements are necessary, We will consult with the relevant environmental regulatory agency representatives and prepare a permit application matrix/report. As parr of this task, we wiU coordinate with the permitting resource agencies including the California Coastal Commission to determine if applications are needed, what the requirements are for [he permits {including cost and timeframe}, identify early on any project measures to avoid or minimize impacts, and identify up-front any known permit conditions that would be required for approval. 2.1. t Coastal Development Permit -California Coastal Commission. l t is assumed that a Coastal Development Permit (CDP} will be needed from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) since the outfall project is in the Coastal Zone. We will consult with the CCC to obtain the CDP application requirements. We will meet or consult with Coastal Commission staff to determine application requirements and identify early on any project measures to avoid or minimize impacts. 2.1.7 Regiona(WarerQualityConrrol Board. We will consult with California Regional Water Quality Control Board {RWQCB). 2.1.3 San tuffs OGispo (SLO) County Planning Department. We will consult with San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Planning Department to outline the speGfic requirements for the planning, design, and construction issues in order to obtain a construccionlbuilding permit for the desalination plant at the 55LOC5D WWTP location. The site analysis mill address the specific design and construction considerations needed for building within the flood zone. WORK PLAN 2.a. t OrherResousce Agencies/PermitRequiremenrs. We mill also contact the Qf, follo~.ving agencies for identification of permit requirements. • California Department of Fish ~ Game (CDFG) - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ® - U.S. Fish and irrildlife Service fSeroicet P.ir Quality Control Gisiritt U.S, t~la[ionai iviarine Fisheries Services (f~ii~dtFS} ® W%LACE GROUP ~ 2 5 4 South San Luis Obispo County ~ Desalination Funding Study 9 We will contact the CDFG to determine if a CDFG Streambed Alternation Agreement or CDFG, petition under Section 2081, is required. The Coastal Commission will also likely condition the project to require an appropriate Storm e Water Pollution Prevention Plan, as set forth in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California State Water Resources Control Board guidelines. We will confirm this and define the permit requirements, timing and application process _ forthe project. 21 E1R Forecast. The Funding Study will include discussion on the environmental issues and concerns for the proposed desalination facility and will provide discussion on the possible measures needed to reduce the environmental impact of the p desalination project, including discussion of approximate cost and timeframe of an official EIR report. We will provide an assessment of two early-preliminary engineering 1 alternative designs to provide input on environmental issues on the site including components of the desalination plant, intake facility, brine disposal, and product water delivery system. We will provide rough estimates of the cost and timeframe of an EIR. • A brief project description (where "project" is used as clef ned by CEQA to ® describe both the water reclamation program and its related projects • A discussion of the methodology used in conducting the environmental screening • A summary of the project alternatives identifed and evaluated • A brief discussion of the key environmental issues (as identified through the environmental screening processor known to be of concern to [he general ® public) This environmental screening assessment will be designed to be consistent with the format of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study. However, the emphasis of the environmental screening will be to identify major scoping issues and to assess the documentation appropriate for a full CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specifically, environmental screening will focus on those issues anticipated to ® be of particular concern to the public and/or issues where there appears to be some ® potential for significant impacts. The appropriate analysis and documentation for all of these issues will be identifed for the future EIR to be prepared for the project, should the Lead Agency and the other partners proceed. ® 3.o Cost& Funding Update-We will prepare a life cycle cost update, overall implementation schedule, and an analysis of Funding opportunities and rate payer impacts as part of [his Funding Study Tasks will include the following: 3.1 Life Cycle Cost. The Funding Study will review previous Ilfe-cycle cost estimates for [he desalination project and will ref ne the capital, 0&M and life cycle costs. A ® 20-year life cycle cost estimate will be presented in table forma[. The estimate will indicate details on equipment life cycle and replacement costs for the varying system components. The life cycle cost estimate will be presented so that potential rate ® impacts to o~stomers can be calculated. 31 Schedule and Timeframe. `T/e will prepare and update [he implementation schedule, including permitting issues. 3.3 Funding Opportunities. This task v;ill include the identification of potential funding sources to finance the SSLOC Desalination project. There are sereral sources of the funding that may meet the requirements of the SSLrJC Funding Study These sources may include general obligation rr rerenue bonds, certificates of pattiripatlon; WORK PLAN WALLACE GROUP ! ~ South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study creation of a special assessment district orjoint powers authority; grants and loans including community development block grants, state revolving fund loans, and ocher sources. Specific activities include the following: 3.3.1 Research potential sources of funding available to finance the Project by contacting federal, state, and local agencies, as deemed appropriate by the consultant, to identify potential sources. 3.31 Prepare a matrix showing the source of funding and specific attributes or requirements of the funding source, summarizing the results of the research. 3.4 Impacts to Ratepayers. The Project capital costs and annual operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs are used to estimate the impacts to water rates. Impacts on ratepayers will be determined from annualizing the capital costs using the results of the financing sources discussed in Task 3.3 in conjunction with the OM&R costs from Task 3.1 It is anticipated that there will be two Project alternatives that have different capital costs. A table will be developed showing the alternative, the OM&R, the respective capital cost, and a high and low annual capital cost for each alternative that is based on the financing results in Task 3.3. The annual costs will be re-stated in terms of an estimated monthly bill for a single family resident (SFR). The Project monthly bill will be added to each of the three communities' average SFR bill that the Project will serve, providing an estimated total SFR bill for each community. These will [hen be compared with other local community monthly SFR bills in San Luis Obispo County. Specific activities include the following: For the two Project alternatives, identify the total capital costs and the annual OM&R. Estimate the annual capital cost (debt service) by annualizing the total Project capital cost for each alternative with the results of the financing method in Task 3.3, establishing a range of debt service payments based on the alternative and the financing. Summarize the annual Project costs in terms of a monthly SFR bill. Gather water rate information on SFR monthly bills for communities in San Luis Obispo County Add the Project estimated monthly bill to each of the three communities' monthly bill who are served by ihe'Project in a manner that provides a fair _ comparison of the monthly SFR bills. Prepare a comparison of the monthly SFR bills for presentation. Summarize the monthly charges and the comparison. 4.0 Meetings/Reports/Deliverables -The prime consultant and select representatives from the team will be available for two project review meetings with project staff and trio joint City Council/Board meetinys for presentation. Meeting costs are based on single staff-level and Public Council/Board meetings with Stakeholders, not individual meetings with each agency The schedule for completion of the tasks is presented in Section 6 of this proposal. Meeting dates and times will be agreed upon betvreen Wallace Group and the Stakeholders. Wallace Group will deliver the Following: 1. Six (5) hard copies and one (7) electronic copy of the deft Funding Study for revie~oi and comment. 2. Sir (5) hard copies and one n l electronic ropy of the Funding Sn~dy for final revie:~r and approral 3. Three (3) eLcnonic coFiies of the final, approved Funding Study in PDF fcrrr~at on a CC. WORK PLAN WALLACE GROUP z g D ~ South San Luis Obispo County ® Desalination Funding Study i ra OPTIONAL TASKS 5.0 Public Outreach and Information Sharing - On a time and materials basis, we avill provide public outreach tasks upon request. Such tasks may include preparing project update memoranda during the course of the project (for placement on Stakeholder's website). preparing mailers to be placed in water bills, attending public workshops or additional public meetings, and other activities upon request. 6.0 Proposition 50 Grant Program Administration-Onatimeandmaterialsbasis,we will provide administrative assistance to the Stakeholders wish the Proposition SO grant program. Such tasks may include coordination with the California Department of Water Resources regarding Prop 50 contractual items, project updates, reimbursement requests, schedule updates, and other items outlined in the Proposition 50 Desalination Grant Program contract between the Stakeholders and CDWR. WORK PLAN WALIACE GROUP Z 9 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE Page 11 August 17, 2007 WALLACE GROUP, CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION Mr. Don Spagnolo MANAGEMENT Director/City Engineer LANDSCAPE City of Arroyo Grande ARCHIT ECTUflE 208 East Branch Street MECHANICAL Arroyo Grande, California 93421 ENGINEEfl ING PLANNING Subject: Proposal Update -Desalination Funding Study PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION Dear Mr. Spagnolo: suevenNG ~ GIS SOLUTIONS As you discussed with Steve Tanaka today, it has been 9 months since we submitted WATER RESOURCES the subject proposal (November 2006). Upon award of this contract to the Wallace Group team, anticipated in September to October 2007, nearly one year will have WALLACE SWANSON INTERNATIONAL gone by since our original proposal was submitted to you for consideration. As you know, the cost of operating any business must keep up with inflation and rising costs. As such, we respectfully request that you consider an increase to our November 2006 fees in the amount of 5 percent. We also met on March 19, 2007 to discuss project fees, and we agreed to reduce our fees from the original proposed fee of $99,665 to $95,285. Two adjustments were made, $1,370 to exclude hard copies of deliverables, and $3,000 in project management costs with the understanding that we are under a single entity contract with the Desalination Group (comprised of City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, Oceano CSD). Our requested contract amount for this proposed project is $99,951 ($33,317 per entity). Thank you for your consideration of this request, and we look forward to working with you on this important water supply project. Sincerely, V1~~tt~~ROUP ~. John L. Wallace, PE Principal WALLACE GROUP SGT:JLWagt e z uARION cT SAN LUii OBISPO CALI•`OPNIA 934G1 T EGE 534-.01 i F 8G5 i»4-425= •.avr~i.~:~a Paze9w up.uz 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 City. 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 Page 12 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 in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $ per occurrence. 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. Page 13 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 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 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 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 Page 14 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 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 coverages. 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 Page 15 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. 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 EXH_ I~~ CITY'S REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Page 17 EXHIBIT E CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL Page 48 MEMORANDUM 8.f. TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CITY ENGINEER BY: MIKE GALVIN, INTERN SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR A DESALINATION FUNDING STUDY GRANT DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve Agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Desalination Funding Study (Study) Grant; and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: DWR has granted funds in accordance with the terms of the Agreement in an amount not to exceed $45,000.00 for eligible project costs. Project costs to perform the study will be $99,951.00. The costs to pertorm the feasibility study remaining after the grant will be divided equally among the three participating agencies. The estimated amount for each agency is $33,317.00. BACKGROUND: On August 24, 2004, the City Council received the water Supply Alternatives Report and directed staff to further pursue the option of a desalination plant. As a result, a Water Supply Study for a Desalination Project was completed and presented to the City Council at the January 10, 2006 meeting. The public water agencies of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano Community Services District have joined together to prepare a South San Luis Obispo County (SSLOC) Desalination Funding Study to determine the viability of constructing a seawater desalination facility. While previous studies have been prepared and recommend seawater desalination as the most viable alternative for a supplemental water supply to the SSLOC water agencies, a more in-depth analysis is crucial in determining the preliminary design and cost of the proposed facility. The study will be used as a first step in the design and implementation of a SSLOC seawater desalination facility. The three agencies have identified the need for a supplemental water source to enhance the reliability of their existing water supply. They have funded and performed a number of preliminary water supply studies. Findings from these studies have shown CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR A DESALINATION FUNDING STUDY GRANT SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 of 3 that a new water source will be required to meet projected long-term water demands. Results of these preliminary feasibility studies have also shown that the most cost- effective and viable alternative for additional potable water in the SSLOC area appears to be seawater desalination. In order to further evaluate the viability, and advance towards design, a seawater desalination funding study is proposed as the next step. The primary objectives of the Study include preliminary design of the desalination facility, which would then be used to refine the proposed cost estimate of the project. In addition, the study will clarify previous efforts to outline regulatory and environmental issues associated with seawater desalination, while outlining other possible funding sources, such as construction grant funding or low interest loan programs. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Recommended Alternative: Approval of the Agreement. This action will result in the granting of $45,000.00 from the State to the City of Arroyo Grande. Additionally, both parties will be bound to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. - Reject the Agreement. This action will result in a forfeiture of grant funding and will postpone the Study indefinitely. - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The terms of the proposed Agreement have been consented to by staff of all the parties involved. There are several issues within the document that the City Council may wish to consider. These following issues are listed in the order in which they appear in the Agreement: - Per Section 5 of the Agreement, the Grantee's costs are expected to be $54,951.00, which will be divided evenly between the participating agencies. The City accepts and agrees to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and commitments of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations and statements made by the Grantee in the application, documents, amendments and communications filed in support of it's request for financing" (the Agreement, PP 3)• - As per Section 8 the Grantee is required to submit quarterly progress reports, starting within six months from the date of execution, on the status of the Projects and a Statement of Costs to the Department of Water Resources. - Additionally, there exist several provisions for withholding of grant funds by the State. These provisions are outlined in Exhibit A-8. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR A DESALINATION FUNDING STUDY GRANT SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 of 3 ADVANTAGES: The recommended action will allow the City of Arroyo Grande and partner agencies to receive $45,000.00 in grant funds from the State. This grant money will allow the City and other agencies to take an important first step in alleviating the deficiency of potable water that exists and will continue to exist in the SSLOC area. The feasibility study, which the grant money will make possible, is viewed as a priority because previous studies have shown that seawater desalination is the most viable and cost-effective alternative for increasing the availability of potable water to the SSLOC area. Any further delays in the Agreement may result in increased costs of the project and/or loss of funds. DISADVANTAGES: Staff believes there is little disadvantage to proceeding with the study. With regard to the future project, disadvantages include the number of issues that will need to be resolved in order to proceed. These include costs, coordination and approval by partner agencies, environmental impacts, and the permitting process involved. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for the study at this time. Environmental review will be required prior to proceeding with approval of a project. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachment: 1. Desalination Study Grant Agreement Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR A WATER DESALINATION GRANT UNDER THE WATER SECURITY, CLEAN DRINKING WATER, COASTAL AND BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study STATE OF CALIFORNIA This agreement is entered into between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Water Resources, (State) and the City of Arroyo Grande (Grantee). The State and Grantee agree as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF GRANT This State Grant is made by the State to the Grantee to assist in financing a Water Desalination Project pursuant to the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, [Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 79545(a)] of Division 26.5 of the California Water Code). Grant funds may be used only as provided in this Agreement for such Eligible Project Costs as set forth in the Project description and Budget, copies of which are incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit B, "Statement of Work" and Exhibit C, "Budget". SECTION 2. TERM OF STATE GRANT The term of this Agreement is from the date of execution of this agreement through one half year from the date of execution. SECTION 3. PROJECT COSTS The Project Costs (identified in Exhibit C) are estimated to be $95,000.00. SECTION 4. STATE GRANT Subject to the availability of funds, the State will grant to the Grantee in accordance with the terms of this Agreement an amount not to exceed $45,000.00 for Eligible Project Costs. SECTION 5. GRANTEE'S COST SHARE AMOUNT The Grantee agrees to fund the difference, if any, between the estimated Project Cost (Section 3) and the State Grant (Section 4). Grantee's Costs are estimated to be $50,000.00. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study SECTION 6. INCORPORATION OF STANDARD CONDITIONS AND GRANTEE COMMITMENTS In addition to Exhibits B and C, this agreement incorporates Exhibit A, "Standard Terms". The Grantee accepts and agrees to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and commitments of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations and statements made by the Grantee in the application, documents, amendments and communications filed in support of its request for financing. SECTION 7. CONDITIONS FOR DISBURSEMENT The Grantee shall meet all conditions for disbursement of money under this Agreement, including the provisions of Exhibit A-6. Failure by Grantee to comply may, at the option of the State, result in termination of the Agreement. SECTION 8. PROGRESS REPORTS AND STATEMENT OF COSTS During the time period that the State Grant Funds will be used to fund the Project, the Grantee shall submit quarterly progress reports, starting within six months from the date of execution, on the status of the Project and a Statement of Costs to the Department of Water Resources. The submittal and approval by the State of these reports is a requirement for continued disbursement of State Grant funds. Progress reports shall summarize the work completed during the reporting period, include a statement of progress toward completion compared to the Project schedule, and provide a comparison of costs to date compared to the approved scope of work and Project budget. Statement of Costs shall be detailed and provide supporting documents for expenditures associated with the work. In lieu of the fourth progress report, the Grantee shall submit an annual report summarizing the progress up to date. SECTION 9. FINAL REPORTS Within 90 days of Project completion or termination, the Grantee shall submit a draft final report on Project completion or termination and expenditures for the State's review and comment. The draft final report shall be modified to incorporate the State's comments, if any, and resubmitted, as a final report, within sixty (60) days of the Grantee's receipt of the State's comments. If Grantee does not agree with the State's comments, the final report shall discuss the State's comments and explain why they were not incorporated. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study SECTION 10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF "CONSTRUCTION" PROJECT In consideration of the State Grant, the Grantee agrees, for the useful life of the Project, for 5 years from the completion of the project, to expeditiously commence and to continue operation of the Project and shall cause the Project to be operated in an efficient and economical manner; shall provide for all repairs, renewals, and replacements necessary to the efficient operation of the Project; and shall cause the Project to be maintained in as good and efficient condition as upon its construction, ordinary and reasonable wear and depreciation excepted. Refusal of the Grantee to operate and maintain the Project in accordance with this provision may, at the option of the State, be considered a material breach of contract and may be treated as default under default provisions Exhibit A-24. SECTION 11. RELATIONSHIPS OF PARTIES The Grantee, its contractors, subcontractors, and their respective agents and employees required for performing any work under this Agreement shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the State. The Grantee is solely responsible for planning and implementation of the Project. Review or approval of plans, specifications, bid documents or other construction documents by the State is solely for the purpose of proper administration of State Grant funds and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict the Grantee's responsibility. SECTION 12. PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS The Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining any and all permits, licenses and approvals required for performing any work under this Agreement, including those necessary for planning and implementing the Project. The Grantee shall be responsible for complying with all applicable federal, State and local laws, rules or regulations affecting any such work, specifically including, but not limited to, environmental, labor, procurement and safety laws, rules, regulations and ordinances. SECTION 13. GRANTEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WORK The Grantee shall be responsible for work and for persons or entities engaged in work, including, but not limited to, subcontractors, suppliers and providers of services. The Grantee shall give personal supervision to any work required under this Agreement or employ a competent representative, satisfactory to the State, with the authority to act for the Grantee. The Grantee or its authorized representative shall be present while work is in progress. The Grantee shall be responsible for any and all disputes arising out of its contracts for work on the Project, including but not limited to bid disputes and payment disputes with the Grantee's contractors and subcontractors. The State will not mediate disputes between the Grantee and any.other entity concerning responsibility for performance of work. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study SECTION 14. PROJECT OFFICIALS AND NOTICES The Acting Chief, Office of Water Use Efficiency and Transfers, Department of Water Resources, shall be the State's representative and shall have the authority to sign this Agreement and amendments to the Agreement, if needed, and to make determinations to each controversy or discrepancy arising under or in connection with the interpretation, performance, or payment for work performed under the Agreement. The Grantee Project Manager shall be . The Grantee Project Manager shall be the Grantee's representative for the administration of the Agreement and shall have full authority to act on behalf of the Grantee, including authority to execute all payment requests. All communications given to the Grantee Project Manager shall be as binding as if given to the Grantee. Either party may change its representative upon written notice to the other party. Notices required to be given to the State in writing by the Grantee under this Agreement shall generally be sent to: Fawzi Karajeh State of California Department of Water Resources Office of Water Use Efficiency and Transfers 901 P Street, Room 313A Post Office Box 942836 Sacramento, California 94236-0001 Notices required to be given to the Grantee in writing by the State under this Agreement shall be sent to: Don Spagnolo City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 A change of address for delivery or notice may be made by either party by written notice of such change of address to the other party. All such notices shall be enclosed in a properly addressed, postage prepaid envelope and deposited in a United States Post Office for delivery by registered or certified mail. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study Approved as to Legal Form and Sufficiency: By David A. Sandino, Acting Chief Counsel Date Department of Water Resources City of Arroyo Grande Approved as to Legal Form and Sufficiency: By Grantee's Attorney (if applicable) Date By Steven Adams, City Manager Date 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES By Manucher Alemi, Acting Chief, Office of Water Use Efficiency and Transfers IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on Date Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES EXHIBIT A STANDARD TERMS WATER DESALINATION GRANT A-1. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be construed and governed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. A-2. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Agreement. A-3. AMENDMENT: This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, except insofar as any proposed amendments are in any way contrary to applicable law. Requests by the Grantee for amendments must be in writing stating the amendment request and the reason for the request. A-4. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Agreement and all of its provisions shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. No assignment or transfer of this Agreement or any part thereof, rights hereunder, or interest herein by the Grantee shall be valid unless and until it is approved by the State and made subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the State may impose. A-5. ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: Grantee shall apply State Grant funds received only to Eligible Project Costs as identified in Exhibit C. A-6. CONDITIONS FOR DISBURSEMENT: The State shall have no obligation to disburse money under this Agreement unless and until the Grantee has satisfied the State that the disbursement is in accordance with the tasks and budget as detailed in Exhibit B and Exhibit C as well as the requirements of the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act, Chapter 6, Section 79545(a) which include: (a) For Construction Projects, the Grantee submits to the State, final plans and specifications certified by a California Registered Civil Engineer or equivalent documentation as to compliance with the approved Project. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (b) The Grantee submits a written statement by an authorized representative that it has obtained all necessary permits, easements, rights-of-way and approvals as may be required by other state, federal, and/or local agencies, as specified in Section 12 of this Agreement. (c) The Grantee demonstrates compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by submitting copies of any environmental documents, including environmental impact reports, environmental impact statements, negative declarations, mitigation agreements, legal notices and environmental permits as may be required prior to beginning the Project. (d) The Grantee submits timely periodic progress reports as required by Section 8 of this Agreement. (e) The Grantee demonstrates continuing availability of sufficient funds to complete the Project. A-7. STATE GRANT DISBURSEMENTS: (a) Cost Statements: After the Conditions for Disbursement, Section A-6, are met, the State will disburse the whole or portions of the State Grant commitment to the Grantee following receipt from the Grantee of a statement or statements of incurred Eligible Project Costs, reviewed by the Grantee's designated representative, and timely progress reports as required by Section 8 of this Agreement. Requests for State Grant funds shall be filed quarterly or for such periods as the State and the Grantee may mutually agree. The Grantee shall provide the following information: A statement of the incurred Eligible Project Costs for work performed under the Agreement during the period identified in the particular statement and which matches the Budget in Exhibit C and tasks in Exhibit B. 2. A statement of the cost of any interests in real property (land or easements) that have been necessarily acquired for the Project during the period identified in the particular statement for the implementation of the Project. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study The Grantee shall submit two (2) copies of quarterly progress reports and 2 copies of statement of costs associated with work accomplished during that quarter, as well as 2 copies of invoice to: Fawzi Karajeh Department of Water Resources Office of Water Use Efficiency and Transfers 901 P Street, Room 313A P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 The statement of costs must be detailed and provide supporting documentation for both State and Local Share of costs for each quarterly progress report. Statement of costs shall be submitted in arrears, bearing the Agreement number. The Grantee must also submit one (1) original copy of each invoice simultaneously to: DWR Accounting Office Contracts Payable Unit Post Office Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236 All progress reports, statement of costs, and invoices must be on the Grantee's letterhead, have agency name, project title, Agreement number, invoice number, and the quarter and tasks for which progress reports and invoices cover. Along with submittal of Draft Final Report, Grantee shall submit to the State a final statement of costs for incurred Eligible Project Costs, within 90 days of the termination date of the agreement. (b) Disbursement: Disbursements are subject to the availability of funds and budget contingencies. Following the review and approval of each statement of costs, the State will disburse to the Grantee the amount approved, subject to the availability of funds through the State's normal procedures. Funds will be disbursed by the State in response to each approved statement of costs on a pro rata basis in accordance with the relative payment obligations of the Grantee, Section 5 of this Agreement, and the State, Section 4 of this Agreement for the Project Costs, Section 3 of this Agreement. Any and all money disbursed to the Grantee under this Agreement and any and all interest earned by the Grantee on such money shall be used solely to pay Eligible Project Costs. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study A-8. WITHHOLDING OF GRANT DISBURSEMENTS BY STATE (a) Withholding clause: The State, at its discretion, may withhold ten percent (10%) of the funds requested by the Grantee for reimbursement of eligible Project Costs until the Project is completed and Final Report is received. (b) Additional Conditions for Withholding: If the State determines that the Project is not being completed substantially in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement or that the Grantee has failed in any other respect to comply substantially with the provisions of this Agreement, and if the Grantee does not remedy any such failure, the State may withhold from the Grantee all or any portion of the State Grant commitment and take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests. (c) Withholding Entire State Grant Commitment: If the State notifies the Grantee of its decision to withhold all of the State Grant commitment from the Grantee pursuant to Subdivision (b) of this Article, this Agreement shall terminate upon receipt of such notice by the Grantee and shall no longer be binding on either party. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this agreement, if the agreement is terminated for any reason, State shall reimburse Grantee for all costs incurred by Grantee per the Statement of Work and Budget as shown in Exhibit B up to the termination date, including without limitation, all uncancelable obligations. A-g. TIMING AND MANNER OF PROJECT UNDERTAKING (a) Proiect Undertaking Pursuant to Agreement: The Project shall be undertaken in strict accordance with this Agreement. (b) Determination of Proiect Completion: For the purposes of this Agreement, once the entire statement of work has been finished by the Grantee, the Project shall be considered to be completed. (c) Acknowledgement of Credit: The Grantee shall include appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the State and to all cost-sharing partners for their support when promoting the Project or using any data and/or information developed under the Agreement. i0 Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (d) Audit Requirement: Pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, the contracting .parties shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement with respect to all matters connected with the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to, the cost of administering this Agreement. All records of the Grantee or subcontractors shall be preserved for this purpose for at least three (3) years after completion of the Project. Completion of the project herein includes the submittal of a satisfactory final report. (e) Competitive Bidding of Contracts and Procurements: Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding securing competitive bids and undertaking competitive negotiations in Grantee's contracts with other entities for acquisition of goods, and services and construction of public works with funds provided by the State under this Agreement. (f) Final Inspection-and Certification of Registered Civil Engineer (Construction Projects): Upon completion of the Project the Grantee shall provide for a final inspection and certification by a California Registered Civil Engineer that the Project has been completed in accordance with submitted final plans and specifications and any modifications thereto and in accordance with this Agreement. The Grantee shall notify the Office of Water Use Efficiency and Transfers, Department of Water Resources, of the inspection date at least 10 days prior to the inspection in order to provide the State the opportunity to participate in the inspection. A-10. ACCOUNTING AND DEPOSIT OF GRANT DISBURSEMENT: (a) Separate Accounting of State Grant Disbursements and Interest Records The Grantee shall account for the money disbursed pursuant to this Agreement separately from all other Grantee's funds. The Grantee shall maintain audit and accounting procedures that are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices, consistently applied. The Grantee shall keep complete and accurate records of all receipts, disbursements, and interest earned on expenditures of such funds. The. Grantee shall require its contractors or subcontractors to maintain books, records, and other documents pertinent to their work in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. Records are subject to inspection by the State at any and all reasonable times. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (b) Disposition of Money Disbursed All money disbursed pursuant to this Agreement shall be deposited, administered, and accounted for pursuant to the provisions of applicable law. (c) Remittance of Unexpended Funds The Grantee, within a period of thirty (30) days from the final disbursement from the State to the Grantee of State Grant funds, shall remit to the State any unexpended funds that were disbursed to the Grantee under this Agreement and were not needed to pay Eligible Project Costs. (d) Interim and Final Audits The State reserves the right to conduct an audit at any time between the execution of this Agreement and the completion of the Project, with the costs of such audit borne by the State. After completion of the Project, the State may require the Grantee to conduct a final audit, at the State's expense, such audit to be conducted by and a report prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant. Failure or refusal by the Grantee to comply with this provision shall be considered a substantial failure to comply with this Agreement, and the State may elect to pursue any remedies provided in Exhibit A-24 or take any other action it deems necessary to protect its interests. A-11. CLAIMS DISPUTE CLAUSE: Any claim that the Grantee may have regarding the performance of this agreement including, but not limited to, claims for additional compensation or extension of time, shall be submitted to the Project Manager, Department of Water Resources, within thirty (30) days of the Grantee's knowledge of the claim. Project Director shall then attempt to negotiate a resolution of such claim and process an amendment to this Agreement to implement the terms of any such resolution. A-12. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE: The use by either party of any remedy specified herein for the enforcement of this agreement is not exclusive and shall not deprive the party using such remedy of, or limit the application of any other remedy provided by law. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study A-13. STATE TO BE HELD HARMLESS: The Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the State and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, expenses, or liability due or incident to, either in whole or in part, and whether directly or indirectly, arising out of the pertormance of this Agreement to the extent caused by the Grantee. A-14. INSPECTION OF BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS: During regular office hours, each of the parties hereto and their duly authorized representatives shall have the right to inspect and to make copies of any financial books, records, or reports of either party pertaining to this Agreement or matters related hereto. Each of the parties hereto shall maintain and shall make available at all times for such inspection accurate records of all its costs, disbursements, and receipts with respect to its activities under this Agreement. Failure or refusal by the Grantee to comply with this provision shall be considered a substantial failure to comply with this Agreement and the State may withhold disbursements to the Grantee or take any other action it deems necessary to protect its interests. A-15. INSPECTIONS OF PROJECT BY STATE: The State shall have the right to inspect the work being performed at any and all reasonable times during the term of the Agreement. This right shall extend to'any subcontracts, and the Grantee shall include provisions ensuring such access in all its contracts or subcontracts entered into pursuant to its Agreement with the State. A-16. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY WITHOUT STATE PERMISSION: The Grantee shall not sell, abandon, lease, transfer, exchange, mortgage, hypothecate, or encumber in any manner whatsoever all or any portion of any real or other property necessarily connected or used in conjunction with the Project, without prior permission of the State. The Grantee shall not take any action, including but not limited to actions relating to user fees, charges, and assessments that could adversely affect the ability of the Grantee to meet its obligations under this Agreement, without prior written permission of the State. The State may require that the proceeds from the disposition of any real property be remitted to the State up to the amount of the grant if such disposition occurs within 5 years of the completion of the project. For the purposes of this paragraph, the State's permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. A-17. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS: The parties to this Agreement do not intend to create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement, or of any duty, covenant, obligation or undertaking established herein. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study A-18. NOTICES: All notices that are required either expressly or by implications to be given by one parry to the other under this Agreement shall be signed for the Project Manager and for the Grantee by such officers, as from time to time, it may authorize in writing to so act. All such notices shall be deemed to have been given if delivered personally or if enclosed in a properly addressed postage-prepaid envelope and deposited in a United States Post Office for delivery by registered or certified mail. A-19. PERFORMANCE AND ASSURANCES: Grantee agrees to faithfully and expeditiously perform or cause to be performed all Project work as described in the final plans and specifications as submitted or as later amended and approved by the State under this Agreement and to apply State funds received only to Eligible Project Costs and to operate and maintain the Project in accordance with applicable provisions of the law. The State reserves the right to seek further written assurances from the Grantee that the work of the Project under this Agreement will be performed consistent with the terms of this Agreement. A-20. SEVERABILITY: In the event that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby. A-21. WAIVER OF RIGHTS: None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed waived unless expressly waived in writing. It is the intention of the parties hereto that from time to time either party may waive any of its rights under this Agreement unless contrary to law. Any waiver by either party hereto of rights arising in connection with this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver with respect to any other rights or matters, and such provisions shall continue in full force and effect. A-22. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: The State may terminate this Agreement without cause on 30 days advance written notice. The Grantee shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred, including uncancelable obligations, up to the date of termination. A-23. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: The Grantee may terminate this Agreement for cause on 30 days advance notice. The State may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Grantee fail to perform the requirements of this Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided including but not limited to reasons of default under Exhibit A-24. The Grantee shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred, including uncancelable obligations, up to the effective date of termination. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study A-24. DEFAULT PROVISIONS: (a) The grantee will be in default under this agreement if any of the following occur: Substantial breach of this Agreement, or any supplement or amendment to it; 2. Making any false warranty, representation, or statement with respect to this Agreement; (b) Should an event of default occur, the State may do any or all of the following: Terminate any obligation to make future payments to the Grantee, with the qualifications as set forth in Exhibit A-22 and A-23; 2. Terminate the Agreement; and 3. Take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests. (c) Both parties agree that any remedy provided in this Agreement is in addition to and not in derogation of any other legal or equitable remedy available to a party as a result of a breach of this Agreement by either party. (d) No waiver by either party of any breach or default will be a waiver of any breach or default occurring later. A waiver will be valid only if signed by the State or its authorized agent. A-25. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: (a) Current State Employees: No State officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any State agency, unless the employment, activity or enterprise is required as a condition of regular State employment. No State officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any State agency to provide goods or services. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (b) Former State Emaloyees: For the two year period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into an agreement in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements or any part of the decision- making process relevant to the agreement while employed in any capacity by any State agency. 2. For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into an agreement with any State agency if he or she was employed by that State agency in apolicy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed agreement within the twelve-month period prior to his or her leaving State service. A-26. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAUSE: The Grantee affirms that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and the Grantee affirms that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement and will make its contractors and subcontractors aware of this provision. A-27. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: By signing this Agreement, Grantee assures the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. i !; Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study A-28. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION: (a) Certification of Compliance By signing this Agreement, the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California compliance with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gdvernment Code 8350 et seq.) and have or will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions: Publish a statement notifying employees, contractors and subcontractors that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees, contractors or subcontractors for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355(a). Establish aDrug-Free Awareness Program, as required by Government Code Section 8355(b) to inform employees, contractors and subcontractors about all of the following: a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, b. The Grantee's policy of maintaining adrug-free workplace, c. Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs, and d. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees, contractors or subcontractors for drug abuse violations. 3. Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355(c), that every employee, contractor and subcontractor who works under this Agreement: a. Will receive a copy of the Grantee's drug-free policy statement, and b. Will agree to abide by terms of the Grantee's condition of employment, contract or subcontract. ,~ Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (b) Suspension of Payments: This Agreement or State Grant may be subject to termination per Exhibit A-23 and A-24, and the Grantee may be subject to debarment if the Department determines that: The Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors have made a false certification, or; 2. Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements noted above. A-29. NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE: During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee, its contractors and subcontractors shall not deny the Agreement's benefits to any person on the basis of religion, color, ethnic group identification, sex, age, physical or mental disability, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, or sex. The Grantee shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. The Grantee, its contractors and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Government Code, Sections 11135-11139.5) and the regulations or standards adopted by the awarding State Agency to implement such article. The Grantee shall provide notice to its contractors and subcontractors that they are also required to comply with the provisions and regulations described in this paragraph. The Grantee, its contractors and subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to notify labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. The Grantee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts to perform work under the Agreement. The Grantee's signature on this Agreement shall constitute a certification under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Grantee has, unless exempted, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements of Government Code, Section 12990, and Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 8103. ~; Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study A-30. UNION ORGANIZING: No State funds disbursed by this State Grant will be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. If Grantee makes expenditures to assist, promote, or deter union organizing, Grantee will maintain records sufficient to show that no State funds were used for those expenditures and that Grantee shall provide those records to the Attorney General upon request. IA Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF WORK DWR ID: F 2006-01 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a $45,000 agreement between City of Arroyo Grande and Department of Water Resources (DWR) to conduct a feasibility study. The total estimated budget of the feasibility study is $95,000. DWR share through this agreement with City of Arroyo Grande is $50,000. Three public water agencies of the City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District have joined together to do a South San Luis Obispo County (SSLOC) Desalination Funding Study (Study) to determine the viability of constructing a seawater desalination facility on the California Central Coast while maintaining their commitment to economical and environmentally sensitive design. While previous studies have been prepared and recommend seawater desalination as the most viable alternative for supplemental water supply to the SSLOC water agencies, a more in-depth analysis is crucial in determining the preliminary design anc cost of the proposed facility. The Study will be used as a first step to complete design and implementation of a SSLOC seawater desalination facility. The Stakeholders have identified the need for a supplemental water source to enhance the reliability of their existing water supply. They have funded and performed several preliminary water supply studies. Findings from these studies have shown that a new water source will be required to meet the Stakeholders' projected water demands. Results of these preliminary feasibility studies have also shown that the most cost- effective and viable alternative for additional potable water in the SSLOC area appears to be seawater desalination. In order to further evaluate the viability, and advance towards design, of a desalination facility to serve the SSLOC water agencies, the Stakeholders have committed to performing a seawater desalination funding study. The main objectives of the Study include preliminary design of the desalination facility, which would then be used to refine the proposed cost estimate of the project. In addition, the Study would clarify previous efforts to outline regulatory and environmental issues associated with seawater desalination, while outlining other possible funding sources, such as construction grant funding or low interest loan programs. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study The implementation of a seawater desalination facility for the SSLOC agencies will be designed to supplement the existing water supply and conservation methods currently being used by the Stakeholders. While water recycling and conservation efforts are continually being evaluated and performed by the Stakeholders, projected water demand at build out will exceed the quantity of water saved through conservation. The seawater desalination project will be designed to meet the Stakeholders' deficiency without producing an excessive amount of water that might be construed as growth-inducing. In addition, providing a seawater desalination facility on the Central Coast will result in some of the highest quality water in the State due to the state-of-the- art treatment technologies used in seawater desalination facilities. PROJECT OBJECTIVES, TASKS, AND SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Task Objectives involve: Preliminary Design Develop overall design criteria for all components of the desalination plant, intake facility, brine disposal, and product water delivery systems. This section will include a hydrogeologic assessment of the area where the proposed intake facility will be located. The hydrogeologic assessment will also be used to determine the chemical make-up of the source water to assist with the design of the membranes in the reverse osmosis filter system. Additional tasks under the preliminary design include: Design the seawater intake facility and pipeline. This design will include an evaluation of several viable intake structures (brackish water wells, beach wells, or open intakes) to determine the best-fit alternative. • Design the reverse osmosis filter system. This design will include further analysis of the various desalination reverse osmosis filter technologies available. Detailed review of ocean ouffall. The Study will provide a detailed analysis of the capacity constraints, impacts to permitted dilution ratios, and an assessment of the need for a brine equalization tank prior to discharge. • Design the product water distribution system. The Study will look into the details of each agency's water distribution system to determine the best location for tie- in to receive desalination product water. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SLOCSD) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site analysis. The Study will also include correspondence with the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department to outline the specific requirements for the planning, designing, and constructing issues in order to obtain aconstruction/building permit for the desalination plant at the SSLOCSD WWTP location. The site analysis should also address specific design and construction considerations needed for building within a flood plain. 2. Regulations and Permitting • The Study will further define and identify specific requirements for obtaining regulatory permits. It will provide the necessary information to better understand the regulatory permit process. Understanding the permit process will be a key aspect of viability and implementation of this project. • The Study will prepare the agencies for most of the issues that will be evaluated as part of the environmental impact review (EIR) process. 3. Cast and Funding Update • Refine capital, operations and maintenance (O&M) and life cycle cost of recommended project. Based on this information, respective agencies may prepare rate studies to determine potential rate impacts to customers. • Prepare and update implementation schedule, including permitting issues. • Identify potential sources for additional funding. It is anticipated that the Study will be completed in approximately six months and the total cost of the project is expected to be $95,000, including administrative costs. While it is expected that the Study will be available in a public competitive bidding process, a qualified team of engineering consultants has been selected to perform the Study. The selected team includes the Wallace Group, a local qualified engineering firm to perform the majority of the preliminary design and cost update, with assistance from Cleath & Associates, a hydrogeologic specialist, and Boyle Engineering, to assist with the specific design of seawater desalination technology. SSLOC Funding Study Project Task Description 1.0 Preliminary Design Develop overall design criteria for all components of the desalination plant, intake facility, brine disposal, and product water delivery system. ,, Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study Hydrogeologic assessment Identify the quantity and quality of available source water. Also identify possible environmental impacts of drawing seawater close to the proximity of the lagoon and identify the potential. risks associated with seawater intrusion on groundwater sources. 1.2 Seawater intake facility Evaluate several viable intake structures (brackish water wells, beach wells, or open intakes) to determine the best-fit alternative. Design should also include details on pipe sizing and material, pump sizing and models, hydraulic capacity of the entire system, and should collaborate with information provided from the hydrogeologic assessment. 1.3 Reverse osmosis filter system 1.4 Ocean outfa!l and brine disposal system. Provide a detailed analysis of the capacity constraints, impacts to permitted dilution ratios, and an assessment of the need fora 2006 Water Desalination Proposal 11 SSLOC Desalination Funding Study brine equalization tank prior to discharge; include discussions with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding alterations to the existing SSLOCSD National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. 5 Product water distribution system Outline the details of each agency's existing water distribution system to determine the best location for tie-in to receive desalination product water. Evaluate the cost-benefit analysis of distributing water directly into the agency's distribution system or extending product water piping to the agency's closest water storage reservoir. 6 Site analysis Include correspondence with the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department to outline the specific requirements for the planning, designing, and constructing issues in order to obtain a construction/building permit for the desalination plant at the SSLOCSD WWTP location. The site analysis should also address specific design and construction considerations needed for building within a flood plain. 2.0 Regulations and Permitting Further define and identify specific requirements for obtaining regulatory permits, including the necessary information to move forward with permit application and submittal process. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study 2.1 Regulatory agency coordination Fine-tune list of regulatory agencies participating in proposed desalination project, coordinate with agencies to determine timeframe, cost and requirements for obtaining appropriate permits for proposed desalination .project. 2.2 EIR forecast Identify most of the issues that will be evaluated as part of the EIR process. 3.0 Cost and Funding Update 3.1 Life cycle cost Refine capital, O&M and life cycle cost of project. Determine potential rate impacts to customers. 3.2 Schedule and timeframe Prepare and update implementation schedule, including permitting issues. 3.3 Funding opportunities Identify potential sources for additional funding. