The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2007-10-09 CITY OF City Council � " � ' � � ' Agenda , Tony Ferrare Mayor Steven Adams City Manager Ed Arnold Mayor Pro Tem y�,, � �" Timothy J. Carmel City Attomey Joe Costello Council Member �,4�'�`� �� Kelly Wetmore Ciry Clerk 'c'� CALIFORNIA Jim Guthrie Council Member �_ 9 � � Chuck Fellows Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: COUNCIURDA 3. FLAG SALUTE: BOB LUND VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR ROBERT BANKER OPEN DOOR CHURCH, OCEANO 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY — OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAG E 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 Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action.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 16, 2007 through September 30, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 11, 2007 as submitted. 8.c. Consideration to Approve Criteria to Prioritize Sidewalk Proiects (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Approve the criteria for prioritizing sidewalk projects to be undertaken as part of the Capital Improvement Program. 8.d. Consideration of Approval of a Contract with the California Conservation Corps for the Demonstration Proiect to Remove Invasive Enalish Ivv alonq the Arrovo Grande Creek (STRONG) Recommended Action: Approve the proposed agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and the California Conservation Corps in the amount of $15,000 for the removal of invasive English Ivy along the Arroyo Grande Creek between Mason Street and Bridge Street. AGENDA SUMMARY — OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (conYd): 8.e. Consideration of 2007-08 Annual Reqort on the General Plan and Report on Remainina Proqram for Develoament Code Consistencv (STRONG) Recommended Action: Receive and file or set for City Council discussion at future regular meeting. 8.f. Consideration of Temporarv Use Permit Case No. 07-019. Authorizina No Parkinq on East and West Branch Street. the Closure of Short Street at East Branch Street between Traffic Wav and Mason Street on Wednesdav October 31, 2007 for "Halloween in the Villaae" (STRONG) Recommended Action: Approve Temporary Use Permit Case No. 07-019 and approve Option A by adopting a Resoltuion authorizing no parking on East and West Branch Street, the Closure of Short Street at East Branch Street and the use of safety measures on East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street for "Halloween in the Village" to be held on October 31, 2007. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Reauest from South Countv Sanitarv Service for Intearated Solid Waste Collection Rate Increase and Franchise Extension (ADAMS) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution approving South County Sanitary Service, Inc. integrated solid waste collection rate increase; and 2) Approve the First Amendment to the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement extending for one year the existing franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service, inc. for integrated solid waste collection services. 9.b. Consideration of Development Code Amendment No. 06-004 to Amend the Zonina Maa: Applicant Citv of Arrovo Grande: Location — 12.77 Acres North of East Cherrv Avenue Extension ISubarea 2 of the East Villaqe Neiahborhood Plan) and Approval of Neiuhborhood Plan No. 04-001 IEast Villaae Neiqhborhood Plan): Applicant: Creekside Estates of Arrovo Grande. LLC: Location — 22 Acres East of Noauera Court Subdivision. North of East Cherrv Avenue Extension, and South of Arrovo Grande Creek (STRONG) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: 1) Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the designation of the subject property from Residential Rural to Single-Family Residential; and 2) Adopt a Resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. AGENDA SUMMARY— OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 4 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Consideration of Purchase of Propertv at Southwest Corner of Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue (ADAMS) [RDA] Recommended Action: It is recommended the Redevelopment Agency Board: 1) Approve the Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions for a portion of the vacant property at the southwest corner of Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue; and 2) Appropriate $1,480,000 from the Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing Set Aside Fund for property acquisition plus escrow, appraisal, soils and environmental tests and closing costs. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. a. None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. 17. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA SUMMARY- OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 5 .*�*,�««,�.,,��..-.��.� All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. .......................... This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoprande.ora .......................... City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-soan.orq. � pRROyp H■C�■ ° �� INCORPORATED 9Z V T * '°`� 10. 1e„ * MEMORANDUM c4<<FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE� BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for � the period September 16 through September 30, 2007. � FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is a $719,252.31 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 133180-133409 $ 273,872.99 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 445,379.32 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:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Disbursements.doc i CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION OCTOBER 9, 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: N nvir o e onmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was pgsted in front of City Hall on Thursday, October 4, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, October 5, 2007. No public comments were received. � Attachments: 1. September 16-September 30, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register 2. September 28, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register , U:\MSWORDICITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Disbursements.doc ATTACHMENT1 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1 70/07/2007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 133180 09117/2007 000534 KEVIN ROCHA 091707 09/17/2007 1,023.00 1,023.00 133181 09/18/2007 003116 GCCCA-GOLD COAST CITY 091707 09/17/2007 30.00 30.00 133182 09/18/2007 003315 APWA-TRAINING SEMINAR V 09125/2007 091807 09/18/2007 140.00 140.00 133183 09/18/2007 005775 APWA TRAINING SEMINAR 0918 09/18/2007 140.00 140.00 133184 09/19/2007 000822 US POSTMASTER 091907 09/19/2007 1,103.23 1,10323 133185 09/19/2007 000832 NEXT DAY SIGNS 091907 09/19/2007 1,000.00 1,000.00 133200 09I21I2007 002627 STEVEN ADAMS 092007 09/20/2007 74.23 74.23 133201 09/21/2007 005905 AERIS INC 10116216 07/31I2007 1,120.00 1,120.00 133202 09I21I2007 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 2393 08/03/2007 2,320.00 2,320.00 133203 09121/2007 000016 JOHN ALLEN 091407 09114/2007 70.00 70.00 133204 09121/2007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5245715HI 09/15/2007 11.34 11.34 133205 09121/2007 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 00048060 08/18/2007 920.40 00048117 09/10/2007 736.32 48116 09/10/2007 707.56 00048146 09/10/2007 34.52 2,398.80 133206 09/21/2007 000029 AMERICAN WATER WORKS 091207 09/12/2007 89.50 89.50 133207 09/21/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V 09/21/2007 0.00 0.00 133208 09/21I2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS F255051 08/14I2007 36.00 F266468 08I28I2007 34.90 F255050 08114/2007 30.90 F249444 08I07/2007 22.40 F260776 08/21/2007 22.40 F249443 08/07/2007 19.60 F260775 08/21/2007 19.60 F266467 08/28/2007 19.60 F255052 08114/2007 19.30 Page: 1 apCkHist Check History Listing P89e: 2 ' 10/0112007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE � Bank code: boa �� Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total � F260777 OS/21I2007 19.30 F249445 08l07/2007 �$•ZO F266469 08I28I2007 1820 F255048 08/14/2007 18.00 F266465 OS/28/2007 18.00 F249435 08/07/2007 ��•Z5 F260768 OS121/2007 1�25 I F255054 08/14/2007 ��8� F266471 08/28/2007 ��•8� F249437 08/07/2007 10.35 F260770 OS/21I2007 10.35 F255053 08/14/2007 9.55 � F255045 08114/2007 9.50 � F266462 08128/2007 9.50 ' F266470 OS128/2007 9.05 F249441 08I07/2007 $•5� � F260773 08/21/2007 8•5� � F260774 OS/21I2007 �•25 � F249442 08/07I2007 6•�5 F255049 08/14/2007 6.15 ! F249439 08/07/2007 6.00 � F260772 OS/21/2007 6.00 i F266466 08/28I2007 5.60 ; F249435 08/07/2007 5.00 F260771 08/21/2007 5.00 � F249446 08I07I2007 2�80 ' F260778 08121/2007 2.80 I F249447 08I07/2007 z•$� � F260779 08/21I2007 2•$� 508.15 � 133209 09/21/2007 006196 STEVEN ANNIBALI 091107 09/20/2007 12,000.00 12,000.00 ' 133210 09/21/2007 000812 APA-AMERICAN PLANNING 079946-070902 09111/2007 397.00 397.00 ' � 133211 09121/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 78X00054 08/31/2007 577.43 577.43 j I 133212 09I21I2007 006361 ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION 091907 09119/2007 10.00 10.00 , 133213 09/21/2007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 41395 08123/2007 70.04 Page: 2 I , apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 3 10/0112007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE i Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Mv.Date Amount Paid Check Total I 00041007 08/23I2007 53.88 123.92 133214 09/21/2007 005615 AT&TIMCI T6933350 09/03/2007 2,164.18 T6933348 09/03/2007 1,010.96 T6933360 09/03I2007 84.01 T6923566 OS/30I2007 28.03 T6933343 09/03/2007 �$•�$ � T6933338 09/03I2007 17.65 3,323.61 i 133215 09/21/2007 000057 R BAKER, INC 07-08-2003 08/15/2007 692.86 692.86 133216 09121/2007 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SI5358400 09/04/2007 674.78 674.78 133217 09/21/2007 005726 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI709422 08/29/2007 950.00 950.00 133218 09/21/2007 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 74567 OS/29/2007 77.00 77.00 133219 09/21I2007 000090 BRISCO MILL& LUMBER 133959 07/26/2007 31.64 31.64 133220 09/21/2007 006362 SARAH BRYANT REFUND 09/20/2007 44.00 ��0 133221 09/21I2007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING(DBA) 7039 09/02/2007 363.09 363.09 133222 09/21/2007 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 41164 09110I2007 140.21 140.21 133223 09121/2007 000110 CA ST DEPT OF 7107 08/29I2007 2,919.74 2,919.74 133224 09/21/2007 005843 CALIFORNIA 5791023 09/01/2007 18.87 � 5790693 09/01/2007 15.31 34.18 � 133225 09I21I2007 003285 CALPERS EDUCATIONAL 091207 09I20/2007 250.00 250.00 i 133226 09121/2007 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-192010 09/07/2007 8.55 8�55 I 133227 09121/2007 004391 CASEY PRINTING, INC 8908 OS/20/2007 3,253.79 3,253.79 � 133228 09/21I2007 004741 CENTRAL COAST BATI'ERIES 41902 09/17/2007 594.78 594•�$ I 133229 09/21I2007 005757 CENTRAL COAST TANK 7787 08/03/2007 1,032.50 1,032.50 i I 133230 09/21/2007 006040 CERTIFION CORP 10204 08/31/2007 84.95 84.95 133231 09/21/2007 000160 CHAPARRAL 257172 08I30I2007 170.61 170.61 I i Page: 3 i apCkHist Check History Listing Page: a 1010112007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 133232 09/21/2007 004680 ROBERT CHILD 092007 09/21I2007 56.14 56.14 133233 09I21I2007 000164 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET 20143 08l30/2007 48.39 48.39 133234 09/21/2007 001925 CLEARWATER COLOR 46359 08/29/2007 164.09 46456 09/07/2007 131.27 295.36 133235 09/21/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 9097-0907 09/10/2007 420.00 420.00 133236 09/21/2007 005997 COOK PAGING INC 6842415 09/01/2007 51.39 51.39 133237 09/21/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 04649 09/10/2007 60.00 60.00 133238 09/21/2007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 9/6-017922 09/O6/2007 85.50 8/31-48517 OS/31/2007 34.50 9/6-70931 09/06/2007 28.�5 9/6-14273 09/O6/2007 2�25 9/6-63949 09/O6/2007 24.25 9l6-018068 09/O6/2007 11.50 z��,75 133239 09/21/2007 006366 JACKIE DELACRUZ 092007 09/20/2007 54.00 54.00 133240 09/21/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP XC623W415 09/11/2007 4,494.30 4,494.30 133241 09/21/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 942079 OS/31/2007 69.65 69.68 133242 09121/2007 005343 FRANK DIAZ CONSULTING 1040 OS/17/2007 2,050.00 2,050.00 133243 09121/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 13877122 09/10/2007 75.00 013871454 08/23/2007 75.00 150.00 133244 09121/2007 002210 DUNCAN PRINTING CO 12399 08/30/2007 262.76 262.�6 133245 09121/2007 005106 ESGIL CORP 09070964 09/18/2007 3,095.75 3,095.75 133246 09I21I2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1362003 08127/2007 833.98 1349777-2 09I06/2007 �2�•32 1359528 08/27/2007 234.64 1358061 0 S/23/2007 192•96 1349777-1 OS/09/2007 3.72 1,992.62 133247 09/21/2007 001058 TONY M FERRARA V 09/25/2007 091207 09/20/2007 410.61 410.61 Page: 4 i apCkHist CheCk History Listing Page: 5 ; 10/01/2007 8:27AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133248 09I21/2007 006363 FRIENDS OF K-9 091407 09/20I2007 125.00 125.00 133249 09/21/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 9/7-200 N 09/07/2007 69.11 9/10-1375 09I10l2007 68.86 9/10-350 09/10/2007 65.67 9/6-1500 09/O6I2007 10.93 214.57 133250 09/21/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 189 09I12I2007 8.50 8.50 133251 09/21I2007 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 091707 09I20I2007 194.00 194.00 133252 09/21/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 