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study SSLOC DESALINATION FUNDING STUDY PROJECT TASK WORK PLAN Start End TASK 1 -PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1.1 H dro eolo is Assessment 6/26/07 7/24/07 1.2 Seawater Intake Facilit 7/3/07 7/13/07 1.3 Reverse Osmosis Filter S stem 7/10/07 8/11/07 1.4 Ocean Outfall & Brine Dis osal S stem 8/14/07 9/25!07 1.5 Product Water Distribution 9/4/07 9/29/07 1.6 Site Anal sis 911/07 9/29/07 TOTAL TASK 1 6/26107 9/29107 TASK 2 -REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING 2.1 Re ulato A enc Coordination 7/17/07 9/1/07 2.2 EIR Forecast 8/14/07 11/3/07 TOTAL TASK 2 7/17/07 11/3/07 TASK 3 -COST AND FUNDING UPDATE 3.1 Life C cle Cost Estimate 7/3/07 10/23/07 3.2 Schedule and Timeframe 9/4/07 10/20/07 3.3 Fundin O ortunities 10/2/07 10/30/07 TOTAL TASK 3 7/3/07 10/30/07 TASK 4 -PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 4.1 Pre aration of Draft Fundin Stud 6/26/07 11/10/07 4.2 A enc Review of Draft Stud 11/10/07 11/24/07 4.3 Consultant Incor orates A enc Comments; Pre ares Final Draft 11/24/07 12/11/07 4.4 Final Draft Fundin Stud Presented to Cit Council Members 12/11/07 12/15/07 4.5 Final Re ort Com lete 1/12/07 TOTAL TASK 4 6/26/07 1/12/08 TOTAL PROJECT SCHEDULE 6/26/07 1/12/08 Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study PROJECT DELIVERIES The Grantee shall submit quarterly progress reports. PROJECT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING Through progress, annual, final reports, and field visits, the Department staff will monitor and assess the project in terms of providing the projected new or alternative potable water supplies. Agreement 4600007611 City of Arroyo Grande South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study EXHIBIT C BUDGET DWR ID: F 2006-01 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Budget Category I Non State Share II State Share (Grant) III Total Project Costs IV=11+111) a Administration Salaries, wa es Frin a benefits Su lies E ui ment Consultin Services Travel b Plannin /Desi n/En ineerin $50,000 $45,000 $95,000 c Equipment Purchases/ Rentals/Rebates/Vouchers d Materials/Installation/Im lementation e Im lementation Verification Project Le aVLicense Fees Structures h Land Purchase/Easement i Environmental Compliance/ Miti ation/Enhancement Construction k Other S eci I Monitorin and Assessment (m) Report Preparation n SUBTOTAL a + ... + m $50,000 $45,000 $95,000 o Overhead (p) Contin enc (speci % used) TOTAL n + o + $50,000 $45,000 $95,000 8.9• MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS /CITY ENGINEER BY: RANDY ROBINSON, PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR -STREETS SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the FY 2007-08 Public Works Field Division Fees and Service Charges. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Services and equipment provided to other public agencies and cost recovery from damages to City property is charged based on the attached Schedule of Fees and Service Charges. During the last fiscal year, these fees and service charges generated approximately $35,000 in revenue. Therefore, the proposed change is likely to result in an increase of approximately $3,000. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department annually updates the Schedule of Fees and Service Charges. These are the fees charged to assist other agencies with services and/or equipment usage. These fees also help determine the amount of fees charged to those who damage or vandalize City property. The Public Works Department will only provide assistance to other public agencies on anon-priority basis. City work is scheduled ahead of the work performed for other agencies, unless the request is the result of an emergency. The fees and charges include the City's indirect cost as set forth in the City's Adopted Cost Allocation Plan. This year, the indirect cost rose to 15.23%, medical to $6.51 per hour and personal salaries 2°/0. These changes caused labor to increase from $41.71 to $43.65 per hour and the overtime rate from $52.45 to $54.85 per hour. Equipment rates will increase by $2.00 per hour to compensate for fuel and maintenance costs. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 Examples of services include rental of City equipment, such as the paver, roller or other equipment. The manpower is provided by the agency renting the equipment. When City property is damaged by traffic accidents or vandalism, charges to replace/repair the property are also charged to the responsible party based on these fees. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached resolution approving the FY 2007/08 Public Works Field Division Fees and Service Charges; - Do not approve staff's recommendation; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The primary issue involved with this item is that annual adjustment to these fees are necessary in order to reflect actual costs and avoid an indirect subsidy provided by the City. ADVANTAGES: This cost recovery mechanism allows the City to recoup the costs of repairing damaged City property. It also generates additional revenue for the City and assists other jurisdictions through use of equipment and personnel by other agencies when not in use by the City. DISADVANTAGES: Scheduling the use of City equipment must be coordinated with the requesting agency. There also can be a delay in receiving funds through insurance companies for repair of damaged property. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City web site on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SPECIFIED FEES FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, the City Council has established fees for services furnished by City staff and for rental of City equipment; and WHEREAS, due to the effects of inflation and other factors, some of said fees are no longer adequate to equitably compensate the City for the costs of providing certain public works services as well as for the cost of renting certain equipment; and. WHEREAS, the City wishes to recover the full cost of field services furnished by the City and for the use of City equipment; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007 at a regularly scheduled public meeting, the City Council duly considered the question ofwhetherto adjust said fees to reflect the estimated amount that is required to compensate the City for providing such services or equipment; and WHEREAS, at said meeting the City Council has duly considered all oral and written presentations that were made regarding the proposed fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that the schedule of fees entitled "CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein is hereby approved and adopted. On motion of Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of September 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 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Fees and Service Charges September 2007 LABOR COSTS: Computed = (monthly wage x 12 months) 26 periods) 80 hours =hourly wage) Hourly wage x 42% (fringe benefits) + $6.51 (medical, dental, vision) =direct labor cost per hour + 15.23% indirect cost rate =billing rate DURING WORK HOURS Average Cost = $43.65 per hour DURING AFTER HOURS: (1.5 x hourly wage rate) less benefits Average Cost = $54.85 per hour MINIMUM CALL-OUT RATE: (2 hours at 1.5 hourly wage rate) EQUIPMENT COST Pickup Trucks - $13.00 per hour Service Trucks - $40.00 Backhoe - $40.00 per hour per hour PW-2 PW-16 PW-45 PW-6 PW-34 PW-1'S PW-36 PW-10 PW-40 PW-32 PW-41 PW-33 PW-52 PW-9 PW-1 CAT Generator - Loader - $60.00 per hour 6" Pump - $21.00 per hour $80.00 per hour PW-282 PW-38 PW-140 Dump/Flat Bed Truck Crack Sealer - $45.00 per hour Sewer Vacuum/Jet Truck 5-7 yards $45.00 per hour $108.00 per hour PW-19 PW-27 PW-50 PW-249 PW-51 Paver - $65.00 per hour Grader - $60.00 per hour Chipper - $45.00 per hour PW-46 PW-14 PW-111 Paint Striper - $65.00 per hour Concrete Saw - $16.00 per hour Air Compressor $19.00 per hour PW-47 PW-103 PW-243 Grinder - $29.00 per hour 5-Ton Roller -.$26.00 per hour PW-154 PW-12 MATERIAL COST: (cost plus tax) Concrete - $107.00 yard Class II Base - $19.00 ton Sand - $16.00 ton A/C - $53.00 ton S.h. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GRANT OF TEMPORARY LICENSE AND AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Grant of Temporary License and Agreement for Use of City Property with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for a temporary Park-N-Ride lot located at the northeast corner of Old Ranch Road and West Branch Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Grant of Temporary License and Agreement for Use of City Property provides that PG&E will pay the City's License Agent construction contract costs for grading, surfacing, drainage, and lighting improvements, as outlined in Agenda Item 8f (Award of Bids), not to exceed $90,000 upon this approval. Additionally, the monthly rent of $6,000 per month for the total ten-month Winter 2008 and 2009 use period will be paid by PG&E to the City. PG&E will also be responsible for repair, maintenance and night-lighting expenses during their use periods. Some minor maintenance costs may be the City's responsibility if associated with other temporary uses prior to Recreation Center development, such as Strawberry Festival parking, future public park and ride, or special events. BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing regarding Temporary Use Permit No. 07-012 ("TUP"), and approved the proposed PG&E Park-N-Ride lot for approximately 250 cars. Attachment 1 is the Council Resolution approving the TUP. Similar facilities are proposed in Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo as trip reduction/traffic mitigation for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant major maintenance project. Initially, the advance payment was estimated at $70,000, but when, lighting, grading, drainage, and surfacing bids were received, the costs with a contingency allowance exceeded $90,000. PG&E has agreed to increase the advance payment as outlined in the proposed License Agreement, Attachment 2. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the License Agreement; - Make modifications and approve the License Agreement; CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GRANT OF TEMPORARY LICENSE AND AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE2 - Do not approve the License Agreement, which would result in delay and likely cancellation of the project; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: When the temporary park and ride concept was originally considered by City Council, concerns were expressed regarding the traffic impacts on local streets, adjacent neighborhoods and the 101 interchange. As a result, the proposal was modified to reduce the parking capacity to serve only local Arroyo Grande employees. PG&E is making arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions to accommodate the excess vehicles coming from other areas. Approval of the License Agreement at this time is necessary in order to complete improvements in time to serve the PG&E timeframe for their project. Denial would leave PG&E without a needed part of traffic mitigation for trip reduction in South San Luis Obispo County. ADVANTAGES: Approval of the License Agreement would be consistent with the intent of the TUP. The Resolution approved the TUP outlines the envirorimental and economic advantages of providing this Park-N-Ride facility to PG&E, the City, and the Five Cities Community Foundation ("Foundation"). Other advantages of the project include both generation of General Fund revenue for the City, as well as, significant improvements to City property at no cost to the City. These improvements also provide a significant benefit to the Foundation by providing site grading for the proposed Recreation Center at no cost to the Foundation. The park facilities may be used for community functions, such as, the Strawberry Festival. DISADVANTAGES: It was recognized that the location of this temporary facility, while contributing to regional trip reduction, would generate and contribute to localized traffic congestion particularly on West Branch at Brisco Road interchange and the intersection of West Branch and Grand Avenue. This was considered less than significant with the proposed shuttle bus schedule avoiding morning and evening peak hour arrivals and departures. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The TUP Resolution included the finding that the proposed project is exempt pursuant to Sections 15271 and 15276 and categorically exempt by Section 15304(e) Class 4, minor alterations to land for temporary use. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The TUP was approved on July 24, 2007 after a duly noticed public hearing and no expressed opposition or comments from the neighbors or general public. Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution No. 4028 re TUP 07-012 approval dated July 24, 2007 2. License Agreement ATTACHMENT1 RESOLUTION N0.4028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 07-012 FOR A TEMPORARY PARK AND RIDE LOT ON A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY; APPLICANT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY WHEREAS, PGI;<E has requested to use approximately 2.0 acres of 5.0 acres of City- owned vacant real property at the northeast corner of West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road (the "Property") as a temporary Park-and-Ride Lot for up to 250 cars ("Park-and-Ride Lot"}, including shuttle bus stop and night lighting for two (2) five-month periods, December 2007 through April 2008 and December 2008 through April 2009; and WHEREAS, the Property is subject to an existing lease agreement with the Five Cities Community Foundation ("Foundation") for the eventual development of a community recreation center; and WHEREAS, development of the Project as a community recreation center by the Foundation is prohibited until certain traffic impacts have been mitigated; and WHEREAS, the Park-and-Ride Lot is a .proposed trip reduction, traffic mitigation measure needed to bus workers to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant during major maintenance, rather than allow private vehicles to travel to and from South County to the plant site; and WHEREAS, PG&E is proposing similar Park-and-Ride facilities in Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo to provide convenient community access to these transportation alternatives and to reduce concentrated traffic impacts; and WHEREAS, PG&E has agreed to operate the shuttle bus schedule and control work shifts so that peak parking turnover would :largely avoid morning and evening normal peak hour traffic; and WHEREAS, PG&E has requested that the City provide for site grading and drainage improvements for an "all weather," low-turnover, temporary winter season parking lot, lane delineation, night lighting, and access improvements to be funded in advance payment by PGBE equal to the estimated cost of these temporary improvements; and WHEREAS, the Park-and Ride Lot site grading and improvements would be beneficial to the eventual construction of a proposed community recreation center and its permanent parking areas, including rough grading and pollution prevention storm drainage improvements; and RESOLUTION N0.4028 PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the agreement between the City and PG&E will provide for consent of both the Foundation, and the property manager'of General Services Department of the County of San Luis Obispo, to assure the temporary use by PG&E is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Property deed restriction; and WHEREAS, Park-and-Ride Lot improvements will also facilitate other interim community uses of the Property such as Strawberry Festival and Harvest Festival parking; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2007 the City Council head a properly noticed hearing to consider Temporary Use Permit 07-012; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAj, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt by Section 15304e Class 4, minor alterations to land for temporary use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Temporary Use Permit 07-012, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member Costello, seconded by Council Member Fellows, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Costello, Fellows, Guthrie, Arnold, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 24"' day of July 2007. RESOLUTION NO. ~IozB PAGE 3 TONY ATTEST: RR. KELLY WETM 'RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~~~--T STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~f~ TIM THY J MEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION N0.4028 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 07-012 GENERAL CONDITIONS: Prior to any improvements by the City, PG&E will execute an acceptable agreement with the City for use of the Property and deposit an advance payment of $70,000 (or other amount provided therein) to fund estimated improvement costs. 2. PG&E shall provide a rental fee of $6,000 per month for each of the ten months, payable to the City, for the periods of operation from December 2007 through April 2008 and December 2008 through April 2009. 3. PG&E shall agree to schedule shuttle bus operations and work shifts to avoid or minimize rooming and evening peak hour traffic impact periods as determined by the City Public Works Director. 4. PG&E shall ascertain and comply with all City, County, State, and Federal requirements as are applicable to this project. 5. The Park-and-Ride Lot shall be operated in substantial conformance with the proposal dated July 9, 2007 and the terms and conditions of the agreement with the City for use of the Property. 6. PG&E shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees; for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 7. PG&E shall provide at least a $1,000,000 commercial general liability and automobile insurance policy, or adequate proof "of equivalent self-insurance, naming the City as additional insured, subject to approval by the City Attorney. Proof of insurance shall be submitted to the Director of Administrative Services at least ten days prior to the temporary use and remain in full force and effect throughout its entire duration of use of the Property. OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION f, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of pery"ury, that the attached Resolution No. 4028 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 24"' day of July 2007. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 2T"' day of July 2007. KELLY T ORE, CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT2 GRANT OF TEMPORARY LICENSE AND AGREEMENT FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY This GRANT OF TEMPORARY LICENSE AND AGREEMENT FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY ("Agreement" or "License") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2007 in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, California, by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ("City"), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E"), a public utility under the laws of the State of California. RECITALS WHEREAS, City is the owner of real property located at 400 West Branch Street in the City of Arroyo Grande, State of California and legally described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein (hereinafter referred to as "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Public Facilities and was transferred to the City by the County of San Luis Obispo with a deed restriction requiring it to be used for Municipal Facilities or to be leased to a private nonprofit organization for use and fulfillment of a charitable purpose, including youth recreation; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2006, City and the 5 Cities Community Service Foundation ("Foundation") entered into a Lease Agreement ("Lease") for the Property under which the Foundation proposes to build certain improvements on the Property consisting of a community sports and recreation center (the "Recreation Facility"); and WHEREAS, PG&E desires to use a portion of the Property (the "Premises") as a temporary park and ride automobile parking lot (the "Park and Ride Lot") for two (2) -five (5) month periods (December 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008 and December 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009) as a traffic mitigation measure for workers to at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant during construction of certain improvements at the power plant; and WHEREAS, Foundation anticipates that construction of the Recreation Facility is still many years out, that the proposed improvements to the premises would benefit the Foundation's proposed Recreation Facility by providing rough site preparation -grading and base material for future parking and foundation areas and that this Agreement will not affect planning or construction of the Recreation Facility; and WHEREAS on July 24, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council ("Council") adopted Resolution No. 4028 approving a Temporary Use Permit for the proposed Park and Ride Lot, subject to an appropriate agreement between the City and PG & E and Foundation's prior consent, for up to 250 vehicles, including two shuttle bus stops and night time lighting; and WHEREAS, PG&E agrees to operate the shuttle bus schedule and control work shifts so that peak parking turnover at the Park and Ride Lot would largely avoid normal morning and evening peak hour traffic; WHEREAS, subject to City's and Foundation's prior approval of a site plan submitted by PG&E, and subject to PG&E's advance payment of $ 90,000 to City, City shall construct the temporary Park and Ride Lot, which includes the following improvements: site grading, drainage improvements, an "all-weather" material base, lane delineation, night time lighting, access improvements, and any other necessary improvements for a low turnover temporary parking lot (collectively referred to herein as the "Improvements"); WHEREAS, as consideration for PG&E's temporary license to use the Premises, the Improvements shall be beneficial to Foundation's eventual construction of the Recreation Facility and, therefore, consistent with the Property's deed restriction; WHEREAS, the Improvements will also facilitate other interim community uses of the Property, such as Strawberry Festival and Harvest Festival parking; and WHEREAS, this Agreement requires the consent of the Foundation and the County of San Luis Obispo to assure the temporary Park and Ride Lot is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Lease and the Property's deed restriction; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS The following terms shall, for all purposes of this Agreement, have the following meaning as set forth below. 1.1 "Foundation" shall refer to the 5 Cities Community Service Foundation. 1.2 "City" shall refer to the meaning assigned in the preamble of this Agreement. Additionally, City shall refer singularly and collectively to City and its, officials, officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, and independent contractors. 1.3 "Council" is defined in the recitals of this Agreement. 1.4 "Improvements" is defined in the Recitals of this Agreement. 2 1.5 "Laws and Orders." The term "laws and orders" includes all laws, statutes, ordinances, standards, rules, requirements, regulations, decrees, judgments, or orders now in force or hereafter enacted, promulgated, or issued by all federal, state, county, city, or other governmental agencies, courts, departments, commissions, boards, and officers. The term also includes government measures regulating or enforcing public access, occupational, health, fire, earthquake, or safety standards for employers, employees, landlords, or tenants. 1.6 "Lease" is defined in the recitals of this Agreement. 1.7 "License Term." This License shall be effective for the following periods: December 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008 and December 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009, a total of ten (10) months. The License Term may be extended on the same terms and conditions as described herein, subject to the prior written consent of the City Manager. 1.8 "Park and Ride Lot" is defined in the recitals of this Agreement. 1.9 "PG&E" is defined in the Recitals of this Agreement. 1.10 "Premises" is defined in the Recitals of this Agreement. 1.11 "Property" is defined in the Recitals of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2. LICENSE, CONDITION, AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 2.1 License for Use of Premises. In consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements contained in this Agreement, City hereby grants to PG&E and PG&E hereby accepts from City a license to use the Premises in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. 2.2 Name of Licensor and Licensee. The Licensor is the City, and the Licensee is PG&E. 2.3 Premises and Use. PG&E shall have a License to use the Premises for the purpose of operating a temporary Park and Ride Parking Lot for up to 250 vehicles. The hours of operation will be twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with actual morning and evening times of shuttle bus arrivals and departures varied between 3:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2.4 Improvements. Upon PG&E's prior payment as described in Section 2.7 below, the City shall construct the Improvements. 3 2.5 Advance Approval by Foundation. Prior to construction of any Improvements, Foundation shall review and approve in writing the site plan(s) for the Improvements. 2.6 Monthly Payment. Payment for the first period from December 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008 shall be $6,000.00 per month, gross, payable monthly, in advance, beginning December 1, 2007. Payment for the second period from December 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009 shall be $6,000.00 per month, gross, payable beginning December 1, 2008. 2.7 Additional Payment. PG&E shall pay to the City, upon execution of this Agreement, the amount of $ 90,000. This amount shall compensate the City for the estimated costs for the Improvements. 2.8 No Property Interest. This Agreement shall grant PG&E no property interest in the Premises. ARTICLE 3. USE OF PREMISES 3.1 Permitted Use. During the License Term, PG&E shall solely use the Premises as a parking lot consistent with the terms and conditions set forth herein. PG&E shall not use or permit the Premises to be used for any other purpose, without City's prior written consent, which may be granted or withheld in City's sole discretion. 3.2 City's and Foundation's Right to Access the Premises. City, and Foundation, and their agents, shall have the right at all reasonable times to enter the Premises to perform functions, including, but not limited to the following: inspect the Premises; serve, post, and keep posted notices required by law or that City considers necessary for the protection of City or the Premises; inspect the Premises for any purpose connected with the care and management of the Premises; perform services required of City; take possession due to any breach of this Agreement; perform any covenants of PG&E that PG&E fails to perform, or for any other purpose reasonably connected with City's interest in the Premises. 3.3 City's Right to Use the Premises. City hereby reserves the right, in City's sole discretion and without prior approval by PG&E, to use the Premises outside of the License Term for parking purposes for any community functions including, but not limited to, the Strawberry Festival or Harvest Festival. No later than seven (7) days prior to its use of the Premises, City shall notify PG&E in writing of City's intention to use the Premises. PG&E shall keep the Premises free and clear of any PG&E related parking during the term of City's use. 3.4 PG&E shall be responsible for repair of any damage to the Premises or the Improvements caused during the License Term. If PG&E does not repair such damage within ten (10) days of written notice from the City to do so, the City may take steps to repair the damage and shall have the right to 4 reimbursement for such repair costs from PG&E. PG&E shall be responsible for routine maintenance and upkeep of the Premises during the License Term. ARTICLE 4. EXCULPATION, INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE 4.1 Exculpation. To the fullest extent permitted by law, PG&E, on its behalf and on behalf of all PG&E parties, waives all claims, in law, equity, or otherwise, against City and/ or Foundation, and their officials, employees, and agents, and knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of, and agrees that City and/or Foundation shall not be liable to PG&E, for any of the following: injury to or death of any person; or loss of, injury or damage to, or destruction of any tangible or intangible property, including the resulting loss of use, economic losses, and consequential or resulting damage of any kind from any cause. Neither City nor Foundation shall be liable under this clause regardless of whether the liability results from any active or passive act, error, omission, or negligence of any of City or Foundation; or is based on claims in which liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on City and/or Foundation. This exculpation clause shall not apply to claims against City or Foundation to the extent that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction establishes that the injury, loss, damage, or destruction was proximately caused by City's or Foundation's fraud, willful injury to person or property, sole active negligence, or violation of law. Such exculpation shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement until all claims within the scope of this exculpation clause are fully, finally, and absolutely barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. PG&E acknowledges that this section was negotiated with City, that the consideration for it is fair and adequate, and that PG&E had a fair opportunity to negotiate, accept, reject, modify, or alter it. With respect to the exculpation provided in this Section, PG&E waives the benefits of Civil Code section 1542, which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 4.2 Insurance. Without limiting PG&E's indemnification of City and Foundation, PG&E shall self-insure for the duration of the License Term against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with PG&E's operation and use of the Premises and will defend and hold harmless, at its sole cost, City and Foundation in connection with any such claim(s). Any cost of such self-insurance shall be borne by PG&E. 4.3 Personal Property of PG&E. City may continue to provide property insurance for the Premises. Said property insurance shall not provide coverage for PG&E's personal property. PG&E waives any claim against the City's insurance for or relating to damage to its personal property. 4.4 Indemnification. PG&E shall, at its sole expense, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to City, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and 5 Foundation from and against any and all claims from any cause, that arise out of, result from, or relate to this Agreement, the right of use created under this Agreement, or the Premises, including the, use or occupancy, or manner of use or occupancy, of the Premises by PG&E; any negligent act of PG&E or of any invitee, guest, or licensee of PG&E, or any other person authorized by PG&E to use the Premises or any portion thereof; PG&E's conducting of its business; any improvements, activities, work, or things done, omitted, permitted, allowed, or suffered by PG&E in, at, to or about the Premises, including the violation of or failure to comply with any applicable laws and orders in existence on the date of Agreement or enacted, promulgated, or issued after the date of Agreement; and any breach or default in performance of any obligation on PG&E's part to be performed under this Agreement, whether before or during the License period or after its expiration or earlier termination. The intention of the parties with respect to compliance with laws and orders that PG&E, during the License period, shall discharge and perform all the obligations of City, as well as all the obligations of PG&E, related to the Premises, and indemnify City and Foundation therefrom, so that at all times the License of the Premises shall be net to City without deduction or expenses on account of any such laws and orders. 4.5 Definition of Claims. For purposes of this Agreement, "claims" means any and all claims, losses, costs, damage, expenses, liabilities, liens, actions, cause of action (whether in tort or contract, law or equity, or otherwise), charges, assessments, fines, and penalties of any kind (including consultant and expert expenses, court costs, and attorney fees as defined in this Agreement). 4.6 Type of Injury or Loss Defined. This indemnification extends to and includes claims for injury to any persons (including death at any time resulting from that injury); loss of, injury or damage to, or destruction of property (including all loss of use resulting from that loss, injury, damage, or destruction); and all economic losses and consequential or resulting damage of any kind. 4.7 Survival of Indemnification. The clauses of this Article shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement until all claims against City parties involving any of the indemnified matters are fully, finally, and absolutely barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ARTICLE 5. ASSIGNMENT 5.1 No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by PG&E. ARTICLE 6. TERMINATION 6.1 Grounds for Termination: a. Breach of Agreement. Either party to the Agreement may terminate the License if the other party has committed a breach of the Agreement as defined in Article 8. There is no monetary penalty for such termination, except for any costs and fees expressly provided for in Articles 6, 8, and 10. 6 b. Termination Procedure. The party exercising the right to terminate shall provide written notice of the intent to terminate to the other party. If the termination is pursuant to section 6.1.a, the party shall give a prior written notice of at least ninety (90) calendar days prior to the date of the intended termination. The notice shall state the reason for the termination. c. City's/ Foundation's Purchase of Improvements upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement by City, as set forth in subsection 6.1.a, City and Foundation shall not be responsible for any reimbursement, whether in whole or in part, for PG&E's actual out of pocket costs for the Improvements to the Premises. d. Rights and Obligations Cease. All rights and obligations of the parties shall cease on termination of the License unless otherwise provided by the terms of the Agreement. Neither party shall be liable to the other for damages of any kind, including without limitation incidental or consequential damages, resulting from any termination of this License, except as specifically provided for herein. ARTICLE 7. SURRENDER OF PREMISES 7.1 Removal of PG&E Property. On the expiration or earlier termination of the License period, PG&E shall quit the Premises and surrender possession to City. On expiration or termination, PG&E shall remove or cause to be removed from the Premises all debris and rubbish, any items of personal property exclusively owned by PG&E, and any other non-permanent improvements that PG&E placed on the Premises, unless City approves their remaining on the Premises, in which case ownership of any such improvements automatically passes to City. PG&E shall repair all damage or injury that may occur to the Premises caused by PG&E's removal of those items. ARTICLE 8. DEFAULT 8.1 Acts of Default. Any of the following events or occurrences shall constitute a material, breach of the Agreement by PG&E and, after the expiration of any applicable grace period, shall constitute an event of default, each being a separate event of default: a. Failure to Pay Costs or Charges. The failure by PG&E to pay any amount in full when it is due under the Agreement. b. Failure to Perform Obligation. The failure by PG&E to perform any obligation under the Agreement, which by its nature PG&E has no capacity to cure. c. Failure to Perform After Notification. The failure by PG&E to perform any other obligation under this Agreement, if the failure has continued for a period of ten (10) days after City demands in writing that PG&E cure the failure. 7 If, however, by its nature the failure cannot be cured within ten (10) days, PG&E may have a longer period as reasonably needed to cure the failure, but this is conditioned upon PG&E promptly commencing to cure within the ten (10) day period and thereafter diligently completing the cure. PG&E shall indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless against any liability, claim, damage, loss, or penalty that may be threatened or may in fact arise from that failure during the period the failure is uncured. d. Assignment. Any of the following: A general assignment by PG&E for the benefit of PG&E's creditors; any voluntary filing, petition, or application by PG&E under any law relating to insolvency or bankruptcy, whether for a declaration of bankruptcy, a reorganization, an arrangement, or otherwise; the abandonment, vacation, or surrender of the Premises by PG&E without City's prior written consent; or the dispossession of PG&E from the Premises (other than by City) by process of law or otherwise. e. Appointment of Trustee or Receiver. The appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of PG&E's assets; or the attachment, execution, or other judicial seizure of all or substantially all of PG&E's assets located at the Premises or of PG&E's interest in this Agreement, unless the appointment or attachment, execution, or seizure is discharged within thirty (30) days; or the involuntary filing against PG&E, of a petition to have PG&E declared bankrupt, or a petition for reorganization or arrangement of PG&E under any law relating to insolvency or bankruptcy, unless, in the case of involuntary filing, it is dismissed within sixty (60) days. f. Abandonment. The abandonment of the Premises by PG&E for thirty (30) or more consecutive days. g. Waiver. Waiver by City of any default in performance by PG&E of any of the terms, promises, or conditions contained herein shall not be deemed a continuing waiver of the same or any subsequent default. In the event any officer, agent, or employee of City shall consent to an act or failure to act in violation of any provisions of this Agreement, such act or failure to act shall be immediately corrected upon a request from,City in writing. h. Remedy in Event of Default. If a Default occurs, the non- defaulting party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement and to pursue any remedy now or later available to the non-defaulting party at law or in equity. ARTICLE 9. EXPIRATION OF THE LICENSE TERM 9.1 Ownership of Improvements by City. Upon the expiration or termination of the License Term, any and all improvements made to the Premises shall automatically, without compensation or reimbursement to, and without any act of PG&E or any third party become the City's property. 8 ARTICLE 10. ATTORNEYS' FEES 10.1 Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. In any litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding in law or equity by which one party to the Agreement seeks to enforce its contract rights under the Agreement, to resolve an alleged dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement, to seek a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Agreement, or to interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party actual attorneys' fees incurred to resolve the dispute and to enforce the final judgment, award, decision, or order and such fees, costs, or expenses shall be in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. The award of attorneys' fees shall be deemed to have accrued upon the commencement of the action and shall be paid whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment, award, decision, or order. "Proceeding" shall mean any action, suit, claim, arbitration, alternative dispute resolution mechanism, investigation, administrative hearing, or any other proceeding, including but not limited to civil, criminal, administrative, regulatory, or investigative. The attorneys' fees to be awarded the prevailing party may be determined by the court or other decision maker in the same action or proceeding or in a separate action brought for that purpose. Any judgment, award, decision, or order entered in such action or proceeding shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of actual attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing such judgment, award, decision, or order. The award of attorneys' fees shall not be computed in accordance with any court schedule, but shall be made so as to fully reimburse the prevailing party for all attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, and expenses actually incurred in good faith, regardless of the size of the judgment, award, decision, or order, it being the intention of the parties to fully compensate the prevailing party for all actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, and costs and expenses paid or incurred in good faith. This provision applies to the entire Agreement. ARTICLE 11. CONDEMNATION 11.1 Condemnation Sums. In the event that the Premises shall be taken, in whole or in part, through the exercise of any power of eminent domain exercised by any federal, state, or local government having the power thereof, this License period shall terminate and expire on the date of such taking and any sums paid by such condemning authority shall be paid to the City. PG&E shall not be reimbursed for actual out of pocket cost of the Improvements made to the Premises. ARTICLE 12. MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Notices. To be effective, all notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Notice is deemed effective on delivery if served 9 personally on the party to whom notice into be given and delivery is confirmed by a receipt. Notice is deemed effective on the second day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; and properly addressed as set forth below. Any correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the party to be notified shall be deemed effective as of the first date that said notice was refused, unclaimed, or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities. The addresses for purposes of giving notice are as set forth below but each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. If to: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. CITY: City of Arroyo Grande Attn: City Manager P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0550 With copy to Foundation: Five Cities Community Service Foundation 400 West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0633 12.2 Discrimination Prohibited. No person shall, on the grounds of race, religion, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under this Agreement. 12.3 Nondiscrimination, Equal Employment Practices, and Affirmative Action Program. PG&E shall comply with the nondiscrimination laws of the United States of America, the State of California, and City in performing this Agreement. PG&E shall not discriminate in its employment practices against any employee, or applicant for employment because of such person's race, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or physical handicap. 12.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 10 12.5 Effectiveness. This Agreement shall be effective only when signed by both parties to the Agreement and approved by formal action of the City Council of City. 12.6 Necessary Acts/Other Instruments. The parties shall at their own cost and expense execute any and all other documents and instruments and shall take any and all actions as may be reasonably required, necessary, or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 12.7 Good Faith. Each party to this Agreement shall act in good faith in pertorming their respective obligations set forth in this Agreement. 12.8 Waiver. The waiver of any breach of any condition, covenant, term, or provision of this Agreement by any' party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach under the Agreement. Nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 12.9 Authorizations. All officers and individuals executing, this and other documents on behalf of the respective parties do hereby certify and warrant that they have the capacity and have been duly authorized to so execute said documents on behalf of the entity so indicated. Each signatory shall also indemnify the other party to this Agreement, and hold them harmless, from any and all damages, costs, attorneys' fees, ahd other expenses, if the signatory is not so authorized. 12.10 Headings and Captions. The captions and headings of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed a part of this Agreement and shall not be used in interpreting this Agreement or in determining any of the rights or obligations of the parties to this Agreement. 12.11 Word Usage. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the plural and singular words shall each be deemed to include the other; 'shall," "will," or "agrees" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive or discretionary; "or" is not exclusive; the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; and "includes" and "including" are not limiting. 12.12 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall be or become illegal, invalid, null, void, unenforceable, or against public policy, in whole or in part, or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, null, or void, or against public policy, the term, provision, covenant, or condition shall be deemed severable, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired, or invalidated. The term, provision, covenant, or condition that is so invalidated, voided, or held to be unenforceable shall be 11 modified or changed by the parties to the extent possible to carry out the intentions and directives set forth in this Agreement. 12.13 Counterpart Execution. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12.14 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties pertaining to the License for the Premises and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, promises, representations, warranties, understandings, or undertakings by either of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature. No party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, nor is any party relying on, any representation or warranty outside those expressly set forth in this Agreement. 12.15 Amendments: This Agreement may be altered, amended, modified, or supplemented only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this Agreement and by no other means. No alteration, amendment, modification, or supplement of this Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by both parties. Each party waives their future right to claim, contest, or assert that this Agreement was modified, canceled, superseded, or changed by any oral agreement, course of conduct, waiver, or estoppel. 12.16 Ambiguities. Each party and its counsel have participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. (BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY MOVED TO THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed the Agreement with the approval of its City Council, and caused its official seal to be affixed and PG&E has executed the Agreement in accordance with the authorization of its Board of Directors and has caused its official seal to be affixed. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE By: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRICITY By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor Date: Its: Date: ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO: 5 CITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION Date: By: Its: Date: 13 .1. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER~• BY: MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO R. BURKE CONSTRUCTION AND LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. FOR PARK & RIDE LOT AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: A. award a contract to R. Burke Construction in the amount of $60,835.00 for grading of the park and ride lot at West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road; and, B. authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $6,085.00 to R. Burke Construction for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project (total construction costs = $60,835.00 + $6,085.00 = $66,920.00); and, C. award a contract to Lee Wilson Electric Company in the amount of $22,300.00 for installation of lighting; and, D. authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $2,230.00 to Lee Wilson Electric Company for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project (total construction costs = $22,300.00 + $2,230.00 = $24,530.00). FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City previously adopted a resolution approving a temporary use permit to construct improvements at the park and ride lot. Upon opening the formal bids, the construction prices were higher than originally estimated and exceeded the allotted project budget. PG&E has agreed to adjust the license agreement amount to cover the $21,450.00 difference between the total contract amount ($66,920.00 + $24,530.00 = $91,450.00) and the original license agreement ($70,000.00). CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO R. BURKE CONSTRUCTION AND LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. FOR PARK & RIDE LOT AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD, PW 2007-11 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4028 approving a Temporary Use Permit fora 250 car park and ride lot. The site is located on City owned property at the northeast corner of the West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road intersection. The project will be performed by two separate construction contracts: Resurfacing The scope of work includes the placement and compaction of a three-inch layer of Class II base material for approximately 100,000 square feet in area within the projected limits of the park and ride lot. Anew paved driveway entrance will also be constructed off West Branch Street to access the new lot. On September 25, 2007, three bids were publicly opened for the resurfacing project. The lowest responsible bidder, R. Burke Construction, submitted a bid of $60,835.00. The bid has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the contract documents. The contract time is 45 calendar days. Construction is expected to begin in mid- Octoberand be complete December 2007. Lighting Six new 200-watt HPS lighting standards will illuminate the park and ride lot. Since the lot is temporary, the power for the new standards will be supplied overhead. On September 5, 2007, one price quotation was received from Lee Wilson Electric Company in the amount of $22,300.00. Although staff attempted to locate other electrical contractors, Lee Wilson Electric Company is the sole contractor in the area that is insured to perform electrical work within the public right-of-way. The quotation has been reviewed and found to be in compliance. The contract time is 30 calendar days. Construction is expected to begin in mid- Octoberand be complete by mid-November 2007. The parking lot layout and striping will be performed mutually by PG&E and City staff, following completion of the resurfacing and lighting construction contracts. S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2007\PW 2007-11 PGE Park and Ride Lot\Council\Council Memo - Award.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO R. BURKE CONSTRUCTION AND LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. FOR PARK & RIDE LOT AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD, PW 2007-11 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendations to award the construction contracts; Reject the construction bids. Direct staff to redesign the project to a smaller scale and rebid the project accordingly; Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Drainage for the site will continue to flow into the existing earthen ditch running parallel to West Branch Street. Since there will be a new driveway entrance off West Branch Street to the lot, a drainage pipe will be installed within the fill at the base of the earthen ditch to ensure uninterrupted flow to the City storm water facilities. The quantity of storm waterwill be unaffected by the new construction as the projected lot had been previously graded and compacted for use as a temporary parking for various City festivals. The construction bids received by the City were higher than the original cost estimates. Based on conversations with City staff, PG&E has offered to pay the differential cost between the actual construction costs and the original cost estimates. The construction bids were in an acceptable range and it is unlikely that rebidding the project will result in a lower unit cost per parking space. ADVANTAGES: Approval will enable the City to administer the construction work to complete the project by the original timeline date ofmid-December 2007. PG&E has agreed in principle to modify the lease agreement to include the additional construction costs following the receipt of formal construction bids. The project will generate revenue for the City and result in significant improvements to the site at no cost to the City. DISADVANTAGES: The primary disadvantage of the project is potential traffic impacts on local streets, but will result in an overall traffic reduction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Since the project is temporary, the facility is a Categorical Exemption under 15304(d) - Minor Alterations to Land. S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2007\PW 2007-11 PGE Park and Ride Lot\Council\Council Memo - Award.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO R. BURKE CONSTRUCTION AND LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. FOR PARK 8~ RIDE LOT AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD, PW 2007-11 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The temporary parking lot issue was presented to the City Council as a public hearing item on July 24, 2007. Therefore, all property owners within 300 feet were notified at that time. The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, September 20, 2007. The Agenda and report was posted on the City website on Friday, September 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Bid Opening Log Sheet -Resurfacing 2. Price Quotation -Lighting S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2007\PW 2007-11 PGE Park and Ride Lot\Council\Council Memo - Award.doc ATTACHMENTI BID OPENING LOG SHEET CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BID OPENING: September 14, 2007 PG8~E Park and Ride Lot BIDDER'S NAME, CITY TOTAL MJ Ross Construction, Inc. $66,840.00 Grover Beach, CA R Burke Corporation $60,835.00 San Luis Obispo, CA Souza Contracting, Inc. $83,600.00 San Luis Obispo, CA Kelly Wetmore Director of Administrative ServiceslCiry Clerk c: Director of Public Works City Manager 09/17/2007 MON 9:27 FAX 805 489 0248 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO 001/001 ATTACHMENT 2 _~ ELECTRIC COMPANY' P.O. BOX 2S0 • ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORMA 93421-OZSO Esrnausr~o ~e~s 11Si EL CA,MIlVO REAL • PHONE (80i) 489-4216 • FAX (80S) 489.0248 FAX TRANSMISSION QUOTATION LETTER Date: September 17, 2007 NUMBER OF PAGES: 1 i TO: CITY OF A.G. ATTN: ROB STRONG FAX NO: 473-0386 FROM: BUD WILSON ~ PROJECT: PARKING LOT LIGHTING ,PER FIELD VISIT QUOTATION: 5 DOUBLE ARM POLES Wffti 200W HPS FIXTURES 2 PG&E DIRECT BURY POLES 200W HPS FIXTURES OVERHEAD WIRING $22,300.00 COMPLETE -$3,900.00 DEDUCT 2 PG&E DIRECT BURY POLES $18,400.00 ~~ EXCEPTIONS: PERMITS, FEES (INCLUDING PG&E) SURVEY, TEMP POWER. S. W.P.P.P ~~ EROSION CONTROL, SYSTEM REMOVAL WE OFFER NO CREDITS FOR WRAP POLICIES; NO WAIVER OF SUBROGATION QUOTATION ONLY VALID COMPLETE THIS QUOTATION GOOD FOR 30 DAYS; BONDING -ADD 1 °h LICENSE C-10,A,B # 851738 EXPIRATION 12/31/2008; A Union Contractor A CALtFOANtA CORPOEATI ON • 9TAT8 L3CEN9E dS!Hd4S 9.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 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: Consideration of Use of State 2007-08 Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funds. Proposed expenditure of State funds for law enforcement services provided in the FY 2007-08 State Budget, $100,000 being the City of Arroyo Grande's approximate allocation. Under the (COPS) Program, funding is allocated to local law enforcement agencies to enhance delivery of services. These funds must be used to augment and/or enhance local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant existing budgeted funds. The law requires that the funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police will develop his requests pursuant to the criteria contained in the law and will be presenting those requests for consideration. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to the proposal is available by contacting the Police Department at 473-5120. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Weti ore, ity Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, September 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN N. ANNIBALI, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2007-08 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended, after conducting a public hearing and making any modifications, the City Council: 1) approve the Chief of Police's recommendation to utilize the FY 2007-08 COPS funds to continue the multi-year program for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's tiase radio communications equipment; and 2) authorize the expenditure of $61,834 carried over from the City's FY 2006 - 07 COPS Program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no General Fund impact. This„ expenditure involves $100,000 to be received by the City under the COPS Program in FY 2007-08 and $61,834 carried over from the FY 2006-07 COPS Program. BACKGROUND: The FY 2007-08 State Budget continues funding for the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Under this program, funding is allocated to local law enforcement for the delivery of services. These funds must be used to augment local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant existing funding for such services. As in the past, the declared intent of the Governor and Legislature is to continue COPS as a multi-year program. However, a new appropriation to fund the program is required each succeeding fiscal year. The law requires that these funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from the Chief of Police. The City Council must consider these requests separate and apart from the proposed law enforcement allocations from the General Fund. Additionally, the City must establish a separate interest bearing fund (Fund 271) to record the receipt and expenditures of monies received pursuant to this program. The enabling legislation requires that the City conduct a public hearing in September of each year to consider requests from the Chief of Police. The funds are scheduled to be transferred this month from the State to the San Luis Obispo CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 County Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF), which is administered by the County of San Luis Obispo. The County SLESF Oversight Committee is scheduled to meet to review the requests from the cities in the County on September 27, 2007. This review, which is required bylaw, is to ensure that the use of the COPS funds comply with the requirements and restrictions set forth in State law. Upon approval of the City's expenditure plan for this year's COPS funds by the County SLESF Oversight Committee, the County Auditor-Controller will forward the designated funds to the City. The allocation for the City of Arroyo Grande is $100,000. Beginning with FY 2005-06, former Chief TerBorch recommended utilizing the COPS allocation over the next five (5) to six (6) years for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's base station radio communications system. The current system was purchased in FY 1986-87 and is approaching 20 years in age. Our communications maintenance contractor notified the Citythat the manufacturer would no longer support elements of the existing system with replacement components. The outside estimates for a new system and installation was approximately $507,000. Atwo-phased plan was developed, first, to replace the out-of-support components, and second, to enhance the operability of the system. During FY 2006-07, the transmitters and receivers were replaced and the dispatch console equipment was ordered after the Department requested and received proposals. The console equipment replacement is underway and planned for completion in this October. Dispatch seating was replaced with a 24-hour rated chair, the logger-recorder system has been upgraded to 16 channels, and some minor mechanical and electric system upgrades to the repeater site are also underway this month. The final component of the replacement phase will include the updating of the system antennas on the tower adjacent to the Police Facility, which will be coordinated with the facility expansion project currently under consideration. It is anticipated that the carryover amount from FY 2006-07 will fully fund the antenna replacement. Department needs and options for the second phase of the project, the system enhancement phase, have included consideration of an additional repeater site and associated radio equipment, mobile data terminals for the patrol cars, the acquisition of a new digital frequency and the procurement of associated mobile and portable radios, and system interoperability concerns. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Recommended Alternative: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Chief of Police's recommendation to utilize the FY 2007-08 COPS funds to continue to be used as part of a multi-year program for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's base radio communications equipment and that the accrued interest of $7,928 be designated for use in the Fund's "Special Departmental Supplies" (line item # 271-4202-5255) to allow staff to purchase equipment and supplies not contained in this year's City Budget. - Continue the multi-year program for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's base radio communications equipment without seeking the development of a "Communications Master Plan". - Consider alternative uses for the FY 2007-08 COPS allocation of $100,000. Direct staff to develop a needs assessment in compliance with the legislative intent and seek alternative funding for communications enhancements as identified. - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: As presented earlier in this discussion, the COPS Program is a permanent program in the State Budget. However, a new appropriation to fund the program is required each year as part of the State's annual budget process. As in the past, staff will return at a later date with a recommendation for City Council authorization to proceed with specific expenditures for the project. At this time, the City Council is being asked to approve the Chief of Police's recommendation to designate the FY 2007-08 COPS allocation of $100,000 for this program. It will be necessary for the Chief of Police to return to the City Council in September of each succeeding fiscal year during this program for authorization to utilize that year's COPS funding for the program. Effective January 1, 2001, State law was amended to require that COPS funds must be spent or encumbered within a two year period or returned to the State Controller's Office (based on the State fiscal year). There is $61,834 left over in the COPS fund from FY 2006-07 that has. not been encumbered. These funds must CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 be encumbered by June 30, 2008. Exclusive of accrued interest, these funds were allocated during FY 2006-07 to the communications system replacement fund and are planned to be encumbered during FY 2007-08 for the communication system replacement and enhancement program. Staff recommends that the accrued interest of $7,928 be designated for use in the Fund's "Special Departmental Supplies" (line item # 271-4202-5255) to allow staff to purchase equipment and supplies not contained in this year's City"Budget. The equipment and supplies purchased would be used to support front-line law enforcement operations, as intended and required by A63229. During planning discussions regarding this item, staff has identified the need for improved coordination with other agencies and departments to ensure interoperability in the future design of communication systems. While staff has confirmed that the existing purchase will provide compatibility with other systems, it is proposed to pursue a "Communications Master Plan" in coordination with the Building and Fire Department and other agencies to guide future efforts. The Plan would include components of system enhancement, interoperability, disaster- emergency management communications and assessment of regional consolidation of the communications function. It is proposed to pursue other grant funding for the study. However, if successful, staff may propose amending the COPS funding proposal to provide matching funds if necessary. ADVANTAGES: The advantage of approving the recommended action is that it will continue to provide funding for the enhancement phase of the police communications project. The recommended action includes a revision to this phase that may Additional grant funding would be sought after for the planning element. The Communications Master Plan will address components of system enhancement, interoperability, disaster- emergency management communications and assessment of regional consolidation of the communications function. Additionally, the use of the accrued interest in the amount of $7,928 for "Special Departmental Supplies" will allow staff to purchase equipment and supplies not contained in this year's City Budget. DISADVANTAGES: , The disadvantage of approving the recommended action is that it will continue to provide funding for the enhancement phase of the police communications project utilizing the COPS funding. The COPS funding could be used for other front line law enforcement programs if alternative funding for communications enhancements is identified. There is CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 5 also some concern proceeding with equipment purchases prior to Master Plan development. However, staff is confident of compatibility issues and equipment replacement is needed at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this.. item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The public impacted by the proposal is the Arroyo Grande Police Department's service population. The public has been made aware''of the proposal before Council by a public notice posted in the Tribune on Friday, September 14, 2007. No public input has been received to date. 9.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 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: 1. Consideration of Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004; Applicant: DB8~M Properties, LLC; Location: 415 E. Branch Street. The City Council will consider a Planning Commission rewmmendation to approve a revised proposal for a commercial, retail, office and residential development on a site generally bounded by E. Branch Street, Crown Hill, Crown Terrace and Le Point Streets. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to the proposal is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. ~`t'~t~OILt-~ Kelly etm re, City Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, September 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ~.;~-KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001 FOR A REVISED PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; APPLICANT - DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION - 415 EAST BRANCH STREET DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and revised proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project to be developed in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center). FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City. BACKGROUND: The project site is located at the east end of the Village and is bounded by East Branch Street, Crown Hill, Crown Terrace, Le Point Street and Tally Ho Creek. The property is roughly 2.7 acres in size, is generally flat except for the eastern portion where it slopes up dramatically to Crown Terrace, and is mostly located within the 100-year floodplain. Surrounding the site is residential development to the north and east, and commercial development to the south and west. This project was originally submitted in 2001 as a conditional use permit and subdivision map to remove all existing structures and develop amixed-use complex consisting of about 31,000 square feet of commercial space and 4,000 square feet of residential floor area. Through the environmental review process, it was determined that the main Loomis residence is eligible for listing with the State as a historic resource, and the grain warehouse serves as an important feature of the setting for the main house. Removal of these structures was therefore considered a significant unavoidable impact requiring overriding consideration findings in order to approve the project. Besides retaining existing structures on the site, one important point to make between the original and revised project is that portions of the site have been sold, adding complexity to the land use entitlement process. The site was originally 3.5 acres in size, but the applicant later sold the 1-acre property to the west containing the existing office building and storage units. The portion of the original site sold provided the only access to East Branch Street. The CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 applicant additionally sold the property containing the warehouse and residences, although the new property owner, Mr. Brown, has agreed to participate in the permitting process for the proposed project. The applicant has since obtained an access easement to East Branch Street from the adjacent property owner (see Attachments 1 and 2 for the October 24, 2006 City Council staff report and Meeting Minutes for additional background information). On November 14, 2006 the City Council denied, without prejudice, a proposed mixed-use project on the subject property consisting of twelve (12) duplexes, a 12,000 square foot commercial/office building and potential conversion of existing structures (the two residences and warehouse) to commercial uses. Council expressed the following concerns regarding the project: • Inadequate public use and pedestrian amenities and orientation adjoining Tally Ho Creek and the historic resources located on the site to become an extension of the Village. • Four (4) of the residential units proposed along Crown Terrace must back out into a narrow public street, conflicting with both .pedestrian and automobile traffic and requiring removal of excessive numbers of existing trees that currently provide visual screening from Crown Hill residential uses. • Portions of the setting to the rear of the historic resources on the project site are not protected or preserved. • The height, mass, scale and design details of the proposed commercial/office building between the former Loomis warehouse and Crown Terrace is incompatible in height, mass, scale and design details with the adjoining residential neighborhood on Crown Hill and the on-site historic resources and setting. The applicant has responded to issues raised and submitted revised plans. A summary of project changes is included as Attachment 3. The Planning Commission considered the revised project on September 4, 2007 and discussed issues related to accurate flood elevations, intensity of street lights, traffic mitigation and street improvements, recognition of the historic rail bed, green building techniques, installation of bioswales, pedestrian path linkages and materials, number of bike racks, tree removal and transplanting, stormwater retention, footpath to the creek, size of residential units, and undergrounding of overhead utilities (see Attachment 4 for draft meeting minutes). On a 4:0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to City Council with the following changes to the conditions of approval: 1. Condition #54 should include an all-way stop. 2. There should be an agreement reached with Carol Fulmer regarding sidewalk improvements in front of her house located on northwest corner of Tally Ho and Crown Terrace. 3. Strike Conditions #8, 56, MM 4.3.29 (3'd bullet) and portions of MM 4.4 concerning removal of the rear loading dock of the warehouse. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 4. Condition #10 should be more specific with respect to flooding and raising the storage cabinets in garages. 5. Condition #23, should include all sidewalks. 6. Condition #46 should state the minimum lighting required by the Police Department, and specify shielded lighting on shorter poles (not regular street lights). 7. Add a condition to protect Chameleon's business, regarding the parking and dust. 8. Condition #17, strike the requirement for the Planning Commission, but not the ARC. 9. MM 4.2.1, include non-potable water to be used whenever possible. 10. MM 4.3.13 should state the storage should be set outside the setback area, rather than determined by a qualified biologist. 11. MM 4.3.31, delete reference to footpath leading to the creek. 12. The pedestrian path should be made of decomposed granite (dg). Add the following -not presently part of the conditions: 11. Bioswales, if the Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers allow (add to Condition #59). 12. Historic markers to be reviewed by ARC. 13. Thinning or removal of the Cypress trees as necessary. 14. Have a path across the parking area to' E. Branch Street for pedestrians even if it means losing a parking space. 15. Street trees every 50 feet. 16. Add more bike racks. The above changes have been made to the conditions of approval (deleted text is shown as and added text is underlined). The proposed project is a tentative tract map to reconfigure 23 parcels into 19 parcels, and a mixed-use development consisting of sixteen (16) residential buildings in a detached townhouse configuration and a 12,937 square foot retail/office building at the corner of Crown Terrace and Crown Hill. The proposed 3-story commercial retail/office building has been revised to have a more agrarian architectural style, similar to the adjacent Loomis warehouse. All existing buildings are proposed to remain. Lot 14 is shown on the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) as an offer of dedication to the City for the purpose of protecting biological resources. Reciprocal access and parking easements are also shown on the TTM. A pedestrian path with recreational amenities (play structure, picnic benches, lawn area, bike racks) is located adjacent to Tally Ho Creek. The additional porch on the smaller existing residence will be removed to improve the site distance of the access driveway, and a new five foot (5') wide planter strip will be established (see sheet L1 of the project plans). The existing stone wall will be utilized to build a new raised planter. Embedded sections of track will be placed along the old railroad right of way (within planter areas) as a historic landmark. There are three (3) plans proposed for the residential units as shown in the table below. Total residential units include sixteen (16) town homes and six (6) secondary units for a total of twenty-two (22) units. Two (2) of the units located adjacent to the commercial property are proposed to have alive/work option, whereby the downstairs bedroom could serve as a commercial office. Proposed colors and materials for all buildings are provided in the attached color board. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 Residential Pro'ect Summa No. No. Bedrooms Square Parking Parking Proposed Stories Foota a Re wired Plan A (Buildings 1- 3 2-3 2,232 2 per unit within 2 per unit within an 8) (bedroom/study and an enclosed enclosed garage option) 2,217 garage and 0.5 (16 spaces) guest parking 20 s aces Plan B 2 2 with studio 2,223 2 per unit within 2 per unit within an (Buildings 1-6) apartment an enclosed enclosed garage, above garage garage and 0.5 and 1 surface space guest parking, per studio unit plus 1 surface (18 spaces) space per studio unit 21 s aces Plan B - Live/Work 2 2 with office 2,223 2 per unit within 2 per unit within an (Buildings 7,8) an enclosed enclosed garage, garage, and 2 and 2 open spaces open spaces for for office office 8 s aces 8 s aces Total: 49 42 Deficit: 7 s aces ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: - Adopt a resolution approving the project; - Continue deliberation if unresolved issues are identified; - Take tentative action to deny the project and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council action; or - Provide other direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Parking Development Code parking requirements for the residential component is forty-nine (49) spaces and forty-two (42) are provided (deficit of 7). Parking is provided in a two-story garage structure (43 spaces required and 40 provided). Total packing deficit is ten (10) spaces for the entire project, or 11 % less than Development Code requirements. The Development Code allows for a 20% parking reduction for mixed-use projects. Therefore, parking is considered adequate. Height and Setbacks No structures within the development will exceed the maximum height of thirty-five feet (35'), measured as the "vertical distance from the grade average finished ground level to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest point of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof, but exclusive of vents, air conditioners, chimneys, or other such incidental appurtenances" (Development Code Section 16.04.070). Setbacks for the Village Mixed Use (VMU) district vary from 0-15 feet (larger setbacks for mixed-use projects and/or CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 5 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) projects abutting residential districts -see table below). Deviations from setback requirements and lot sizes can be made through the Planned Unit Development process. Affordable Housing Because the project was vested under the previous Housing Element, the inclusionary affordable housing requirement is ten percent (10%). With twenty-two (22) units, the affordable housing requirement is a restriction of 2.2 units to the moderate -income category. Two (2) units shall be deed restricted and the 0.2 fraction of a unit will be paid in affordable housing in-lieu fees. Table 1ti.31i.020(D) Village Mixed Use (VMU) Minimum Site Development Standards 1. Maximum Density Mixed Use 15 dwelling units per gross acre. jProjects __. ~~: _.. !2. Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet. f3. Minimum Lot Width j40 feet. ii4. Front Yard Setback i0 -- 15 feet '. _~ 5. Rear Yard Setback '0 -- 15 feet. If project is mixed use and/or abuts a residential (district then 10 feet required. ~6. Side Yard Setback ~0 feet unless apro/ect is mixed use and/or abuts a residential i (district, then 5 feet is required for single story structures and 10 I feet is required, on one side, for a multiple stories. 7. Street Side Yard Setback 10 -- 15 feet. 8. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process. Maximum Building Size is 10,000 square feet. j __ !9. Site Coverage Floor Area Ratio Maxim~ge of site is 100%. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is jof 1:0 ~1:O. See design Gwdelines and Standards for Historic Districts. -- 110 Site_Design iSee Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts. __. __ __ _ 11. Off-Street Parking and !See Parking VMU and HCO combining district in Section ,,Loading ;16.56.020(C). F 12. Signs , See Chapter 16.60 and Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts. Site Access An earlier version of the project identified one access to the proposed commercial buildings from Crown Hill, which was determined inadequate and therefore mitigation was required. This became an issue after the City certified the Final EIR and the applicant sold the adjacent property to the west, eliminating the only direct access to the project site from East Branch Street. Because this particular access issue had not been previously studied, and because of the anticipated conflict between Paulding Middle School traffic and left-hand turn movements into the project during the school PM peak hour, a condition was added that required: 1) a reciprocal access agreement to be recorded between the project site and the adjacent property to the west; and 2) to divide the project into two phases, whereby development of the commercial component of the project (Phase II) would be contingent upon a successfully negotiated access agreement between these two adjoining properties. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 6 Since then, the applicant has secured an access agreement from the adjacent property owner to the west, significantly improving access and site circulation. Residential access will be predominantly from Le Point Street, although residential access is also provided through the commercial development from Crown Hill and East Branch Street. Note that the project has been modified to eliminate residential access from Crown Terrace, although access to parking for the commercial building is still proposed from both the ground level and Crown Terrace. Different from the previous submittal, parking for the commercial building is all covered. Pedestrian access is provided throughout the site. A sidewalk is required along the west side of Crown Terrace, and a portion of the south side of Le Point Street. A six-foot (6') wide pedestrian path made of concrete or sealed decomposed granite is proposed along the creek area, which indirectly connects to East Branch Street. Stop Signs A Stop Sign Warrant Analysis was conducted for the intersection of Le Point Street and Crown Terrace, which concludes that the traffic volumes, delays and speeds at this intersection do not warrant an all-way stop, or a partial (two-way) stop ~ Staff believes that other criteria, besides that contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, apply to this intersection that requires the installation of a multi-way stop configuration with crosswalks as follows: • Since the project will provide a new pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of Crown Terrace, pedestrians must be able to safely access the existing crosswalk on the north side of Le Point Street east of the intersection. In accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 6-02.12, crosswalks shall be installed on the west and northern legs of the intersection to discourage pedestrians from crossing Crown Terrace on the south side of the intersection. The City will not allow crosswalks to be installed at uncontrolled intersections. • There are also considerations for traffic circulation due to the offset geometry of Crown Terrace entering Le Point Street. ,The centerlines of the northern and southern legs of Crown Terrace are offset by approximately 50 feet. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 403.3 also discourages roadways entering intersections at an angle skewed more than 30°. The current configuration of the northbound lane of Crown Terrace enters the intersection at an approximate 50° angle. The northbound lane must be reconfigured to enter the intersection at a 90° angle. This will enable northbound traffic to better negotiate the left turn onto westbound Le Point Street. • The steep grade of eastbound Le Point Street and the inadequate corner sight distance of northbound Crown Terrace onto Le Point Street qualify as "Undesirable Geometric Features" for intersections ih accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 402.2. An all-way stop would greatly improve the safety of this intersection. Tree Removal Based on a previous arborist report prepared for the site, approximately eighty-five (85) trees are located on the property, all of which are proposed to be removed (see Attachment 8 of Attachment CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 7 1). The majority of these trees are Cypress (70 total), located along the Crown Terrace right-of- way. Because their root systems are intermingled and located on a steep slope, it would very difficult to transplant these trees. If the Planning Commission does not wish to remove the Cypress trees, it is expected that street improvements within the right of way (including sidewalk) could be accomplished with retention of these trees''(with some thinning). The report recommends that the two (2) Coast live oak trees and the Canary Island date palm are good candidates for successful transplanting. The project is conditioned to transplant these trees to a suitable location on or off-site. Drainage The majority of the project site is within the 100-year floodplain. The project was originally continued from the August 21st Planning Commission meeting to September 4, 2007 based on questions related to flood plane elevations. The applicant has submitted additional information regarding the flood plane analysis, which has resulted in changes to the site grading, including raising finished floor heights of the buildings by roughly 2 inches. All structures will be built above the floodplain, with finished floors elevated one foot (1') above the 100-year flood level. Historical Preservation As stated above, the FEIR determined that the main Loomis residence would be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource, and that the grain warehouse serves as an important feature of the setting of the main house. The secondary house was not determined to be a historical resource. As proposed, all existing structures are proposed to remain. The previous submittal included removal of the rear loading dock of the warehouse, which is not part of the current proposal. The proposal does include removing the shed structure located at the rear of the secondary house to provide improved site distance and allow for landscaping to break up the large expanse of asphalt. The existing garden wall will be removed to provide adequate access and parking. However, the stones of the garden wall will be reused within the project. ADVANTAGES: As proposed, the project will: • Provide housing to meet the City's housing needs; • Provide affordable housing; • Preserve historical buildings on the site; • Provide economic development and generate tax increment revenue in the Redevelopment Area; and Significantly improve a blighted property. DISADVANTAGES: Staff believes most issues have been addressed. The project will continue to remove a large number of trees and additional traffic will be generated by the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified in September of 2003, and the applicant has submitted a revised project that retains all structures. Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Lead Agency (the City) shall prepare an addendum to an EIR only if minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR document CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 8 adequate, and the changes addressed in the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. The addendum must be considered by the Council prior to making a decision on the project. The Addendum to the FEIR is included as Exhibit C to the attached Resolution, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Exhibit D. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: Public hearing notices were originally sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and a public notice was placed in the Tribune. Additionally, the applicant invited neighboring property owners and business tenants to preview the design revisions at a special presentation prior to Planning Commission public hearing. Staff has not received any written comments since the notice was sent to neighbors and published. Included as Attachment 5 are letters received for the Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: 1. Staff Report for the October 24, 2006 City Council Meeting (less attachments No. 12- 14, 16) 2. Meeting Minutes from the October 24, 2006 City Council Meeting 3. Summary of Project Changes 4. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2007 5. Letters received for the Planning Commission meeting S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\TTM\Creekside TTM 2346\New Submittal\09-26-07 CC rpt.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT, ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 AND'PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001, LOCATED AT 415 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DB & M PROPERTY, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3710 on September 23, 2003 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Creekside Center project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 and Conditional Use Permit 01-001); and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001, filed by DB & M Property, LLC, to reconfigure 23 existing parcels into 19 parcels, and construct amixed-use development consisting of 16 residential buildings in a detached townhouse configuration and a 12,937 square foot retail/office building at the corner of Crown Terrace and Crown Hill; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held aduly-noticed public hearing on these applications in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, the City Council denied, without prejudice, these applications on November 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held aduly-noticed public hearing on a revised project that addresses previous City Council concerns; and ,, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final EIR: a. That, based on information set forth in the Final Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update (FPEIR) and the Final EIR and Addendum for the Creekside Center (FEIR), water conservation mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that will avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental impact on water supply identified in the FPEIR and FEIR; and RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 b. that no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial' adverse change in the environment as a result of project approval; and c. that all significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially reduced as determined through the findings set forth in this Resolution; and 3. The City Council authorizes and directs that the Director of Administrative Services file a Notice of Determination with respect to the Final EIR and Addendum for the project, specifically referencing therein that mitigation measures have been made a condition of project approval and findings have been made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines (see Exhibit C for Environmental Impact Report Addendum and Exhibit D for Mitigation Monitoring Program). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Vesting Tentative Map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001 based on the following findings: Tentative Tract Map Findings: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the General Plan map and text and the requirements of the Development Code. 3. The site, as shown on the tentative tract map, is physically suitable for the proposed residential density commercial development and because all necessary easements, parking, open space, and setbacks can be provided. 4. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial damage to the natural environment, including fish, wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is not likely to cause public health problems. 6. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed tentative tract map or that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. 7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements a prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the proposed tentative tract map to support project development. Planned Unit Development Permit Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, landscaping, and other features required by the Development Code. The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways. 4. Adequate public services exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of the development plan approval, to serve the proposed development; and that the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of public services to properties in the vicinity so as to be a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. 5. The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, or the permitted use thereof, and will be compatible with the existing multiple-family and single-family residential uses in the surrounding area. 6. The improvements required, and the manner of development, adequately address all natural and man-made hazards associated with the proposed development of the project site, including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire and slope hazards. 7. The proposed development carries out the intent of the Planned Unit Development Provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which could be achieved through the application of conventional development standards. 8. The proposed development complies with all applicable performance standards listed in Development Code Section 16.32.050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby considers an Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center project, instructs the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001, based upon the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 On motion by Council Member ,seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2007. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-004 and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-001 DB & M Property, LLC 415 East Branch Street GENERAL CONDITIONS This approval authorizes the reconfiguration of twenty-three (23) existing lots into nineteen (19) lots fora 2.78-acre property, and construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 16 residential buildings (22 units total), a 12,937 square foot commercial/office building, and retention of existing structures. 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development 04-001. 3. This tentative map and PUD approval shall automatically expire on September 25, 2009 unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 16.12.140 of the Development Code. 4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of September 25, 2007 and marked Exhibits B1- B13 (on file in the Community Development Department), except as modified by these conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall, as a condition of approval of this tentative map application, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its present or former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 66474.9, which are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 6. Consistent with MM 4.3.30, an open space agreement and twenty-five foot (25') creek easement measured from top of bank shall be recorded on the property. No development shall occur within 25' creek setback area. A trail easement shall also be recorded within the creek setback area. A homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining the creek easement area. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 7. The applicant shall provide two (2) on-site affordably restricted housing units to be sold to moderate-income qualified families. Prior to recording the final map the applicant shall enter into an agreement; in a form approved by the City Attorney, whereby the applicant agrees on behalf of itself and its successors in interest to maintain the affordability of the units forthirty (30) years or longer, as well as other terms and conditions determined to be riecessary to implement this condition. „ „ '~8. The two (2) Coast Llive Oak trees and the Canary Island dl~ate 1?palm shall be transplanted a~t~a suitable location on or off-site, as recommended by the arborist report prepared by Carolyn Leach dated September 1, 2006. 48-9- Storage cabinets within the garages shall be elevated to reduce the risk of damage during a flood event, as determined by a flood study. 410- Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. There shall be no construction activities on Saturday or Sunday. DEVELOPMENT CODE 4-11-Development shall conform to the Village Mixed Use (VMU) zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. X92-All fences and/or walls shall not exceed six feet (6') in height unless otherwise approved with a Minor Exception or Variance application. 9-4-13. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20, "Land Divisions". 4~1~ The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64, "Dedications, Fees and Reservations." PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT 4fr1~All walls, including screening and retaining walls, shall be compatible with the approved architecture and Development Code Standards, and shall be no more than 3 feet in height in the front setbacklarea, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 4-16_ The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) shall review and approve the final architectural drawings, including exterior building colors and materials, final landscape plan, and-Crown Terrace guardrail design placed on top of required retaining walls, and hictori .mark .rs. 4&17. The applicant shall obtain approval for a Planned Sign Program consistent with the Development Code and the Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL MAP 418. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall include the following for all public street frontages and common landscaped areas: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: (1) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; (2) Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan; and (3) All slopes 2:1 or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon mesh or equivalent material. (4) An automated irrigation system. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 29-19. All fencing shall be installed. 2420_ The applicant shall submit final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association and formed by the applicant for common areas within the subdivision. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the final map. 2221 _ The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 521 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. ~22~Linear root barriers shall be used at~the-frent~f-fhethroughout the project to protect alLsidewalks. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 X23. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box and shall be located a minimum of one (1) tree for every seaentq-fivefifiy feet (~.Q~S') of street frontage. The existing Cypress trees along Crown Terrace shall be thinned or removed, as determined to he necessanrv by an arborist st~dv. ~r24. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. ~_The project shall comply with State and Federal disabled access requirements at public areas. X26- The applicant shall show all setback areas for each lot on the tentative tract map I prior to map recordation. FIRF~AN X827- Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS X28. Project shall have a fire flow based on the California Fire Code appendix III-A. 3929- Prior to bringing combustibles on site, fire hydrants shall be installed, and be operational per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. Add an additional hydrant in the dead end street portion on the west side of lots 6 & 7. Prior to occupancy, the applicant must provide an approved "security key vault", per Building and Fire Department guidelines. 3~31~Prior to occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per National Fire Protection Association Standards. 33-32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 333- Prior to issuance of a building permit, County Health Department approval is I required for well abandonment if applicable. 35-34- Project must comply with Federal and local flood management policies. 3&35_ Any review costs generated by outside consultants, shall be paid by the applicant. SPECIAL CONDITION(Sl 3~'t6. The applicant shall provide entrance directories, with addresses for Fire & Emergency responders, including private street names. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All Public Works Department conditions of approval as listed below are to be complied with prior to recording the map or finalizing the permit, unless specifically noted otherwise. ~SZFees -The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are due. (For your information, the "Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions"is provided below). 39 38- Fees to be paid prior to plan approval: a. Map check fee. b. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. c. Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. d. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. e. Inspection fee of subdivision or public works construction plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. PROCEDURE FOR PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR EXACTIONS: (A)Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by meeting both of the following requirements: (1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition. (2) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of the following information: RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 (a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or satisfied, under protest. (b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (A) shall be filed at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on a development project. (C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (A) may file an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice. (D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required. (E)The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. ~~q. Replace the existing 4" water main underneath Crown Terrace with an 8" main. Replace all services that are not to be abandoned. X40- Replace the short section of 4" main underneath Le Point Street to connect to the 6" main underneath the northern section of Crown Terrace. d~41 _ Replace the section of 4" main underneath Le Point Street between Corbett Canyon/Highway 227 and McKinley Street. &~42_ Extend an 8" main through the site to connect to the main underneath Le Point and Crown Hill. &~43. The applicant shall make all necessary welded connections to the steel sanitary sewer main and slip line the main and welded stub laterals. ~r44- Pay a proportionate share to the Fair Oaks Sewer Main Upgrade. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 12 4fr45.lnstall decorative streetlights along Crown Hill and Crown Terrace to match existing light standards in the village along East Branch~I[eet. The minimum I~ghting~ iiiiii rPd by the Police Department shall be csed_ All street lights shall be shielded to direct I~ght downwards, and shall he shorter than standard street fights. The ARC shall review the finaLlj9hting_ In an" 48. /T~~hM1M1e\\ nPdestrian ath a 'a ..nt to th .r . k chall he made of derom cP 9~pit i~- 451 Underground all existing overhead utilities, more specifically the following poles and associated overhead line§, shown graphically in EXhihiLA: a. Pole 2197, near the dead end of Le Point Street, b. Pole 440, at the corner of Le Poiht and Crown Terrace, c. Pole 524, at the corner of Crown Hill and Crown Terrace, d. Pole 139, along Crown Terrace, e. Unknown Pole Number, along Crown Terrace, 4$-52. Construct Le Point Street adjacent to the northern project boundary to the following design standards: 40 feet street width from curb to curb, ^ 6 feet wide concrete sidewalks on the project side with concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the street. 25 mile per hour design speed. TI of 6.5. 44''3_ Construct Crown Terrace adjacent to the eastern project boundary to the following design standards: 24 feet street width from curb to curb, ^ 6 feet wide concrete sidewalks with concrete curb and gutter on the west side of the street, ^ "No Parking" both sides of the street, • 25 mile per hour design speed, ^ TI of 6.5 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 13 59-54_ Remove and replace any broken curb, gutter and sidewalk along Crown Hill and East Branch Street. 555- Install a pedestrian ramp at the corner of Crown Hill and East Branch. 53-56- Overlay Crown Terrace with 1 ''/Z" asphalt concrete. Grind the perimeter of the overlay to facilitate matching to existing grades. 5's57_ Complete the half of the cross gutter and spandrel at the northwest corner of Le Point and Crown Terrace. ~5$._Analyze the intersection of Crown Terrace and Le Point Street for traffic control improvements and install an all-way stop, and any sueh-ntheLimprovements as are dePmPd necessary by the Director of Public Works. 55-59. The residential portion of the project shall have primary access from Le Point Street. . ef-tf~e-prejeet: S~fiQ_Upgrade the storm drain system along Le Point to City Standards, complete with fossil filters. 58.61. Remove and replace the drop inlet along the property frontage of Crown Hill with a new City standard drop inlet. ~2_Project site drainage shall drain directly to the creek. Site drainage shall be filtered prior to entering the creek. Energy dissipation shall be provided for at the Creek outtall. Bioswales shall he used where appro rp iate as aRnroved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army .or c of ngin rs GENERAL CONDITIONS 69-63- Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or as directed by the Director of Community Development or the Director of Public Works. 664. Perform construction activities requiring City inspection during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7 A.M. to 5 P.M. excluding City holidays) for inspection purposes. 63-65. Prior to placing the final map on the City Council Agenda, the following items shall be submitted and approved: a. Final map signed. b. Improvement Securities. c. Fees paid. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 14 d. Inspection agreement signed. e. Subdivision improvement agreement signed. f. Tax certificate. g. Project CC&R's or maintenance agreements. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 63-66_ All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 64-67- Submit four (4) full-size paper copies and one (1) full-size mylar copy of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction. 65-68_ Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Director of Public Works. One (1) set of mylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required. 66-69_ The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control. b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. c. Public utilities. d. Water and sewer. e. Landscaping and irrigation. f. Any other improvements as required by the Director of Public Works. 670_ The site plan shall include the following: I a. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. b. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals. c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. d. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. e. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. g. The location of all existing and. proposed public or private utilities. 68-71- Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets, utilities and retaining walls. 69:72. Any landscape and irrigation within the public right of way require plans that shall be approved by the Public Works, Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. btAIEB X73- Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Director of Public Works must grant permission to dead end water mains. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 15 ;1-74- Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters. x-75. Each parcel shall have separate water meters. Duplex service lines shall be used if feasible. 73-76. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. If the units are to be fire sprinkled, a fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters. X77-Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. ~r78-The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: a. Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation; OR, b. The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of $2,200 for each new residential unit. X6-79- Install fire hydrants to Public Works and Building and Fire Department requirements. SE1dCEB 3~8D._Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. 7&81. All sewer laterals must connect to City sewer mains. X82. All new sewer mains must be a minimum diameter of 8". I S&A3. All sewer laterals within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2%. 8-1-84. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. 8-85 Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. 8~_Sewer laterals must connect to City sewer mains. 8~87.Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the development's impact to District facilities. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 16 P IB I . ITI ITI S 85:88-Underground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the Development Code. $OZ$~Under ground all existing overhead public utilities on-site and in the street in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the Development Code. 890_ Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving. 88-91. Submit all improvement plans to the public utility companies for approval and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 892. Submit the Final Map shall to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 8&.~3._Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. 91-94" All public utility plans shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and comments. STREETS 4~95_Obtain approval from the Director of Public Works prior to excavating in any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director of Public Works shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal. 9's96. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned and filled with epoxy. 997- All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test and TI, but shall not be less than 3" of asphalt and 6" of Class II AB. 9G-99.Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal any roads dedicated to the City prior to acceptance by the City may be required as directed by the Director of Public Works. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 9~-100. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 17 98:101. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. GRADING 99-102. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance. T0~103. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 461-104. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Director of Public Works for walls not constructed per City standards. DRAINAGE 462-105. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. 463-106. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan. 4A4-107_ The project is in Drainage Zone "B" and will require runoff to be directed to the creek. 465-108. Submit detailed drainage calculations for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 46Cr109. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing. 46110. Abandonment of public streets and public easements shall be listed on the final map of parcel map, in accordance with Section 66499.20 of the Subdivision Map Act. 498x111. Street tree planting and maihtenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all street right of ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet beyond the right of way, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered by public utility easements. 469:112. A Public Utility Easement (PUE),shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 18 the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. TT0:113. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated over the private driveway for the residential portion. 9-1114. Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the map, or other separate document approved by the City, for the following: Sewer easement over the existing sewer main. The existing easement is to the County of San Luis Obispo, but the City owns a portion of the main. The easement shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. ^ Water easements where shown on the tentative map. The easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. ~2-115. Private easements shall be reserved on the map, or other separate document approved by the City, for private sewer and water service. PERMITS #3-116. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following: a. Performing work in the City right of way. b. Staging work in the City right of way. c. Stockpiling material in the City right of way. d. Storing equipment in the City right of way. 1-1117. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site. AC,RF_F_M_ F_N_T_ _C ~r118 Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. ~-1(x119. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: The sub divider shall enter into a subdivision agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The subdivision agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City. 41120. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to outline the maintenance of the common facilities. These shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works and the City'Attorney. IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES 41-8-121. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code Section 16.68.090, Improvement Securities. ~-4.4.122. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by the Director of Public Works. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 19 1-2&123. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost estimate approved by the Director of Public Works: a. Faithful Performance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. b. Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements, c. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. d. Monumentation: 100% of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. This financial security may be waived if the developer's surveyor submits to the Director of Public Works a letter assuring that all monumentation has been set. OTHER DOCUMENTATION 424-124. Tax Certificate: The applicant,. shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. The applicant may be required to bond for any unpaid taxes or liens against the property. This shall be submitted prior to placing the map on the City Council Agenda for approval. ~2~-125. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to checking the map. 423-126. Subdivision Guarantee: A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works with the final submittal of the Map. Prior to issuing a huildina~ ermit 4-24-127. The Final Map shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval satisfied. P~/r~i~or to issuing a . _rtifi _at of occunanc~ lZ.T128. All utilities shall be operational. 42(x129. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non-essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities, may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Director of Public Works. 42130. Prior to the final 10% of occupancies for the project are issued; all improvements shall be fully constructed and accepted by the City. MITIGATION MEASURES RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 20 SEE EVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (EXHIBITS C AND D). CREEKSIDE M TENTATIVE TF PLANNED UNIT [ D-USE CENTER MAP 04-004 & LOPMENT 04-00] EXHIBIT C Environments/Impact Report Addendum August 2007 Prepared by: City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department ,. ,. Table ~ofi'Gontents'. "' ,. ; ~ l 1`.0 ~Introduc , ..EnViron tion ,...,". ... 2 •i ; 20 . mental Analysis .!~ 4 30 Environmentallssues ".t :' ,~ 8 - '' ... i 4?0 Conclusion ...... ..,.. ........... ' , . 9 • a I Appendix A , Letter~fromaChattel Architecture, Plannmg,=8~ r.. _ .• - Preservation, Inc ~( a ,', ~.. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 25, 2004)° ,_ ~+ • . _; Background In September 2003 the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No. 3710 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Creekside Center mixed use project (Tentative Tract Map 01-002 and Conditional Use Permit 01-001). The FEIR examined potential environmental impacts associated with development of a commercial retail, office and residential complex on a 3.5-acre site located at 415 East Branch Street. The proposed project involved construction of 37,000 square feet of retail, office and residential space in five separate one and two story buildings and reconfiguration of 37 underlying lots into five parcels. The applicant proposed to retain the existing office building, relocate the two former Loomis residences, and remove the E.C. Loomis and Son Feed Store. The FEIR determined that the main residence would be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource, and that the grain warehouse serves as an important feature of the setting for the main house. Removal of these structures was determined to be a significant environmental impact. Several of the parcels originally included in the project have changed ownership since the initial submittal in January 2000. The property underlying the existing office building and storage units was sold and therefore is not a part of the proposed development. The property underlying the two residences and feed store has also been sold, but is still included as part of the revised project. A "Consent of Landowner" letter was submitted to the City on September 28, 2004 containing signatures of all owners of record for the redesigned project. Because of these changes in project design and ownership, the applicant withdrew and resubmitted the tentative tract map in September 2004. This created a new processing timeline consistent with the Permit Streamlining Act and Subdivision Map Act. On November 14, 2006 the City Council denied, without prejudice, a proposed mixed- use project on the subject property consisting of twelve (12) duplexes, a 12,000 square foot commercial/office building and potential conversion of existing structures (the two residences and warehouse) to commercial uses. The applicant has subsequently submitted a substantially similar project that addresses City concerns. Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 2 - August 2007 This Addendum provides information to the City of Arroyo Grande's decision-makers on: A revised site plan for the proposed mixed-use project; Potential changes in impacts resulting from the revisions to the project; and Conclusions regarding potential changes in impacts and the applicability of criteria that would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. Revised Project Description The original mixed-use project was redesigned the FEIR. Most existing buildings are propose and garden barn in the center and east side includes considerably more residential floor area in response to comments contained in i to remain, except the storage sheds of the site, and the revised project as compared to the original proposal. Proposed is a mixed-use development consisting of sixteen (16) residential buildings in z detached townhouse configuration and a 12,937 square foot retail/office building at the corner of Crown Terrace and Crown Hill. All existing buildings are proposed to remain. There are three (3) plans proposed for the residential units as shown in the table below. Total residential units include sixteen (16) town homes and six (6) secondary units for a total of twenty-two (22) units. Two (2) of the units located adjacent to the commercial property are proposed to have alive/work option, whereby the downstairs bedroom could serve as a commercial office. Requirements for Preparation of an Addendum The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the preparation of an Addendum to a Final EIR. Section 15164 of CEQA states in part, "(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certiFed EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. " CEQA Section 15162 requires preparation of a Subsequent EIR in the following cases: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which wi/l require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the fol%wing: Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 3 - August 2007 (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or a/ternatives previously Found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or a/ternatives which are considerab/y different from those analyzed in the previous EIR wou/d substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. " None of the provisions of CEQA Section 15162 apply to the amended project, and therefore an Addendum (rather than a Subsequent EIR) has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15164(c): 'An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Fina/EIR or adopted negative declaration. " This Addendum has therefore not been circulated for public review, but is provided as an attachment to the Final EIR. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF MINOR PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Proposed Environmental Determination Upon review and comparison of the proposed project and original submittal evaluated by the EIR, several minor modifications and refinements have been made. As previously noted, the project description information presented in this Addendum relate only to changes in the land use composition and physical layout of the site. These changes could result in positive and/or negative effects related to the following areas examined in the Final EIR: • Land Use Parking • Historical Resources Recreation Biological Resources The proposed changes would not result in any changes to the conclusions reached from the previously certified EIR, nor would there be a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, no new information of substantial importance is known to exist that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR. Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 4 - August 2007 The following analysis identifies the minor changes made to the project plans and design as compared to the original submittal evaluated by the EIR, and explains why the change is considered minor. Modification #i: Land Uses. As previously noted, the original project would have removed the two former Loomis residential buildings and feed store as well as all accessory storage buildings to enable construction of the Creekside Center. The Center was a complex of the existing office building and four new retail or office buildings containing approximately 31,000 gross floor area, with one building also proposing four residential units. This project would have involved significant unavoidable impacts to the existing buildings including the historic resources identified in the certified EIR. The revised project retains the historic resources for potential restoration or reuse and eliminates only accessory structures behind and to the east of the existing houses and former feed store to enable 12,937 square feet of new retail/office building and the 16 residential town house buildings. The revised Creekside Complex is a mixed-use planned unit development that is approximately one-third commercial/office and two- thirds residential, including a total of 22 dwelling units (including second units). Modification #2: Parking. The revised project has different parking requirements than the original project because of the increased number of residential units. However, there is little change to the number of deficient parking spaces. Analysis: The current project complies with Development Code calculations for residential and commercial parking utilizing a 11% parking reduction, allowable for mixed-use projects. Net residential parking has a deficit of seven (7) guest spaces and net commercial parking has a deficit of three (3) spaces. The Development Code (Section 16.56.050) allows up to a 20% parking reduction for mixed-use projects, which is more than adequate for the proposed project. The proposed parking would accommodate the project demands using the shared parking scenario described in the EIR. No new impacts would result from the revised parking configuration and no additional mitigation is necessary. Modification #3: Historical Resources. The existing former Loomis houses and feed store structures are proposed to remain, including the main house, which the EIR has determined to be a potentially significant historic resource eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. Analysis #3: The revised project retains all existing historic resource structures and related setting, which changes this environmental determination from a Class I impact (significant and unavoidable) to a Class IV impact (beneficial) and Class II (Significant but mitigable). Retention of these existing structures requires certain mitigation measures be added that were discussed in the EIR but did not apply, because the single historical resource on the project site, the main house, was proposed to be demolished. Subsequently, the Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 5 - August 2007 applicant sold the property containing the historical resource without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance. Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 has been added requiring the new owner of the property to register the main residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). In the event the main house is converted from a residential to a commercial use or is renovated, any alteration (including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access) must be consistent with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68) or technical advisories (Mitig_ation Measure 4.4.2) Modification #4: Recreation. Loss of recreational opportunities. Analysis #4: The revised project does not include an amphitheatre or a pedestrian trail adjacent to the creek as originally proposed. However, the residential component does incorporate a small open space area adjacent to the creek that includes modest recreational ameneties. Mitigation measures have been added regarding requirement of a trail easement (see MM 4.4.30 and MM 4.4.31 below under Biological Resources). This does not constitute a significant impact and no additional mitigation measures are required. Modification #5: Biological Resources. The creekway enhancement component of the original project has mostly been eliminated. Analysis #5: Because the property developed with the office building and storage units is no longer part of the project, the opportunity for enhancement of Tally Ho Creek is reduced. This is a significant impact that can be mitigated with recordation of an open space agreement, and atwenty-five foot (25') creek easement measured from top of bank that includes a trail easement (Mitigation Measure 4.4.30). The project is further required to construct a footpath to the creek that would be stable and not erosive. The trail must be covered with base rock and designed to be permeable and to avoid the concentration of storm runoff. The developer shall also plant shrubs, such as native blackberry, adjacent to any trails and/or footpaths to discourage use of a shortcut path, and revegetate any existing short paths (Mitigation Measure 4.4.31). Modification #6: Water. Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. The water consumption by this project would further reduce the City's remaining supply of available water. This impact will be minimized by mitigation measures, including using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping. The City currently receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources. Ground water extractions are derived from seven (7) wells and two (2) separate basin formulations. Surface water is obtained from the Lopez Reservoir Project, which was constructed in the late 1960's. Reclaimed storm water collected by Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 6 - August 2007 the Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is also used as an irrigation supply source. The City adopted a Water System Master Plan in 1999, which identified water resources as being a significant issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water supply to increase long-term reliability of the City's water service to its residents. The report assessed potential methods to address the water supply issue and prioritized alternatives. The City used approximately 96% of its available/allocated water supply during Fiscal Year 2006/2007. Per Chapter 13.05.010 of ,the City's Municipal Code (Water Supply Conditions), this level of water use is considered a "severely restricted" water supply condition that has not yet reached a "critical" level. To manage its potential water supply deficiency, the City adopted atwo-phased strategy in November 2004 that included alternatives to be pursued to meet the City's water demand over the next 10- year period (phase 1), and identified alternatives that will provide permanent water supply increases to meet the long-term demand that are most desirable, feasible and cost effective (phase 2). As part of phase 1, the City adopted a Water Conservation Program in May 2003 that included: • Plumbing Retrofit Program; • Water Shortage Contingency Analysis; • Public Information and Education; • Information System Assessment for Top Water Users; Enforcement of City's Water Conservation Codes; and • Optional components, including washing machine rebates, irrigation system or landscaping rebates, and retrofit of cemetery with non-potable water. Other components of phase 1 include construction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer Trail Circle), pursuing oil field water on Price Canyon, implementing a tiered water and sewer rate structure as financial incentives for water conservation, and a utility retrofit upon-sale program. It should also be noted that pursuant to the agreement entitled Management of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water Basin, dated effective June 10, 2002, the City is entitled to the first 359.1 acre feet of the urban parties share of any increase in the safe yield of the Arroyo Grande Ground Water Basin; an RFP for this study has been implemented. This additional entitlement, potentially presents the most immediate increase in water supply to the City Phase 2 provides various permanent water supply options that include: • Conducting a groundwater study; • Pursuing water from the Nacimiento Project; • Implementing a reclaimed water system; Studying feasibility of a desalination plant; and • Pursuing water from the State Water Project. Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 7 - August 2007 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 4.1 Aesthetics The revised project adheres to the Design Guidelines for the Historic Overlay District (the "Guidelines") per review of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The project therefore requires less mitigation for visual impacts than the original project. No additional mitigation measures are required. 4.2 Air Oualitv Less air quality mitigation is necessary with the revised project since none of the existing buildings on the project site are proposed to be demolished. All mitigation related to dust control are required, and no additional measures are necessary. 4.3 Bioloav The following mitigation measure has been added: MM 4.3.30: The developer shall record an open space agreement and twenty- five foot (25') creek easement on the property measured from top of bank. No development shall occur within 25' creek setback area. A trail easement is further required within the setback area. 4.4 Cultural Resources The following mitigation measures have been added: MM 4.4.1: The owner of the properly containing the former Loomis residences and grain warehouse shall register the main residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office. of Historic Preservation (OHP). MM 4.4.2: Alterations to the main house shall comply with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68). 4.5 Geoloav and Soil No new impacts are expected with the revised project and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 4.6 Hazardous Materials No new impacts are expected with the revised project and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 4.7 Hvdroloqy, and Water Quality No new impacts are expected with the revised project and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. Creekside Center EIR Addendum - S - August 2007 4.8 Land Use There are no impacts requiring mitigation with either the original or revised project. 4.9 Noise No new impacts are expected with the revised project and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 4.10 Public Services and Utilities There are no impacts requiring mitigation with either the original or revised project. 4.11 Water and Wastewater Wastewater disposal is not considered a significant impact and existing facilities can handle the increased project demand. Cumulative water supply remains a significant impact but mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures. All mitigation measures in FEIR are required. No additional mitigation measures are necessary for water or wastewater impacts. 4.0 CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, the proposed mitigation measures or minor changes are not considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR, nor would they substantially reduce or change the conclusigns. The applicant will be incorporating these and other required environmental mitigation measures into the project. Therefore, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not considered necessary, and the EIR addendum is appropriate. s:\Community Development\PROJECr6\TTM\Geekside TTM 2346\Geekside EIR Addendum 3.doc Creekside Center EIR Addendum - 9 - August 2007 EXHIBIT D CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-004 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-001 THE"PROJECT") Mitigation Monitoring Program August 2007 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................. 2 Legal Basis ........................................................................ 2 Program Implementation and Monitoring .................................... 3 Implementation ...................................................... 3 Mitigation Monitoring ............................................. 4 Mitigation Monitoring Status Reporting ........................... 5 Project Mitig ation Measures ...................................................... 5 4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................ 5 4.2 Air Quality ................................................................ 6 4.3 Biology ................................................................ 7 4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................... 16 4.5 Geology and Soil ....................................................... 19 4.6 Hazardous Materials .............................................. 22 4.7 Hydrology, and Water Quality ..................................... 23 4.8 Land Use ................................................................ 26 4.9 Noise ......................................................................... 26 4.10 Public Services and Utilities ..................................... 26 4.11 Water and Wastewater .............................................. 27 Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Creekside Center Introduction Mitigation is defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a measure which: • Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. • Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project. Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation measures discussed below have been identified in Chapter 4 of the FEIR, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, as feasible and effective in mitigating project-related environmental impacts. The effectiveness of each measure is identified in this Mitigation Monitoring Program and discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 of the FEIR. Legal Basis Overriding Considerations The City Certified the FEIR for the Creekside Center in September 2003 and an Addendum to that document has been prepared to evaluate potential impacts for a revised project. At the time of considering approval of the project, the City must consider the information presented in the Final EIR and Addendum. The FEIR for the original project identified significant and unavoidable impacts with the demolition of historical resources and to the City's cumulative water supply. The revised project reduces impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level by retaining all significant (historic resources or important to their setting) existing structures on the project site. Impacts to the City's long-term water supply remains a significant and unavoidable impact previously recognized in the 2001 GPU Program EIR. If a project is determined to a have significant, unavoidable impact, the City must find that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental effects before approving the project. This is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations and it must be included in the record of project approval (CEQA Guidelines §15093). The Statement of Overriding Considerations is a written statement, based on substantial evidence, explaining why the Lead Agency will accept the project with significant effects. Because the project has a significant, unavoidable environmental impact regarding water supply, the City must make this finding of Overriding Considerations in its approval of the project. A Notice of Determination is filed after the City makes its final decision. Mitigation and Monitoring Program The legal basis for the development and implementation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Program lies within CEQA. CEQA Sections 21002 and 21001.1 state: Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 - • Public agencies are not to approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects; and • Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so. • CEQA Section 21081.6 further requires that: the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementatidn. • The monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings under CEQA so that the program can be made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate significant effects on the environment. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. Program Implementation and Monitoring Each mitigation measure is described in the following format: Impact: The description of the specific environmental impact. Mitigation Measure (MM): The description of the mitigation measures. Mitigation Level: The level to which the impact is anticipated to be mitigated. Responsible Party: The agency, Department or individual that has the responsibility for implementing or performing the measure. Monitoring Agency: The public agency that has the responsibility for monitoring to ensure that the mitigation measure is effective in mitigating the impact. Timing: The appropriate points in time at which the mitigation measure is to be initiated and completed. Implementation The City shall be responsible for overall implementation and administration of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the project. The City shall designate a staff person to serve as coordinator of all mitigation monitoring among the various government agencies, construction contractors, and interested residents. This person (Coordinator) will oversee all mitigation measures and ensure they are completed to the standards specified in the FEIR and Addendum and will ensure that the mitigation measures are completed in a timely manner. They will also be responsible for the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 3 - Duties of the Coordinator include the following: • Coordinate with applicable agencies that have mitigation monitoring and reporting responsibility; • Coordinate activities with the construction manager; • Coordinate activities of all in-field monitors; • Develop a work plan and schedule for monitoring activities; • Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the developer when such expertise and qualifications are necessary; • Conduct routine inspections and reporting activities; • Plan checks; • Assure follow-up and response to citizen inquiries and complaints; • Develop, maintain, and compile Verification Report Forms; • Maintain the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist or other suitable mitigation compliance summary; and • Coordinate and assure implementation of corrective actions or enforcement measures, as needed. Mitigation Monitoring The implementation of mitigation measures shall be monitored at two levels. The first level of monitoring is done through the use of a Verification Report. This report is to be completed for each mitigation measure by the in-field monitor, responsible agency, or construction manager (whichever is appropriate for the given action and mitigation measure). Frequency of report completion will vary based on the type of mitigation measure. For example, measures that require modification of final design drawings will only require that the Verification Report be completed at the time of Final drawings are completed and again when they are approved. However, in-field monitoring for activities such as construction may require that a Verification Report be completed daily. Once a mitigation measure has been completed and the measure needs no further monitoring or follow-up, the in-field monitor, responsible agency, or construction manager shall notify the Coordinator that the measure has been completed. This notification shall be done by sending a final Verification Report. The Coordinator shall be responsible for collecting and maintaining completed Verification Reports. Copies of these reports shall be maintained by the City. If the in field monitor, responsible agency, or construction manager determined that non- compliance has occurred, a written notice shall be delivered to the Coordinator describing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If non-compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed upon the party responsible for implementation, at the discretion of the City. The second level of monitoring shall be done through the completion of the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist. The purpose of the Checklist is to provide a summary of the status of adopted mitigation measures for the City, other public officials, and concerned citizens. The Coordinator shall update the Checklist twice a year. The Coordinator shall update the Checklist by reviewing the Verification Reports and contacting the in-field monitors, responsible agencies, and the construction manager to review the status of their respective mitigation measures. A copy of the most current Mitigation Monitoring Checklist shall be maintained at the Community Development Department. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 4 - Mitigation Monitoring Status Reporting The City shall compile a Mitigation Monitoring Status report on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared by the Coordinator and contain the following: • Mitigation Monitoring Checklist to provide the status of every mitigation measure; • List of completed mitigation measures; • List of all non-compliance incidences, with action taken or required' • Evaluation of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures; • Recommendations for modifications td the Mitigation and Monitoring Program to improve effectiveness; and • Required modifications to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program to comply with legislation and policies adopted in the previous year (e.g. newly listed threatened species). Project Mitigation Measures This section presents a listing and description of the recommended mitigation measures that avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts. 4.1 Aesthetics The revised project uses building colors and materials consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Historic Overlay District (the "Guidelines") and therefore requires no mitigation for visual impacts. Impact: Signs added as part of the proposed project may conflict with the existing Design Guidelines for the Historic Overlay District and with the Development Code for the Village Mixed Use District. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.1.1: A Planned Sign Program application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department (CDD). All signs to be installed on or around the proposed buildings shall be subject to review by Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and approval by the CDD. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande, CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Impact: Sidewalks installed as part of the project may conflict with the Guidelines. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.1.2: All sidewalks to be installed shall be consistent with the Guidelines and the Development Code, subject to review and approval by the ARC. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, ARC Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 5 - Impact: The proposed development would. result in an increase in external lighting. Night lighting for security, parking and street lighting could be perceived as intrusive to surrounding residential neighborhoods. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.1.3: All lighting for the proposed project shall conform to Development Code Section 16.48.090 for position, intensity and, operation. In particular, street and parking lot lights shall be directed away from the surrounding residential areas, and shall be of minimum intensity. A photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by CDD and Police Dept. consistent with these lighting requirements. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, ARC, Public Works Dept., Police Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 4.2 Air Quality Impact: The revised project does not include demolition of any primary buildings and therefore no impacts of hazardous air pollutants such as asbestos or lead materials are anticipated. However, construction activities would produce short-term air quality impacts. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than- significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.2.1: The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Non-potable water shall be used whenever possible. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 6 - Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. Maximize the use of diesel construction equipment meeting, as a minimum, the California Air Resources Board's 1996 certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept., Building and Fire Department Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction 4.3 Biological Resources A biological resources investigation was conducted for the project, with emphasis on identifying sensitive biological resources and associated project impacts given the site's proximity to Tally Ho Creek. Impact: Construction of the project may result in loss of and damage to existing vegetation/botanical resources and species habitat. In addition, the potential loss of trees within the riparian corridor could have substantial effect on habitat suitability for special- status wildlife species (although no trees are currently scheduled for removal). This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measures. MM 4.3.1: A Riparian Restoration, Landscaping, and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) shall be prepared by a qualified restoration/revegetation biologist and a qualified arborist. The Restoration Plan shall include, at a minimum, the requirements within the mitigation measures included in the FEIR, success criteria, and contingency planning if those criteria are not met. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer shall submit the plan to the City and California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG) Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD and PR&F (Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept.); CDFG Timing: Restoration Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of Grading Permit; duration of monitoring shall be no less than five (5) years. MM 4.3.2: Any trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater than or equal to four (4) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and less than twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio., Trees removed that are greater than or equal to twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 7 - be limited to appropriate native, riparian tree species as approved by the City Parks, Facilities and Recreation Department's arborist. Mitigation Level: Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Less-than-significant City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Dept. City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Dept.; CDFG During construction Parks, Recreation & Facilities MM 4.3.3: Non-native, invasive plant species (German ivy, poison hemlock, etc.) shall be removed from the project site, and replaced with appropriate native herbaceous plant species as directed by a qualified restoratioh biologist. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Dept.; CDFG Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.3.4: All disturbed areas of bare soil and slopes within the project site must be protected from erosion during and after construction in conformance with mitigation measures in the Geology and Soils section. Re-vegetation in appropriate areas of the site shall be implemented immediately following construction with locally occurring native plants and native erosion control seed mix (composed of locally-occurring native seed), in conjunction with geotechnical fabrics such as jute netting, for steeper slopes. Implementation of the re-vegetation and other construction Best Management Practices shall be monitored by a qualified restoration biologist. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: Restoration Biologist; City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Dept. Timing: During and after construction activities MM 4.3.5: The restoration Plan for the site shall contain the following measures for tree protection during construction: A qualified arborist shall be present on-site during preliminary grading. Two sets of the site map and grading plan shall be submitted Prior to Grading Permit and shall contain all information required under the terms of Section 7-1.06d of the City of Arroyo Grande Grading Ordinance. To protect trees on and near the site during construction, tree preservation zones (TPZ) shall be established by installing fencing, with stakes embedded in the ground, no less than 48 inches in height, at the dripline (the perimeter of the foliar canopy) of the tree, or at the critical root radius, as defined by the consulting arborist. This installation will be done prior to any grading or construction activities. In addition, herbaceous and shrubby Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 8 - vegetation shall be fenced and protective wood barriers shall be provided where these are to be retained. • Storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil and parking of vehicles or construction equipment shall be prohibited within the dripline of existing trees (the TPZ). Any solvents or liquids shall be properly stored, disposed, and recycled to prevent accidental release. • Soil compaction on the construction site shall be minimized, particularly within the riparian corridor and under the dripline of trees. Soil surface shall be protected with a deep layer of mulch (tree chips) to reduce compaction, retain moisture, and stabilize soil temperature. • The natural grade around trees that are not removed shall be maintained. No additional fill or excavation shall be permitted within areas of tree root development. If tree roots are unearthed during the construction process, the consulting arborist shall be notified immediately. Exposed roots shall be covered with moistened burlap until a determination is made by the on-site arborist. • Any areas of proposed trenching shall be evaluated with the consulting arborist and the contractor prior to construction. All trenching on this site shall be approved by the on-site arborist. Trenching within a tree dripline shall be performed by hand. Tree roots encountered shall be avoided or properly pruned under the guidance of the consulting arborist. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: Arborist; City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Dept. Timing: During construction Impact: The project could substantially degrade the riparian corridor associated with Tally Ho Creek indirectly through introduction of exotic/invasive non-native plant species, introduction of foreign materials (petroleum products, refuse, etc.), erosion, slope slippage, and directly through disruption of a sensitive habitat. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.3.6: To reduce erosion hazards due to construction activities, grading shall be minimized, and project applicants shall use runoff and sediment control structures, and/or establish a permanent plant cover on side slopes following construction as required in Mitigation Measures within the Geology and Soils section of the FEIR. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 9 - MM 4.3.7: The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit. This shall include preparation and approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce water quality impacts as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.8: Work shall be completed during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) to reduce active construction erosion to the extent feasible. If construction must extend into the wet weather season, a qualified geohydrologist or geotechnical engineer, and restoration biologist shall prepare a drainage and erosion control plan that addresses construction measures to prevent sedimentation and erosion of Tally Ho Creek. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM 4.3.9: No fueling or maintenance of equipment shall take place at the site. Mechanical equipment shall be serviced in designated staging areas located outside of the creek riparian area. Water from equipment washing or concrete wash down shall be prevented from entering the creek. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.10: All removed and excess material shall be disposed of off-site and away from the flood plain, outside areas subject to U.S. Army Corps jurisdiction. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.11: Erosion control and bank stabilization measures shall be implemented to ensure that the banks used for access do not erode. In addition, when possible, alternative bank protection methods, such as restoration of native vegetation, root wads, or other bioengineering methods of stabilization, shall be used. In order to reduce long- term effects of soil compaction and changes in topography, construction vehicles and personnel shall not enter the low flow channel and wet areas or if necessary, with prior Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 10 - City and DFG approval, only to the extent necessary to complete construction activities. Construction mats, wood planking, and other devices shall be used whenever possible to reduce impacts associated with soil compaction. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.12: All temporary fill placed during project construction shall be removed at project completion and the area restored to approximate pre-project contours and topography as approved by a qualified geohydrologist and restoration biologist. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.3.13: No construction debris or materials shall be allowed to enter the creek bed, either directly or indirectly. Stockpiles staeuld-shall be kept utside of the creek setback area and protected to prevent material from entering the creek bed. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction Impact: The project has the potential to result in significant direct impacts to the southwestern pond turtle in the project footprint (and associated riparian corridor) including through harassment, injury, or mortality from wnstruction equipment, construction debris, and worker foot traffic and from temporary loss of habitat, temporary dispersal disruption, and consumption by predators attracted to the activities. In addition, the project may result in significant indirect impacts to pond-turtle habitat including disturbance of upland slopes during construction and the resulting siltation, sedimentation, pollution, exposure, and ;reduction of cover. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.3.14: A qualified biologist, preferably with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), shall perform pre- construction surveys for southwestern pond turtles. If southwestern pond turtles are observed within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), they shall be relocated (only by a biologist with an MOU) to appropriate habitat elsewhere along Tally Ho Creek. If the surveying biologist does not have an MOU, CDFG shall be contacted regarding southwestern pond turtle presence, to determine an appropriate course of action. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 11 - Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.15: An on-site biological monitor shall assess the Area of Potential Impact (API) daily for southwestern pond turtle presence, and relocate any observed individuals to appropriate associated habitat (only if the monitor has a MOU). If the surveying biologist does not have an MOU, CDFG shall be contacted regarding southwestern pond turtle presence, to determine an appropriate course of action. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG Timing: During construction Impact: The project would potentially result in a significant adverse impact to nesting raptors due to increased physiological stress, increased brood mortality, and potential nest abandonment. These impacts may occur due to reduced habitat suitability or quality (physical or biological changes in the area),, increased frequency of disturbance (i.e., noise, dust, vibration, etc.), and increased accidental death (direct mortality). The available nesting raptor habitat at and near the project site that may be impacted by the project includes all trees within 300 feet of project boundaries, including the adjacent areas surrounding Tally Ho Creek. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.3.16: Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If raptor nests are located during pre-construction surveys, a 300-foot buffer shall be established around each nest for the duration of the breeding season (ending August 1S`), or until such time as the young are fully fledged as determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFG. Every effort shall be made to avoid removal of, or impact to, known raptor nests within ..project boundaries. If trees known to support raptor nests (in past years) cannot be avoided, limbing or removal of these trees may only occur during the non-breeding season (March 15 -August 1). Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: The project may result in significant impacts to adult and sub-adult California Red Legged Frogs (CRLFs) including harassment, injury, or mortality from construction activities including placement of debris, worker foot traffic, restoration activities, temporary loss of habitat, temporary dispersal disruption, consumption by predators attracted to the activities, and siltation and pollution of the habitat. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.3.17: All work within the sensitive habitats shall be confined to awork-window of May 1 to November 1 to minimize the impact on wildlife species. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 12 - Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG Timing: During Construction MM 4.3.18: A biological monitor shall be on site during initial construction activities (grading, vegetation removal) to monitor for special-status wildlife. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer, Consulting Biologist Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG Timing: During Construction MM 4.3.19: A biological monitor shall conduct protocol-level surveys for CRLF within the riparian corridor associated with the project site to establish site utilization by this species. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer, Cohsulting Biologist Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.20: Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required. This will involve a minimum 135-day review during which time USFWS will prepare a Biological Opinion and Take Permit. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer; USFWS Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; USFWS Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.21: A permitted biologist (USFWS permit) shall relocate any and all individuals located within project boundaries to suitable habitat without the risk of take (relocation of CRLF also has the potential to take individual frogs, but this will be addressed in the Service's Biological Opinion). Relocation of CRLF, if present, would occur prior to, and for the duration of, construction. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer, Consulting Biologist Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; USFWS Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM 4.3.22: An employee education program shall be conducted to familiarize workers with the biology and identification of special'-status wildlife species that may potentially be encountered during construction. This education program will also discuss access to and from the site, impact minimization, required avoidance and conditions of construction Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 13 - measures, and communication with appropriate agencies (CDFG and USFWS). One person will be appointed the point of contact for these agencies, and will be responsible for appropriate communication in the unlikely event that special status species are encountered during construction. Neither the appointed contact nor anyone else on the crew shall handle special status wildlife at any time. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer, CDFG and USFWS Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; CDFG; USFWS Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.23: Equipment staging areas and vehicle parking and movement shall be restricted to designated construction zones. Flagging shall also be used to keep equipment, vehicles, and personnel from restricted areas. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.24: To reduce the potential attraction of CRLF predators, all food-related trash materials (e.g., leftovers, wrappers, and containers) shall be removed from the construction site each day, and sites would be constantly maintained as litter-free. Project personnel shall be instructed not to bring pets on-site, which may also prey upon CRLF. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.25: Strict adherence to erosion control measures, and control of project run-off, is critical to maintaining CRLF habitat. Riparian mitigation, geology and soils mitigation, hydrology mitigation, and steelhead mitigation shall be implemented. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.26: After completion of construction activities, the Restoration Plan shall be prepared and implemented. At a minimum, this plan shall include post-construction restoration of the site to pre-construction topography and contours, including: re- contouring to provide for appropriate drainage and soil stability conditions, non- native/invasive exotics control, re-establishment and planting of native riparian species, success criteria, and conditions in the event that post-construction restoration does not attain the goals of the plan. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 14 - Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy Impact: The project could result in significant impacts to Steelhead and their habitat due to direct and indirect impacts to Tally Ho Creek. The project may also result in indirect impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek due to construction and post-construction downstream erosion, discharge of sediment, and discharge of other pollutants that could affect downstream habitat. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.3.27: The developer shall enter into formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding potential impacts to steelhead. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.28: No removal of riparian or upland trees that provide shade to Tally Ho Creek shall occur. Management shall include planting of native riparian species (i.e., willow, big-leaf maple, cottonwood, etc.) along the creek to provide shade and therefore aid in cooling of the creek. The on-site riparian habitat shall be enhanced to result in a net benefit to Tally Ho Creek. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction MM 4.3.29: To reduce the peak runoff volumes (flashiness) of storm events from the site to the adjacent creeks, the developer shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a qualified hydrologist or civil engineer that demonstrates that the project post-construction run-off rate would not exceed pre-construction run-off rate in a 10- and 100-year flood event. The following specific provisions shall be included in the drainage plan subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Director, and a Restoration Biologist: The drainage plan should be devised such that the bench immediately surrounding the project site shall capture and retain roof and patio runoff from the site and prevent uncontrolled surface runoff toward the creek. If a gutter system is inappropriate for restoration, a paved ditch shall be constructed around the foundation facing the creek to collect all runoff and feed it into a storm drain system. Any increase in impermeable surfaces on the property that would lead to increased surface runoff toward the creek shall be prevented. If the amount of impermeable surfaces is increased, the surfaces shall be paved with porous pavement blocks and the drainage plan shall provide for capture of increased runoff and percolation on the bench without additional overland movement of water toward the creek. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 15 - Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.3.30: The developer shall record an open space agreement and twenty-five foot (25') creek easement on the property measured from top of bank. No development shall occur within 25' creek setback area. A trail easement is further required within the setback area. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to Grading Permit MM 4.3.31: . The developer shall alse-plant shrubs, such as native blackberry, adjacent to any trails and/or footpaths to the creek to discourage use of a shortcut path, and revegetate any existing short paths. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy 4.4 Cultural Resources Impacts related to the original project included removal of the primary house and warehouse, which were found to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of required mitigation measures. Because all structures are proposed to remain with the revised project, there are no significant unavoidable impacts to these resources. However, mitigation is required to ensure the long-term preservation of existing structures that are eligible for listing in the California Register as historic resources. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 16 - (( Impact: Transfer, lease, or sale of property without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than- significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.4.1: The owner of the property containing the former Loomis residences and grain warehouse shall register the main residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Impact: Alteration of an historical resource, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access that is potentially not consistent with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68) or technical advisories. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.4.2: Alterations to the main house shall comply with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68). Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 17 - Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 4.4.3: The segment of the rail bed on the project site shall be left intact and its alignment identified. If it is not possible to preserve the rail bed, then documentary drawings consistent with accepted industry practice shall be made of this historic feature to provide an archival record of its existence prior to disturbance or removal. Such documentary drawings shall be appropriately labeled and placed in the collection of the regional information center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The documentary drawings shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A high- quality, laser or equivalent copy, shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Impact: Although no prehistoric resources have been found on the project site, the potential for such resources exists. The project has the potential to disturb such resources and result in their loss. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.4.4: The following note shall be placed on the grading plans for the project "In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, and archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has reviewed the resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant maybe required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures. " Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.4.5: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all earth movement (grading) activity. For the purposes of this project, a qualified archaeologist shall meet the qualifications and be registered on the Register of Professional Archaeologists. In the event that prehistoric cultural materials, or historic cultural materials are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the archaeologist allowed to quickly record, collect and analyze any significant resources encountered. Following the field analysis work, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 18 - a final monitoring/mitigation report that includes a description of the methods used, materials recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials. The final archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified archaeologist shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance df any final occupancy for the project. A high- quality, lases or equivalent copy, shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD Timing: During construction Impact: Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of an historical resource's significant historic features. MM 4.4.6: The Community Development Director shall ensure the project is reviewed through design development and construction documents phases for conformance with the "Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts" (the "Guidelines"). The project site is located in an area of transition from formal commercial to single and multiple family residential areas adjoining ah agrarian character, farm-support commercial complex at the northeast edge of the Village Mixed Use district. The project design shall emphasize these transitional and agrarian features, which are reflected in the "existing design elements". These features include barn-like building envelopes with gable roofs and horizontal or vertical cladding. As part of their established responsibilities, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) shall conduct their own, parallel review for consistency with the Guidelines. No building permit for the project shall be issued for the project until the final design has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Guidelines in accordance with the process described above. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit 4.5 Geolopv and Soils The project as revised requires less cut and fill compared to the original project: 590 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 2,870 cy of fill for the revised project vs. 1,264 cy of cut and 2,953 cy of fill as originally proposed. Although there is less site disturbance (limited demolition proposed and less grading), the clearing and grading necessary to develop the site as proposed has the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation in local drainages and is therefore subject to mitigation. The site is also located in a seismically active region that necessitates mitigation. Impact: The project site will be subject to severe ground shaking in a strong seismic event, which could cause damage to structures and endanger public safety. This is a Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 19 - potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.5.1: Aproject-specific geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer as required by the City's Grading Ordinance, and the recommendations of that report shall be incorporated in the design and construction of the proposed project. Final improvement plans submitted to the City shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from the geotechnical engineer that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical report, and the certification shall confirm that the plans include the following: • The project shall be designed to withstand ground shaking associated with a large magnitude earthquake on nearby active faults. • All proposed structures shall be designed to conform to the most recent Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 guidelines. • The project shall comply with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. • Site-specific specifications regarding clearing, site grading and preparation, footings, foundations, slabs-on-grade, site drainage, and pavements or turf block shall be delineated. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: The project would potentially result in soil instability impacts (including landslides) that could damage structures and endanger public safety. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.5.2: The geotechnical report shall include the following considerations, at a minimum, to ensure that the impacts related to soil instability and landslides are reduced to aless-than-significant level: • Utilities should be designed with as much flexibility as practical to tolerate potential differential movement without becoming disconnected or broken. • Subgrade or base material shall be replaced or covered with suitable base material. • Retaining wall design shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer based on the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer and shall comply with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. • Land with slopes greater than 25% shall not be developed, except as indicated in the approved building and grading permits. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 20 - Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: The project site will be subject to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during construction. This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.5.3: Prior to Grading Permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a grading and erosion control plan in compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance for review and approval by the Public Works Department, and a qualified biologist and geohydrologist. The erosion control plan shall be subject to review and approval, and monitoring during construction, by the on-site biologist, geotechnical engineer, and City staff and shall include the following, at a minimum: • Install and maintain silt basins and fences or straw bales along drainage paths during construction to contain on-site soils until bare slopes are vegetated. Carefully stockpile graded soils away from drainages; • Restrict grading and earthwork during the rainy season (October 15 through April 15) and stabilize all exposed soils and graded areas prior to onset of the rainy season through mulching and reseeding. Permit grading within this period only with installation of adequate sediment and erosion control measures; • Delineate and describe the practices to retain sediment on the site, including sediment basins and traps, and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep; • Delineate and describe the vegetative practices to be used, including types of seeds and fertilizer and their application rates, the type, location and extent of pre-existing and undisturbed vegetation types, and a schedule for maintenance and upkeep; • Estimate of the cost of implementing and maintaining all erosion and sediment control measures; • Revegetate graded slopes with appropriate native plant species (as specified by a qualified botanist or revegetation specialist) immediately upon completion of grading or prior to extended inactivity in any exposed area; • Comply with all applicable City of Arroyo Grande ordinances including landscaping compatibility for erosion control; • Only clear land that will be actively under construction within 6 to 12 months; • Stabilize disturbed areas except where active construction is taking place. Examples of stabilization techniques include jute netting, hydro-seeding (using native plant composition in consultation with a qualified biologist or re-vegetation specialist), etc. and provide permanent stabilization during finish grade and landscape the site; • Dispose of all construction waste in designated areas, and keep storm water from flowing on or off these areas; Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 21 - Divert or intercept storm water before it reached Tally Ho Creek, using temporary dikes, swales, or pipe slope drains to provide for settling of suspended solids and prevention of contamination by construction materials; and Place perimeter controls where runoff enters or leaves the site prior to clearing, grubbing, and rough grading. Perimeter controls may include dikes, swales, temporary storm drains, sand bags or hay bales. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept.; Consulting biologist and geohydrologist Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 4.6 Hazardous Materials The project site has been used for agricultural chemical operations for decades. Although remediation occurred in 1986, soil contamination from continued agricultural chemical operations could have occurred, creating unsafe conditions. Because there is no proposed demolition, mitigation measures are not necessary for public safety associated with asbestos and lead paint contained in existing structures. However, naturally occurring asbestos wuld be present in the soils, requiring precautionary mitigation. Impact: The project site may contain unsafe levels of hazardous materials, which may exceed state action levels and may pose a threat to future construction workers, residents or users at the Creekside Center project site. This is a significant impact that can be reduced to aless-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.6.1: Subject to approval by the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department (County Health), the developer shall conduct any necessary soil sampling, risk assessment and remediation, and present evidence to the~City of Arroyo Grande that the risk of future exposure of people working, living or using the site is reduced to a level that is acceptable to the relevant resource agencies (County Health, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, if requested by County Health). The City shall not issue a grading permit until they receive written verification to demonstrate that the level of risk is acceptable to resource agencies, and that the levels of hazardous materials are safe for all proposed site activities. In addition, as requested by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the applicant shall adhere to the following requirements: • Storage piles of contaminated material shall be covered at all times except when soil is being added or removed; • Covers on storage piles should be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal; • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH - nonpermeable barrier such as plastic tarp • No head space should be allowed where vapors could accumulate; Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 22 - • Covered piles should be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water; • No openings in the cover are permitted; • During soil excavation, odors should not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance; and • Clean soils must be segregated from contaminated soil. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept.; County Health; RWQCB; APCD Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.6.2: Prior to any grading activities at the site, a geologic evaluation will be necessary to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is present. If naturally occurring asbestos is found at the site, the developer must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan that must be approved by the APCD before construction occurs, and 2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for some projects, if requested by the APCD. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept.; APCD Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality The project is within the City's adopted Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and FEMA requirements for floodplain zoning. However, the project site and surrounding lands are subject to inundation during a 100-year flood due to the insufficient capacity of the Branch Street Culvert. Replacement of this culvert would be a costly regional capital improvement that could not legally be imposed on the project developer solely. An analysis should be made, however, to determine whether structures nearby the site would be flooded due to project activities and whether improvements to the culvert would be necessary to increase the capacity to sufficiently handle a 100-year storm upon project development. Impact: The project would expose people and structures to a potentially significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of the Tally Ho Creek due to project improvements in combination with insufficiency of the culvert under Branch Street to be able to pass the 100-year flood event. This is a significant impact that can be reduced to aless-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.7.1: A qualified civil engineer shall prepare and submit aproject-specific flooding/drainage study to demonstrate that the project has appropriate flood design subject to review and approval by the City prior to approval of a grading permit for the project. The project shall meet these standards at the time of site development, including the following criteria within the floodplain: Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 23 - • All new structures shall have finish floors elevated at least one foot over the level of the 100-year flood or the structures must be flood-proofed to a level at least one foot over the level of the 100-year flood; • Structures located within the flood plain must be capable of withstanding the hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads (including buoyancy) caused by the 100-year flood at the site; • The development must not cause a rise of over one foot in the level of the 100-year flood at any off-site location; • Any new development must be located beyond the riparian setback designated in City Codes; • Affected structures shall be flood proofed and certified as provided for in Ordinance No. 501; and • Flood proofing at doorvvay openings should utilize floodgate barriers and flood proof membranes should be integrated into the structural design. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: Future construction activities and post-construction uses at the site could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface and ground water bodies through surface runoff, and infiltration to ground water, and may indirectly cause impacts on the riparian values of the downstream waterbodies and sensitive species. This is a significant impact that can be reduced to aless-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.7.2: The developer shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan (as required by MM 4.5.3) and submit them to the City for review and approval Prior to Grading Permit. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices for construction and post-construction activities to control runoff volumes and rates, and erosion, and to prevent discharge of pollutants to Tally Ho Creek. When pavement is removed, uncovered site soils shall be further tested for possible contaminants. Specific Best Management Practices to be implemented shall be developed based on site-specific analysis of the optimum pollution control methodology and shall include, at a minimum, the requirements set forth in MM 4.5.3, measures identified in the Biological Resources section, and the following: The drainage plan shall demonstrate that existing local and downstream hydrological conditions would not be significantly impacted with implementation of the proposed project such that new bank erosion would result due to project improvements. The applicant's drainage plan shall demonstrate that after construction has been completed and the site permanently stabilized, the post development average annual total suspended solids (TSS) loadings from the site are reduced by 80% compared to predevelopment loadings with pollution control measures. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 24 - • Use one or more of the following best management practices to control urban runoff: infiltration trenches, concrete grid pavement, vegetated filter strips, water quality inlet catch basins with sand filter, or other appropriate practices using guidance from the RWQCB, US EPA, or other agency with water quality regulatory authority. A good source of information on best management practices can be found in "National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoiht Source Pollution from Urban Areas: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 2002). • The plans and specifications for the construction contract shall require that best management practices be implemented throughout construction. The City of Arroyo Grande shall inspect the project site during construction and verify that the construction contractor is implementing the proper erosion and water quality protection measures. The applicants shall implement the following water quality control and protection measures during construction: - Performing major vehicle maintenance, repair jobs and equipment washing off site; - Maintaining all vehicles and heavy equipment and inspecting frequently for leaks; - Designating one area of the construction site, well away from streams or storm drain outlets, for auto and equipment parking and routine vehicle and equipment maintenance; - Cleaning-up spilled dry materials immediately. Do not "wash them away" with water, or bury them; - Using only minimal water for dust control; - Cleaning-up liquid spills on paved or impermeable surfaces using "dry" cleanup methods (i.e., absorbent materials, cat letter, and/or rags); - Cleaning-up soils on dirt areas by removing and properly disposing of contaminated soil; - Reporting significant spills to the appropriate spill response agencies; - Storing stockpiled material, wastes, containers and dumpsters under a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting; - Properly storing containers of paints, chemicals, solvents and other hazardous materials in garages or sheds with double containment during rainy periods; - Placing dumpsters under roofs or covering them with plastic sheeting at the end of each work day and during rainy weather; - Washing out concrete mixers only in designated washout areas where the water will flow into setting ponds or onto stockpiles of aggregate base or sand. Whenever possible, recycling washout by pumping back into mixers for reuse. Never dispose of washout into the street, storm drains, drainage ditches, or streams; - Applying concrete, asphalt and seal coat during dry weather. Keeping contaminants from fresh concrete and asphalt out of the storm drains, creeks, by scheduling paving jobs during periods of dry weather, allowing new pavement to cure before storm water flows across it; Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 25 - Covering catch basins and manholes when applying seal coat, slurry seal, fog seal, etc.; and Always parking paving equipment over drip pans or absorbent materials, since they tend to drip continuously Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 4.8 Land Use and Planning The project is consistent with the policies and standards of Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan, the Village Mixed Use District Development Code, and Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. There are no significant land use related impacts, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 4.9 Noise Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by traffic. The project will generate ashort-term noise impact with construction activities. Long- term increases in traffic and other operational noise levels are considered less-than- significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary. Impact: Existing residences in the project area would be exposed to short-term noise impacts during construction. This is a significant impact that can be reduced to a less• than-significant level with the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.9.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:OOAM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. There shall be no construction activities on Saturday or Sunday. Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. MM 4.9.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least 300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor. MM 4.9.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: During construction 4.10 Public Services and Utilities Public services and utilities serving the project vicinity include police and fire protection, emergency response, schools and libraries, parks and recreation, utilities and solid waste disposal. Impacts to these services resulting from the project are less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 26 - 4.11 Water and Wastewater Wastewater disposal is not considered a significant impact and existing facilities can handle the increased project demand. Cumulative water supply impacts are considered significant but mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures. Impact: Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. Water consumption by this project would further reduce the City's remaining supply of available water. This impact will be minimized by mitigation measures, including using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping. The following mitigation shall be required to reduce impacts to aless-than-significant level. MM 4.11.1: The project shall comply with the City's required water conservation measures including any applicable measures identified in any applicable City Water Conservation Plans. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande.- Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 4.11.2: The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets, showerheads and hot water recirculation systems. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.11.3: The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant species and drip irrigation systems rather than spray irrigation systems. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 4.11.4: The project plans shall include methods for collecting surface run-off from the site for use on landscaped areas to reduce water use and minimize run-off to the extent feasible. Mitigation Level: Less-than-significant Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit' Creekside FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program - 27 - RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 21 EXHIBIT E STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CREEKSIDE CENTER Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the following requirements for a Statement of Overriding Considerations: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects, which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The Final Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update and the Final EIR for the Creekside Center project identified several mitigation measures for impacts related to cumulative water supply. Some require implementation on a regional basis. If these regional measures are established and enforced, water resources might be mitigated to a less than significant level. Until these regional measures are implemented, approval of any discretionary development project may involve unavoidable significant impacts. Therefore, CEQA findings and a statement of overriding consideration are needed to explain why the City considers this potentially significant impact as unavoidable but acceptable. The City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable potentially significant impact on cumulative water supply. Based on consideration of the record as a whole, the City Council finds that the following benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable and potentially significant environmental impact and make adoption acceptable: 1) Current estimates of regional water resources available during drought periods may be more or less than the City's currently available municipal water supply sources as documented in the City of Arroyo Grande Water Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan. This is because these water resources are also utilized by the Cities of Grover beach and Pismo Beach, the Oceano and Nipomo Community Services Districts, the County RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 22 of San Luis Obispo and hundreds of individual private agricultural and Rural and Suburban Residential wells. These other jurisdictions and users are not under the control of the City of Arroyo Grande. Continued agricultural irrigation and projected unincorporated area growth and development, particularly the responsibility of the County of San Luis Obispo to manage, make it infeasible for the City of'Arroyo Grande to mitigate water resource impacts to potentially less than ,significant. However, the 2001 General Plan contains principles, objectives and policies related to the conservation of water resources and reduced consumption within the City which better manage and limit land use and urban development to that which can likely be sustained by available water resources. The mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR for the Creekside Center project adhere to these water conservation policies. 2) The project enables implementation of General Plan policies related to economic development (business retention and expansion, and promotion of additional base level of jobs), Mixed Use development, creekway access and enhancement, historic preservation, and development of affordable housing. 3) The project retains and protects historic resources within the City's historic Village District and allows adaptive reuse of the Loomis residences, which will enhance tourism and add revenue to the City. 4) The project eliminates an antiquated small lot subdivision. If developed, these existing small lots would' create disjointed development, which is undesirable to the City. 5) The project improves vehicular circulation and safety by providing an all-way stop at the corner of Crown Terrace and Le Point Street, and a left turn pocket into the project site on Crown Hill. 6) The project improves pedestrian circulation and safety, especially for children attending Paulding Middle School, by providing a sidewalk along Crown Terrace and an internal pedestrian path connecting Le Point Street to East Branch Street. S:\Communiry Development\PROJECTS\TTM\Creekside TTM 2346\08-21-07 PC TTM & PUD Reso.doc ATTACHMENT1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORG~~ BY: ~;~. KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 & PLANNED UNIT, DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001; APPLICANT - DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION - 415 EAST BRANCH STREET (CONTINUED ,FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING) DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and a proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center), take tentative action on the project and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution. FUNDING: There would be additional City costs associated with maintenance if the City accepts the offer of dedication of the creek channel and creek setback area. DISCUSSION: Background The City Council adopted Resolution No. 3710 on September 23, 2003 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Creekside Center project. The previous project proposed to retain and remodel the existing office building, relocate two former Loomis residences, remove the E.C. Loomis and Son Feed Store and develop a retail commercial, office and residential complex on the former Loomis property located at the east edge of the Village. The EIR determined that the main residence would be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource, and that the grain warehouse serves as an important feature of the setting of the main house. In response to this determination, the applicant submitted revised plans that retain all of the existing structures and provides a larger residential component. The Planning Commission considered the ,project on April 19, 2005 and made the following recommendation to Council (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes): CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 2 Recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make findings No. 1, 2 and 3 of the Resolution approving the project regarding issues of consistency with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the General Plan; public health, safety, and welfare; and consistency with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. The Commission further added that the project could meet the findings for approval if the following issues were dealt with: 1. The driveways on Crown Terrace should be level or down sloped to the street. 2. The barn should be preserved in its entirety with net loss of three parking spaces and include a parking reduction for the barn or reduction in the proposed retail space to accommodate the loss of three parking spaces. 3. Provide public access to creek and park open space area. 4. There should be no gate, but have a "look back" provision fo reassess after one year. Enough space should be left if it is determined that a gate is necessary of a later date. 5. The building design, height and materials should go back to ARC and Planning Commission before issuance of a building permit for final development. 6. There should be further determination and detailed description of any retaining walls along Crown Terrace. 7. The issue of biological creek filters should be included in the staff report to Council. 8. A model to scale of the project in its entirety, should be presented to Council. 9. The project should be reduced by one unit in Plan 'B" to improve on-site loading and parking. 10. The access between the Barn and Loomis house should provide a pedestrian path out to the sidewalk. In response to Planning Commission comments and concerns, the applicant proposed the following project revisions. 1. Residential driveways leading from the four (4) residential units along Crown Terrace will slope downward to provide for traffic sight distance visibility. 2. The addition to the rear portion of the existing warehouse will be retained and the resultant loss of parking spaces will be absorbed with a subsequent loss of retail space at the warehouse or the conversion of existing residences to commercial uses. 3. The existing loading dock along the easterly wall of the warehouse will be retained, and the newly constructed handicap ramp will be relocated with development of the proposed commercial structure. 4. A pedestrian access will be provided from East Branch Street between the warehouse and Loomis house leading to the residential area of the project. 5. The originally proposed controlled access ,,gate between the residential and commercial areas has been eliminated from the project plans. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 3 6. The City's ARC and Planning Commission will approve final building designs, materials of construction and color schemes. 7. The guardrail along Crown Terrace is to be constructed in accordance with the standards adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 8. The applicant intends to incorporateJthe Best Available Technology (BAT), as outlined by the Federal EPA standards, to deal with pollution caused by urban runoff. 9. A scale model for the site has been completed at a scale of 1 "=20' and will be available at the City Council meeting. 10. Flood sections with this development were presented with the subdivision application submittal. These sections and calculations indicate conformance with the City's Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 501. 11. Creek clean up and restoration will be improved and managed with the development of the residential component of the project in accordance with the submitted landscape plans and the recommendations contained within the FEIR for the project. 12. The elimination or modification of street light structures and their intensity in the residential areas of the project is acceptable if the City allows for deviation from these requirements. The City Council considered this project on June 14, 2005 and continued the item to a date uncertain pending resolution of several issues (see Attachment 2 for Meeting Minutes). Issues discussed included: • Reciprocal access agreement with adjacent property to the west. • Safe access to Paulding Middle School. • Sight distance concern on Crown Terrace where it intersects with Crown Hill. • Left turn pocket design. • Crown Terrace/Le Point Street intersection improvements. • Tree removal along Crown Terrace' Large scale of proposed wmmercial building. in relation to the Loomis barn. • Clarification of how the public/priva4e;interface within the 25' creek setback area will be managed. • Emphasis of pedestrian access throughout the project. • Widening of Crown Terrace. In response to Council comments, the applicant secured a reciprocal easement for ingress and egress with the neighboring property to the west (see Attachment 3 for signed agreement), and revised the tentative tract map to show the 25' wide creek setback area as an individual parcel to be irrevocably offered to the City. Revisions to the Grading Plan, Easement Plan and Flood Sections were also made. The applicant additionally submitted the following exhibits to further clarify features of the project (see Attachment 4): 1. Creek Easement, Open Space and Setback Exhibit, identifying the various setbacks and easements along Tally Ho Creek. The 25' wide creek setback area is shown on the revised tentative tract map as Lot 14. Consistent with CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE'CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 4 Development Code Section 16.64.060(R), the creekbed and 25' from the top of the bank will be irrevocably dedicated to the City. The area identified on the exhibit as the shaded homeowners open space area is an open space amenity accessible to members of the Creekside Homeowners Association (HOA) and will be maintained by the HOA. The applicant recommends that a trail easement be recorded but remain unimproved, without public access, until such time as additional easement segments are acquired and a trail constructed by the City linking a creek trail system between existing public right of ways (on Le Point Street and East Branch Street). 2. Creek Landscaping and Improvement Plan Exhibit, which shows proposed landscaping, play structure and other miscellaneous improvements within the floodplain setback area. Slight modifications to the landscape plan will be necessary to move the proposed Homeowner's amenities from the area now identified as Lot 14. 3. Creek Grading Plan Exhibit, illustrating the preliminary grading proposed for the creek area and adjacent houses. 4. Composite Creek Grading and Landscaping Plan Exhibit, which is a composite of the above two exhibits. 5a. Pedestrian Pathways Exhibit, illustrating pedestrian and open space connections through the project to East Branch Street and the Village Area. 5b. Driveway and Parking Areas Exhibit, including the second access onto East Branch Street. 6. Sidewalk View of New Building -Design Compatibility Exhibit shows the view of the new commercial building and warehouse building from a pedestrian's sidewalk viewpoint from the north side of East Branch Street. 7. Warehouse/New Building -Design Compatibility Exhibit shows existing and proposed views of the property frontage illustrating compatible size, scale and design elements between the existing warehouse and new commercial building without making any design modifications to the design of the submitted project. 8. East Branch Street/Crown Hill Street/Condo Street Elevation Exhibit illustrates the size and scale of the main architectural elements in the vicinity. The exhibit shows that the condo units, with the exposed under story, dominate the visual backdrop to the site and in the neighborhood. The proposed commercial building provides a middle position in the spatial hierarchy of the streetscape and appears complimentary in size, scale and massing to the other urban forms on the site. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 5 9. Crown Terrace Right-of-Way Width -Impact Comparison Exhibit illustrates the impact of required retaining wall heights if Crown Terrace were to increase from two, 12' wide travel lanes with no parking to two, 15' travel lanes. Other related impacts would be shorter length of driveways, effects on structural retaining walls within the residential units and floor plan redesigns. 10. Left Tum Pocket Exhibit shows the design and functional characteristics of a left turn pocket into the project from Crown Hill Street. A 6' wide sidewalk with ADA compliance ramps will also be improved. Final design details of these improvements will accompany the improvement plans for the project. The applicant submitted additional information regarding drainage including calculations identifying the difference in pre and post development volumes for various storm events using the San Luis Obispo County standards. The drainage evaluation indicates that the peak flows are being reduced through reduction in impervious surface area. Also included is correspondence between the City Public Works Department and TEC Civil Engineering Consultants discussing drainage detention basin need, design, and location (see Attachment 5). Regarding the suggested redesign of Plan "A", the applicant studied the point of access for the upper duplex unit at the comer of Le Point and Crown Terrace and determined that due to the steepness of the Le Point slope, the garage access would be awkward and potentially conflict and interfere with travel lane vehicles at the intersection. Therefore, no design modifications of the garage location were made. The applicant also evaluated the removal of the three-foot high clearstory roof element on the commercial building and concluded that this detail helps to provide visual relief to the roof plane, and helps diminish the vertical profile of the building. Council considered the above revisions to the project on August 8, 2006 (see Attachment 6 for Meeting Minutes) and directed staff and the applicant to address the issue concerning impervious surfaces. Council further directed staff to facilitate the involvement of the Tree Guild concerning the issue of tree removal and protection. In response to Council concerns, the applicant has provided additional information and analysis as follows: 1. Revised Commercial Building Design. The roof and floor plans for the proposed commercial building have been redesigned (see Attachment 7). Based on comments received from the Council and public regarding the bulk and mass of the building, the gable roofs were changed to hip roofs, the siding changed from vertical to horizontal to emphasize a horizontal dimension, and the Crown Street building frontage on the second and third floors was stepped back and replaced with outdoor patio areas which enables a view of the Victorian house above Crown Terrace. 2. Tree Removal. With input from the Tree Guild, the applicant hired arborist Carolyn Leach to assess tree removal and protection on the project site. Based on the arborist report (included as Attachment 8), a total of eighty-five (85) trees CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 6 are located on the subject property, all of which are proposed to be removed (see table below for tree inventory). The report recommends that the two (2) Coast live oak trees and the Canary Island date palm are good candidates for successful transplanting and that the remaining trees are too large, too diseased, or too problematic to transplant. The project is conditioned to transplant these trees at a suitable location on or off-site. Tree Inventory 4uarti Common Name. . ' .... Botanical Name 70 Le land c ress X Cu ressoc aris le landii 5 Brisbane box Tristania conferta 3 Willow Salix laevigate 2 Coastal live oak Quercus a rifolia 2 Cottonwood Po ulus tricoca a 2 M o ovum M o ovum leatum 1 Cana Island date alm Phoenix canariensis 3. Crown Hill Turn Pocket, Speed Humps and Signage. The Public Works Department recommends that the Crown Hill entry be improved with a left tum pocket and marking the entrance area with a "keep clear" message. Speed humps along Le Point Street and speed limit signage can be installed if directed by Council. 4. Street and Project Lighting. Representatives from PG&E have indicated that the City can recommend the type, location and style of lighting, both along the Right of Ways and internal to the project. PG&E will accept the light standards into their maintenance system following their improvement by the developer. Included as Attachment 9 are examples of the style of street light standards recently adopted by the City for the Village area. Proposed are low profile, pedestrian oriented light standards within the residential areas of the Creekside project. 5. Flood Plain Management District and FEMA Floodplain. City Ordinance No. 501 and the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that was prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were reviewed to confirm compliance with the requirements. Residential development located in an "A" zone must have the lowest floor elevated at.least one foot (1') above the base flood elevation, exclusive of areas used for parking or storage areas. Attachment 10 is a FIRM map exhibit illustrating that the majority of the project site is within the flood zone. Garages shall conform to City requirements and storage cabinets shall be elevated in the event of a flood situation. 6. Existing Impervious Surface/Drainage Retention. GeoSolutions, Inc. prepared a geotechnical investigation on the property that included six (6) site borings and a soils analysis (Attachment 11). The report indicates that the site is covered with a five to twelve inch (5" - 12") base layer and that the existing surface CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-007 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 ' PAGE 7 conditions at the site provide near impervious surface drainage. The fact that the proposed project represents a significaht decrease of impervious surface area was assessed to determine the need for an on-site drainage retention basin. However, based on the "Detention Basin Analysis" prepared by the Wallace Group dated June 2006 (Attachment 12), it is not advisable to include local detention basins on sites within Flood. Management Zone B (the project site lies within this zone). Stormwater detention is therefore not recommended for the proposed project due to the lack of effectiveness in benefiting the later- occurring peak flow in the creek and the potential for increasing peak flow rates downstream as a result of the lag time associated with the peak creek flows. 7. Upper Floor Parkins Garages. The, applicant contacted building officials and inspectors at the Cities of Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo, as well as the County of San Luis Obispo regarding the safety and construction drawbacks to having parking garages above living spaces. The response from these agencies was that if the structure is' designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and structural engineering specifications, there have been no reported problems. Proiect Description The proposed project is a reconfiguration of twenty-three (23) underlying lots into thirteen (13) lots, and amixed-use development composed of 12 duplexes, a 12,000 square foot commercial/office building, and potential conversion of existing structures (two residences) to commercial uses (see table below for square footage and coverage information). The warehouse is currently occupied by a fabric'store (Chameleon). Primary access to the commercial development is from East Branch Street and Crown Hill and the residences have access from either Crown Terrace or Le Point Street. Currently, the plans do not include a controlled entry gate between the residential', and commercial uses, as depicted on earlier plans. The Conceptual Landscape (Plan shows rail bed gravel along the old Pacific Coast Railroad right of way in an effort to simulate and preserve this historic feature. Proiect Statistics: Site Area 121,205 s.f. 2.78 acres Existing Impervious Surface Area (buildings, driveways, walkways, parking- impervious,sun`ace area from FEIR Sec. 4.7-6, less area now not a arf 117,778 s.f. Pro osed Proiect Foot riots/Covers e: e Warehouse 5,880 s.f. e House Maud 962 s.f. e House Hilde 834 s.f. New Commercial 4,421 s.f. New Residential Plan A, 4 buildin s 9,284 s.f. New Residential Plan B, 8 buildin s 9,296 s.f. Parkin ,Drives, Walks/Patios 43,257 s.f. Total Impervious Surface Area ro osed ro'ect re resents a 36% decrease in im ervious surface area 73,934 s.f. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04.001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE'CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 8 Residential Plan "A" contains eight (8) units in four (4) buildings with access from either interior drives at grade level, or above from Crown Terrace. The duplexes are three (3) levels with individual units ranging from 1,940 to 2,595 square feet. Residential Plan "B" contains eight (8) primary units and eight (8) second units in eight (8) buildings, all two (2) stories with access from interior drives. These units are smaller, from 420 to 1,303 square feet in size (with optional plan for a larger; 1,523 square foot unit). The commercial structure has three (3) levels with an elevator and two-story parking garage accessed from Crown Terrace and at grade level. The project is conditioned to not exceed the thirty-six foot (36') height limit for the Village Mixed Use (VMU) district. The architectural style of the complex is a mix of Craftsman and California' Bungalow. Per the originally adopted 2003 Housing Element (the tentative map is vested under that Housing Element), the project is subject to a 10% inclusionary requirement, or two (2) units. Environmental Review City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project in September 2003. An Addendum has been prepared for the project to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the revised project (see Attachment 13). Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Lead Agency (the City) shall prepare an addendum to an EIR only if minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR document adequate, and the changes made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on'the environment. The Addendum must be considered prior to making a decision on the project. The Addendum provides information to the City Coundil on the changes to the site plan, changes to environmental impacts resulting from these revisions, and conclusions about the potential changes in impacts. Focused issues addressed in the Addendum include the following: • Parking • Traffic/Access Historical Resources Recreation Biological Resources Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR). The monitoring or reporting program (MMP) must ensure implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the mitigated negative declaration or EIR. The MMP is required for all mitigation measures adopted by the City as conditions of the project approval. When the City certified the FEIR, the City agreed to adopt all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR for the project, and the mitigation measures shall be required to avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The MMP, included as Attachment 14, contains the relevant mitigation required for the original project and new mitigation for the revised project. CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 9 Parkins Total proposed parking for the project has been reduced by four (4) spaces with retention of -the warehouse side loading dock and rear addition (see table below for parking calculations). Parking is considered adequate by utilizing the parking reduction provision in Development Code Section 16.56.050, which allows up to a 20% parking reduction for mixed-use projects. The loss of four (4) parking spaces represents a 3.4% parking reduction. Parkin Re uirements Residential Units Required Parkin Pro osed Parkin Second Residences 8 units 1 per unit = 8 spaces uncovered 1 per unit = 8 spaces uncovered 2 Bedroom (8 units) 2 per unit + 0.5 per unit for guest arkin = 20 s aces 2 per unit + 2 guest spaces = 18 s aces 3 Bedroom (8 units) 2 per unit + 0.5 per uniffor guest arkin = 20 s aces 2 per unit + 5 guest spaces = 21 s aces Subtotal: 48 spaces (32 covered and 16 uncovered 47 spaces (32 covered and 15 uncovered ,.,. Commercial 1 er 300 s . ft. of floor area Existin Warehouse 19 s aces 19 s aces Existin Residences 11 s aces 8 s aces New Office/Retail 40 s aces. 40 s aces Subtotal: 70 s aces 67 s aces . ,, TOTAL: 118 s aces 114 s aces DIFFERENCE: - 4 s aces Traffic/Access The original project included the property developed with an office building and storage units adjacent to Tally Ho Creek. This one (1) acre property, which has the only direct driveway access from East Branch Street, was sold. The applicant recently secured an access agreement from the adjacent property owner to the west, significantly improving access and site circulation. As mentioned above, residential traffic will access the site from either Crown Terrace or Le Point Street. In response to concerns of turning movement ,conflicts with the Paulding Middle School AM and PM peak hour traffic, a separate Site Access Analysis was conducted by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE), dated February 11, 2005. The analysis concluded that the proposed access at Crown Hill would not adversely impact the projected level of service (LOS) A-B. As added mitigation, however, ATE recommended that a "KEEP CLEAR" zone be painted in front of the Crown Hill driveway to accommodate left hand turn movements into the project. Since a "keep clear" area would not always be obeyed and requires enforcement, staff determined that a left turn pocket into the project site would be a superior solution (MM 4.11.1). The road is wide enough at this location to install a left turn pocket and allow sufficient room for cars to pass through. To accomplish this, the curbs on Crown Hill must be painted red up to Crown Terrace (red curb already exists for half the distance). CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 10 ATE also conducted a Stop Sign Warrant Analysis dated February 23, 2005 for the intersection of Le Point Street and Crown Terrace. The study concludes that the traffic volumes, delays and speeds at this intersection do not`warrant an all-way stop or a partial (two-way) stop. Staff believes that other criteria (such as sight distance and safety) besides that contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, apply to this intersection that favor the installation of a multi-way stop configuration with crosswalks as follows: • Since the project will provide a new pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of Crown Terrace, pedestrians must be able to safely access the existing crosswalk on the north side of Le Point Street east of the intersection. In accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 6-02.12, crosswalks shall be installed on the west and northern legs of the intersection to discourage pedestrians from crossing Crown Terrace on the south side of the intersection. City will not allow crosswalks to be installed at uncontrolled intersections. • There are also considerations for traffic circulation due to the offset geometry of Crown Terrace entering Le Point Street. The centerlines of the northern and southern legs of Crown Terrace are offset by approximately 50 feet. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 403.3 also discourages roadways entering intersections at an angle skewed more than 30°. The current configuration of the northbound lane of Crown Terrace enters the intersection at an approximate 50° angle. The northbound lane must be reconfigured to enter the intersection at a 90° angle. This will enable northbound traffic to better negotiate the left turn onto westbound Le Point Street. • The steep grade of eastbound Le Point Street and the inadequate corner sight distance of northbound Crown Terrace onto Le Point Street qualify as "Undesirable Geometric Features" for intersections in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 402.2. Historical Resources The EIR determined that the main house has historical significance (i.e. is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places) ahd that the warehouse contributes to the "setting" of the main house, but by itself is not considered historically significant. The revised project retains all existing structures, which changes the environmental determination from a Class I impact (significant and unavoidable) to a Class IV impact (beneficial) and Class II (Significant but mitigable). A new mitigation measure (MM 4.4.1) has been added requiring the co-applicant and the new owner of the property to register the main residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Any change to the "R3" occupancy classification or any physical alteration also requires consistency with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68) or technical advisories (MM 4.4.2). CITY COUNCIL VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 11 Recreation The original project included several open space/recreational amenities, including an amphitheatre and pedestrian trail network along the creek and throughout the project. Because the project site is an acre smaller in size resulting from the sale of the office property, recreational opportunities are reduced. However, the residential component of the project does incorporate an open space area that includes a play structure, picnic table and bench adjacent to the creek. As mitigation, the applicant is required to record an open space easement (MM 4.3.30 and MM 4.3.31). Overall, the project includes approximately 56,284 square feet (1.29 acres) of open space. Biological Resources As with the recreational opportunities described above, the opportunity for enhancement of Tally Ho (Corbett Canyon) Creek is also reduced due to the exclusion of the existing office property. As mitigation, the applicant is required to record an open space agreement and atwenty-five foot (25') creek public access and maintenance easement measured from top of bank. The creek easement must also include provisions for a pedestrian trail (MM 4.4.30). The project is further required to construct anon-erosive footpath to the creek (MM 4.4.31). PUBLIC COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and a public notice was placed in the,Tribune. Included as Attachment 15 are letters received previously for the August 8, 2006 meeting. Also attached is a letter from Adair and Trudy Brown, owners of the warehouse property, dated October 18, 2006 (see Attachment 17). ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Take tentative action to approve the project and direct staff to return at a subsequent meeting with a supporting, resolution (Draft Resolution included as Attachment 16); 2. Take tentative action to deny the project and direct staff to return at a subsequent meeting with a supporting resolution; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2005 2. City Council Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2005 3. Reciprocal access agreement 4. Exhibits Submitted by Applicant 5. Drainage Calculations 6. City Council Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2006 7. Commercial Building Elevation Exhibits 8. Arborist Report prepared by Carolyri Leach dated September 1, 2006 9. Examples of street light standards 10. FIRM Map clTV couNCl~ VTTM 04-004; PUD 04-001 OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 12 (CREEKSIDE MIXED-USE CENTER) 11. Geotechnical Investigation by GeoSolutions, Inc. dated September 19, 2006 12. Detention Basin Analysis prepared by the Wallace Group dated June 2006 13. EIR Addendum for the Creekside Mized-Use Center 14. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 15. Letters received for the August 8, 2006 City Council Meeting 16. Draft Resolution of Approval 17. Letter from Adair and Trudy Brown dated October 18, 2006 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 e ~. ...ATTACHMENT 1'. -° . (OF ATTACHMENT 1) Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to schedule consent items 3, 4 & 5 to a public hearing, date uncertain. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker,Tait, Fellows, Keen and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004; APPLICANT - DB & M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION - 415 EAST BRANCH STREET (continued from April 4, 2005 meeting). Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, gave a brief update of the proposal for the mixed use development; stated that the Commission had ~ previously considered this at a special hearing on April 4, 2005; stated that site access, stop sign warrant analyses (conducted by Associated Traffic Engineers) and' retention of the loading dock on the east side of the warehouse were discussed at the meeting. Ms. Heffernon further discussed water supply, stating that measures had already been included in the EIR addendum; the level of significance may have to be changed from significant and unavoidable to potentially significant but mitigable; adoption of overriding considerations is therefore not necessary. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff 'recommends the Commission. adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council subject to Conditions of Approval. Commission Comments: Keen: • He was ready to move forward with approval of this project. • He would like to add a mitigation that all the drives on Crown Terrace be sloped down toward the street for safety. • Agreed with the four-way stop. • The 25-foot setback should be clarified with subdivision; there seems to be conflict with the requirements for other projects.: • The gate between the commercial and residential should be an access for emergency vehicles only and not a through gate. Parker: • Is in favor of reducing parking in the commercial area in order to retain the portion of the historical barn and the square footage of the 2nd building. • The creek walk/access to the park should' be retained; the City should maintain the park; it should be opened up and made larger (by losing one of,the units). • Commercial and residential parking should be open; visitor parking could be signed; remove the gate to make parking more accessible;to the duplexes. • Cannot understand what the building materials would look like from the drawings; would like them to match the barn and look more, historic; not in favor of corrugated metal painted green (needs to look more rustic); ARC may have ideas; not in favor of stucco, it's too modern. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 4 • The design of the 3-story duplexes is very innovative; likes the density; has concern that the 3-story may look large; would like, each duplex to look individual to lesson the impact. • There is already a problem in this area with the traffic; mitigations may improve it. • Putting in a sidewalk and railing for the pedestrian walkway may make it better; concern with safety of backing out onto Crown Terrace and putting in sidewalk along a narrow of 24 feet; not sure how this will work and~concern that it will be a problem. • The duplexes are very large; suggest the square footage be reduced to allow more green space and this in turn could eliminate some other problems and make them more affordable. Fellows: • Asked if the sketch submitted by Mr. Balgeman had been considered by staff. • The site is a good place for homes and makes a walkable community; the proposed commercial development would help with sales tax revenue also. • The Crown Terrace sidewalk is badly needed; the proposed four-way stop is needed and the proposed curb should be squared up for safety. • There are negative impacts for the neighbors on Crown Hill due to the size of project, the number of units proposed and the serious circulation problems as proposed -one entrance and exit only at a 'snarled up corner. • The gate was proposed to stop people form driving through the commercial area out onto LePoint Street; he could not'support the circulation as it was now. • Pedestrians should have a place to walk separate from the driveway; suggested a pathway between the barn and Maud's house and a raised textured walkway from the residential units and out along the pathway to the sidewalk. • If this project were approved as proposed the result in traffic snarl would be ridiculous and unacceptable. • If egress (exit through the Hayes property) is not obtained and if an easement for foot traffic is not worked out, the project should lie started from square one with a much reduced plan for the front and rear phases; if the egress is obtained the project should be modified with no more than 20 residential units; 8,000 sq ft of commercial; a lower street front profile. This may mean no third story units and no second level parking units on Crown Terrace; the project needs a card key gate between the commercial and residential; ingress near the present barn with angled parking with access out the back; a safe walkway from the residential areas; the rear portion of the barn and the loading dock retained; garden area between Hilde's house and old stone wall left as is and because of the amount of asphalt, etc. there should be one or more retention basins/biological filte~s',to treat water before it runs off into the creek. • If he is overruled and there are homes on Crown Terrace there should be no backing out; hammerhead driveways are the only way to go. • Ifthe-neighbors above do not want street lights, they should be an option. • If there is a 2-story parking garage the roof should• not be open. • A scale model of the project is required. " • A left turn pocket does not in any way mitigate the loss of egress through the Hayes property. • The circulation is unacceptable. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 5 Tait: • This project can achieve goals of the City, provide housing options and create walkable neighborhoods and expand transportation choices. It reduces land consumption; likes proximity to Village and enhances community; supports Village shops; connects people with places. • He has serious concern with potential flooding even though this has been addressed in the EIR; he had spoken to Gorden Bennett who gave him history of flooding in the Village who said that the Tally Ho Creek should be cleared out. ` He read excerpts from the DEIR by Duffy & Assoc. which stressed the potential for flooding in the area of the project site; read excerpts from mitigation measures for the Town Center EIR (a proposal on the same site in 1980); he would like to get an update on these concerns. • As requested in the April 4, Planning Commission minutes, who is going to take care of the creek clean up. The EIR does not specify this. • The removal of any part of the structure of the historic barn should not take place. • Could not support the removal of the back loading dock to provide additional parking. • There have been more than twenty public comment letters received regarding concerns with traffic, driveway backing out onto Crown Terrace and pedestrian safety - he shares these concerns. • The proposed yellow curb for commercial deliveries would take away from street parking for the other businesses. •. The project may be too dense if delivery trucks cannot get into the project to deliver; he hopes there is room for emergency vehicles. • Concern about the loss of open space and recreational amenities that were included in the original project and the opportunity for enhancement of the Tally Ho Creek is reduced due to the sale of the existing office property. • . He recommended: Reduce the residential buildings in Plan 'A' by one (decreasing the number of driveways on Crown Hill); reduce number of buildings in Plan 'B' by one, this would help accommodate the large delivery trucks and would provide for expansion of the creek area located at top of creek. • A scale model is definitely needed before going to City Council. Brown: • He would like to see the Commissioner's diverse points of view reflected in detail in the minutes for City Council. • Read the four findings required for approval of the project; he could not make finding No. 3, regarding historic resources due to the proposed alteration of the back portion of the barn to provide parking spaces. • He agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments regarding the driveway slopes. • There should be no gate; this should be a relief route for pedestrians; there should be a "look-back" provision of 6 months to, one year; if not successful, a gate could then be put in. • Agrees with the suggestion from Commissioner Parker to reduce the retail space for parking. • Agrees with possibility of reducing future uses of the barn to preserve parking ` spaces lost by preserving the barn. • Access to the creek is an important issue. • A model of the project should be required to provide a level of comfort for the public, Commission and Council. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 6 • Density: 3-stories is acceptable, but smaller units would make them more affordable. • The retaining walls should be dealt with by staff before going to Council. Circulation: The developer has made a problem by not having an access agreement before selling the property next door; he was leaning toward approval of the project because it would have less traffic than if it was a completely retail project; there is already a traffic problem in this area. • He agreed with Commissioner Fellows regarding the stone garden wall, the side walks on north side of LePoint and the street lights; he was not sure if the left turn pocket lane would solve the problem and the "keep clear' signage should be included. • He understands the neighbor's concerns with this project, but there will be a project at this site regardless, and while circulation is an issue he was likely to vote in favor of the project if the right motion could be crafted. • He would like to see a recommendation to Council regarding creek clean up, flooding and good language to take care of the 100-year flood level. Commissioner Tait asked Mr. Devens if an analysis had been done on the culvert, as recommended in the 2002 DEIR. Mr. Devens stated there is a study being done, currently being reviewed, for a property owner on the corner of Le Point and carried all the way down to East Branch Street. Mr. Strong explained that flooding is evident on the property; it is addressed in the EIR and it is mandatory that the new development be protected from flooding or it would not be permitted; it is a Federal requirement and is in the Code. Commissioner Keen stated that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to design the project; the Commission should either deny or approve the project. Commissioner Fellows stated he would be more comfortable with a denial of this project as trying to craft a motion to include every concern could leave something important out. After further Commission discussion, (on how they should move forward) Chair Brown stated that as the project is currently proposed a majority of the Commission have enough concerns that one or more of the findings cannot be met; he would like. to see the project move forward in some positive manlier; he asked the applicant if he would like to comment. Joe Boud, the applicant's representative: • This proposal has been before all committees for over a year with pre-application review to gain insight and make adjustments. He is fine with the suggestion of sloping, the drives down; losing the gate; minor adjustments to the building materials, even though the ARC has already recommended approval of this project as submitted. • Traffic: The conclusions from the traffic study indicated the LOS was not going to be affected; there were no major traffic problems except during school rush hour. • Having a walkway between the Barn and' Maud's house is a good idea. • Crown Terrace: 24-foot street width is equal to two travel lanes. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 7 • Unit max count and square footage: We meet the City's zoning code and the project was designed with this in mind. • Regarding the loss of the 6 parking spaces and the barn, the applicant would agree to retain the barn in it's entirety if the Commission would be willing to approve a parking reduction if that portion of the barn were to convert to a full retail use; losing square footage on the new commercial building to reduce parking requirements would be a problem. • The size of units is directed by the footprint and the garage on the top level, etc; it would not work to squeeze down the units; he explained all the constraints that had to be considered. • If City can avoid street lights, that would be fine with them. • The creek and flooding: The permitting authorities will take care of this; it is all part of the EIR. • Open space and recreational usage: Approximately 25% of the site is dedicated to open space; they would not be in favor of reducing the units to provide more. • Widening Crown Terrace would require a massive retaining wall and they did not consider this necessary. • They could do a scale model. • He would like the Commission to make a recommendation that includes their concerns. Fellows: • Why do the "out of town" experts state that there will not be a traffic problem at this site even though the traffic experts failed to see the traffic problem at Rancho Grande. Mr. Boud - he could only speak for the traffic report at this development and they have indicated that the LOS would not be negatively affected with this project. Tait: • Who is going to do the creek clean up? Mr. Boud -the applicant with the required agency approvals; the creek walkway system if if extends up to Tally Ho could be created for the benefit of the public; could be conditioned to identify this as a desired goal; they believe they have enough open space (25% of the site). • The scale model is definitely needed.' Mc Boud -suggested that the City incorporate this as a requirement into the application process. Parker: • Asked Mr. Boud to clarify if they intended to open up the park for'the public. Mr. Boud - if the City would maintain the area and the amenity area included as a credit to the development. • Asked if there was a pedestrian access between the Barn and Maud's Home would they agree to continue the path to the park if the City would maintain it? Mr. Boud - agree this would be a good idea for the City. • Re the design submitted by Mr. Balgeman: How do you plan on putting up guard rails along the driveways and still maintain visual access for backing out. Mr. Boud- it could be done without a solid wall and would meet the building standards. After further discussion the Commission agreed that they were ready to make a motion with some recommendations to•Council. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 8 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make finding #2 that the project will affect public health and safety. Chair Brown asked that the motion be amended to include finding No. 1 (as it is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City), and finding No. 3 (for historic resources as the applicant is proposing to remove the back portion of the barn). The motion was amended: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend denial of the proposal based on the inability to make findings No. 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Parker asked if the motion to deny was based on the findings not being met in the current proposal and that it does not include what the developer is willing to change? She would like a motion to state what the developer is willing to change. Chair Brown stated that the motion to deny was based on the findings in the current proposal. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Tait, Parker and Chair Browh NOES: Commissioner Keen ABSENT: None Discussion: Chair Brown stated he wanted to make sure that the Council would be aware of all of the issues that the Commission had concems with. Commissioner Keen asked if more specific detail should be included regarding the findings for denial. Chair Brown added that regarding finding No. 1 he did have some concerns for pedestrian access to the creek, pedestrian recreation area and if the terms of the General Plan are being met by the open space. Commission Fellows stated that he had not made specific mention in finding No. 1 that the lack of bio-filtration of run off water as one of the concerns for public health and taking off the back of the barn (finding 1 & 3). Chair Brown made a motion that the project could meet the findings if the following issues were dealt with: ' 1. The driveways on Crown Terrace should be level or down sloped to the street. 2. The barn should be preserved in its entirety with net loss of three parking spaces and include a parking reduction for the barn or reduction in the proposed retail space to accommodate the loss of three parking spaces. 3. Provide public access to creek and park open space area. 4. There should be no gate, but have a,"look back" provision to reassess after one year. Enough space should be left if it'is determined that a gate is necessary at a later date. 5. The building design, height and materials should go back to ARC and Planning Commission before issuance of a building permit.final development. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 2005 PAGE 9 6. There should be further determination and detailed description of any retaining walls along Crown Terrace. 7. The issue of biological creek filters should be included in the staff report to Council 8. A model to scale of the project in its entirety should be presented to Council. 9. The project should be reduced by one unit in Plan 'B" to improve on-site loading and parking. 10. The creek access between the Barn and Maud house should be opened up to provide a pedestrian path out to the sidewalk. Commissioner Tait asked if the Branch Street flood study of the culvert would influence the project? Mr. Devens replied that it is currently under review, but is not for this project. Commissioner Tait asked again about the clean up of the creek and stated his concern. Chair Brown said he would amend the motion to state: "the staff report shall include that some investigation be done as to the process ltimelines and responsibilities of clean up of the creek". Commission Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Keen stated he agreed that it was very important to clean up the creek, but that he did not think it was the developer's problem and felt instead that it is the City's responsibility. He requested an additional amendment to the motion to include the 4-way stop and the 3-way stop be lit and one street light in the middle of Crown Terrace (but not at the same spacing as downtown). Commissioner Parker stated that street lighting for residential areas could be applied to this, not Village commercial lighting. Chair Brown said he would amend the motion to investigate if Crown Terrace could have residential lighting as opposed to commercial Village lighting. Commissioner Fellows questioned the reason for eliminating the gate; Chair Brown stated to make full use of the mixed use design parking, but the "look-back" provision should be included. Commissioner Fellows stated circulation is a huge problem, fewer units will not help, there is lack of a biological filter for drainage to the creek and where Crown Hill stops at Branch Street there should be a crosswalk, with or without the project. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners Parker and Tait NOES: Commissioners Keen and Fellows ABSENT: None The Commission took a 10=minute break. ;, ~~ATTACHMENT 2', ' (OFJATTACHMENT 1' CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 6 Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING WATER AND SEWER RATES AND CHARGES", and approving the tiered rate structure with yearly usage monitoring. Following discussion, the motion was amended to include that the tiered water rate schedule would be implemented as soon as feasible arid'a water conservation status report would be provided a year from the date of implementation. Council Member Guthrie seconded the amended motion. Following further discussion cohcerning monitoring and reporting, the motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNT OF LOPEZ CONTRACT CHARGES". Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None At 8:25 p.m. at the request of Council Member Dickens, the Council unanimously agreed to take a recess to allow time to review correspondence received at the beginning of the meeting relating to Item 9.c. Mayor Ferrara reconvened the meeting at 8:38 p.m. 9.c. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant - DB 8 M Properties, LLC; Location - 415 East Branch Street. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an Addendum to a certified Environmental Impact Report and a proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the project as presented at the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner Heffernon noted that the applicant had since made changes to the project in accordance with Planning Commission and public comment. Staff,responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, spoke_ on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief background presentation on the status and design of the project which has been in progress for the past five years. He stated that the proposed mixed-use project had been presented to the Council as apre-application last year in order to better understand the City's goals and expectations for the site. He stated the project had been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Planning Commission and support letters had been provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Village Improvement Association. He explained that the project had been redesigned as a result of feedback received. He referred CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENTRGENCY MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 7 to Conditions #79 and #94 and suggested a change to the requirement for full sidewalk improvements along Le Point Street; had agreed to the down slope driveways on Crown Terrace; commented that the barn had been retained; referred to Condition #6 which requires an open space agreement and a trail easement; commented that the applicant agreed to eliminate the gate between the residential and commercial components; stated that the driveway between the barn and Maude house had been eliminated; stated they had also agreed to return the project back to the Planning Commission and'ARC and suggested that a condition for this be added; noted that a guard rail sample had been provided which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and ARC; noted that a storm drain filter sample had been provided; and noted that a scale model of the project had, been prepared. He commented that the creek cleanup and restoration comments made at Planning Commission would be managed through the mitigation-monitoring program as specified in the EIR, as well as compliance with the flood control ordinance. He stated that they agreed to modify the streetlights, which may require a change to Condition #72. He concluded by stating that almost every item the Planning Commission brought up was incorporated into the project with the exception of the loss of one residential unit. He stated the project complies with all development code standards; the commercial building was designed to compliment the Loomis building, and the bungalow style residential units were designed to compliment the Village. He stated he hoped this was a project the Council could support. Mr. Boud responded to questions from Council concerning circulation issues surrounding the project; the proposed height of the commercial building; the proposed trail easement, proposed fencing, and clarificatiori concerning required setbacks. Earl Balpeman, Le Point Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project and stated he had only heard about this project in January. He suggested involving the neighborhood earlier, at the beginning of the process. He expressed concerns regarding safety on Crown Terrace and Le Point Street due to increased traffic generated from the development, density of the proposed project, as well as ingress and egress from Crown Terrace. James Norby, Le Point Street, opposed the design of the project and said it did not make sense to have 24 units exiting the development onto adead-end street. He also said he heard the adjacent property owner would not grant an easement and that this should be required so a driveway could be used from E. Branch Street. ` Carol Fulmer, Le Point Street, asked that the project include a crosswalk where the sidewalks on Crown Terrace and Le Point already intersect near the proposed island. She expressed concern that the growth of this area has not yet been addressed and it was not fair to dump the traffic from amixed-use project into awell-established urban area; agreed that the traffic should be put onto the commercial streets and not back into the neighborhood. Bill McCann, Crown Hill, began by stating that the proposed Creekside Center should eventually be approved in some form and, if done properly, it will be a fine addition to the City. However, he expressed concerns about traffic impacts on E. Branch Street at the corners of Crown Hill and Crown Terrace. He believed that a complete evaluation of the subject property, the Hayes property, and the Scolari property should be done to determine how best to handle all of the traffic within the boundaries of E. Branch Street, Crown Terrace, Le Point and Mason Streets. He spoke of previous traffic studies. He displayed' photos (on file in the. Administrative Services Department) showing vehicles at these locations during peak hour traffic. He stated he did not believe that even with the proposed driveway relocation and an added left turn lane, that it would be adequate to service the development. He also stated it was imperative that a reciprocal access agreement be obtained with the adjacent property owner to the west and stated that without this agreement, the size of the project should be reduced. He suggested if the project was reduced, to eliminate the upper residential units on Crown Terrace. CITY COUNCtUREDEVELOPMENTRGENCY MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 8 Ann Baloeman, Le Point Street, referred to the .letter she wrote to the Planning Commission which included 37 signatures of her neighbors opposing the scope of the project as it relates to traffic and safety impacts, and asked the Council to visit the site and walk the streets surrounding the project site. Barbara Freel, Le Point Street, referred to the proposed island along Crown Terrace and expressed concerns that it will be all concrete without any landscaping. She stated she was unhappy with the trees along Crown Terrace being removed and also expressed concern with lighting generated from the project and its impact to the residences. Camay Arad, owner of Chameleon Fabrics on E. Branch Street, rebutted some of Mr. Boud's comments regarding redesign of the project; that the barn was retained (the barn was sold); and stated that not all of the Planning Commission's suggestions were addressed, including design materials for the commercial building and creekside access. She referred to the roofline of the proposed commercial building and objected to the metal roof. She noted that the design of the commercial portion should be cute, charming, and character driven to attract shoppers. Steve Ross, Garden Street, commented that the project had gone through the ARC and was reviewed by people who were familiar with the Cityscape; believed that the project is outside the strictest area of architecture that would include the Village Core and is in the Village Mixed Use area as far as zoning. He said if the City intends to provide affordable workforce housing, projects like this within the core of the City is where it should be provided. He said he did not believe this project takes away from the rural feel of the City. He stated that the project should follow the City's guidelines. Jacklin Pontarelli, Le Point Street, said there is a unique opportunity in the Village to provide a project that will benefit the citizens, merchants, and visitors. She spoke of the need to include businesses that will attract visitors and that those businesses have adequate parking. Howard Mankins, Hillcrest Drive resident and owner of several businesses in the Village, stated he has lived here all his life and has watched the changes in the City, He said there is more to being for or against a project; what is good for the City is what counts. He commented on the water supply issue. He stated it was important for the Council to consider a project that brings in sales tax, offers some workforce housing, and stated that projects cannot economically assume all of the mistakes made around it. He noted That the Village Improvement Association supported this project and that this project would be good for the Village. He supported the proposed project. Greo Moore, Village business owner and member of the Village Improvement Association, spoke in support of the project. He pointed out the project is compatible with the area and is a nice addition to the Village, provides alive/work environment, and noted that residents could walk to the Village for services. Richard DeBlauw, property owner/applicant, stated That retired people who are interested in the project have contacted him. He spoke in support of the project. Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, stated that she sees potential for this project; noted that the developer is a long time resident of the City; commented that Crown Hill needs to be opened up; and more sidewalks are needed for the kids. She supported the project as proposed. John Gutierrez, E. Branch Street, commented that traffic is already coming from other areas of the City to the Village and he disagreed that the neighborhood would be impacted by additional traffic. He supported the proposed project. Mike McConville, E. Branch Street, commented that backing out onto E. Branch Street is tough. He stated this was a good project and that he felt there was too much negativity surrounding the project. He suggested that sidewalks be installed on Crown Hill. He supported the project and encouraged the Council to provide the applicant with clear direction. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENTRGENCY MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE9 Michael Bondello, McKinley, acknowledged that the City Council is very concerned with the details of the project as well as the neighborhood's concerns. He spoke about the existing traffic problems near Crown Hill and stated that this project will exacerbate the problem. Ann Balgeman, Le Point Street, noted that the addresses of those who spoke in favor of the project are not directly impacted and do not live in the immediate vicinity of the project. Joe Boud, applicant's representative, responded to public comments and spoke of the traffic studies that have been conducted and the level of service impacts. He also clarified that his reference to a redesign of the project was from the original 35,000 square foot shopping center to this proposed mixed-use project of 24 residential units and a 12,000 square foot commercial building. He encouraged approval of the project. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Arnold stated one of his concerns was the access through the west side of the property. He stated he could not support the project until that access is granted. He addressed the circulation issue; referred to the trees on Crown Terrace and suggested a way to save them; expressed concern with regard to the scale of the commercial building; requested story poles on the site; and concluded by stating that most of the issues could be resolved and this could be a good project. He reiterated that access to the west side of the parcel is critical. Council Member Guthrie asked questions of the traffic engirieer regarding Crown Hill and E. Branch. Mr. Dan Dawson replied that detailed studies, traffic, and pedestrian counts were conducted during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Council Member Guthrie stated that he believes commercial use generates more traffic than residential; that the proposed improvements will return Crown Terrace to a residential street; the addition of a sidewalk on the west side also improves the street to a residential nature; and the driveways would contribute more to a residential nature of Crown Terrace. He stated the net affect is an improvement to Crown Terrace/Le Point. He expressed a concern about the creek setback/property line issue as it relates to the residential component. In terms of the commercial component, he acknowledged that there is a traffic problem at the intersection at certain times of the day; however, the overall effect at this intersection is not serious according'. to the City's policies. He shared concerns with the proposed scale/height of the commercial building. He said the addition of a second entrance on E. Branch is important and would improve the traffic congestion at Crown Hill and E. Branch. He concluded by stating that he would need clarification on the creek setback to ensure that houses are not being built within the creek setback, and agreed that the project needs the access easement for a second entrance on E. Branch Street. He stated that with those two additions he could support the project as designed. Council Member Dickens stated he relies in part on observations and iriput from residents in the immediate area for traffic concerns. He reflected on the pre-application process which was review of a conceptual plan and an opportunity to provide input. He spoke about the focus and vision for the Village Core. He stated that he had preferred the original commercial project and did not support the large residential component as presented. He spoke about the site and said a project needs to capitalize on its assets, including creekside access, close proximity to the Village, and the historic features and buildings on the site. He objected to the size and scale of the three-story commercial building ,which dwarfs the existing barn; did not see adequate pedestrian access or pathways to the Village; and felt there were land use conflicts between the commercial and residential uses. He stated there was also a conflict between the residential and open space. He commented that historically, this parcel has had no access to Crown Terrace ,~: CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 14, 2005 PAGE 10 and that it needs to be widened and improve,;d to City standards. He was not in favor of relinquishment of any easements along Le Point, and stated that future circulation and access issues need to be addressed. He noted that circulation within the development was imperative and that circulation .must include access to the ;west. He suggested the applicant look at the assets this parcel provides, capitalize on those assets, and mitigate traffic circulation problems more effectively. Mayor Pro Tem Costello inquired how many trees were proposed to be removed. He expressed concern with the left turn pocket as proposed; the driveway as proposed on E. Branch Street conflicts with Crown Hill intersection; stated that access from the west side of the property needs to be in place first; supported the four way stop at Crown Terrace and Le Point; did not have a problem with the driveways backing out into the "street; noted that lighting impacts are mitigated and should not create a nuisance for the residential neighborhood; suggested a one year review period on an interior gate; agreed that pedestrian circulation needed to be improved; supported the proposed density and noted that ih order to preserve agricultural in the City, we need to look at other areas for development; requested clarification regarding the open space and potential impacts to the homes; clarification regarding the creek setback; and stated at this point he could not support the project. Mayor Ferrara asked staff to address the pote there was initially a recommendation to ph. commercial building until the western access negotiations with the owner of the property loc for phasing the project. Director Strong stated the project to defer the 12,000 square foot obtained. He said the applicant has been in to the west. Mayor Ferrara noted that a considerable amount~;of progress had been made on this project. He acknowledged existing problems surrounding the' site. He stated that size, scale and intensity of use are the most critical issues in the Village.'',He stated he was pleased that negotiations were underway to obtain access to the western portion of the site. He agreed the creek setback and open space issues need to be clarified. He expressed appreciation for the three dimensional model; did not support the proposed rooflihe of the commercial building; stated that the commercial building needs to blend' in better with the barn; supported the concept of "less verticality, more horizontality" and stated it needed to be softened and/or flattened. He liked the idea of phasing of the project overall for circulation purposes and stressed the need for a manageable circulation segment. He had issues''„'with the results of the traffic study based on his actual experience. He stated with additional modifications, the project would work. He commented that live/work units are not working in this area and supported the concept of small residential units, with proper landscaping. Council Member Arnold moved to continue to a date uncertain consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant- DB & M Properties, LLC; Location - 415 East Branch I'Street. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll-call vote: ' AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara°',. NOES: Dickens ABSENT: None Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move Agenda Item 10.a. upon the Agenda for consideration prior to Item 9.d. "InY-16-2bbe '_1:59 FROM: RECORDING REQUESTED BY: D8&M PROPERTIES, LLC AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN T0: J JOHNSON P.0. BOX 3 GROVER BEACH, CA 93483 ATTACHMENT3 _ (OF ATTACHMENT 1)~ °~f~~~a ~~ a ~~ CO ~~~ RECIPROCAL GRANT OF EASEMENTS FOR INOR$SS AND 8C3R8SS Preamble This Agreement made this ~.P 'day of April 2006, by and between Milton F. Hayes and Mary J. Hayes, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "HAYES",,'and DB&M Properties, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as "DB&M", and C. Adair Brown and Trudy', Ann Brown, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "BROWN": Recitals 'rvHEREAS, "HAYES" ie the owner of certain real property, commonly known as 405 East Branch Street ,_ Arroyo Grande, State of California, described as follows: [SEE EXHIBIT "A" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION] WHEREAS, "DH&M" is the owner of certain real property in the city of Arroyo Grande, State of California, described as follows: (SEE EXHTBIT "B" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION] 1 i^Fll'-16-2006 12:00 FROM: TD:5432157 P.3 WHEREAS, "BROWN" is the owner of certain real property commonly known as 415 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, State of California, described as follows: [SEE EXHIBIT "C" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION] WHEREAS, the parties desire to acquire certain rights in the Servient Tenements owned by the other: Now, therefore, it is agreed as follows: Great of Basements 1. For valuable consideration in the form of reciprocal easements granted herein and other valuable consideration, "HAYES" hereby grants to "DB&M" and "BROWN"~ and "DB&M" hereby grants to "BROWN" and "HAYES", and "BROWN" hereby grants to "HAYES" and "DBbM" reciprocal easements as hereinafter described. Character of Basements 2. The easements granted herein are appurtenant to the Dominant Tenements described herein. Description of Easements 3. The easements granted herein are for shared use of common driveways for ingress and egress to the dominant tenements only. Location 4. The easements granted herein are located on the diagram marked as Exhibit "D" attached to this Agreement. The legal description of those easements is attached as Exhibit "E". Exclusiveness of Basements 5. The easements granted herein are for the exclusive, mutual use of "HAVES", "BROWN" and "DB&M", and no other parties shall be allowed access or use thereof. 2 MRY-16-2606 12:61 FROM: secondary Easements TO:5432187 P.4 6. The easements granted herein include incidental rights of maintenance, repair, and replacement. Maintenance ~. "DB&M" and "BROWN" and all their successors (as described in paragraph 11 below) shall maintain the easements in a good and clean condition which shall include a.good quality seal coat every three (3) years or sooner if necessary, repair and replacement of asphalt when necessary and other maintenance to keep the easements in good condition. ^DB&M" and BROWN" shall pay for all of the maintenance as and forepart of the consideration for this Agreement. "HAYES" and their successor (as described in paragraph 11 below) shall pay no cost of maintenance, repair or replacement. ' Should the easements be in need of maintenance, any party to this Agreement may notify the parties responsible for maintenance, in writing, of the maintenance required. The responsible parties shall have 90 days to complete the necessary maintenance. If the necessary maintenance is not completed in 90 days, weather or act of God an exception, then any party may pay to have the maintenance done and collect the actual costs plus 20S as agreed upon liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees if necessary to collect by court actioh. Iasurance 8. "DB&M" and "BROWN" shall name "HAYES" ae an additional insured and keep a liability insurance policy in, effect on the easements of at least $1,000,000.00. Entire Agreement 9. This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting a subsequent modification in writing, signed by all of the parties to this Agreement. Attorney's Fees 10. In the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute relating to this instrument or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the lcsing party reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. MAY-15-2006 12:02 FROM: Handing EL£act 70:5432187 P.5 li. Thia instrument shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns Of "HAVES", "DB&M" and BROWN". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement *_he day and year first above written. "HAVES" "DH&M" ~ DB&M Properties, LLC a CaliEoraia Limited Liability ! Company Milton F. Hayes J. sye Richnrd P. DaBlauw, President e~~~ J es R. Matthews, Member "BROWI3" C. Adair Srowa Trudy A.nn Brown 4 rlNr-io-ee~b 12:b6 FRUN: T0:54321E17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 89. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) P.6 On 2006, before me, C^<aKr, h1a.~e`~.W~ , a Notary P lic Eor the State of California, personally appeared Milton F. Haves and Mary J. Haves, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entities upon behalf of which the persona acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal otary Publ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) KAREN MSARIE BECHTOLD ~+ COMM. i 1559278 a N~taryPubpc-0aAlomia Canny of San Lida DMepo My Comm fxp. Aare 2,2008, On 2006, before, me; ~•~-v-~ a Notary ub c for the State of Californi persona ~y appenred Richard P. DeHlauw and James R. Matthews, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persona whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entities upon behalf of which the persona acted, executed the instrument. wITNESS my hand and official seal -° N~ Publi~~~ BOBBIE 1. COLESON Commission s I3B392i d Notary PuWle - Collfornia ~_ San Luis Obispo County any Canvas.Erp'tes pecQ 20D6 rir+Y-16-~0G 12:04 FR017: ~'~ ~ 70:5432187 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) sS. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) P.7 On 2006, before me, a Notary Publie for the State of California, personally appeared C. Adair Brown and Trudv Ann Brown, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to ma that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persona, or the entities upon behalf of which the persona acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public oiR,M=1'~M YiYY9/Q?]Y16NS 6 FtfiY-16-260b 12:05 FROM: LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT"A" PARCEL 1: T0:54~2187 p,g Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 29 In Biock 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill AddlUon to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San LuLs Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded in Book A, Pdge 57 of Maps, In the office of the County Recorder of said County: PARCEL 2: That portion of Tally Ho Street as shown on the map of Beckctt's Gown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, In [he City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis, Obspo, State of Cal'rfornla, accorcling to map recorded in Book A, page 57 of Maps, which was abandoned by Resolution No. 167 of the City Council of the city of Arroyo Grande, a Certined Copy of which was recorded November 20, 1953 in Book 734, page 255 of Official Records, that would pass by a conveyance as to Parcel 1 above. PARCEL 3: Lots 26, 27 and 28 in Bkxk 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Add'Rbn to the Town of Arroyo Grende, In the C'M of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, In the offke of the County Recorder of said County. PARCEL 4: That portion of the street within Block 38 of Beckett's Crown Hlll Addtion to the Town oP Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grende, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according t0 map recorded in Book A, Page 57 of MaDS, designated on said map as "StreeC' which was abandoned try Resolution No. 72 of the City Council oP the City of Arroyo Grende, a Certified Copy of whkh was recorded May 10, 1839 ki Book 257, page 440 of Official Records, bounded as folbws: Southeasterty by the Northwesterty 8ne of Lot 26 in said Biock 38; Northeasterly by the Northwesterly prolongaton of the Northeasterly line of Lot 26 in said Block 38; Northwestery by the Southeasterly Ilne of Lot 25 in said Block 38; Southwesterly by the Northwestery prolongatbn of the Southwesterly Ane of Lot 26 in said Bbck 38. PARCELS: That portion of Tally Ho Street as shown on the map of Beckett's Crown Hill Addroon to the Town of Arroyo Grande, Arroyo Grande, County of San Luls Ob~po, State of Cal'dornia, according ko map recorded in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, whkh was abandoned by Resotudon No, 167 oP the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, a Certifed Copy of whkh was recorded November 20, 1953 in Book 734, page 255 of Official Remrds, bounded as folbws: Southwestery by the Southwesterly line of the Northeasterfy 30 feet of said Tally Ho Street; Southeasterty by the Southwestery probngation at the Southeasterly Ilne of Lot 28 In Bkxk 38 of said Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande; Northeasterty by the Sotithwesterty lines of Lots 28, 27 and 26, In said Block 38 and the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of said said Lot 26; Northwesterly by the Southwesterly probngatlon of the Southeasterly line of Lot 25 in said Block 38, APN: 007-203-15 and 16 EXBIBJ:T ^A^ V'IH Y-1b-2d0b 12:6b FRDI"l: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 70:5432187 P.9 THE LAND REFERRED TD HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED ]N THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: (A portion of APN: 007.203-017) That portion of Block 38 of Beckett's Crawn HIII Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Lu's Obispo, State of Califomla, according to map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, and of the street adlolning saltl Block 36 on the Northeast described as a whole as folbws: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 1 In said Block 38; thence North 61° East along the Southerly line of said Block; 226 feet; thence North 29° West, 187.5 feet; thence Northwesterly across said street to the Southeast corner of Lot 14 of said Block 38; thence South 61° West along the Southerly line of Lots 14 and 25 of said Black 38, 237.5 feet to the Southwest comer aP said Lot 25; thence South 29° East across said street and abng the East Ilne of Bald Block 38, 237.5 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Block 38 and of the street adjoining said Block 38 on the Northeast, described as a whole as follows, Beginning at the most Eastery corner of Lot 9 of said Block',36; thence North 29° West, 187.5 feet; thence Northwestery across said street to the Southeast corner of Lot 14 of said Block 38; thence South 61° west, along the Southerly Ilne of Lot 14 of said Block 38, 65.30 feet; thence South 29° East, 237.5 feet to a point on the Southerly Ilne of Bald Block 38, said point being located South 61° West, 4 feet from the most Southery corner of Lot 8 of said Block 38; thence Narth 61° East, 54 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 26, 27, 28 and 29 in said Block 38; ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the street wfthin Block 38, desgnated on said map as "StreeC' which was abandoned by Resolution No, 72 of the Clty Council of the City of Arrayo Grande, a certified copy of which was recorded May 10, 1939 in Book 257, Page 440 of OffKial Records, bounded as folbws: Bounded Southeasterly by the Northwesterly line of Lot 26; Bounded Northeasterly by the Northwesterly prolongation of the Northeasterly line of Lot 26; Bounded Northwestery by the Southeastery Ilne of Lot 25; Bounded Southwestery by the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Lot 26, Also Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to Adair Brown and Trudy Brown byGrant Deed recorded June 26, 2004 in Instrument No. 2004.055175 of Official Records, PARCEL 2: (A portion of APN: 007.203-011) That portion of Bkxk 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, In the office of the County ReroNer of said County, and of the Street adjoining Said BIOCk 38 on the Northeast described as a whole es follows: Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 9 of said Block 38; thence North 29° West, 187.5 feet; thence Northwestery across said street to the Southeast comer of Lot 14 of said Block 38; thence South 61° West, alang the Southerly line of Lot 14 of said Block, b5.30 feet; thence South 29° East, 237,5 feet to the Southerly line of said Biock 38, said point being located South 61° EXHIBIT °B° page 1 of 2 MHY-16-4906 12:08 FROM: West, 4 feet from the most Southerly comer of Lot 8 of said 8kxk; thence North 61° East, 54 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 3: (APN:007.203.013) 70:5432187 P. 10 Lo[514, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 In Block 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recoroed ]une 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, fn the office of the County Recorder of said County. PARCEL 9: (A portion of 007-204-003) Commencing at the most Northery corner of Lot 13 in Bhxk 38 of BecketYs Crown Hill Addition to theTown of Arroyo Grande, in the Cny of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Calffomia, according to map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence North 61° East to the Westery Ilne of the right of way of the Pacific Coast Railway Company; thence Southerly along the said Westerly line of said right of way to its intersection with the Easterly 6ne of Lot 9 of said Block 38; thence Northerly abng the Eastery Ifne of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Saki Block, to the point of beginning. PARCEL 5: (007-204-D03) That portion of the Pack Coast Railway right of way as described In the deed to the San Luls Obispo and Santa Marta Valley RaOroad Company, a corporation, recorded August 13, 1881 in Book N, Page 228 of Deeds, of Beckett'S Crown Hill Addition to the Town df Afroyro Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Lus Obispo, State of Califnmia, according to map recorded Lune 19,1905 in book A, page 57 of Maps, In the office of the County Recorder of saki County, which lies between the Southeasterly line of Le Point Street and the Northeasterly probngation of the Southeasterly line of Bkxk 38 of Bald Beckett's Crown Hill Addition. EXCEPTING therefrom all of the minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances within or underlying said land as reserved in the deed from Bell Petroleum Company, retarded Jury 26, 1950 in Book 572, Page 400 of Official Records. PARCEL 6: (APN 007.204-001) All of Block 36 of BecketYs Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. E%HIBIT °H° page 2 of 2 MRY-16-906 12:09 FROM: 70:5432187 P. 11 (APN: 007.203-016) Lots 5 through 11, Inclusive of Btock 38 of i3eckett's Crown Hill AddRion, to the Town of Arroyo Grande, In the in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, page 57 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. EXHIBIT °C° fAH'Y-16-~06 1G: 1~J FkOhl: 70:5432187 P. 12 EXHIBIT EASEMENT FOR INGRESS 3c EGRESS OVER A POR 110N OF BLOCK 38 AND A PORTION I ' OF P.C.R.R. RICHT OF WAY 9 1 B L O C K 3 6 hIE~TOWNTOF AR OYO GRANGE ~^ \ ~ "~ ~ I 7 1 _ 8_ ~ _I _ ~ _ _ ST TE OF CAGFORN µ0~ o TRUE POINT BEGINNING I I i3 12 v I ~ I ~ ~ I O ~ r I ~ QW R=3.00' ' Da53'30 S4~ 2~ 1=2.80' 4~ q R=23.00' e1=53'22'14" ~ L=21.42' I i, I w u R=3.00' P, C. R, R, I i ti -I 10 ~ a w ~ ~_-_ -- WN I I I.~L I ~ . ! ~~~ .o I I = z I I ~. ~ V I BLOCK 38 IQ I - -~ I - - m 11.54' S28'44'46'EI ~D I _ _ I R=3.00' L_ $ a8 45700" w n ~ I• R.3.00' '~ I .3.00' I L.~.. ... .. .. :n 6~9D'22'38 R=3.00' '~ o L~4.73' M-90'00'00' Y * L.4.7 ' 528'13'27°E I teI N I I S28't 3'27'E ~ 6].00' N67'a6'33'E I I 15.62' 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I - %XHIBIT "D" M I - -. - '--j riRY-16-20ab 12:11 FROM: EXHIBIT, 70:5432187 P. 13 An Easement for Ingress, Egress and Incidental Purposes lying over, under and upon a portion of Biock 38 of Beckett's Crown Hill Addition to the Town of Arroyo Grande In the -City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luls Obispo, State of California, according to Map recorded June 19, 1905 in Book A, Page 67 of Maps, In the office of the County Recorder of said County, said Easement being more particularly descdbed as follows: Beginning at a paint on the Northedy right of way line of Branch Street which bears Scuth 61 ° 00' 00' West, 101.55 feet from the Southeast corner of Black 36 of 8eckett's Crown Hill Addition; thence North 28° 26' 40" West, 142.02 feel; thence South 61° 15' 14' West, 141.73 feet t0 the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the North and having a radius of 3.00 feet; thence Al Orlg gAid CnNe WAS nd to.lhe.Right through a Central Angle of 53° 30' S4" for an Arc Length of 2.80 feet to the beginning of a tangent Reverse curve concave to the South and having a Radius of 23.00 f eat; thence Along said curve Westerly end to the Left through a Central A ogle of 63° 22' 14" For en Am Length of 21.42 feet; thence South 61 ° 23' 65' W est, 38.52 feet to the lleglnning of a tan gent curve concave to the North and having a Radius of 3.00 feet; thence Along said Curve Westerly and to the Right through a Central Angle of 90° 22' 38" for an Arc Length of 4.73 feet; thence North 28° 13' 27" Wes14.59 feat; thence South 61° 46' 33° West, 24.OOfeet; thence South 26° 13' 27' East, 63.00 feet; thence North 61 ° 46' 33" East, 5.62 feat to the beginning df a tangent curve concave to the South and having a Radius of 3.00 feet; than ce Along said curve Easterly and to the Right through a Central Angle of 90° 00' 00" for an Arc length of 4.71 feet; thence South 28° 13' 27" East, 95.39 feat to the Northedy, right of way of Branch Street; thence along Bald right of way Ilne, North 61' 00' 00" East, 20.00 feet; thence North 26° 13' 27" West, 130.56 feat to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the East and having a Radius of 3.00 feet; thence EXEIBIT °E° page 1 of 2 MRY-16-~~t6 12:12 (-ROM: 70:5432187 P. 14 Along said curve Northerly and to the Right through a Central Angle of 89° 37' 22" for an Arc Length of 4.69 feet; thence North 61° 23' S5" East, 34.08 feat to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the South and having a Radlus cf 3.00 feet; thence Along said curve Eastsrly and to the Right through a Central angle of 89° 51' 20" for an Arc Length of 4.70 feet; thence South 28° 44' 46"East, 11.54 feet; thence North 61° 15' 14" East. 132.40 feat to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the South and having a Radius of 3.00 feet; thence Along said cuNe Easterly and to the Right through a Central Angie of 90 18 06" for an Arc Length of 4.73 f9e1; thence South 28° 26' 40" East, 115,11 feet to the Northerly right of way of Branch Street; thence Along said right of way f ine, North 61 ° 00' 00" East, 24.00 feet to the Point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM any porllon lying wRhin the property of the Grantee. EXHIBIT °E° page 2 0£ 2 J CfnEEKSIDE ~ ~ATTACHMENT4 ~ 1 6 Creek easement, Open Space (OF ATTACHMENT 1) & Setback Exhibit HOA common oK easement area (: centerline of tree top of creekbank 25' setback/dedicatic (includes stream bet setback area; per 16. FEMA floodplain se ,;! pp CC ~+ CR~,GK.7~®E Creek Landscaping & Improvement Plan Exhibit ' z-an' . _ split rell fence .- 6'-wide ~ (HPi~9 concrete or sealetl tlewmposetl , ' ~ granite pets area within creek setback tc cenledine of creek shall be ' dtlresaed id subsequent ' - Ripadah Ptah ' - ~ ~ / ~ ~ exist oak to remains ~/ r ~~WJ - / 1 new sYCamore 1 ~ //\/ v' 1 ~ .. / SOtl • t' •'n;~. ~ ( play strudure (ages 2. 2) , , with resiliegt, accessible i • ~.., ~, sudecfng ; '~~~,' ~m ' ~ ~. m° ern ~~C o~GlO oQ -J:. ~ bikes ~ ~i and '. li trash /\ U U U i 3 ~~~,~~Sl®E . , _ Creek Grading Plan Exhibit -t 1 s' cti ~~ti= '~ ~- ti `' { DENSE .~ V ~n ~' • t ~~, VEGETATION ~ ~ ,~8^ aINE Yp ~',i, 7 _ N61'0~? 185-15 ~„ /. i %, r ._ - ~ _ l ~~~ ~ t fi CL S t4.20 7OP { """rrr ~ F .s Y~'j4 ~ -- ~ ' FF •o r ~~ j ; l ~ 3O°O - ~_ O ~ - - `~- - r - / lj6S ~ /~ DENSE ~~ ~ 1 ~ ,j j \Eq .,! ~ ~ ` ;~ X27.$ ~?O ~ / TC. VEGETATION / '~ ~. ,^, ~ ~ ~' 1 ~ 1~ ~ ~ _ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ;' %i so ! ~ ~qR ~ t Y21 FY~~ ~ >-0.SYI ('~ jib ~ \ F~.s F .~ .,y J ~, -r-- ~ ; ~ SO. --off - f I / '/ i I 1 J N ' f ~J ~ - - ~- Sfl 95.+TC ~~ FF.~~~J M • r r ' ' ` FJ~?YS YGAR ~~ YJ~ ~ ri t:.~ d O ~ "~L FF~O F~~S Ffi,a ~ ~r t N ~ r rrss 7P r-- O _ m t8. 11 - - _~~r trig ~ ' o - 1X66 ~ J & JqS tNES i ~--17r /~ r r ~ •i - ~ ---~ T ~~ - 4 ~~~~~~~®E Plan Exhibit Composite Creek Grading & Landscaping - ', &raii .~ 1 ~ sPfit roll fence ~ ~ ~, ~~ 15" CT ^~. ~. DENSE / (NPiwQ < n `.U~vU `, l pp,,11yy,,pp~~ V ~ ~i t(E~yyEZompcsea c~ ? Granite P~ ~-t cJ' 'g ?1NE N61'fl3'47" _ _ ~ . \ ~ 'i ~ creek setb8dr J "' TQP ~ ~ a a`W~ne qt dee0. shall ~`~ t 14.20 ! ~~ s hi subsequent ~ ! T T'27 { Ripariah p)eh ~.-~ F •$ TG~ Ffi~t s 30" 0 el6sl. oa a.fe ) _ ~~ _ - - i ~/ ' r~ DENSE ~¢ . ~' Z~~~~~J°°y~ J ~~ ~ 5 m ~ new syr>n~w~- , ~, Q VEGETATION / ~vr. ' F~°7;S TT>~ G r / r 00 :• ,~ ;~ sqd `'. ~ ~ ti ~ L 1 , - : tr45 r _ ~ ay sWd a 2 2) - 71$-- . iN neslfiep4 s / •: r Y suRadng , ! i and , ~- I ~` ~ ~i t ~ trase ~~ / J .~~ ~ 17t a Q~ ~ ' f 7 ~ 4. r ) p~//,..~~r,,~~~~ / ~~ . tDiS.4 iG '' X27 ~ r' "~3~ / ~ ` ~ ' ° ~R I ~'~ I ~• 4 C . ~ r 4' Shrug Gin ~ ~'t ~ r _ saeea l tT sj ~ Il) ~~ T~ r ~ Q 1P J ~ 1 _ t ~ / ~ ' ti J •/ j -~~ , ~T v i r ~' i. ` ~ • ~ CREEKSIDE Pedestrian Pathways Exhibit THE CREEKSIDE COMPLEX A MIxW Uee PlenneE Development PROPERTY STATISTIC6 awwu °L~ew:w oLawx/ruxxvw w.ne.a L.ure..~ uxoecxn a«r ~,~,,,a,~ umnamwa ~aw~.uuw aw.n waaxownawe .roe.,...x x..~rw.a rwamaooaw w~... .~w..ae~.rc~ ~uauwe r.Lwuxn _ .,L ouwcrux ..,~, ~,,,.. w LOUwrw~ aanm L~,ax.W mauve Mwa0.a~iM~~~ BIIILCINO STATISTICS axuxnuluxa-I aLaean wan w1°'a.. w... Ewa e. m ~.. iw ~i,.^"i N4wMML I1AMe -L 4M1/ ~ a YMa uvu wa•. mxxr.~r~.mw ui«xr•a..~a• Lvxn fix.. ni un® n..«M _ M1 imu~a.i.'^'u.:.iu... cuxaewuomcaauaaxo nmeuu uwv ~~ _ aw r amnxo wuiawr/unx uxnuu Iunuu®s .rv n.... uuNp xowaa (..sx.lwl urU uvm.uuarai Maeaue woxxuaMl ~ ' nova waxswu rmuea. .~., ~''~1 ~~ ;~r a -~ q q o ;m 8 a ~ ~c9 '~ ~ ~ _~ ~ } a ~-~--~..-.-J-~ ; m i_ ~~` I r'~ 0 ~` 1' f ~ ~ ~~+ i ~; ~ _ ~ t ~u. ~ s s f;~ ..P' o ~.f, Vic. ~~ ,~e .roe LL4 ..f fiV O 11 O M M i [ • .~ A < 'EEKS~~E Cp~APLEX,~A THE CR~,~op~~.~,5 A Mixed ~~ planned i .Sidewalk View of N'ew Building Design Compatibility Exhibit ~:. ~, .r: ,~ ~RE~~~71DE Warehouse? New Building Design Compatibility Exhibit Y ~ N$ '[Y ~,,@ T ~t yTW ~ P43~ ~: ~ ° '+Y' ~ $k ~~ °G-.m$3S~ * {x BSc .ul~ ~ ai~a. Se,°~`-~ ir~','3~'>~'x.'e''~~ x~~F 'F~~d-~~.r .~ ~~ ~ ~ p~~: ~ ~~~~ ~~''1 'ill _ _ .QU +, _~, ~a~ qz - .:. .l a. - y ~N 4: ~:3 _ u' p f - ~ b EXISTING £~' .. _w..,,..~l~ - ~- .~._~ _.~a,._,.s-.,.~a PROPOSED CREEKSI®~ Branch /Crown Hill Street /Condos Street Elevation Exhibit ~, ~ ' i ~ 1 . $Ij $L I is i I sewer a 1~- I Lebins Eack EXISTING ~ ~ e WAREHOUSE/BARN I ~I ~b . .,- L7 ,~ a W 3 I o v Warehouse Entrance New Building Crown Terrace Condos Perklrq 5trupun ' i .•: 9 CREEKS!®E is FFL 221.0' Crown Terrace ROW - 30' vs 35' Wide ' Impact Comparison Exhibit CREEaCS1®E Left Turn Packet @ Crown Hill Street Exhibit CREEKS~DE SECOND ENTRY /EXIT CREEK5IDE CENTER ENTAY Move stopper to OeLk of ttosswalk 1® ~'~"'-~L LPOWN XILL SiXEET `~ ~~ __~_ {~ ~~_ ®n~--~-- Naw 6' cm5swalk w/ADA ramps W sufewalks F+at ~1 \~OyST~ET 05/19/2006 09:18 8055912132 - - TEC ENGINEERING ' .ATTACHMENT 5 - /.;~ - (OF ATTACHMENT 1) <7158outn Broad street, ben LWS OD'upo, CA G3/ln •e06,A01.1Bez-Fez 806Aa1.et4e , ~eirrege Evaluation CLIENT: DeBleuw Bulldere DATE: ~ 28•Apr-08 JOB NO: Deblauw008 ' LOCATION: Branch Street and Crown Terradb, Arroyo Grentle Purpose: ~ ' Calculate the d9lerence In Dre antl post deVeltipetl vdumes us'vtg the County of San Luis Obispo Standards (10 hour duration for 10 hours) based upon County Ssndard C Factors for ihls type d development. S(te Drainage Parerneters: Tc: 10 hr Co. Std. Tor Slzing Inlllbedon Basins C Impervbus: 0.90 Co. Std D-2 C-Pervious 0.35 Co. Std D4 (2,10) (5,10) (10,10) (25,10) (60,10) 1100,10) Co. Std. D-8 1 (inRtq: 0.18 028 0.30 0.38 OA7 0.49 Compooit C -Pre Developed Condkioe6 Area Aree C k` AC lrtpervlous Sonata n7,77a ~ z.7o o.eo Parvbua Area aa27 ~ o.Da o.s5 Tdal Area ,121,205 2.78 0.88 Compoek C -Poet Developed Corulkl(>tie Impervtoua SudaCe 73,934 ~' 1.70 0.90 PervbusArea 47,271 1.09 0.35 ' TotalArea 121,205 2.78 0.59 Volume - (V:Cx)><Ax801c60x10) ~ ~ , Pre Pas( DHlerenCe $t9rm DevelnmtllFt`h dk~telooed lFf"1 2-year 15947 12350 3587 5-year 29035 17853 -5182 10-year 28578 20600 -5979 25-year 33888 28093 -7573 60-year 41840 32273 -9387 .. 100-year 43411 33848 -9785 Page i From: "Ben Fine" <bfine@tecslo.com> Subject: FW: Detention Basin Design -Tract 2346 -Crown Hill and W. Branch Date: May 1, 2006 8:08:01 AM PDT To: "'Duane P. DeBlauw"' <deblauwcon@sbcglobal.neb, <jcboud@sbcglobal.neb Duane and Joe- Here is copy of the email Victor Devens sent me regarding the basin for The Creek Side Complex. If you need anything else let me know. Ben Benjam A. Fine, M.S., M.B.A., E.I.T. Design Engineer TEC Civil Engineering Consultants 4115 Broad Street, Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Phone (805) 541-2114 x207 Fax (805) 541-2132 "Engineering California's Interests" -----Original Message----- From: Victor Devens [mailto:VDevens@arroyogrande,org] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:13 PM To: bfine@tecslo.com Subject: Detention Basin Design -Tract 2346 -Crown Hill and W. Branch Ben: This is a follow up to our phone conversation earlier today regarding detention basin design criteria for the above referenced project. The City is currently reviewing the detention design criteria for developments adjacent to the creek to mitigate impacts and has not, adopted a specific criteria as of yet. Per our conversation,. you stated that the basin would be located in the landscaped area adjacent to the creek, which is within the 100-year flood plain. The basin would become inundated with creek water at times when the basin would need to be in operation, rendering the basin ineffective. If a detention basin is required, an alternate site would need to be selected. You also stated that the amount of impervious surface' on the site is being reduced with this project. This would, in turn, reduce the peak flows. Detention basins are typically required when the project is increasing the peak flows. If the peak flows are in fact being reduced through reduction in impervious surface, then a detention basin would not seem necessary for this specific project. However, the reduced impervious surface would need to be verified prior to consideration of waiving detention requirements. Please fee4 free to contact me if you have further questions. Victor Victor Devens Associate Engineer -Development City of Arroyo Grande Phone: (805)473-5445 Fax: (805)473-5443 E-mail: vdevens@arroyogrande.org ATTACHMENT6 --- (OF ATTACHMENT 1) Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 2 Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.h., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period July 16, 2006 through July 31, 2006. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meetings of July 11 and 25, 2006, the Regular City Council., Meeting of July 11, 2006 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting ofJuly 25, 2006, as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Authorization to Reject Claim Filed Against the City -Claimant: Plycon Van Lines. Action: Rejected claim. 8.d. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle - Parks Maintenance. Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2006'/, ton Ford pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $19,576.45. 8.e. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle -Soto Sports Complex. Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2006 Ford Ranger pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $13,124.46. 8.f. Consideration of Compensation Adjustments for Part-Time Employees. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3942 approving a 3% Cost of Living (COLA) adjustment for all part-time employees for FY 2006-07 effective July 28, 2006. 8.g. Consideration of Change in Council Appointments to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) and the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Action: Approved appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC); and the appointment of Council Member Arnold to the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). 8.h. Consideration of a Resolution Acceptirig Public Improvements and Easements for Tract 2506 Located at 325 Alder Street, Constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3943 accepting the public improvements and easements for Tract 2506 located at 325 Alder Street, constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 8 Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant - DB & M Properties, LLC; Location - 415 East Branch Street (Continued from June 14, 2005 Council Meeting). Minutes: City Councl! Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 3 Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and a proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center), take tentative action on the project and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution. Associate Planner Heffernon responded to questions from Council regarding the design of the residential units; circulation, parking, and turning radius issues within the project area; location of the loading dock; partial relinquishment of an access easement along Le' Point Street; impervious surfaces on site and impacts to drainage issues; proposed street improvements associated with the project; and whether speed calming devices on Le Point is feasible. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant stating that he believed they have incorporated all of the previous comments received into the project. He also responded to questions from Council regarding the design of residential unit Pian A; the proposed density (meets City standards); parking {no loss of parking; additional parking provided); landscaping improvements; turning radius (meets City standards); impervious surface as it relates to drainage (calculation of area was provided from the Final Environmental Impact Report); noted that to increase the width of Crown Terrace would impact the amount of retaining wall work, length of the driveways accessing the residential development, widening would not be required for fire access, and issues concerning the existing slope of the street; commented on the width of Le Point Street right-of-way as it relates to future extension; addressed the grading plan as it relates to residential building elevation and 100-year flood; addressed employee parking for the commercial development; noted that speed humps on Le Point Street may not be necessary as the Crown HilitCrown Terrace intersection is proposed to be reconfigured and stop signs installed; noted that condition of approval #82 was requested to be modified to eliminate improvements on the north side of Le Point Street; noted that the easterly access easement from the adjacent property was the biggest concern and noted that an access easement had been acquired which should address ingress and egress issues; noted that a left turn pocket and ADA striping and ramps would be installed at the E. Branch StreetlCrown Hili intersection; confirmed that a 25-foot creek easement has been provided which would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and would have no public access; addressed concerns regarding the scale of the commercial project and displayed design compatibility exhibits; reviewed elements of redesigned project; addressed certain mitigation measures included in the project to address lighting issues; noted that the existing traffic level of service will be unchanged; and commented on tree replacement provisions included in the project. Further discussion ensued regarding the grading plan for the project as it relates to the project being located in a flood zone, and further discussion ensued regarding improvements at the intersection of Crown Terrace and Le Point Street. Winton Tullis, Allen Street resident and Vitiage business owner, expressed concerns about any reduction in the retail portion of the project; requested that driveway access and parking during construction be maintained; requested dust mitigation measures during construction; and requested that the waterline crossing the property be maintained during construction. Earl Balgeman, Le Point Street, referred to the proposed project model provided by the applicant and requested a break in order to allow the public to view the model. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 4 Mayor Ferrara called a break at 8:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Earl Baloeman, Le Point Street, expressed concern about access issues on Crown Terrace; stated that the trees along Crown Terrace should be spared; referred to the intersection at Highway 227 and Crown Terrace and stated it is dangerous to have four driveways and three parking spaces in this area; favored the installation of speed humps on Le Point Street; expressed concern with design of garages over the residences; stated the project was too dense; and expressed concern with pedestrian safety. Kristen Barneich, co-chair of the Tree Guild, expressed concern over the proposed removal of 75 trees and noted that trees around the perimeter of the project could be saved to provide a visual buffer between the residential and commercial uses. She asked the Council to preserve the existing, mature trees. Bill McCann, Crown Hill, expressed concern about traffic impacts on E. Branch Street at the corners of Crown Hill and Crown Terrace and requested that the intersection be designed to address issues. He suggested that methods be explored 'to encourage traffic to enter the project on E. Branch Street. He further expressed concern about backing out of driveways onto Crown Terrace and stated that Crown Terrace should be widened. Camay Arad, Allen Street resident and Village business owner, stated that the proposed project design is not the best for the Village at this time and submitted a petition for the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which states that "Any new structures in the Village and specifically the Creekside Project at 415 E. Branch, should enhance the quaint charm of a vintage western town at the turn of the century. Strict architectural review and detailed descriptions of roof lines, landscaping, materials should be cohesive with the local landmarks such as the Barn and the Loomis House." She also addressed issues relating to impervious surfaces, and referred to the proposed model as it relates to the scale of the project and expressed concern that the proposed commercial building blocks views of the green Victorian house adjacent to the proposed project. Barbara Freel, Le Point Street, asked that the proposed island not block access to her landscaping. She also expressed concern about light pollution from the project due to installation of additional streetlights along Crown Terrace and the north side of Le Point Street. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, responded to public comments regarding the flood zone as it relates to the elevation of the building floors; the change in size of the retail area of the existing Loomis Barn and existing business would require full compliance with Uniform Building Codes; noted that construction activities are addressed in the mitigation monitoring measures as it relates to noise, hours of operation, and dust control; clarified issues regarding street widths; noted the residential area density calculation was provided by an electronic calculation from their civil engineers and believes it is accurate; addressed mitigation measures for tree protection, removal, and screening; referred to traffic on Crown Hill and noted that traffic counts are not based on an event, the level of service is based on hourly traffic counts in a 24-hour day; noted that the parking area is a Class 2 base and is considered an impervious surface; stated that the design of the commercial building was made clear through pre-application meetings with the ARC, the community, the Chamber of Commerce, the downtown merchants, the Planning Commission and the Council and the applicant was directed to utilize an agrarian form of architecture; noted that further commercial development on the site was restricted due to existing buildings on the property; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 5 addressed landscaping issues; and noted .that the street lights were required by the City's Development Code and agreed to reduce the number of street lights if the City would allow it. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Applicant has met most of concerns, especially regarding connection between the existing use and the proposed uses; - Expressed concern with the size and scale of the proposed commercial use and noted that he had requested story poles be placed to determine visual impacts; - Thought this was an appropriate project for the site; however, scale and traffic flow are key issues; - Would not want to see the existing business impacted during construction; - Left hand turn from Crown Hill into site may need some restrictions; - Speed humps are needed on Le Point Street to discourage cut-through traffic; - Need clarification regarding street lighting oh Crown Terrace to ensure lighting is contained to the street; - Explore possibility of transplanting existing trees to save mature trees, or consider 48"-60" box trees instead of 24" box trees. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Clarified that width of Crown Terrace would consist of two 12' travel lanes and a 5' sidewalk; - Agreed that some trees should be saved if possible; 70 is too many to remove; - Lighting should not be intrusive to the existing residential areas; - Cannot support restriction of the available retail space in the existing structure; can support converting the existing residential structures to commercial use; - Noted that the final design is subject to ARC approval. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Not enough information about impervious surfaces provided: had many unanswered questions regarding impervious surfaces and related drainage impacts on the site; - Flooding issue still a concern which has not been resolved; - Too many outstanding issues with proposed project; preferred original commercial project and did not support the larger residential in this area; does not support this project as proposed for this site; - Project location is not downtown urban core; property is in Historic Village; - Objected to size and scale of the three story commercial building which dwarfs the existing barn; should be two-story; - There are land use conflicts between commercial and residential uses, and residential and open space; - Concerned about lack of fencing; - Access to private property needs to be addressed; - Concerned about removal of 70+ mature trees; - Does not support project as proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Asked for clarification regarding restriction oh existing retail use; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 6 - Commented on the impervious surfaces: asked what is there now versus what is proposed and whether staff had reviewed the issue; - Recognized that Le Point Street is residential ih nature and thinks that the street should not be widened; - Existing trees were placed to shield an industrial use; would support saving some of the trees, however, would not need to save all the trees as it would create a visual block between the two residential neighborhoods; - Asked questions about liability issues as it relates to potential flooding; - Noted that commercial uses generate far more traffic intensity than residential uses; believes that the residential component provides a trahsitional area into the single family residential area; - Supported the proposed layout of the project; - Noted that access from E. Branch is a key element of the project; - Proposed traffic improvements will mitigate some of the existing traffic issues; - Concerned about the size of the proposed commercial building; suggested reducing the height or changing the facade of the building; - The Class 2 impervious surface issue is critical; needs to be further reviewed; - Favored more specific lighting standards. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Referred to previous concerns expressed from 2005 public hearing regarding the size, scale, and intensity of the commercial building; the need to soften the look of the commercial building, and to provide a more horizontal structure rather than vertical; - Acknowledged that the need for western access to the site had been fulfilled; - Acknowledged that the creek setback requirement had been fulfilled; - Noted that the drainage issue (impervious surface) needs to be further studied; - Commented on the appropriateness of the proposed agrarian architectural style; - Observed that live/work units do not function well in this type of area; - Residential units would help reduce traffic because of project's close proximity to Village services; - Tree issue is large concern; does not favor tree removal; - Traffic circulation issues need to be addressed; speed humps andlor signage are important to prevent cut-through traffic at Le Point and Crown Terrace; - Left turn pocket at Crown Hill is problematic; suggested a "keep clear" lane and additional street markings; - Light pollution is a concern; acknowledged that new street lighting points down and does not project into residential windows; requested clarification regarding authority for placement; - Flooding issue needs to be further researched through FEMA guidelines; - Suggested that the applicanUarchitect research similar style condominiums with garage above living area built on hillside in Pismo Beach as iY,relates to leaking, water damage, etc.; - Need to reach balance point; spoke of goal to preserve existing structures and appreciates efforts to develop a project; - Housing will be an asset to the City; - Can make adjustments to create a project to compliment the City. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Boud commented on the Class 2 base (impervious surface) issue and stated it only relates back to whether or not the pervious surface or an impervious surface area would demand the need for a drainage retention basin. He noted that because the property is in the flood zone, it is somewhat irrelevant whether it is pervious or impervious. Council Member Arnold clarified that there appeared to be some ability to transplant some of the trees and suggested that a tree survey be completed in order to determine the status of the trees and to include the Tree Guild in that process. He also referred to the proposed height of the retail building and suggested that the applicant consider an alternative design that steps the top floors back from the street. Mayor Ferrara suggested directing staff to facilitate the issue concerning the impervious surfaces, along with the applicant, and also that staff facilitate the involvement of the Tree Guild concerning the issue of the trees. Council Member Arnold moved to continue the item to a date uncertain, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Dickens ABSENT: None 9.b. Consideration of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update. Assistant City Engineer Linn presented an overview of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update, noting that the Drainage Master Plan was originally approved on November 9, 1999, it assesses adequacy of existing infrastructure, provides a financial tool for funding current and future improvements, and determines a schedule for maintenance.projects. He noted the Plan includes major components, such as a review of the area drainage patterns, a review of the City's major creeks and flood plain management programs, identifies drainage policy zones, drainage basin policies, best management practices for improvement of storm water quality, identification of drainage problems in the City, and proposed projects to correct City drainage problems. He then introduced Contract Engineer Campbell to present the Newsom Springs project. Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect interest in the Dixson Ranch, as it relates to the Newsom Springs project, and said he would need to recuse himself. He expressed concern with due process as it relates to proper notification, inadequate information presented to the Council and the public, and significant material that was not provided to the Council and the public in a timely fashion. He stated that staff was recommending that information be presented specifically with regard to Newsom Springs and that the public notice only referred to a public hearing concerning the Drainage Master Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission had specifically requested that staff notify all individuals that are affected by the Newsom Springs project, and that had not been done. He stated it was inappropriate to move forward and discuss anything regarding Newsom Springs until proper notification is made. ', . t.ATTACHMENT 7 `_, -_ ~ (OF ATTACHMENT 1' YS _ ~ r j ~ C \/ ~ r yr z~ ^;-, ~ ~+ a 0 f z a a s n m m Fi a 0 i n a x N O m a y 0 z °a°~Pm~~r.~.~° THE CREEKSIDE COMPLEX ~'°~=~ u~ = ~:~,. A Mixed Use Planned Development • 415 E. Braneh Street • Arroyo Grande, CA -. COMMERCIAL BUILDING Proposed redesign w/previous design shown as dashed lines CREEKSIOE ELEVATION CROWN TERRACE ELEVATION Carolyn B. Leach Consultlnq, LLC 444 81ume Street, Nipomo, CA 93444 (806) 828.9020 Registered Coruulting Arborist tY088, A6.C.A W.C.I.SA CertHled lvbarist rF'M7 Cant. Lic. Peat ControlAdviaorilAA02B82 Sept. 1, 2006 Mr. Joseph Boud Joseph Boud 8 Associates 1009 Morro 3lnl:et, Suite 208 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Tha Creekalde Complex, Arroyo Grande Dear Mr. Boud: ~_ .c F~ %..' _ 4 r 4 >~ ` - ' ;~„ ATTACHMENT 8 !.`,, OF ATTACHMENT 1) F^ ~1. I+ .'~i ~ [l <. a/V: ~.~~^~ ~yQ;.. ~ ~ I have completed my examinatioA Of the trees located at "Tha Greekside Complex", at 416 East Brand Street in Arroyo Grande. You have asked me to Inventory and sasses the trees found In the northern most comer of the properly, adjacent to tx~th Crown Terrace and Le Poirde Streets. Tha trees are located as in the area shown on the attached sketch marked `Exhibit A". To further clarify, I included all trees abng the Le Pointe frontage from the intersection westward to the end of the axisting paving, You have asked me to review the potential for these trees to survive transplanting. I have found only two tree species with good chances to thrive after transplanting, that being the Coastal live oak and the palm. I have assigned each tree a number and am providing you a sketch showing the tree locations, tree species, and trunk size on the attached "Exhibit B, pgs 1 & 2". I found 86 trees wltttin this portion tN the property. The ma)ortty are Leyland cypress (x Cupressocyparis leylarrd~. A summary of the trees inventoried is found on the following table: Quanti Botanical Name Common Name 7l) X Cupressocyparls leylandtl Leyland cypress 6 TiistaMa cvn Ae Brisbane box 3 Sa/lx laevigata WilkWw p Queraue a8rndra Coastal live oak 2 Populua rpe Cottonvrodd 2 itfyvporum tsatum Myopprum 7 PAaenbr canartensis Canary IalarM date patrn Tree ASSeBemerrt Report The Critekslde Complex, Arroyo Grande By Carolyn Leech Sept. 1, 2006 2 Tres Charactorls8cs: The cypress tress have moderetety good vigor, with dark green foliage and very dense canopies. I found rt0 evidence of Insect or disease affecting the cypress. The cypress along Crown Terrace appear to have never been pruned, as they have retained ell of their lower branches. Along Le Pointe street, however, the cypress aro planted directly beneath power lines, and have been topped, apparently by PQ&E crews, to maintain adequate dearonoe from the power lines. The cypress were planted extremely dose together, about four feet between each tree, in straight rows that parallel each street. They are perhaps 10 years old. They are from 20 to 30 feet tall and about 20 feet wide. The remaining area below the trees is not landscaped and not Irrigated, and has a covering of weeds end other volunteer plants. The loll level below the trees along Crown Terrace is a steeply graded slope. At Le Pointe, the area bekrnr the trees has dreinage channels, making for uneven terrain. Since the cypress are planted so close together, there is the problem of wmpet@lon wfth each other fpr sunlight and for growing space. When looked at individually, they have thin canopies, with many of their bwer branches having died back. This 1s not apparent when the entire row is viewed as a group Prom a distance. Additionally, the branches are heavily Intertwined, with crossing and rubbing branches common throughout. The cypress are not a native spades, but rather aro a cultivated hybrid plant. This hybrid has been promoted heavily in the landscape trade over the past 20 years because it grows extremely quickly. From the time it starts as a six inch cutting, it can grow to a 20 feet tall tree within flue years. The Brisbane box trees are alt very young, perhaps 3 to b years old. They have sparse canopies, as they are growing in the. shade, and they prefer fuA sun. The willows aro a native spades that Is common to the riparian areas in the Village. They are very old trees. The majority of their major branches are heavily decayed and infested with termites. Their vigor is very poor. The two oaks are native species, and are likely volunteer seedlings from neighboring oak woodlands. They are young; vigorous trees, with trunk diameters of 4 Inches for the smallest and 8 inches for the largest tree. The cottonwood trees are also native to our area. They are perhaps 20 years cld, with the smaller tree having a single 8" trunk and the larger tree a double Tree Assessment Report The Creekside Complex, Arroyo Grande sy carotyn Leach Sept. 1, 2DDA 3 trunk (i3" / 7"). Both cottonwoods are heavily infested with rust disease on their foliage. The myoporum are large tree-like shrubs with trunk diameters of S"and 10". They are not native. They are listed by many experts as an Invasive weed, as they are easily spread by seed and will invade native habitats. They Grow extremely fast. , The Canary Island date palm Is a fairly young tree, with an overall height to the top of the newest fronds of about 15 feet. It is not native. This type of palm is popular for Its massive size but Is also reviled'ibecause its use In re-seeding into areas where it is not wanted. This. partkular palm Is most likely a °volunteer° seedling, since it is boated directlyt>alow the power lines, where birds tend to perch while feeding. It fa vigorous and normal in size and eobration. Discussion on Transplsnt Potential: A critical question at this point for The Creekside Complex, is whether the trees have the potential of surviving or thriving should they be transplanted. The cypress have several marks against them to be worthy for transplanting. Firstly, they are planted too close together. It will be Impossible tc de-tangle their canopies and their roots, except perhaps for the very endmost tree on each row. Secondly, the existing grades are steep, causing the shape of the roots system to likewise be slanted upward on one side of the tree and downward on the other side. This misshapen root ball will be very difficult to move without it breaking apart, and nearly impossible to find an adequate planting site that matches the root shape. Thirdly, coniferous trees are difficult to transplant because the amount of root loss will trigger dehydration in the tree, attracting bark boring insects which then attack and kill the tree. Cypress bark borers are one of the most common reasons for death In cypress. Since this species of cypress grows extremely vigorously, it would be wiser to plant new trees. The new trees will no doubt out-pace any transplanted tree in growth and vigor, as well as in potential lifespan bngth. The Brisbane box trees are young enough to transplant, but are h@rdly worth the effort, since trees this Identical size are easily available in 24° and 38" boxed sizes. The willow trees are too large to transplant, and are too diseased. Tree Assessment Report The Creekside Complex, Arroyo Grande By Carolyn Leach dept. 1, 2006 4 The oak trees are young and small enough to transplant, if adequate care is taken during and following the move. The cottonwood trees are too large to transplant. The myoporum shrubltrees are not,worth the effort to transplant, since they grow extremely rapidly from new plantings. They aro available in most nurseries. But I would caution using this plant, as it may become a noxious Invasive 'rf it spreads into unwanted areas. ' The palm is easily transplanted: It is currently growing directly beneath power lines, so it can not remain In this location for bng regardless. Transpiarrting Notes: Tres transplanting is a precise, complex task that should only be undertaken by experienced professionals. Species of tree, time of year, size of root ball, preparatbn of planting site, care of bee while'; boxed, drainage, and care following transplarttatbn all have a big effect of the success of the transplanting. t3uideGnes are available in the text Princlples'and Praotkes of Planting Trees and Shrubs by Gary Watson and E. B. Himelick, published by the Intemationat Society of Arbaioulture. Additional inforrnetion is found in the articles titled Tn3e Transplanting and Establishment Arbor Age magazine June 20t>D, and Transplanting Trees Arbor Age magazine January and February 2000. In general, a broadleaf tree with a 5-inch trunk diameter needs a root ball that is 50 Inches wide and 30 inches deep. Palms root balls are not sized in the same . manner, and are often moved with smaller root bells. At all times, adequate soil moisture and proper drelnage must be maintained in the root ball, whether storod in a box Or immediately planted in the grountl. Logs of roots are Inevitable during transplanting, and lack of soU moisture or poor drainage are the key causes of stress following transplanting. Tree Assessment RepOK The Creekside Complex, Arroyo t3rande By Carolyn Leech Sept. t, 2006 5 Coneluslons: The trees at this site that are good Candidates for successful transplanting are the Coastal live oaks and the palm. The remaining Vees are either too large, too diseased, or too problematic to transplant. Additionally, all of the remalning species are very fast growing and easy to find commercially, so replacing with new trees Is recommended. . Slgnat~u~,re/,:,,~, ~' ~~~ ~ Carolyn B. Leach A.S.CA Registered Consulting Arborist #368 LIMITING CONDITIONS: lnfortnatan in this report covers only the trees examined and reflects the conditions of the trees at the time of Inspection. There is no warranty, either express or implied, that the subject trees will not develop problems ar defiaencies in the future. Sources of information used in this report are accepted as standard resources, however, the author cannot guarantee the accuracy of information provtded by others. Possession of this report or a Dopy thereof does not imply the right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written consent of the consultant. Loss or alteration of this report invalidates the entire report. The inspection is limited to visual examination of tree Location, as viewed from the ground, without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. No review of tree structural conditions or hazard potential has bean provided. 1~" ua rm •/ m m N .. v ~~J t~ . !~: ~X~~. ~~~ ~ ~s Re~~~~+~~CO~~I~~~~~~i~~! :i ~i{ Ne~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ '~:' ~~ b M ~ i zd WC2>:tt 900Z LS '6nb 'ON ~~ ~° ....~~ ;~; _, ~~~. ~`. ~~ ,• ~~ x~ `1 Bz3atoo8eb 8 PT*~Q Yd1ROr (.qaj -~--Q,~~ L_o~.,~n ~,J S 6~ o,.~~~ ~~ ~sM~+~jo J` I Z8"/v:° S 8' R ~ 10' M z"l~l~'~ M+ r{p 0 6" c ,'i~} 6 Q "NG 31~ ~,;'' gz• q t ff • 4 "t ~eL~'C 10~ ¢ ?A • 2b• l3"t 7a. 9'' ~ ~, ro" ~s• !~, ~. yy~ M ~ ,~ • .!a' C 7,f I ~" C ~~ [~±C fq ~ p. ~ fl• 9''a f y . 9' a ri 1 ram ~ ff • ~ ~ C fY~ ly ~~. g~ G fs~ q", a // • ~r/~• " 6 a• s"~ e•!0"~ 7 • Spa 6 • 9 d f • (~ C y• rf~e J ~ f l'` Q y • !!" C f • li~4 r'~+ L C • ~lIC.A~S 5. skV~,c k ~ Q"r~"~''~ 3 ~ cr `~ ~vf~~ . I K~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Q,1 (o~ . ,y'C G • 6'~ ~. .63 '0 ~ . OZ p,~ C ~ pl pb" G {Q rL d _ - ~T9 lo+~ •Td q"G . ~ It 9"c ~,y ,o'c S"~y~c ^~Ky 4 c •~ S ~ S" G --r ~ -,"d S"c ~~~r W b ~ c • H` ~-a ~ ~ 1~G~i~ rLi ~ '~ g C ~ ~ +8" S ~' '~ q•4 ~~~~ ~" ~ ~ 4" G • fJ „ '~ ~ v r Si 9 G • .. it ~ q' C-~' n' n` i~~~ f0 • ~..: . ~~~a~ 1P M f ~ V I ~~ P~ ~` Z. ~ ~ ay ~~ s g ~ 5ku~ An e M y o Pc ~~"'~ ~-~ i -~-~.-~" O ~n~ Carolyn B. Leach Consulting, LLC ~u oi....... ati.,..a u~......... rw esu• PR Ei_IMINARY DRAFT R3 DECORATIVE OUTDOOR ,~ ... -;; ;ATTACHMENT 9 , ' (OF ATTACHMENT 1)' L~ ~.~n-i~rv~- four utility company may provide more than just your gas and electricity; they may also be your outdoor lighting company. they can often help upgrade the lighting for your downtown areas, residential streets, parks; marinas and public building :xteriors. Using the attractive and high performing fixtures and poles on their standards, you can irr~prove security as well as enhance the daytime and nighttime appearance of your community. After the fixtures are installed, your utility company nay take care of all of the electrical service and maintenance for only pennies a night. Upgrading your outdoor lighting will: • Improve traffic and pedestrian safety • Reduce crime • Attract customers to commercial areas • Enhance the appearance of historic districts . i.,~.o~~o ~,~„~ ,,.,moo ,., ,,.,, ,. ~.,.,,..,, ,,,.r., STANDARD FIXTURES Your utility company has approved these fixtures for their standards because they meet their demanding requirements for durability, energy efficiency, reliability, ease of maintenance and appearance. These fixtures feature high-strength, non- yellowing, borosilicate glass globes; side access door for ease of electrical service; and fade resistant polyester powder coat finishes. These features ensure that the lighting fixtures and poles shown here will continue to complement your community for many years to come. GRANVILLE ACORN The Granville is a timeless glass acorn that produces is very wide lateral throw of light. This light distribution allows for efficient pole spacings and increases light levels on important vertical surfaces such as vehicles, pedestrians, building entrances and signage FEATURES BOROSILICATE GLASS High-strength, borosilicate glass is the ideal material for outdoor fixtures. Unlike plastic materials, glass never discolors or turns brittle. Also, because the clarity of the material does not degrade, there is minimum loss in light output over time. Occasional rainfall is all that is required to keep these beautiful globes clean and sparking year after year. SONG-LIFE FINISH The components of a successful finish are cleaning, pretreatment, and coating. A seven stage process of cleaning and pretreatm@nt is applied to each fixture housing to ensure that paint firmly adheres to the. meta' surfaces Following the extensive preparation process, environmentally friendly, polyester powder coating is electrostatically applied to the fixture housings. This extensive coating system results in a long life finish that stubbornly resists fading and peeling. U/hat would you like the fixtures in your community to look like in a few years? REDUCED )KY GLOW UPLIGHT OPTIONS I s populations have grown, so has the problem of sky glow. Direct and reflected 3ht from streetlights and other outdoor electric lighting cause skies above urban reas to glow and thereby reduces the ability to view the stars. This problem has lade it significantly more difficult for astronomers to see and study astronomical 'odies. For additional. information about this issue,- visit the website of the lfernational Dark Sky Association at wwvv.darksky.org. To address the problem of iirect uptight, the Granville is offered with two reduced uptight options. I~ERFORATED UPLIGHT I~HIELD d help reduce undesired uptight, an eternal perforated uptight shield is mailable. This option will decrease the iirect upward component of light without agn'rficantly affecting the pole spacing oleos or the illumination of important ~ertical surfaces. A small amount of iplight continues to allow the top of the fixture to glow -reminiscent of early gas snd incandescent light fixtures. In 'addition, the daytime appearance of the glass globe is not impacted by this option. IICUTOFFtt LUNAR OPTICS The Lunar Optics Granville uses an internal reflector to reduce the high angle light output of the fixture. The shielding provided by this reflector reduces light trespass and direct uptight while maintaining the pure daytime appearance of the classic Granville. This unique design allows this product to be classified as a "cutoff fixture" by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. FIXTURE ORDERING INFORMATION fixture Housing GVU -Granville 9allast Tvoe 070HP -For use with mogul base 70W HPS lamps t00HP -For use with mogul base t00W HPS lamps V°Itace 12 - 120V 20 - 208V 24 - 240V 27 - 277V 48 - 480V MT- 120/208/240/277V Multi-tap ~: . I. Asymmetric Distribution ~ ' ' Symmetric Distribution The light distribution pattern is determined by the fixture's optical system. For illuminating streets and pathways, an asymmetric (Type III) pattern is recommended. For intersections and open area applications (parks, outdoor malls, etc.), the symmetric (Type V) pattern is tvoically used. ___ _ Fixture Finishes B -Black N -Dark Green Slntioal Systems (Sea tliagrams bebw) 3 -Asymmetric Distribution 5 -Symmetric Distribution 3PUS -Asymmetric Distribution with Perforated Uptight Shield 5PUS -Symmetric Distribution with Perforated Uptight Shield 7 -Lunar Optics Asymmetric Cistributwn 8 -Lunar Optics Symmetric Distribution Outions antl Accessories P -Protected Siarter (Prevents lamp from 'cycling' a. end of life) H - NEMA Twistlock Photocontrol receptacle DE720 - Twistlock Electronic, Silicone, Filtered Photocontrol (120V) DE'124 - RvisEOCk Electronic, Silicone. Filtered Phetuconirol (12l240/277V) OE240 -Twistlock ElecVOnic. Silicone. Filtered Photocontrol (240V) F7 -Single Fusing (120V. 240V, 277V) -field installed F2 -Double Fusing (208V, 240V) -field installed GV7ASD90 - 90`Houseside Shield GVIASD720 - 120" Houseside Shield GVI ASD180 - 180° Houseside Shield FIXTURE ORDERING GUIDE [alog Number Example GVU100HP12HSPHDE120 omp ete a - -~--- -- i -__ `- :. r .? ~~.~ r - Fixture ea Ilast Voltage Finish Optical Type Opiions and Accessories GVU 070HP 12 B 3 P ~OOHP 20 N 5 H 24 3PUS DE120 27 SPUS DE124 4S 7 DE240 MT 8 F1 F2 GV~ASD90 GVIASD720 GV7ASD'I80 STANDARD POLES To complement the fixtures shown on the previous pages, these durable and economical poles are available. These poles feature corrosion resistant cast aluminum bases and extruded aluminum shafts. Both smooth and fluted shafts are offered. For twin fixture applications, the decorative crossarm may be used. The poles and crossarm are finished with fade and abrasion resistant, polyester powder coat paint. ANCHORAGE GUIDE 4 / srr .~-.:yam,.; t~, , +t ...~N . ~. /-~, ~r rte. ` ~+:rn. _ ._._..q _.,,. 'i ....4~ „~• r--~. a ~t..._ , ;;; ` ' ' ~~ ~.qd.:.... i. V,l' lhn~ Nr r ~ _ANCHORA~E,. GU i ~~ 49# ~~ Ma I -' CS'm'+y ~ trp aw ~ _.__ } t~ (~ P+Pena '~. t [~ rr-a .,.m.. nF..~__~~,-..._, _~ {` .__ t.:; f.,.._,.._.. _.... t._.....1 ~ -r, ...... __~.-~.. CHARLESTON (shown with Muted shah). HAMILTON (shown with smooth sha(t) TWIN FIXTURE CROSSARM POLE ORDERING GUIDE Pole Ordering Example CH14S4/12-CA/BK-WPRT --- -- --- ~ -- ---- PWe Type Me~ghl Shaft Type Firlsh Opticns CH-CharLSion 12 S4/12-Smwm CA/6K-Black WPRT'-Receptacle 14 F4/12 -Fluted CN/OG -Dar. Green H -Hamilton 8 54/16 - Smooth 10 F4/16 -Fluted 12 74 'Wealherprool receptacle mounted at tap o! pole CA/BK-91ack WPRT•-Reczpiade CA/DG -Data Green CROSSARM ORDERING GUIDE crossarm ordering example PCP36-CA/BK Twin crossarm Finish PCP36 CA/BK-Black CNOG -Dark Green HOLOPHANE' LEAIIk'N IN LILI mFG SOLLTI(MIS M glcully&anM[myunr FLOODPLAIN LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY ZONE B ~\ \\ \\ \` I 1~ ~~ ZONE B ON 1n' y± ATTACHMENT 10 •' `f (OF~ATTACHMENT 1) ,...._. ~v~. ~, s ONE B ~~ 'fic ~i 'i~~~~~ ZC~~~ S~ QO`Ci` sT . E " RAND F _ ATTACHMENT 11 E ^~ _~_ ~' (OF ATTACHMENT 1)~ LIMITED SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT LOOMIS BARN TENTATIVE VESTING TRACT 2346 EAST BRANCH/CROWN HILL STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL05829-1 Prepazed for DB & M Properties, LLC Attn: Duane DeBlauw 411 El Camino Real Arroyo Grande, California 93420 __ .. _ - i :~'~'',~ . ~ 1. , . - Prepared by GEOSOLUTIONS, INC. 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 (805) 543-8539 September 19; 2006 •- r j - ~;~ ;.,..;7 ~;::.~ .. l3 1 Ge®5®6ut®®m~~9 eN~. 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-8539,543-2171 fax info@GeoSolutions.net DB & M Properties, LLC Attn: Duane DeBlauw 4l ] EI Camino Real Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Subject: Limited Soils Engineering Report Loomis Barn, Tentative Vesting Tract 2346 East Branch/Crown Hill Street Arroyo Grande, California Dear Mr. DeBlauw: September 19, 2006 Project SL05829-1 This Limited Soils Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed Tentative Vesting Tract 2346 located at the historic Loomis Barn, west of Crown Terrace, north of East Branch/Crown Hill Street, in the City of Arroyo Grande, California. Geotechnically, the near-surface materials are suitable to provide sufficient site drainage for the proposed development. Given the surface layer of imported base material of S to 12 inches encountered in the limited soil investigation, it is assumed that the sub-surface infiltration at the site is negligible. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, ple~~.___ Seto contact the undersigned at (805) 543-8539. Sincerely, Q~O`G~(, B. Mc'y~\ GeoSolutions, Inc. ,.`~~¢~ 'ym ~, /~~(/~ ,,~ / w a C59577 ~ n c~'~'LF~./~~IU~+GtiI ~ D~ tL>i (T7 ~ atnck B. McNeill, PE a a Principal CE 59577 s~ CN11. ~~? S:\Geo[echnical\SL05829-I Loomis-DeBlauw\ ~~ ~ am Transmittal Le[ter.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................................... 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................. 4.0 GENERAL SURFACE SOILS DISCUSSION ........................................ 5.0 SITE DRAINAGE .................................................................................... 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................:.............. 7.0 -ADDITIONAL GEOTECfINICAL SERVICES ....:................................. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ...................... APPENDD~ A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs ~~ LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Area Location Map ......................................................................................................................... l Figure 2: Site Plan .........................................................................................................................................1 LIMITED SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT LOOMIS BARN TENTATIVE VESTING TRACT 2346 EAST BRANCH/CROWIV HILL STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1.0 PROJECT SI:05829-1 This report presents the results of the limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed Tentative Vesting Tract 2346 located at Loomis Barn, west of Crown Terrace, north of East Branch/Crown Hill Street, in the City of Arroyo Grande, California. See Figure I: Area Location Map. The proposed tract azea is approximately trapezoidal in shape and roughly 3 acres in size East Branch/Crown Hill Street abuts the southern tract boundary and provides access to the property. Crown Terrace abuts the eastern property boundary and intersects with East Branch/Crown Hill Street at the southeast corner of the tract. The property will hereafter be referred to as the "Site." See Figure 2: Site Plan Site topography consists of a steep-sloping hill located along the edge of the eastern property boundary and a slight down-slope to the west and northwest across the remainder of the property. The gradient across the majority of the site is at an average slope of approximately 50-to-1 (horizontal-to-vertical) and increases to approximately 15-to- 1 in the north-central region of the tract. Surface drainage in general follows the topography to the northwest and into Corbett Creek, which runs along the northern property boundary. There aze several existing structures located on the tract including a store and wood shed. Figure 2: Site Plau ~, ,, ~ t~- ~ ~ d/ ~4 m '`i ,~a a F ,~~qS~'p~ °G~ st C to `~ ' i~, ~l 4 ~F ~/ ,. ~.M`~ ~, ~ E, SITE ,: ipFC t ` ~~~~p ` y ~ ~it ~~yt' f ~ ~ ~ h dm'~~ ~j Ja ' m r ~. , s , ~ A 4a m /~ ..~/ ~'~ ~ N m`V~ o~' ~'~` tr ~,~~~ ..w. ..~o... , ._ _ mite 1 in. -2a0p rz. P ~ i Figure 1: Area Location Map i :j September 19, 2006 Project SL05829-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the near surface soil conditions at the Site and develop geotechnical information and design criteria. The scope of this study includes the following items: 1. A review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site. 2. Afield study consisting of a site reconnaissance and an exploratory boring program to formulate a description of the neaz surface conditions. 3. Analysis of the data gathered during our field study and laboratory testing. 4. Development of recommendations and geotechnical design criteria for drainage, erosion, and pavement base section. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted on September 13, 2006 using atrack-mounted mobile B-24 drill rig. Six exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 1.5 feef below ground surface (bgs) were placed at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan. The surface materials at the Site generally consisted of light grayish brown well-graded SAND with gravel (SW), refered to as imported base, encountered in a dry condition to depths of 5 to 12 inches below ground surface (bgs). Underlying this material, the sub-surface soils consisted of dazk brown silty SAND (SM) encountered in a slightly moist and medium dense condition. The borings were terminated at 1.5 feet bgs in this material. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. During the boring operations the soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified. A project engineer has reviewed a continuous log of the soils encountered at the time of field investigation. The Boring Logs are attached in Appendix A. 4.0 GENERAL SURFACE SOILS DISCUSSION ~. Based on the results of the field investigation, the imported base encountered throughout the Site is suitable as asub-base material for future development. The base layer was visually classified as light grayish brown well-graded SAND with gravel (SW) and ranged in thickness from 5 to 12 inches throughout the Site. However, in a depression -area located in the northern portion of the property, native soils were identified at the surface and the base layer appeazed to be minimal or non-existent. The native material was visually classified as dark brown silty SAND (SM) and is not suitable as a base material. See Figure 2: Site Plan. 5.0 SITE DRAINAGE It is assumed that the existing surface conditions at the Site provide neaz impervious surface drainage. In general, surface drainage is to the west and then north into Corbett Creek. Surface drainage in the western portion of the tract follows the topography, across the existing base sections, to the west and northwest and into the creek. In the eastern portion of the tract, surface drainage flows west into a surface depression, located in the north-central region of the tract, and its topography to the north. Native material consisting of brown silty SAND (SM) was identified at the surface of this depression and may increase erosion potential. Overall, the remainder of the Site is covered with a 5 to 12 inch base layer, limiting the potential for erosi nand increasing the run off in all other azeas of the tract. ~ l~ September 19, 2006 Project SL05829-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is anticipated that the existing base material will provide for non-expansive sub-base in future developments. The recommendations in this report are limited to site drainage, erosion potential, and the suitability of the existing base material. An additional. Soils Engineering Report is recommended for the proposed development to determine deeper sub-surface conditions and foundation recommendations. 7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and on the continuity of the near-surface conditions encountered. It is assumed that GeoSolutions, Inc. will be retained to perform the following services: Final Soils Engineering Report including addition .borings providing ...geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any vaziations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the ;.Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified immediately and GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein-are brought to the attention of the azchitect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. As of the present date, the Fmdings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. However many events such as floods, earthquakes, grading of the adjacent properties and building and municipal code changes could render sections of this report invalid in less than 3 years: S:\Geoteclmical\SCA5829-1 Loomis-DeBlauw\SL05829-1 Loomis Bam, AG SER.doc p~ppEl`IDix A Field 1n~estigatSon Soil Classification Curt aor~gLogs FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted on September 13, 2006 using a Mobile B-24 drill rig. The neaz surface soil conditions were studied by advancing six exploratory borings. This exploration was conducted in accordance with presently accepted geotechnical engineering procedures consistent with the scope of the services authorized to GeoSolutions, Inc. The Mobile B-24 drill rig with a 4-inch diameter solid-stem continuous flight auger bored six exploratory borings near the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan. The drilling and field observation was performed under the direction of the project engineer. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. maintained a log of the soil conditions and obtained soil samples suitable for visual classification. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. See Soil Classification Chart, Appendix A. Standazd Penetration Tests with a 2-inch outside diameter standazd (SPT) split tube sampler and with a 3- inch outside diameter Modified California (CA) split tube sampler were performed to obtain an indication, in the field, of the density of the soil and to allow visual observation of at least a portion of the soil column. Soil samples obtained with the split spoon sampler aze tetained for further observation and testing. The split spoon samples are driven by a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The sampler is initially seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and is then driven an additional 12°inches.with the, results (N-values) recorded in the boring logs as the number of blows per foot required to'advance the sample the 12 inches. Logs of the borings showing the depths and descriptions of the soils encountered, geologic structure where applicable, penetration resistance, and results of in-place density and moisture content tests aze presented in this appendix. The logs represent the interpolation of soil conditions between samples and the results of visual classifications. The noted stratification lines represent the approximate boundazies between the surface soil types. J~ SOIL CLASSIFICATION CI3ART -' h1AdOR DI VISIONS ~~ - ~ LADORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA GROUP - PRIMARY DIVISIONS' ' Cugrcatu Wan 4 and Cy between I and 3 GW Well-gndcd gavels and gravel-sand Clean gravels (less murorv, ENe or no fines GRAVELS Wan S%fines") Not meeting boW mteria forGW GP Poorly graded gnvds and gravel-sand mixture;lirile or nv finis More than 50%ofcoarse ptteWwg limits plot below"A"line oc plasdciry fncdon reminined on No. Gravel with Saes index las than 4 GM Silty gravels, gavel-sand-sOt mfxrores d (6.75mm) sieve (more Wan 12% COARSE GRAINED SOII.S fines") Atluberg limits plot helow "A" line and plasddty GC Cla vds, mvel- YcY gn 6 and-day mixhues MoreWag50%retained on Nv. index greater Wan? 200 sieve - C„ grwter Wan 6 and Ca between I and 3 SW WNI graded sands, gravely sands, little ar Clene sand (less no fines SANDS Wan S%fines') Not meeting 6oW criteria forSW SP Poorly graded nods and gravelly and sands, little or no fines More Wasi 50%afcoaru SandwiW fines Atlerherg limits plot betow"A"line or plasticity SM SO ands, end-silt mixtmu ry fiacfion passes No.4 h % index less Wan4 ' (4.75mm) sieve (more t an 12 fine" Atterberg limits plat above'A• line and plazdciry - index grcatu than 7 SC Clayey sands, sand-clay matures inorganic soil PI<4 or plots below"A"-line ML Inorganic alb, very 5ne sands, mck fiouA - ~ silty or clayey fine sands SE-7S AND CLAYS Inorganic Ways of Lew ro medium (liquid limit Tess Wan 50) inoganic mil P[> 7 and plots on or above "A" line'" CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clay; silty clay; lean clays FINE GRAINED SOUS Organic Soil LL (ovrn dded)M1.L (not dried) <07i OL Organic silts and organic stlty days oflow 50%or more pazsa No. 200 p1~01ry sieve Inorganic soil Plots below"A"line MH ]vorganic silts, rdicaceous or diaromacmus Ene sends or silo, elazdc silts SILLS AND CLAYS (liquid linsit 50 or more) Ivorgame mil Plots on or above "A" line CA Inorganic clays ofhigM1 plasficiry, fat clays Organic Soil LL (ovee dried)/I.L (not dried) <0-75 OH Organic silo and organic clays ofhigh plazddty past Highly Organic Primarily organic matler, dark in wlor, and organic odor P7 Pea4 muck and offer highly organic mils "Fines are those soil particlrs that pass dte No. 200 sieve. For gravels and sands with between 5 and I2°/v fine; use of dual rymbols is required (Le GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, ar GP-GC). ""If the plasticity index is between 4 and 7 and it plots above the "A" Tine, Then dualymhols (Le CI--ML) aze requred. CONSISTENCY m CLAYS MDPWSTIC STRENGTH BLOWS/ ' ~S1LT5 ~-'~~•' TON/SQ. FT ~ ~ FOOT}- ~ ++ , VERY SOFT 0-I/4 0-2 SOFT V4-12 2-4 FIRM I/2-I 4-B STIFF l-2 8-]6- VERY STIFF 2-d 16-32 HARD Ovv4 Ow 32 RELATIVE DENSITY SANDS, GRAVELS AND ~ SLOWSI:~~. NON-PLASTIC SILTS ~ FOOT.+ VERY LOOSE 0-d LOOSE 4-10 MEDNM DENSE 10-30 DENSE ]0-50 VERY DENSE Ovu 50 CLASSIFiCATIONSBRSED ON PERCENTAGE OF FINES Less than 5%, Pass Na 200 QSmm)sieve) G W, GP, SW, SP More dtats l2%Pass N. 200 (75 mm) sieve ~ GM, GC, SM, SC 5%-1?%Pass No. 200 (75 mm)sieve Borderline Clazsifiradon requiring tae oCdgal symbols I Pwsnclrv cIIART Fw tlasafOwOOn o/rlnprernedsonsond Me kac4on olsearso-aninedsnda AnemargllrtJltplo(ang DeNreendoaedanes ere boededme tlassidmams ' Ay", requldnp uze ddualsymbola ~ EauNOn olA-We: m=o.rs ht-zm xt..oa - ~ 50 w S n ss v n 0 a ,o m sc ao m so m eo no Iw awls ua,m DrillingNotes: + Number of blows ofa 140-pound hammer falling 30- - - Types of Samples: inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. (1-3B-inch LD.) split 1. Sampling and blow counts spoon (ASTM DI586). a. Califomia Modified -number of blows per foot X- h3-Situ 4-+Unconfined compressive sDength in tons/sq.ft. as ofa 140 pound fiammafalling 30 inches SPT-Standard Penetration determined by laboratory testing or approximated by b. Standard Penetration Test -number of blows per CA -Califomia Modified the standard penetration rest (ASTM D1586), pocket l2 inches ofa 140 pound hammer falling 30 N -Nuclear Gauge penetrometer, torvane,mvisual observation. inches PO-Pocket Penetrometer (tons/sq.tt.) - CaC®~®~Lltl®fl1Sy IBC. BORING LOG BORING NO. $-I 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JOB NO. SLO5829-1 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: 'Loomis Barn, Arroyo Grande DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLIIQG LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: September 13, 2006 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOGGED BY: KN HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded = Depth of Groundwater: Not Encountered Boring Terminated At: 1.5 Feet Page 1 of 6 >. z ~ w z~ ti z~ z~ c-. w SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ p ,~ , h F. - ~ rn F ~ [~ J F. 2 w V .~ q '~ .S y p Y~ u ~" ~ Z v~ z ~ ~ ' k` 2 k .2 ~`' ~ p a Z 4 r,~ ~ O ¢w ~' w w^ ¢ WELL-GRADED SAND: imported base, light grayish brown, dry, with gravel SW X 26 SILTY SAND: native soil, dark brown, slightly SM T . T.T.' ' mol5t T. ,T.T.' ' T.T. ' T, T ' T T' '. J C8~®~®~flfl~fl®fl1S9 ~~'Ce BORING LOG BORING NO. B-2 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JOB NO. SLOS829-1 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: Loomis Barn, Arroyo Grande DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: September 13, 2006 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOGGED BY: IIN HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded i Depth of Groundwater: Not Encountered Boring Temunated At:1.5 Feet Page 2 of 6 `~ >. w ~. O SOIL DESCRtPT10N j $ ~ ° 3 ~ ~ F 5 2 ~ q ~ F. y ~~ p Y' F z ~ ~ FW ~ X 2 e iC 2 ~ ~-J ~, ~ a z 4 . fio <q w~ Q ou WELL-GRADED SAND: imported base, light grayish brown, dry, with gravel SW ~ X ' 28 SILTY SAND: native soil,-dark brown, slightly SM T T T moist . ~T. T T T TT. T T T T T T T T. 1 - ~~®~®~Ut1®ilS~ ~~~C. BORING LOG BoxnvG No. B-3 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JOB NO. SLO5829-1 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: Loomis Barn, Arroyo Grande DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: September 13, 2006 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOGGED BY: KN HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded = Depth of Grotmdwater: Not Encountered Boring Temvnated At:1.5 Feet Page 3 of 6 o ~ y w ¢ ~, ~ 8 a 3 ~ ~ °" WE w SOIL DESCR~TION y h p ~ y ' E4, 3 J `' ~ yF ~~' t-.' j F ~' Z k . ~~ W O 'J r,1~. h ~ o ~ E . zi7 2 ~ w y kz CO kz ~ ~=, ,,, wJ 4 z 4 4 ~ ,~O U'- ¢ ~u !I WELL-GRADED SAND: imported base, light grayish brown, dry, with gravel SW ~ X 7 SILTY SAND: native soil, dark brown, slightly SM T. : T. moist T T T T T T T rT. T.T. T ' T T. T, T T T T T. T T T T T T.' ~e®~®Illt10~1~' lIflC. BORING LOG BORING NO. B-4 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JOB NO. SLO5829-1 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: Loomis Barn, Arroyo Grande DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: September 13, 2006 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOGGED BY: KN HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded i Depth of Groundwater: Not Encountered Boring Terminated At:1.5 Feet Page 4 of 6 2 .+, o a 2 ~ w a ~ ¢ ~" 4 ~ ~ 8 4 ¢ 3 0 >/ 4 ~. S 8 2,. ow' s„ wa w SOIL DESCR~TION ~ p ,~ ~ F. 3 t-. ~; ~' ~' J F z k ~~ O ~ z Z ~ J q 4 ~ 2 z ~ ,(=. ,Z p 0 G W ~ Q V ¢ WELL-GRADED SAND: imported base, light grayish brown, dry, with gravel SW X l5 SILTY SAND: native soil, dark brown, slightly SM T "T T moist r T TT T T T. T T' T T' T T T T. T T. .T.' T T ' T . ~e®~®~litl®I15~ ~ffiCe BORING LOG BORING NO. $-5 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JOB No. SL05829-1 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: Loomis Barn, Arroyo Grande DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DL4METER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: September 13, 2006 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOGGED BY: KN HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded i Depth of Groundwater: Not Encountered Boring Terminated At:1.5 Feet Page 5 of 6 n } W >• U w SOIL DESCRIPTION h p ~ y ,~. J r7 ~ ~' F: ~ ~.. Qty ¢qj ~, 4 ~ F~ ti '~ ~ U Z F z ~ tl a ~ z 2 ~ F O U Q W ~ q W C WELL-GRADED SAND: imported base, light grayish brown, dry, with gravel SW X 'l l SILTY SAND: native soil, dark brown, slightly SM T' ~ T T,, moist 'T'-T~-~~ TT T ' T T ~ TT T T T.T T T T T. Ge®S®luti®ns, Inc. BoiuNO LoG BORING NO. B-6 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p JOB NO. SLO5829-1 er: si-a ~~..__. PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: Loomis Barn, Arroyo Grande DRILL RIG: Mobile B-24 DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan HOLE DIAMETER: 4 Inches DATE DRILLED: September 13, 2006 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOGGED BY: KN HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded i Depth of Groundwater: Not Encountered Boring Terminated At:1.5 Feet Page 6 of 6 ~' ~ o ~ z `~ ~ w w ¢ ~ x 5 X w F 3 e ~ xti o~ z, ocu ~: ~~ SOIL DESCRIPTION y p ,~ ~ F j ~F ~ ~., ~1.'~, z~ . U ~ tz rQ' p W U y '~z ~F ~C2 k2 ~`'~ ~ ~ a 2 4 4 0 ~ Q w `. O U WELL-GRADED SAND: imported base, Tight grayish brown, dry, with gravel SW X 12 SILTY SAND: native soil, dark brown, slightly S'~ T.' ~ T.T moist T T T T T' T. T.T T ' T T' T T T T, . ' T.T, TT f;ECEIYE7 August 2, 2006 City Council Arroyo Grande City Hall 215 East Branch St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 06AUG-2 f~i ~~~=~ Re: Proposed Creekside Development Plan Dear City Council: i f;" .' ATTACHMENT 15'. (OF ATTACHMENT 1) During the June 14, 2005 meeting of the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Costello asked questions of City staff regarding the trees along Crown Terrace and Le Point Street that are going to be destroyed as a result of this development. Ms Heffernan's response was that there were "only a few fir trees and no oaks." This response was quite surprising since, in reality, there are approximately 60 mature Leyland Cypress along Crown Terrace and Le Point that will be destroyed along with (5) Brisbane Box trees, a very mature Sego pahn,'an Arroyo Willow, (2) Black Cottonwood trees and a small Coastal Live Oak tree. This is considerably more than "a few." While I assume that a landscaping plan for the development is in place and is being reviewed by the City, the number of years the proposed landscaping will take to mature will be considerable. If the proposed 3 story townhouses along Crown Terrace were scaled back to two stories with ingress/egress for them being on Le Point and East Branch Street (rather than Crown Terrace), none of these trees would need to be destroyed. And, the safety concerns of residents backing out onto Crown Terrace would be eliminated. Thank you for your consideration of these points. Sincerely, ~i1~~~.n ~ ~,~~ Barbara Freel 502 Le Point St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 August 1, 2006 CHAMELEON Fabrics, Furniture & Design 415 E. Branch St. Anoyo Grande, CA 93420 Tel: (805) 481-4104 Fax:'(805) 481-4105 ~~~ q~ ~~~~ O/~ G O~ ~ MM~tiryooyo c 06 City of Arroyo Grande F~F( ~N Council Members 8, Staff OpMFNT RE: Creekside Project at 415 E. Branch St. General Concerns about the entire projed - Is this the right Fit for the Village?? Dear Council Members and City Staff: We understand that this property someday will be developed. However once again, the same old clans are submitted by the developer. Yes, some of the adjustments have been made in response to the Planning Commission's recommendations. However, the resounding issues, concems and vision for the village that were expressed by the community, the Planning Commission and even City Council Members last June, were ignored. Please do not rush to approve a project that is still not designed with the best interests of the community, commerce or historical sign~cance of this priceless last stand for-the "Historical Village of Arroyo Grande". In short, this project, though impressive, is not right for this piece of property to be developed in the Village Commercial Core area for the following. reasons Concern Description Solution Density of the homes We cannot require state mandated quotas . Reduce the number of for housing developments to bye forced on housing units the part of the city where there is already Add another commercial overburdened traffic concems; small building streets, dead-end streets, blocked off Increase parking area streets - basicall no to ical traffic flow. Traffic Flow In the event of an emergency (fire, Consider opening Le Pointe earthquake, Lopez Dam etc.) 24 units Bridge as an enhancement for with 2 cars each (48) would still converge the traffic flow in the future but at 415 E. Branch along with all residents plan for it now. of Crown Hi-I -not acre table'.. Commercial Structure The structure next to the Bam will tower Reduce structure to 2 floors over the barn -completely hide the green Victorian Home on Crown Terrace View shed destroyed Creating these driveways on L:e Point are Keep only the one parking ridiculous from a traffic point of view but ~ garage driveway exiting on will also remove all the Crown Terrace. Keep trees on Le Pointe and Crown Terrace to hide "yucky" (for lack of a better word) a artment buildin . Architectural Styling The current proposed commercial building Refer to the new JJ's Market For Commercial looks lack-luster, mundane and cheap commercial complex on the Structure and does not enhance the commercial Mesa. It looks like an old aspect of the projed*'* western town that has always been there! ~ t ., Sin rely, / C may Arad - Cha` CHAMELEON Fabrics, Furniture & Design 415 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Tel: (805) 481-4104 Fax:'(805) 481-4105 August 1, 2006 City of Arroyo Grande Council Members & Staff RE: Creekside Project at 415 E. Branch St Business Preservation Concerns Dear Council Members and City Staff: RECEIVE® AUG 01206 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEM As the above mentioned project comes up again for review "Chameleon" wants to express the following concerns to both the City Council and Staff regarding the actual construction and implementation details. Driveway Access to Chameleon We request that the City ensure in writing the condition with the developer that this primary access to the property remain open and accessible for business traffic, parking, deliveries etc., with no disruption to business during the entire construction process. We will do everything possible to work with the developers to make this achievable. Dust Control A dust control program during construction must be ensured on the site. This is for the safety of the customers and the tenants. Because of ventilation circumstances at the barn and the existence of only two doors on the north-east side of the building where most of the construction will occur, it is imperative especially during dry weather that the area be watered 'down at regular intervals during the day to prevent dust and keep excessive dirt off the driveway. Waterline Crossing We have been infonned by the Building Department that it is the Developer's responsibility to ensure unintertupted water service to 415 E. Branch ("The Bam°j. The waterline which existed before the property was sub-divided, crosses the developers parcel. and will require possible re-routing or relocating to ensure continuous service. Again, Chameleon will do whatever necessary.to provide the developer with hours and/ or a schedule that the water service will not interrupt business. Thank you so much for your consideration. Sincerebl~ y ~r.(~ (~,c~.. ~~~''~ Camay Aratl and Winton E. Tullis Chameleon Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 214 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 March 7; 2005 Members of the C~~'YY C'U/~l/L//~ This letter is in reference to the project proposed for the Loomis property. My main concern is. safety along Crown Terrace. I live on May Street with my wife and two young daughters, and we walk along Crown Terrace at least twice a day on our way to and from downtown, As such, we are very familiar with how narrow that street is, and how dangerous it can be. The combination of more traffic and the proposed driveways entering'onto Crown Teaace is a recipe for disaster. The mad is very narrow (27 feet according to a neighbor) and has a blind corner onto Lepoint around which cars often travel at very high speed. With cars backing out onto Crown Terrace, it is only a matter of time before there is an aceide~. It seems like it would be far safer to mute the exits from the homes either onto Branch Street as is currently the case, or else onto lower Lepoint. Regardless of what happens, if this.project is approved the city should require that the developer either put a sidewalk along Crown Terrace, or else provide a route through the development that residems on LePoint and May Street can use to safely avoid Crown Terrace. We are also concerned about light pollution. Ifthis project is to be mixed use, we hope that the businesses will be required to consider the 'residential areas nearby end install low intensity lighting. Thank you for taking the time to read these comments. Sincerely, ;~-~~-a Derek Mitchem and family 513 May Street Arroyo Grande 473-8719 ~~~~1 Y L® hl~R 0 8 2005 CIlY OF AR . ~O GRN1~iDE COMMUyl~ QEVEl.OPMEM :,~~~ Re: Creekside Center Development We are very concerned about the development of this property. 1=Too biq for our Village. 2=Traffic, Extremely dangerous, even, under current Conditions. 3=Will ruin our street with more noise, traffic, and trying to get onto the street. Sincer Q j3y~o -~ 8'~.~ . , REC~IifED I~Ir.I~ ~~ iZ 'a05 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEM March 8, 2005 ~--------_--- 'Toc, F~LQ~iy'lnll ~m/~/1N1/SS~o~ From: Le Poirtt GommFttee ~ r Subject: Update on proposed Creekside ILoomis- project Attached is a copy of official record Nom the County of San Luis Obispo showing legal subdivision for the subject project Site, that is in effect as of today. The proposed site consists of 5 parcels, and based on records, ag owned by DB&M properties, LLC. Note that the dashed lines within the parcel are primarily land locked blocks and can not be developed without access. However, the 5 parcels appear to have access as follows: o Parcel No. 11 has access Nom E. Branch o Parcel No. 12 has access Nom E. Branch o Parcel No. 1 has access from Crown Hil! o Parcel No. 3 has access from E. Branch a Parcel No. 13 induding ail of its imaginary lots, also appears to be lend Pocked because of environmeMai Issues at Telly Ho, and dead end of Le Point. However, since all parcels are owned by same entity, access may be possible through parcels 11 and 12 leading to E. Branch, of course subject to City approval. In brief it appears that the entire property has no right nw feasible access to Le Point or Crown Terrace. Their proposal, as h is submitted to the City, seems far beyond the capacity of the site. Furthermore, the proposed plan seems to overlook available access points that would wane ~_rmtch smaller scale oroiect but pursue access Nom where it does not belong. Submitted by Spgkesperson for Le Point Committee Attachment: As noted ~~~~ oMM~tiry oy G~46 o~~o MFNt 1, O~ . MOTE"'- L0T5 4.9.E f0 ~ A SMDtiYN OM MAP 7-d s (C~ } ~ ~ ~/ O1 z ~ b0 f ~+ aw w 1 ,p/ 1' - ~ t AI[B. LINE /~i E_., i A11'L [AVE- 3 1 6 i „ ~ µj-~j f f 14 _ >21 . ; le ~C.ESOi _. _ b a18+ _.1 L---~ ---~~-- { It i f I : 84 i IS Q s 202 r ~ r`QQ-t r~_~--~ ,'c~-7i,~---- dii.Y. Ot-24 r~l7J ,. ~ , 8~9 _ ~ • ~ ` ~pRDEN „ ti a ~Q ~~ lLB~ `~ 243 ~ /!_~, ,~ is r3 ~ , __ ~ P 3 4 ~ - ~--a ;~=--fit --..~ of I { W f ~~_~ _ I8~- *__ of ( { ~~ O ~ ~ I >'3S tf " I ! i ® ~ . {'~' a ~. - _~ P9 10 ,_ ~ O nj ~ 1 ~a±s~ ~Ti~i - ITT of I I a~ ~- ~ 8 1P3~~f 1 1 11:13 11. 16 1 T i R f Y i I I e~ ~ 1 .1 1.1 1 i~ $ I~ f 4 i 1 0 a ~~ 5.^ 14 W -' _ _~ i - _ 11- µ ~ ~~ 2 _ - 6 ~ -. _, S S -4- o ~ -~r4 Z ~ ;3 111:13 yQ i~! 11 0 ~. 3 W so 40 i 425 0 a 74 0 °. .,. r ~ ~.. -- 405 -..._..__. :..._._ __. -_..._.._...._. _..__.....-w ~:ta ~--,INe.ull` ~• ;, .a'~. ' ~~,`; : CROWN EAST BRANCH ft 6f° E ~ ~~ iti .... \ r'~( d ~49~ `' SWALL'S RESUBDMSION, R.M. 8k. 1 . Pg.24 ~ s 1•dARDEIV'S TRACT R.M. 8k. 8 , Pg. Q9 "'i RANCHO CORRAL. DE PrE~RA, PlSAtO & BOLSA Df CHEMISAL, R.M. Bk. A . Pg• ~ nrn•ir-rrrr nn/~uAr rtlr~ •nmm~-r n ~~ Al. A n_ G-7 t ST.: (z~s) ar7- s S :- 2e~ CITY OFARROY® GRAND! sAN tuts osesro couar~ r. ~c iFARIMIe <~y l~dJ~,G ~L Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Planning Commissioners: 437 Le Point Arroyo Grande, Ca February 14, 2005 ~ ~ ~'~~ rct3 7 4 2005 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Concerning the proposed Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001 (415 East Branch Street): The proposal has completely ignored the established neighborhood that exists adjacent to the Crown Terrace and Le Point intersection. These people have owned them homes for up to twenty years and more. We appreciate the desirability of "The Village" location, but above that, we have maintained and improved our properties, developed our friendships and enjoy the privileges of living in this lovely area. We have only Teamed in. the last month about this project that has apparently been successfiilly proceeding through planning stages for years. This proposal ignores the fact that the streets in and out of this area now carry large trucks, school buses, large numbers of automobiles and considerable pedestrian traffic culminating at bottlenecks at two streets that intersect Crown Hiil-- Crown Terrace and East Branch/ highway 227. In addition; where Crown Terrace becomes Le Point Street, an extremely dangerous blind curve with absolutely NO traffic control guarantees danger for anyone attempting to enter Le Point Street or Crown Terrace at that point. What consideration does this proposal give to the approximately 24 new household drivers and countless commercial customers who will enter this community at this location? This proposal is a determined effort by the owner to get his investment out of the .red. Understood. However, the location and the plan'almost preclude the new owners from becoming a part of the existing community, although the resultant traffic will certainly have to be incorporated somehow. As the owner of the 100- year- old house on Le Pofrrt and Crown Terrace, having lived there since ,1986, I am resigned to the fact that change is inevitable; but before the city hands the developer the keys, I make the following suggestions: 1. That all improvements on the property under consideration be made ON the property, itself. This should include fire lanes; sidewalks, city services including wiring; cable boxes, meters, etc. Remember th'e people who have taken pride in improving landscape and those who value peace and privacy and WHO LIVE HERE NOW. 2. That lower Le Point bedesignated acne-way street for entrance of the residents, and that acne-way exit through the commercial portion of this property be incorporated at a point other than the location of the Crown Hill/ Branch/227 Highway stop sign that is already bottlenecked at least twice a day for several minutes at a time. The locked gate should not be included. 3. The developer should be mindful that the neighborhood around his proposed development is the selling point Buyers here will want the same consideration for traffic patterns, safety concerns, housing,density and the community ambience, which we who have long lived here expect Anything less will kill the golden goose for everybody. Signs are that already we maybe overwhelming our ability to remain unique among American small towns. To this developer, and particularly to the city planners, please listen to and consider those who live here NOW. You have only this opportunity to get it right Sincerely, Carol F~ilmer JOHN CLEMO 535 L,epoint St. Arroyo Gwnde, GA 93420 jctemo721 tLhaol.com Meech 3, 2005 ~»-y ~a ~,~'~~ Arroyo 214 E. Branch St. Arroyo Ciraade CA 93420 To the Planning Coetnmission: Phone: (803) 489-2889 Cel: (803) 801-96~i RE~~E11/~® M.4P, 0 4 2005 Ci1Y OF ARROYO GRANIbE COMMUNRY bEVELORMENt' I am a property owner on Lepoin tit 5troet, gnrte near to the area that has been recently. tapped I'or a posa~le re~iaUoo~ciat project. I encourage you to look long and hard at this proposal, sal to rcjoct it. To put it siomply, I bought tlr~ propeaty because ofthe quiet boihood, the love traffic vohune, sad wrth the sense that it was one ofthe Snesy safest ne~hborhoods in the city. 30, what I'm olrieding to would be tl~ m~e of caastrttction; the ma'easod traffic vohune in a neighborhood ofmiddle school chOdren sad bebved pets, sad what I be~ne to"be the oveeall t ofthe project m gaeation. Finally, I AM iar~ growth in the city of Arroyo Cleande. But I am against growth for it's own sate. When we have enough tenarrts isi the irosity ctarmtly on the west end of the velbige (and I do believe that they stet have vacancies, eves after almost S years of existence) then wa could actually thick about btuldiRg more commercial properties here. But, utail thee, please stop. ~ . Thaak you for your oomideration in this mailer. February ll, 2005 /. ~ T~`~ mmunity Dev ent Dept. /-- PI 'ssion 214 ranch St. / ~ C j ~'` ./ ~a 4~ C . ~ L - de. Ca 93420 / Dear My husband and I have lived at the corner of Le Point and Crown Terrace for 21/2 years. This has been a quiet lovely neighborhood except for the speeding short-cert traffic using Crown Terrace and Le Poirit St., There is a blind spot at the corner of Le point and Crown Terrace when traveling from Branch St. The proposal to permit access to Le Poim St. from the Loomis azea will definitely cause additional traffic at that intersection The cats travel too fast, there is no traffic control and the traffic study done last year was inconclusive. It is a very daagerous situation in just attempting to back your car out of our driveway. There are many neighborhood children who ride bikes and skateboazd at this said intersection There are also many senior citizens and disabled persons frequerrting this intersection with some using walkers and wheel chairs, .'Of course they move very cautiously and slowly. They also complain of difficulty backing out of their driveway due to speeding traffic. There are also a number of children from Paulding 1r. High School who walk by this same intersection morning and afternoon due to the. closure of Crown Hill as it meets Hwy. 227. In light of the above I feel it is not safe to add additional traffic and potential problems to this intersection The Plam~ed Unit Development Case No 04-001 would ereate more traffic and congestion The sidewalks planned for Crown Terrace, (24 ft wide) is definitely not safe for pedestrians or school children The January 18, 2005 meeting was to start at 7:OOpm as posted on the fence in front of Loomis property. This was inaccurate as it started at 6:OOp~m. Some of the neighbors missed the meeting due to this error. I am also concerned that so much plamring has been done without the neighborhood's awareness. Please note the Signawres of the neighbors on the back of this letter who agree with these comments and disapprove access to Le Point of this project. Sincerely, ,I a geman O~oint St. Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420 ~~~~~~ Cry AUK ~2Z006 CpMMUN NRD NCO glVpE MENT The undersigned agree with comments of this letter which object to access_to Le Point .. Street from the Loomis property development. ', 7~.~s ~~ ~^ ^~~~~ v~ ~°.~,~ ~ l MY ht>sbaad and I have lived atthe oarcer ofLe Point and Crown Tena~ce for 2112 years. This has been a quiet lovely ~ exoept.for the speeding slmat-cat traffic usang Crown Terrace and I.e Poin; St, is a blind spot at the cornet o>l:e point and Crowe Terrace when traveling &am St The ptoposal to permit acseseto Le Point St &om.the Loomis m'ea wiU tsusa additional tra$c at that ir>}ersection. The cars . travel too fast, there is m traffic 1 and the traffic study done fast year was inconcl»sivc. It.ia a very darrgonars aituation'in just to beck your+c~' oat of otnr driveway. There are many ch>y<hea who Hide br'kes sod ekatoboard aA this said iubersection. Tyre are also mmysonic; citizens and disabled.parsons frog this intersection with some usingwellrers and w~oal chairs. t3f cwa~se they move very carrtiously and. slowly. They also complain ofdifficulty backing oat of their driveway dne to speoding traffic. There are also a mmdrer of children from Paulding 7r. High School who walk by this same i~aecNan morning and aRernoon dne to the Closure of Crown Dill as it meets Hwy. 227: In'light of the above I feel it is not safe to add additional traffic and potential .problems to this inteisoctioa: The.Phnmed Unit Devdop~eat Case Nio04-001 wunld cxeate more - lraff c end congestion. Tlu sidewalks planned for Crown Terrace, (24 ft wide) is definitely~ot safe for pedestrians or school childrea The Janwtry 18,1003 meeting was to: start at 7:OOpm as posted od the-fence in Rota of Loomis property. This was ire as it started at 6JfOpat Sow of the neighbors missed the meeting due fn this error. I am also cxtnoerned that ro much planing has been done without the neighborhood's avmrecess. ~~~~ Z.. . Please note tine Sigosdues of the neighbors on tic of this letter who agree with these commeafs amt disapprove access to La Point of this project Sincerely, ~~ SOi Le Poirrt St ~: Aaoyo (}rsado, Ca. 93420 ~ . .~~ ~ ~~~~~~ E AU6 U~2~6 CCMMUN/~ ~E~F G~NDE CoPMENT ~..,~ ' ~ mess tole Point ~m~nents of this teeter fah object '} igned a~'r''i ~y dewelop~nt. ", G ~{! ?„~! Looms ' ~R~~t1iJ pa~ff" ' ~~ .t.~c o ~ t~~ a p .-a...-tom ~. c ~' 3 y -= `''`~` ~`a L~ Pots 57 ~r-d ~ . ~ ~. ~v~~~ ~` ~3! ~ ~~,A~yzQ "~ ~r~. ~~~" °~ --moo in~- 53~ ~ ~,~ri~ ~ ~~~cz~ t o ~~~~-~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. `~ .~ stq d~-% ~yu. ~ - ~D~~. ~~ g ~J `~ %'r~` ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~a~~'~:~1~'7 ~' ~ . '~' 9rt~' A~ ~Ca~ ~ ~ /7r ke 38d ~~e ~Ul.n~ f R /v ~T£ February ll, 2005 214 h St. vo Gran . Ca 93420 Dear Dept. ~~ ~; Ty cti ~,~ My husband and I have lived at the corner of Le Point and Crown Terrace for 21/2 years. This has been a quiet ioveIy neighborhood except for the speeding short-cut traffic using Crown Terrace and Le Point St., There is a blind spot at the comer of Le point and Crown Terrace when traveling from Branch St. The proposal to permit access to Le Poim St. from the Loomis area will definitely cause additional traffic at that intersection. The cars travel too fast, there is no traffic control and the traffic study done last year was inconclusive. Tt is a very dangerous situation in just attempting to back your car out of our driveway. There are maw neighborhood children who ride bikes and skateboard at this said intersection. There are also many senior citizens and disabled persons frequenting this intersection with some using walkes and wheel chairs. Of course they move very cautiously and slowly. They also complain of difficuity backing out of their driveway due to speeding traffic. There are also a';number of children from Paulding Jr. High School who walk by this same inrtersection morning and afternoon due to the closure of Crown Hill as it meets Hwy. 227. ~ - In light of the above I feel it is not safe to add additional .traffic and potential problems to this intersection. The Planned Unit Development Case No 04-001 would create more traffic and congestion. The side walks planned for, Crown Terrace, (24 ft wide) is definitely not safe for pedestrians or school children. The January 18, 2005 meeting was to start at 7:OOpm as posted on the fence in front of Loomis property. This was inaccurate as it started.at 6:00: Some of the neighbors missed the meeting due to this error. I am also concerned drat sa much planning has been done without the neighborhood's awareness. Please note the Signatures of the neighbors on the back of this letter who agree with these comments and disapprove access to Le Point of this project. cerely, e Balgeman 505 Le Point St. Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 ~~~~~ AUK 0 CpMM ~ ~ C O~o~6 D~VE~O MFNT e .d ~ ~/~ ~~,Nz ~" ~ Q E! Tile undersigned agree with comments of this letter which object to access to I.e'Point .. Street from the Loomis property development. J . y ~~w/P G~. 5'9y2v .' , 3 S A1~Da~~ -r~~Z ~fcff~c~ti ' 2l6'. GIZo ~-~' 7~~zq-acs ~, ~~ y3 yam.. ~,Ip 6Xm- ! ,ell ~o~~~~© 211 Y4~~1 ~,~. 'I A~~.~...i., ~v non ~0.,t ;~ `~~i `f' ~1~-1~3 _62.4 (.E .Qv. N T' .~lr~;~lA.~s9 /~' /l~a~ 52`~ LE Po~NT y-g f _ 4 TZ.~- C/ r~ lid rJ.~ C~ L~ I live right behind thr formei Loomis property, so I will feel the impact of any project the deepest. Of course I would like the smallest impact on the.neighborhood as,possible. However, the size and nature of the proposed plan is way out of scale. There are too many driveways and not enough thought about safety issues. Namely, kids going to and from school.. Even as it is, I have to be very cazeful entering the intersection. Drivers speed around the hairpin turn at Le Point and Crown Terrace. There is no place for people to`walk safely and this proposal will make it a certainty that someone will be maimed or killed. The plan needs to be changed to something that fits the neighborhood! When I bought my home, I was told something like a permanent farmers market was being considered. That would be perfect, maybe impractical, but would still be worth Moving toward. The plans I saw call for Pasadena style condos to tower over the street. I have lived in Pasadena and that style has come to fit there, but would look ridiculous here. Please save our neighborhood! R~CEIii~® MAR 0 3 2005 THANK YOU; a James Norby 419 Le Point CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CONIMIfNtiY DEVELOPMENT RECE9VED F ea 2 s Zoos CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande, CA l,','rY l~'~va~LtL February 14, 2005 Dear Commissioners, As a resident of Arroyo Grande, I have enjoyed the charm and convenience of the village for many years. One of the main attractions of the area is ability to get to know the merchants and have a personal relationship with them which is so unusual in this modem world. Also as a horse owner it was my pleasure to shop at the old Loomis bam for hay, feed and pick up local eggs and that delicious ollalie berry jam for myself. Yes, I am reminiscing, however; I do have a deep concern for the future of our village: I would hate to see another contemporary designed stucco building built adjacent to the Loomis bam. I have certainly no objection to the rights of the current owner to make use of the property, but please, let's be particularly careful to preserve the unique character of the area and insure its development is consistent with the rest of our village. ,~ y~ '~ ~r'`"~~ ~~l~y~~- .Sincerely, Rawlings randl1 Friends 1 ~-~ W.~b9oY: C~~.. . G~ ~f _ .. ' nfrh. W'Ja~c-.~nl'p--^r~~-~ 41 ~~~,~v _~ _ ~I- - / if ~~ ~ . ~o ~~ 25 April, 2005 Dear Mayor and Council Members, Our neighborhood (Crown Terrace/Le Point St.) has been concerned about the Loomis Developmem project and we strongly object to the many (twelve) entrances and back-0ut traffic from this development. 'This will add traffic to the already overloaded traffic on Cmwn Terrace/I.e Point roadways as a cut-0ff route from one area of Hwy 227 (in from of the Loomis store) and the other entrance to Hwy227 (western end of Le Poim St.). We are very concerned about the cut-off traffic. Recently, we learned a traffic measurement was made of tbe number of cats using Crown Temrce a~ Le Poi St as a cut-offfor another project The infom~ation suggested this measurement was made doting 2003. A recent SANDAG traffic study of the Loomis Development Project did not consider the cut-off traffic in their analysis. Some of my neighbors have indicated some reluctance of the city to give them the results of the traffic measurements on Crown Terrace/L,e Point. Please arrange for the results of this traffic study on Crown Terrace/Le Point St. be'made available to us. This will be shared with others on Le Poitrt Street concerned atiout the cut-off traffic and the added traffic due to the Loomis Property Development. ' Yo y, n4~ ~V Earle Balgeman 505 Le Point St Arroyo Grande, Ca 489-9433 ~~~~t~ AEG ~~ ciryo~ ~ZZOp6 COMMU~ ~ o~~CO~ND~ MFNt 29 March, 2005 Community Development De ent nty~--,~~.~ li I J Y 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Commissioners; ~~~ A11~ ®~~ 0 Cp MVN SRC o G~O~ ~D~~G9L_ ~~~top~as Nr Atler a number of discussions with neighbors in the azea, the style of the buildings of the current plans for the Loomis Development are not suitable for the desired motif of our Village. The style ofthe buildings both residemial and commercial should be more compatible with the style of the Loomis house and barn and other buildings along the Village main street. It is very easy to identify the buildings which have been built in recent years and are not compatible with the majority of the Village architecture. Also, the project is described as being caned amixed-use developmerrt The`project is divided into two areas. A commercial area and a residential area . It is not a mixed commereial/residential area. Respectively, ~/ f ; `C___~ Earle Balgeman 505 Le point St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Community Development~rtm em 214 East Branch Street Arroyo t.rrarrdc, CA 93420 Dear Commissioners, This is written to strongly object to the.exit of Planned Unit Development Case No. 04- 001 (415 East Branch Street) onto Le Point Street. Le Poirrt Sheet currently carries too much speeding traffic due to the use of that street as ashort-cut between 2 locations of Hwy 22T as it circles Crown Hill. The improvement of L.e Poim St. (North of Develo~-em) to s 40 ft width and sidewalk will encroach on the home owners lawns. The home owners are very concerned about the changes in I.e Poim St due to the access fi+omn the' developmient MAY have only recenfly been infarmed of the access of the developmem to Le Poim St. Pedestrian access to the property from Crown Terrace show he denied due to the narrow width (24 R} of that street. Possrbly the pedestrian access from Crown Terrace is for school cJWdren leaving and to the property; This is as ua4afe choice. The development of the Loomis property should only consider access from Crown HiII stmt or East Branch Street and trot incl~e a gate to separate the commerciat and residential portions. The access to the Loomis property from Crown Hill Street or East Branch Sheet was satisfactory for 95 years and there is no >~d reason to alter that s~ many reasons to not grarrt access to Le PoirU Street and improve that portion. of Le Poi Street. Thank you for your consideration. ~v /~ Earle Balgemart... 505 Le Point St. Arroyo (> (;A 93420 ~~~~ q~6 ®~`~ cry- ®2Z0 coM~~tiryoF o G06 l'F~ ppMNOVF CoDevelopmerrt `e~m~ , /~ ; 214 East BranchStreet ~ ~ v ~~i ~ ~- Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Commissioners, This is written to strongly object to the exit of Planned Unit Development Case No. 04- 001(415 EastBranch Street) oho I.c Point Street I.e Point Sheet currently carries too much speeding traffic due to the use of that street as a shortcut between 2 locations of Hwy 227 as it circles Crown Hill. The imp of ie Poim St (North of Developr~roertt) to a 40 R width an sidewalk will encroach on the home owners lawre. The home owners ate very concerned about the c7mnges in l.e Poi St due to the access from the developament Many have only recently been informed of the mess of the devetopmem to Le Point St Peckshian access to the property from Crown Terrace should be denied due roc the narrow width (24 ft,) of that sheet. Possibly the pedestrisii access from Crown Terrace is for school children leaving a~ tebuemg to the property, This is an unsafe choice. ~ ~~~~ Earle Balgeman 505 Le Point St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ~~~ c, q~G ® ®~ c°Mq,°~~~ROY2~~~6 OF~~ FM /I T 0 Community Development Departmentn tta~siurr C i~t L'aU~r/C/L-, 214 East Branch', Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Enjoyed your swcle on street as a shoRctrt between tlte''•I:oomis Hearing po%t_ two pwts'of Hwy 227 which paned".Howeve~ywdidmt circle the Crown H[ll area. mention m issue which is of About 15 yews ago the sass primary concern to the le ere sod of town Hill street PomtSttewre8rda~A ~ sues blacked to:tbosq,wy r,~ ~~~ "adamgeir43the~y considered the acceas-of 11~ .: ec~o01 asmalong Clown Hdl projxt oam die corteottyutt- street. Since then motorists impauvedpoitimofLeE!Aitit havensedCrownTeQUxend Ste, .I..e Pomt sheet as a shortcut This iasua rs _ attmgly between Hwy 227 in frwn of opposed by the.resideata`of the Loomis store sod Hwy Lel?oint Stttlet.. This : uo- 227 at the east sod of le improved Poctiao:ofr Point point Stricet. 'ilu comer of SbeetwiUbeitaa~aaottedtotlre Crown Temceli.e Point 40 $. w;tldt cf the .cuaent Street is a bs»y snd danga- itt~pmvedpteut6noflsPoint 'oas 7lteeitYeeflfses soreetbetaroenCtuwnTeame todo~ nnatpc~'" ,~~ andFlwy 217. This to ubtatgxs 'srgti at went w311 encroach on the t stow the shwa lawns and fessx areas of tha =motorists :'have been ~• ,. involved'~pioperbos.abd is strongly ztppoaed bY3y#9ws° .~.r Most t~this'Igtormation rtstdeata... i :,} ,.eboutthe~tdGaila JsmeslVd~'' ta't0i `6asbecome'available to the: ' iothewticlcexmedtogbject Le PointStnxtresid~afta m development of mykind.:. tLe ~~J on of 1 do noC -think tliese is' an the January 18, 2005 mewttg objetxtonto8pydevelopment aLthePlaooingGommiseion. of the i.o~mis,property as 11tan1¢you~ya~rtan- -long as it does not mess on wdewbon,~s r~~ k IePoid[Stixt. ,~,y ,~~~ `~` ~ ~1I 1 LG CVWt JYW4ra ='.~~~ P4 .. Street due to the nee Of rile - ` RE~~~ N W Oi z' s J 7 sus 022006 COMMU ARROYO GRANDE ' NITY DEVELOPMENT ~~ /GG~ 222 9Ke ~ialuy St uct - r~yao~a ~aa.~cdc G'r¢ 93420 ~lo+r~: 08051 473-698? 4 March 2005 RECEIVE® PhA~ 9 A 2005 Arroyo Grande jl ~ I ~~ C)G (~ .~(/e/~ 214 E. Branch Street CRY OF ARROYO GRANDE Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT Ref - Creekside Center Development Gentlemen: My husband and I strongly oppose the development project as proposed. Not only will it increase traffic on both I.e Point and Crown Terrace, but having resider-ts backing out of their driveway onto Crown Terrace is dangerous and completely unacceptable. I cannot imagine that your Commission would permit such'a plan to go into effect. Additionally, we feel the aesthetics of the Village should,remain intact'- especially after seeing what was built at the West end of it -those atrocious, completely out-of-chazacter buildings should never have been allowed We ask that you reconsider the project as a whole. Thank you Sincerely, Sheila Taylor , Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 214 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Mazch 7; 2005. Members of the' / ~ (/iffCl C_._ ~~ / This letter is in reference to the project proposed for the Loomis property. My main concern is safety along Crown Terrace. ` I live on May Street with my wife and two young daughters, and we walk along Crown Terrace at least twice a day on our way to and from downtown As such, we are very familiar with how narrow that street u and how dangerous it can be. The combination of ~re trd5c and the proposed driveways entering onto Crown Terrace is a recipe for disaster. The road is.very narrow (27 feet according to a neighbor) and has a blind corner onto Lepoint around which cars often travel at very high speed. With cats backing out onto Crown Terrace, it is only a matter of time before there is an acciderrt. It seems h7ce it would be far safer to route the exits, from the homes either onto Branch Street as is currently the case; or else onto lower Lepoint. Regardless of what happens, if this project is approved the city should require that, the developer either put a sidewallc along Crown Terrace, or else pFOVide a route through tbe development that residents on LePoint and May Street can use to safely avoid Crown Terrace. We are also concerned about light pollution. If this project is to be mixed use, we hope that the businesses will be required to consider the. residential areas nearby and install low intensity lighting. Thank you for taking the time to read these comments. Sincerely, ~ -`~-- -~ Derek Mitchem and family 513 May Street Arroyo Grande 473-8719 RE~~~VE® btAR 0 8 2005 CI1Y OF AR . QYO GI2pNDE COMMUy(~'L?EVEI.OPMENT ~~~~~~~~ITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~~--~5~~~ AU6 0220p6 SPEAKER SLIP .:_ _ _. CITY OF q~{20`iU ''RpNDNT __ _ - - - COMMUNI'N p~VELOP~he Planning Commission and staff appreciate your participation at this public meeting. SPEAKING TO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Please complete this form if you wish to address the Planning Commission on any subject. If you wish to speak regarding an item' NOT on the agenda, your name will be called during the oral communications period. )• If you wish to speak regarding a Public Hearing or Business item, proceed to the speaker's stand upon recognition from the Planning Commission Chair. When you step up to'the microphone: ~ Please speak directly into the microphone. Please clearly state your name and address for the record. >• ei ~ All remarks must be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole and not to any Member individually. Me ~~ G ~~~ s%~ Name: L`.~~ :. /~o.~ Address: SD B G.~ ~~ r~j~ /~ . ~o enda Item: ~ ~ /~`~ (The signing of this slip is voluntary) ~ ~~ PLEASE GIVE THIS SLIP TO THE CLERK~~ c~^ 3~ C%~~~~ ~" ~ r ._-~'~v - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE --- ~SPEAKER~'SLIP The Planning Commission and staff appreciate your participation at this public meeting. SPEAKING TO PLANNING COMMISSION ' Please complete this form if you wish to address the Planning Commission on any subject. If you wish to speak regarding an item NOT on the agenda, your name will be.called during the oral communications period. If you wish to speak regarding a Public Hearing or Business item, proceed to the speaker's stand upon recognition from the .Planning Commission Chair. When you step up to the microphone: Please speak directly into the microphone. Please clearly state your name'and address for the record. I P_Iease~limitVour reiria~ks to'three (3);'mmut s unless~furtl 1- All remarks must be addressed to the Planning Commission as . a whole and not to any Member individually. /// S/D S' Name: ~C~GL/;,/ / o~df/Z~G/ ' Address: ~Q8 G /~/ ~j~/" ~ ~ , Agenda Item: GOO~~S f7 ~i~9 / ~~/ '~~.y~ (The signing of this slip is voluntary) ° ~~ • V(~.e~E~2 e~,~w~ %~~/pLG' ~' ~Z E lioi~ PLEASE GIVE THIS SLIP TO THE CLERK.. ~~~d~~~G-~I ',' Lam' ~r ,l ~ -~ ,.w~ ~; ~ w~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'U ~ ~ ~ .~ ~,~~~.~ ~I~ ~ ~' I~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ . ~ .~ , v ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,. l~ ~ 4 ~ v~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ .~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o I\ ~. ~~ .~ ,j '1 .~ie~~~ 1~~~ _I~l..~.~1 ..~.. 4`1. ~._.. \ ~ C R ~' 4 ~~ ~, (~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ \~`e~~ ~~~~ ,.~~ h ~`~~~'~ 3 ~_ :?~V '~ ~! 1 `. ~ ~.. t t `1 - ,`, °ATTACHMENTI7± (OF ATTACHMENT 1) IIEGEIV:E~ October 18, 2006 ~- 'CITY OF A!'POYO Oi;f,';DE City of Arroyo Grande 06 OCT 19 Pi'i 2~ 22 214 East Branch Street Axxoyo Grande, Ca Re: CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON REVISED CREEKSIDE PROJECT Dear Honorable Council Members: We axe the owners of the warehouse at 415 East Branch Street. We have and currently support the proposed project surrounding our property. DB& M Pxoperdes has been .. trying for a very long time to satisfy the city and we think that they have more than paid their dues in trying to satisfy your requests. , We feel that some of the other neighbors have made too many negative comments and that it is unfair to give them so much sway in the process. It is a good project and will enhance the entire village as well as preserve the barn as you always wanted. We have seen the revised office building architecture and believe that fits very well with the project as a whole. Further, we would like to emphasize that Ms. Camay Arad and her husband do not represent our views whatsoever and have very often made comments and suggestions for revisions that we completely disagree with. We like the project without any more additional changes. Please put our rights as landowners in perspective as you grant your approval Tuesday night. Very truly yours, ,; G ~,~~ ~~ Adair and Trudy Brown - _ "~ - ATTACHMENT 2 Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8.h. Consideration of Appropriation of Funds for Startup Costs for East Grand Avenue Business Improvement Association. [CCIRDA] Action: The City Council/RDA Board appropriated and authorized the City Manager/Executive Director to expend ,$2,000 for startup costs for the formation of an East Grand Avenue Business Improvement Association. 8.i. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase aSelf-Priming Pump and Motor for Soto Detention Basin No. 1. Action: Authorized the purchase of a 50 h.p. self-priming pump, motor and suction hose for Soto Detention Basin No. 1 from Godwin Pumps in the amount of $23,537.09. 8.j. Consideration of Award of Bid for Contracted Custodial Services -Service Master. Action: Awarded the bid for contract custodial services to Service Master in the amount of $3,834 per month and authorized the Mayor to execute the Contractor Services Agreement. 8.k. Consideration of Authorization to Submit a Proposal to the Lucia Mar Unified School District to be a Partner in the "Bright Futures" Program. Action: Authorized the Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities to submit a proposal to the Lucia Mar Unified School District to become a partner in the Bright Futures Program. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 and Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001; Applicant: DB & M Properties, LLC; Location: 415 E. Branch Street (Continued from August 8, 2006). Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and development proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center) take tentative action on the project, and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt a resolution denying the project as presented at the April 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Director Strong responded to questions related to the project proposal, including street and sidewalk modifications; ingress/egress locations; mitigation measures related to trees; drainage; commercial building size and design; parking; and coordination of uses between commercial and residential. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the development review process for the project over the past six years. He noted that they had addressed comments made at the last meeting by modifying the commercial building to reduce the bulk and massing; conducting a tree inventory and analysis and determining that two oak trees and one palm were good candidates for relocation, however the remaining trees are either too large, too diseased, or too problematic to transplant; noted that new trees would be planted; agreed to install speed humps on Le Point Street if recommended by the Public Works Department; checked with PG&E and clarified that the City makes the decision on number, type,; and location of street lighting and would follow recommendations by Public Works; lighting within the residential component had not been decided but would be pedestrian scale; recognized that Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 area is in flood zone and the necessary grading required for the project; addressed issue regarding impervious surface and determined that there is 5-12 inches of compacted base that provides anear-perfect impervious surface and detention basins are not recommended in flood zones; researched issue regarding upper floo'~ parking garages; briefly reviewed redesign of project to accommodate every concern that has been expressed, including providing additional traffic analyses; a second access onto Branch Street; an arborist report; the Geotech report; retention of the loading docks at the Barn; retention of the Barn in its entirety; redesign of the commercial building; the street lighting, and the creekside parcel. He responded to questions from Council concerning the left turn pocket, the landscape plan, parking to accommodate the retail portion of the project; the height of the commercial building; clarification of the Agreement between the Browns and DB&M Property which runs with the land; and he read into the record a letter from Adair and Trudy Brown, owners of the warehouse at 415 E. Branch Street, supporting the proposed project surrounding their property (on file in the Administrative Services Department). He concluded by requesting support and approval of the project. Council asked further questions of Mr. Boud regarding elevations and height of the commercial building; review of the property line; and drainage issues as it relates to the creek. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. The following members of the public addressed the Council: Camav Arad, owner of Chameleon Fabrics, Furniture & Design and Allen Street resident, gave a presentation entitled "Village within aVillage-Citizens Alternative Plan" which includes the preservation of the Loomis Barn grain mill and the historic Loomis house. She reviewed a checklist of community concerns regarding the proposed project, and suggested specific revisions to the project to address the concerns. She spoke in opposition to the proposed project as submitted; urged the developer to work with the business owners and neighbors; and urged the Council to consider the alternative plan. Earl Balaeman, Le Point Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, specifically the residential driveways on Crown Terrace; garages above living quarters; the proposed residential density (too many units); tree removal; and building style. Karla Hanev, Mesa Alta Lane, spoke in supportnf the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Greg Moore, Village business owner, spoke in support of the mixed-use project as proposed. Bill McCann, Crown Hill, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. He suggested scaling down the massive residential element, adding more retail, and enlarging the parking area. Rov Rawlings spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Pattv Welsh, Pradera Court, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Aleii Davar, Le Point Street, member of the Le Point Street Residents Committee, displayed an exhibit showing the area, expressing concern about the proposed residential driveways on Crown Terrace, potential increased traffic problems associated with the development and its impact on Le Point Street residents. Jane Line, Pleasant Lane, expressed concern about the lack of retail space; the ability of the proposed project to draw people into town; and spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Ann Balaeman, Le Point Street, noted her original concerns with safety, traffic, residential density, and multiple driveways on Crown Terrace. She spoke in opposition to the project as proposed. Winton Tullis, Allen Street, urged the Council to review the alternative plan. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Chuck Fellows, Canyon Way, member of the Planning Commission, noted that in April 2005 the Planning Commission denied the project based on the inability to make three findings. He acknowledged the applicant's changes to the project; however, he felt the project was still not a good fit for the Village. He said the neighbors have expressed concern regarding the three story structures that would include homes with driveways on Crown Terrace; the three-story commercial office building is too large and too tall, and the design and exterior materials are not compatible with the historic barn and two vintage houses. He said there is an opportunity to continue the process of improving this northeast part of the Village, and stated there needs to be a collaborative element to the process to include the developer, the neighbors, and the business owners. Marina Gordy, Le Point Terrace, expressed concern with the proposed residential driveways on Crown Terrace and increased noise and traffic as a result of the development. Jacoueline Ponterelli, Le Point Street, member of the Le Point Street Committee, agreed with comments made by Ms. Arad, Mr. Fellows, and Mr. Davar's. Debbie Swenson, Bee Canyon Road, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Gordon Bennett, Allen Street, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Lance Tullis, Garden Street, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Scott Underwood, May Street, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Resident on Le Point Terrace (name not provided), expressed concern about increased traffic on Crown Hill Terrace. James Murphy, Walnut Street, expressed concern about the area near the creek and stated he hoped the 25-foot setback area would be provided as open space for people to enjoy. Margie Hurd, Deer Canyon, spoke in support of the alternative plan presented by Ms. Arad. Howard Mankins, Hillcrest Drive, spoke ih support of the project's mixed-use concept; considered this as in-fill development that will upgrade the property; expressed concern about prolonging the project; noted that the applicant has complied with all the conditions; and spoke in support of the proposed project. Duane DeBlauw, applicant, briefly commented on the square footage of the commercial building. He stated that to look at an alternative to make furtherreductions to the project and in looking at all of the conditions of approval, he does not see how the project could be economically viable. He also spoke of the additional infrastructure demands placed on the project. He reviewed the history of the project's development review process and said that they have followed all direction with regard to changes and refinement to the project. He stated that being asked to consider a whale new change is extremely difficult if it doesn't increase any economic viability. He requested reasonableness in order to make the project viable, and requested the Council consider their efforts to respond to all concerns expressed. He then responded to concerns regarding the cypress trees along Crown Terrace and suggested that their removal would enhance the safety of the pedestrian walkway; expressed continued confusion about the road width on Crown Terrace and noted that it currently exists with no sidewalks, no shoulder, and is very narrow. He stated the new proposal widens the street and includes a sidewalk, which would create a safer situation. He also noted that many project studies had been done so there is some factual basis for which to make decisions. He requested the Council approve the project. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, noted that they had explored the idea of additional commercial behind the existing Loomis Barn and the residences in lieu of additional residential; however, they were dismissed because to establish commercial development behind the E. Branch frontage without any visual connection, circulation connection, or any adequate vehicular/pedestrian flow is not a feasible plan. He said that is why amixed-use project was designed to create a transition between residential and commercial uses. He replied to comments regarding garages directly above residences; referred to the arborist report regarding Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 tree removal; the proposed building style; and noted the severe constraints on the site including the creek setbacks, the steep embankment along Crown Terrace, and the sewer and gas easements that run through the center of the property. He concluded by saying that they have worked with everyone involved to come up with a project that has satisfied all of the concerns expressed. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:30 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:40 p.m. At the request of Mr. DeBlauw, Mayor Ferrara invited the applicants to address the Council and provide final comments. Richard DeBlauw, applicant, asked Council to make a decision tonight on the proposed project as submitted. Jim Matthews, DB&M Builders, stated that they have exhausted funding, have complied with all suggestions made, and stated they would be' unable to continue with the project if it is not approved tonight. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: - Addressed City's development review process; noted that Council had only seen this project three times this year in June, August, and October; - Noted that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project in April 2005 and the applicant decided to address the issues and make revisions instead of bringing it directly to the Council at that time; - Acknowledged pre-existing assets on the; site including historic resources (structures); creekside access; proximity to the Village and potential for a Village extension; close proximity to residential and pedestrian access which calls for increased retail; - Is proponent for more retail commercial in this area, less high density residential; - Does not support land use conflicts between residential and commercial; - Expressed cohcern with design; is too contemporary and too residential in nature; - Crown Terrace is too narrow for the increased use proposed; site has not had historic access to Crown Terrace; improvements will not mitigate the increased impacts; - The proposal does not compliment the valued historic structures on the site and dominates and detracts from the historic Village; - The barn need to be the cornerstone and focal point in size and scale; - There are few to no elements proposed which extend the Village charm and draw pedestrians to this area; - Cannot support the project as proposed. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Thanked everyone who addressed the Council; thanked the applicant for addressing many of the previously identified concerns; - Clarified that the Council was not choosing between the applicant's proposal and an alternative proposal; the Council was here to consider the applicant's proposal only; - Acknowledged that a mixed use project was desired on the site; - The size of the commercial building is still too large and it dominates the barn; - There are traffic circulation issues; there should not be residential driveways on Crown Terrace; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Page 7 Expressed concern with traffic coming out of the project between the barn and the commercial building and trying to turn left to go up Crown Hill; Cannot support proposed project based on the circulation problems; the impact of taking out 70 trees; and the mass and scale of the commercial building. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Expressed concern about the size and scale of the commercial building; - Expressed concern about traffic circulation on Crown Terrace; - Parking garage may be appropriate in that is may be a limited in and out access and potentially controlled with a gate for employees only; - There are too many driveways on Crown Terrace; - Expressed concern with the historical setting and removing a portion of Hildy's house and destroying a large portion of the existing garden; - Recommended denying without prejudice so the applicant can come back with modifications. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Acknowledged the Council was not reviewing the alternative plan tonight; - Stated that the overall intensity of use in an all commercial project versus a mixed use project is much higher; - Supports a mixed use project; clear enhahcement to the Village; could be better mix of residential and commercial; - The historical buildings provide some constraints for development on the site; - The connection of the project to the Village depends on future development on the adjacent properties and whether there will be contiriuous link to retail uses; - Wish there was a connection through the creek all the way from the back side of the property; - With regard to tree removal, the purpose of the existing trees was to visually hide an industrial use; ok with removing; - Acknowledged there may be problems backing out onto Crown Terrace; however, the overall traffic improvement would be a plus; - Sidewalk would improve pedestrian safety; street would be a little bit wider; traffic study showed traffic counts not high; - With regard to the scale of the commercial building, the height of the peak is 33' which is only 1 foot taller than the barn; agrees it is large; however, does not believe it will overpower the barn; - Supports moving forward with the project as proposed. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Expressed concern with the size, scale and:intensity of the commercial building and its mass and height in relation to the barn; - Expressed concern with the proposed architectural style and the lack of a color rendering or color board; - Prefers that the commercial building be reduced or divided or designed more in scale with the other buildings; - Comfortable with applicant's proposal with regard to drainage and the creek; - Important to link the project design with potential development on adjacent properties; - Supports mixed use project concept; housing would be asset to City which would enhance pedestrian access to the Village; would not support reducing the housing complement; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - The trees need to be better maintained; referred to arborist report; is comfortable with landscape plan; - Would support the project if the driveways on Crown Terrace were removed and if the backyard and garden of Hildy's House were not impacted; - Suggested breaking up the commercial building to soften the mass. Council Member Costello moved to take tentative action to deny the project, without prejudice, and direct staff to return at a subsequent meeting with a supporting resolution. Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: Guthrie ABSENT: None 9.b. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-002; Hampton Inn and Suites Hotel Project Located at 1400 W. Branch Street Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-002 modifying condition of approval number 23 for the Hampton Inn and Suites Hotel, including relocation of one additional existing mature oak'and an amended landscape plan. City Manager Adams gave an overview of staffs recommendation regarding approval of a proposed revenue sharing agreement to provide a reimbursement of $250,000 over alive-year period in transient occupancy tax revenue generated from the project. He introduced Tim Mulrenan, the City's Redevelopment Agency consultant, who reviewed financial projections provided by the applicant. City Manager Adams recommended that the Council take tentative action to approve the Agreement and direct staff to bring back a final Agreement for formal approval. Staff then responded to questions from Council regarding the landscape plan as it relates to tree removal, relocation, and replacement. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Bob Tuttle, architect, noted that the original tree location survey was not accurate and the three big trees in front of the hotel were located much closer to the slope and it became necessary to shift the building. He explained that extensive retaining walls were then required which significantly increased the cost of the project. He reviewed entrance modifications to the project as well as the modified landscape plan to relocate certain trees on the site. Garv White, applicant/owner, stated he worked on the tree relocation issues and the redesign of the hotel entrance and requested direction from the Council on relocating or replacing tree #g. He commented on and provided suggestions for relocating and replacing certain trees on the site, and responded to questions from Council. Rob McMillan, development partner for American Property Management Corporation (financing partner and operating partner of the property and the franchisee with Hilton Hotels), spoke in support of the modified landscape plan and the transient occupancy tax rebate program. `~,~ ATTACHMENT 3 Y Y ARCHITECTURE June 25, 2007 Creekside Village To: City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department From: MW Architecture Inc. Subject: Creekside Center Vesting Tentative Tract map 04-004 and Planned Unit Development No. 04-001 The following is a summary of changes made to the proposed project since the last City Council hearing on October 24, 2006: 1. REVISED OFFICE /RETAIL STRUCTURE AT CORNER OF CROWN HILL AND CROWN TERRACE a. The building has been completely revised to better represent the existing agrarian architecture of the feed store. b. Scale and massing changed to reduce scale of structure at the comer of Crown Hill, covered open parking lot. 2. REVISED RESIDENCES FOR THE EIGHT UNITS ALONG CROWN TERRACE (RESIDENTIAL 'A' LOTS 1,3,5,7) a. Driveways no longer tie into Crown Terrace. Access to Homes is from internal dreulation. b. Revised to detached single family vs. duplex's c. Architecture mod~ed to reflect historic residential similar to Village Residential. 3. REVISED CIVIL SHEETS TO REFLECT THE ABOVE CHANGES a Vesting Tentative Map lot lines added on Lot9 to create eight individual Lots 9 through 16. b. Easement Plan showing new lots and building footprints on Lots 9-16. c. Preliminary Grading Plan showing lots &16 new footprints and revised grades for such. d. Flood Sections revised to reflect Lots 9-16 new footprints and revised grades for such 4. REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN /SITE PLAN a. Retention of Historic Hildy House. b. Removal of shed structure from bads of Hildy House. 225 PRADO ROAD, SURE G, SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 TEL. (805) 544.4334 FAX. (805) 544.4330 MICHAEL PEACHEY. ARCHITECT. WAYNE STUART c. Addition of landscaped planter area in place of removed shed. Planter to incorporate recycled stone wall. d. Addition of Pedestrian Park access pathway by new live /work buildings (Residential 'B' lots 7, 8). e. Additional landscaping along Crown Terrace. 5. REVISED RESIDENTIAL PLAN `B' LOTS 7 AND 8. FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MIXED USE. a. Revised floor plans to reflect commercial space oriented to parking lot. Residential orients to interior private street. b. Added public access to west of lot 7 for public creek access. c. Added 4 additional parking spaces. 6. ADDED 6 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACED ON ADJACENT PARCEL PER AGREEMENT W / OWNER. 225 PRADO ROAD, SUITE G, SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93407 TEL. (805) 544.4334 FAx. (805) 544.4330 MICHAEL PEACHEY. ARCHITECT • WAYNE STUART M NUTESG COMMISSION i~~ ATTACHMENT 4 SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4t" day of September, 2007. 7:00 o.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. D. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-001 & VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004; APPLICANT - D. B. & M. PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION - 415 E. BRANCH STREET: Continued from August 21, 2007 meeting Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential development giving a brief history of the project. Ms. Heffernon stated that in October, 2006 the City Council denied the project without prejudice and an addendum was made to the EIR for the project outlining required changes. Parking is considered adequate for amixed-use project. The project'. was continued from the August 21, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to address flood plain elevations. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider an addendum to the certified EIR and adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. A Conditions of Approval should be amended to include an "all- way stop" at the corner of LePoint Street and Crown Terrace for safety reasons; and Condition #8 be deleted, since the gate between the commercial and residential uses is no longer required. Mike Peachy, architect for the project, gave a very detailed presentation using a three dimensional model of the redesigned proposal and addressing concerns expressed by the City Council at their October 2006, meeting and also addressing the concerns of the neighbors. The Commission had questions for Mr. Peachy, the applicant, and staff: Commissioner Marshall explained that due to the fact he had not been involved in previous considerations of this project he had a number of concerns. • Are the elevation figures correct, especially with respect to the flood elevations? Mr. Spagnolo: The existing flood elevations look fairly accurate. • Regarding the proposed Resolution, Page 5, Condition #10, the storage cabinets need to be elevated; Page 6, Conditioh #23, regarding root barriers to protect sidewalks, suggest that it should be changed to state "all sidewalks" within the public right of way; Page 9, Condition #46, regarding extending the installation of Village style streetlights along Crown Hill, Crown Terrace, and LePoint Street, this seems unnecessary and conflicting with the environmental review (should be low profile lighting). Ms. Heffernon: There is no problem with limiting the lighting to Crown Hill (there should be some lighting to provide a safe route to walk downtown at night; Page 10, Condition #8, in respect to improving LePoint Street, this should be modified to reflect a shorter and narrower street? Mr. Spagnolo: This is a standard condition, but it will probably work out to b'e a standard half width road. • As recommended in the Village Design Standards, will exposed aggregate be used in the sidewalk? Mr. Spagnolo: This style would only be used on E. Branch Street - not continued around the corner. PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ ~ PAGE 7 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 • Condition #51: Where will pedestrian ramps be installed? Mr. Spagnolo: The ones adjacent to the project will be constructed with the project; the one mentioned in this condition is across the street and included as a separate issue. • Condition #54: This should be revised to include installation of an "all-way" stop sign. • Have all the concerns discussed at the City Council meeting in October 2006, been addressed in the new design? Mr. Spagnolo: He though they had been; the turn pocket for the entry on Crown Hill is still'incorporated; speed bumps were included as an option for traffic calming, however, installation of the stop sign should address this concern; a request from the business owner of "Chameleon" asking for assurance that access to their business would remain open during construction will be adhered to; however, advised that a condition be included to make sure this was addressed. • Mitigation Monitoring (MM), Page 18, 4.4.3, regarding the rail bed. Ms. Heffernon: The rails are proposed to be installed in the landscaped area (for historic reasons) and also a plaque. Ms. Barneich: Debbie Black (landscape architect) had explained to her that the rails will have gravel around them fo deter growth over them and there is a plan to have a plaque near the front of the building towards the plaza which will explain what used to be there. • Page 6, Condition No 17, is it typical to require the project to go back to both the Planning Commission and the ARC? Ms. Heffernon: Only if the Planning Commission feels it is necessary. • Page 6, Condition #21, the wording re CC&R's should be corrected to state "prior to recording the final map" rather than "prior to final occupancy". Tait: • Are any green building techniques being considered? Mr. Peachy: They can certainly integrate them on this project and that they are already using these techniques on many projects now. • Do the garage doors need flood proofing? Mr. Peachy: In a flood event they will keep out large items, but not flood waters; however, raising the storage units is a good idea; the buildings have been designed with the raised portion not to displace, but to allow water to flow through. • Regarding bioswales and the fact that getting water offsite quickly is a priority, there will need to be a very good filter to allow this. Mr. Del3/auw: They are open to biofilters, but the water in this area may not give good percolation and may slow down the movement of water off-site. The best approach is to get the water into the creek while being sensitive to the bioswale. • It looks as if there are only two bike racks. Mr. Peachy: He was not aware of this, but more bike racks could easily be added. • If the pedestrian path is concrete or a sealed DG why not have something permeable being as it is so close to the creek? Mr. Peachy: The intention is to have something permeable and they are looking at new products to address this. • The Resolution, Condition #9, states some of the trees may be transplanted on or off site. Ms. Heffernon: This is to allow flexibility - this is just a preliminary landscape plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~ PAGE 8 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 • MM 4.3.29, third bullet, regarding water retention, should this be included? Ms. Heffernon stated this should be deleted'- no onsite detention is required for this project. • In the October 2006, the applicant provided additional information to the City Council which stated "the drainage evaluation indicates that the peak flows are being reduced through reduction in impervious surface area" -asked for an explanation. Mr. DeBlauw.• Public Works had determined that there was not a requirement for retention basins as the proposed project is below the flood plain and in addition it is reducing the amount of impervious area; Geo Solutions soil's report verified this. • Will the DG footpath be 10-feet from the top of the creek bank (within the 25-foot setback)? Ms. Heffernon stated that the! City has approved semi-impervious paths within the creek setback area (25 feet) previously. • MM 4.3.18: Who will monitor for wildlife during construction? Mr. DeBlauw stated this is done by a qualified consultant. • Will there be a footpath down to the creek? Ms. Heffernon stated it is a recommended mitigation measure in the,ElR, but the Commission can rewmmend to City Council not to allow this • With the design allowing water to flow through the site would seismic shaking affect the buildings differently? Mr. DeBlauw explained that the buildings are always designed for seismic activity; there will be more borings done to substantiate this. Barneich: • After discussion with staff and Debbie Black (landscape architect), incorporation of bioswales on-site could be located next to the parking garage between the residential structure and one towards the creek next to the sod; Department of Fish and Game or Army Corps of Engineers would have to be consulted to make sure this would be okay; she would like to have this explored. Mr. Peachy: This could work well for the low flow event and nuisance flow. • Ms. Black has stated her preference for using DG so she hoped they would go with this for the path. • Is the yellow color a true color? Mr. Peachy: Lighting affects colors, but we will note that a warm yellow is preferred. • Will there be an interpretive plaque about the railroad? Mr. Peachy: This could be done and they would probably involve the'Historical Society. • Will there be street trees shown on the plan? Mr. DeBlauw: They are planning on street trees every 50 feet; if the existing Cypress trees are retained on the north side there will be no requirement in that area. • How will the improvements be done where the two crosswalks meet on LePoint Street and Crown Terrace? Mr. Spagnolo: This corner has yet to be addressed and improvements made with a handicap ramp; in respect to the intersection by Barbara Freel's house, there will be no improvements directly in front of her house, but this area will need some modifications made on the southwest corner. • Looking down Crown Terrace there could be one streetlight where the driveway comes out onto Crown Terrace (with Police Department approval). • MM 4.3.14, who follows up on this to make sure that the pre-construction survey is done. Ms. Heffernon: The City will be following up on this. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES u`~~3~ SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 Ray: small yards. The pedestrian path (next to the creek) that comes out between units. 7 & 8, ends up nowhere, have you talked to Mr. Brown regarding using the little alley as a connection to Branch Street and doing ,decorative paving across the parking lot. Mr. DeBlauw: Mr. Brown is aware of this, has been very cooperative regarding the whole project, and this could probably be done. Could some of the residences be made smaller (to make them more affordable) and some larger. Mr. DeBlauw suggested that taking the square footage out does not necessarily reduce the cost; they had considered using elevators to reduce size, but this would not reduce the cost; 2,200 sq. ft. may not be too excessive as they have The Commissioners had asked all her questions except one: On DP2, #11, it shows an elevation change with a fairly significant drop, how will this work? Mr. DeBaluw: There is a shoulder and slope which provides a margin. Chair Ray opened up the public hearing. Jack Enolish, Le Point Street, stated he was representing Earl Bagleman who was unable to attend this evening. He then read a letter (already received by the Commission) written by Mr. Bagleman, stating concerns with the density of the proposed project, parking, building heights, and suggesting changes to the project. Barbara Freel, read a letter from David Sullivan, who had recently purchased a condo on Le Point Terrace and who was unable to attend the meeting. The letter stated concerns with the nuisance of construction during sleeping hours (he works nights), impainnent of his scenic views and disruption of the serenity of the location. Barbara Freel then spoke for herself, stating that she was really pleased to see the time and effort put in by the developer for this project and the changes made after the previous meetings. However, she still is troubled by the 45-foot commercial building and the scale and mass of it at end of the Village. Carol Fulmer. LePoint Street, thanked everyone for listening to her concerns and addressing some of them. She still has the following concerns: She does not want a sidewalk on the north side of LePoint Street and would like to discuss this with the City; she does not want street lights on LePoint Street; regarding undergrounding of utilities because she has two on her small lot which may impact her house; construction noise and pollution are also a concern, and she would like to know the hours that this will take place. Camav Arad, Allen Street and business owner of the "Chameleon" store stated she was very excited about this project; it fits in beautifully in every aspect. She would like to be assured that her business will not be blocked during construction and that the dust will be controlled (she would like this to be formally included in the conditions). Mike McConville. East Branch Street stated that this is a great project and the developer had done a fantastic job; 2,200 sq. ft. is not too large; the paths next to the creek are PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ PAGE 10 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 important; the cost for the improvements on the other side of the street should be born by the City; he would like to see both sides of the creek banks cleaned up. Duane DeBlauw, stated that without the encouragement of VIA and staff they would not be here tonight; it had been a lot of work and a long toil to get to this point. Chair Ray closed the public hearing to comment. Commissioner Barneich asked staff to address the concerns of Carol Fulmer. Mr. Spagnolo stated that regarding no sidewalk on LePoint Street, this would have to be discussed with Carol Fulmer as he was not sure how this would work for wheelchair access; PG&E would have to be consulted regarding the undergrounding of utilities. Ms. Heffernon confirmed that construction hours would be Mon-Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and the inspection time will be 7:00 am. To 5:00 pm. Commission comments: Barneich: • A lot of great changes have been made since the Council looked at this last year and the architect has done a great job. • Ms. Black has put a lot of thought into the landscape plan and has put in real trees (no bushes). • She likes the residential component, the infill housing, and thinks this will be a great place to live. • She likes the recreation area, with picnic table and play structure. • The Cypress trees may not look right, but suggest that they could be thinned, some taken out, and some other species mixed'in with them. • Bioswales need to be incorporated into project to reduce the amount of runoff. • The yellow color should be warmer, • The pedestrian path is important, even though it is Mr. Brown's property, to make the whole project walkable; there definitely needs to be delineation in the asphalt with some decorative paving or colored concrete to lead pedestrians safely through the parking lot. • Streetlights: Needs to be specified to have the very minimum that the Police Department requires. • Street trees need to be located every 50 feet to help screen. • She appreciates the public outreach that the developer did. • She is ready to approve the project with minor modifications. Tait: • Would the six-foot DG footpath be accessible to the public? Ms. Heffernon: It would be. • He agreed with Commissioner Barneich's comments on this project being infill and meeting smart growth principles. • MM 4.2.1, under air quality, he recommended adding (at the end of the first bullet) that reclaimed non-potable water should be used whenever possible. PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ ~~ PAGE 11 MINUTES ~°°'"~'~~~' SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 • MM 4.3.13, he recommended adding "as determined by a qualified biologist" after the requirement that stockpiles be kept far enough from the banks of the active creek channel. • The insufficiency of the culvert under Branch Street to pass water in a 100-year flood is an important issue and fixing it with shared cost should be looked into. • MM 4.7.1, under Hydrology and Water Quality, he would like to see this study submitted and completed with a neutral third party engineering firm and included in here to otherwise he would not be able to make finding #5. • He was very impressed with the visuals, but he still has a concern with what the project will really look like. • There are still questions on the speed bumps, bioswales (agrees they will work for low flow situations). • A decision on whether to keep the footpath down to the creek needs to be made. • A quote from a citizen's letter from last year's meeting, "Let's be particularly careful to preserve the unique character of the area and ensure it's development is consistent with the rest of the Village", he would like to see this followed. Marshall: • He could see that this project has been through a lot and he's glad that he is viewing this after it got good. • He agreed with the other Commissioners that the project looks good. The following items still to be addressed: • Add a condition to address concerns regarding maintaining access to the business "Chamleon". • Update the condition to make clear that the intersection of Crown Terrace and LePoint Street becomes and all-way stop'sign. • Delete the reference to the gate in the middle of the project, Condition #'s 8 & 56. • Condition #10 regarding storage cabinets in the garage need to be elevated, a reference to the flood study, as determined by the project engineer, should be added. • He agrees with Commissioner Barneich's comments regarding the lights; take out the reference to Village style .lights on Crown Terrace and LePoint Streets and replace with the minimum of lighting required for public safety. • He agrees with the concept of adding a'pedestrian connection through the central parking area to the recreation area by 'the creek and connecting through to Branch Street. • He agrees with placing street trees every 50 feet instead of 75 feet, about watering the stockpiles with non-potable water, and about having a biologist determine the limits of the creek bank. • There needs to be more discussion on the final colors and whether they should come back to both Planning Commission and ARC. • The Cypress trees can support the idea of thinning and mixing other trees; • Bioswales could be just a basic feature of the landscape design. • Public Works staff can do the flood analysis and address the concerns. • Speed bumps could be put in later if required. • He would rather not see a path all the way down to the creek. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 MINUTES ~°~ SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 "' ' ~'~~ Ray: • I trust staff and the developer to deal with the issue of the flood analysis. • She agrees that speed bumps do not need to be included now. • She wants the footpath down to the creek as the public will go down to the creek anyway and this is the right place to do this and the right thing for families. • She agrees with Commissioner Barneich regarding the lighting to have the minimum per Police Department requirement and that it is downlighting, not at the height of a typical street light (important for people like Mr. Sullivan). • She wanted to make note of the proposed lovely trash enclosure design . • She complimented the architect on the fantastic renderings and complimented the staff, Commission, and developer on all doing a fantastic job without which this project would not have gone forward. Chair Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, recommending the City Council approve the addendum to the previously certified FEIR for the project and approve Planned Unit Development Case No. 04-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04- 004 with the following amendments to the Resolution: 1. Condition #54 -this should include the all-way stop. 2. There should be agreement reached with'Carol Fulmer. 3. Strike Condition #'s 8, 56, MM 4.3.29, bullet 3 & MM 4.4. 4. Condition #10 should be more specific in respect to the flooding reference regarding the storage cabinets. 5. Condition #23, should include all sidewalks. 6. Condition #46, the minimum lighting required by the Police Department, specify down lighting and not regular street lights. 7. Add a condition to protect Chameleon's business, regarding the parking and the dust. 8. Condition #17, strike the requirement for the Planning Commission, but not the ARC from this requirement. 9. MM 4.2.1, include non-potable water to be used whenever possible. 10. MM 4.3.13, should state the storage should be set outside the setback area, rather than determined by a qualified biologist: Add the following -not presently part of the conditions: 11. Bioswales as feasible. 12. Historic markers to be reviewed by ARC. 13.Thinning or removal of the Cypress trees as necessary. 14.Have a path across the parking area for pedestrians even if it means losing a parking space. 15. Street trees every 50 feet. Discussion: Commissioner Barneich, regarding the bioswales, she would like to replace "as feasible" with "if the Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers allow". Commissioner Marshall suggested Commissioner Barneich's request be added to Condition #59. PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~' PAGE 13 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 Commissioner Barneich -She would like to see more bike racks. Commissioner Tait -The footpath adjacent to the creek should be DG. He did not agree with having a footpath down to the creek as there are many questions that have not been answered. Commissioner Barneich -After listening to the comments from Commissioners' Marshall and Tait on the footpath down to the creek, she would concur with them on this issue. Chair Ray stated that any reference to the footpath would be struck from the motion. The Commissioners agreed to go forward with the motion as stated, and adopt: RESOLUTION 07-2045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT, ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, 'INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-004 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE N0.04-001, LOCATED AT 415 EAST BRANCH STREET, APPLIED FOR BY DB & M PROPERTY, LLC The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Ray, Commissioner Barneich, Marshall, and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Keen the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4`h day of September, 2007. 111. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 21.2007: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. ATTACHMENT5 20 August, 2007 Members of the Planning Commission My name is Earle Balgeman and I live at 505 Le Point St., Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. I live at the Comer of Le Point and Crown Terrace and the traffic activity at the corner and the northern end of Crown Terrace are cleazly visible to me. I appreciate the absence of the driveways into residential garages along Crown Terrace in this proposal but I am disappointed to see a planned driveway from Crown Terrace to the upper story of the pazking garage. I am also disappointed to see a planned two-story parking garage in this presentation. We do not have a multistoried parking garage in Arroyo Grande at this time. The 22 residences in the planned area present a much higher density than the 9 apartment area along Crown Terrace. The Loomis property currently has buildings which are only one story. The planned 3 story buildings on this end of our Village remind me of the buildings on the other end or western end of the Village. We seem to want building on each end of the Village which are not typical of the central portion of the Village. Also, the tall buildings along Crown Terrace will present atunnel-like appeazance to the southern end of Crown Terrace. In summary, I would ask the following features of the plan be considered. # Eliminate driveway into parking garage # Eliminate second story of parking garage # Reduce the residential density. # Consider reducing the height of buildings along Crown Terrace. # Reduce the tunnel-like appearance at the south end of Crown Terrace. Thank you for your attention. Eazle Balgeman 505 Le Point St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ~ECE[VE® AUG 3 0 2007 To the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Date: 8/31/07 Dear Commissioners, y-~~~ ~~ ~C~C~ ~ Cv ~ AUG 312001 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The public has spent considerable time and effort in the past offering public comment on the proposed Creekside project. As a result,.the revised project before you now is definitely a better project for the City and for the neighborhoods neaz this development. In reviewing the current materials presented to the Planning Commission, I would like to make several comments. 1. Commercial Building I have just become aware in reviewing the current plans that the scale and mass of the commercial building has been minimally reduced from prior plans. The scale and mass of the building had previously been of major concern by the Planning Commission and the City'Council. Also, I had understood and believed tharthe maximum allowable height of the building could not exceed 35 feet yet I have now discovered that the commercial building's height is actually 45 feet. I must respectfully suggest that the scale, mass and height of the building are' still too massive for the site and are of inappropriate size for the Village. 2. Lighting The current materials continue to state that decorative street lights will be installed along Crown Terrace and Le Point St. After public comment, this item was considered by the Planning Commission with the result it was previously modified by the applicant as follows: `The elimination or modification of street light structures and - ~~ their intensity in the residential areas of the project is acceptable if the City 4''' allows for deviation from these requirements." I do not see that modification in ~,~ i 1~ ~ , ; the current materials. In asking Don Spagnolo today what the City's ~`' requirements are, I was told "nothing specific: ' ;i\ ~1. `' `~~\ As a result, because the planned lighting installation will cause considerable lighting pollution for the condos above the project and the surrounding residences along Crown Terrace and Le Point Street, I am asking that the lighting be kept to the absolute minimum and planned with the utmost sensitivity for the sunrounding neighborhoods. Those of us whose quality of life will be greatly impacted by this project appreciate your careful consideration of the above-raised concerns. Thank you: Barbara Freel ~~~- 502 Le Point Street David Sullivan t 35 Le Pointe Terrace Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420 September 3, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: I am 51 years old and work nights at a high stress job. I have recently acquired a home at the address listed above and am proud of my accomplishment. Ihave lived in substandard conditions for many years while saving enougfi money to purchase this home, and I am concerned wRh the notion of construction that may begin in this area, The deciding factors for the home I purchased were the scenic views and serenity of the location. The idea of having my views impaired and the nuisances that go along with building during my rest periods having a construction zone just outside of my sleeping quarters. The bedrooms in my home are directly across from the proposed building site and are much more susceptible to obstruction and pollution from light sources and traffic. 1 understand the exigency to develop, but the culmination of the current project would be such a personal loss of sanctity of all affected. Please consider these details, however trivial they may seem. I appreciate the time given to re ding this letter, ~specttully,~ -- D avaaevvS--urrl--l i v~~a n ~~~~ t~~ G~ ~~~ 9/4/2007