106157 09IO6I2007 503.14 503.14 133253 09/21/2007 002405 CHUCK HARE 091407 09114/2007 60.00 60.00 133254 09/21/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 092007 09I20/2007 60.00 60.00 133255 09121/2007 001153 KELLY HEFFERNON 092007 09I20/2007 195.00 195.00 133256 09I21I2007 000290 HPClEAGLE ENERGY INC 112972 09l13/2007 191.16 197.16 133257 09I21I2007 0028201NDOFF, INC 1037566 08/27/2007 203.37 203.37 133258 09/21/2007 000330 INFORMATION TECH DEPT 4967 08/29/2007 153.15 153.15 133259 09/21/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 159871 08/28/2007 42.41 42.41 133260 09I21I2007 003949 KERN'S PAPER 21933 08/30/2007 359.89 21815 08/14I2007 327.02 21780 08/13I2007 269.91 21977 08/30I2007 224.93 1,181.75 133261 09/21/2007 006303 JOE KING 091807 09/18/2007 143.50 143.50 133262 09/21I2007 002093 MARK LACOUAGUE 092007 09/20/2007 124.18 124.18 133263 09/21I2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 091407 09120I2007 72.00 72.00 133264 09/21/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 091407 09/20/2007 200.00 200.00 133265 09I21I2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 080050 09/06/2007 288.75 080028 09/06/2007 201.25 , 080025 09I06I2007 96.25 Page: 5 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 6 10/01/2007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 080034 09/O6/2007 9625 080024 09/O6/2007 96.25 080013' 09/O6/2007 �8��5 080037 09/06/2007 78.75 08044 09/O6/2007 �8��5 080045 09/06I2007 �8��5 080020 09I06I2007 61.25 080035 09/06/2007 61.25 080036 09/06/2007 61.25 080085 09/07/2007 37.50 080083 09/07/2007 37.50 1,352.50 133266 09I2112007 006088 MATCO TOOLS 13126 09/11/2007 136.72 136.72 133267 09/21/2007 002537 MDE, INC 3691 OS/23/2007 300.00 300.00 133268 09/21/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 219489 08/27/2007 33.57 216125 08/01l2007 21•4z 221253 09/10/2007 20.46 221259 09/10/2007 18.82 221038 09/OS/2007 16.13 221826 09/14/2007 �z.�2 221720 09/13/2007 8.60 K22092 09/16/2007 6�99 221301 09/10/2007 2.z2 221707 09/13/2007 z��4 142.37 133269 09/21/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS181234 08/21/2007 39.58 FOCS181451 08/28/2007 39.58 FOCS181336 08/24/2007 37.10 FOCS181482 08/29/2007 36.03 FOCS181524 OS/30/2007 36.03 188.32 133270 09/21/2007 005987 NORMAN&VASQUEZ 09072007 09/07/2007 1,328.34 1,328.34 133271 09/21/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 399433857-001 08/31/2007 180.13 398472480-001 08/24/2007 46.30 398706788-001 08/24I2007 46.30 3988900697-001 08/31/2007 46.30 Page: 6 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7 10/01/2007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE � Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice inv.Date Amount Paid Check ToWI 398706850-001 08/24/2007 -46.30 398899760-001 08/24/2007 -46.30 ' 399751201-001 08/31/2007 -46.30 180.13 133272 09/21/2007 001886 OFFICEMAX-HSBC 0793000037773 08/14/2007 128.14 079000039822 09/04/2007 67.74 0793000038621 08/24/2007 64.64 0793000042685 08/16/2007 31•14 291.66 133273 09/21/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 9/11-620838 09/11/2007 245.45 9/11-781296 09/11/2007 �$•52 263.97 133274 09/21/2007 000489 DOUG PERRIN 091407 09I20I2007 215.74 215.74 133275 09/21/2007 006367 RENEE PRESTON 092007 09/20I2007 24.75 24.75 133276 09/21/2007 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER 55163 09/01/2007 15.00 15.00 133277 09121/2007 003363 NINA RIPPY 091707 09/20/2007 300.30 300.30 133278 09/21/2007 000810 RRM DESIGN GROUP 07071307502 09/13l2007 3252.90 3,252.90 133279 09/21/2007 003649 CHARLES D(DON)RUIZ 091407 09/14/2007 16.00 16.00 133280 09/21/2007 002932 RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP 508836 08/09/2007 3,234.00 508837 OS/09/2007 252.00 509233 OS/14I2007 156.00 509242 08/14/2007 97.50 509234 08/14/2007 41.28 3,780.78 133281 09/21/2007 000569 SAN LUIS PAINTS G35169 08/07/2007 113.32 G34892 08/02I2007 25.67 138.99 133282 09121/2007 000570 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE 22737 08I30I2007 513.85 22738 OS/30I2007 367.12 880.97 133283 09/21I2007 003160 JOE A SILVA, JR 092007 09/20/2007 621.54 621.54 133284 09/21/2007 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS 6611296 07/15/2007 43420 i 6610131(2) 08/05/2007 426.36 I 6609689 07113/2007 19074 6615205 07/27/2007 145.86 I Page: 7 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: s 70/0112007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 6606517 07/06/2007 14025 ! 606665 07/06/2007 130.90 6609694 07/13/2007 114.07 6615167 07/27/2007 112.20 6604446 07/02/2007 100.98 6616772 08I03/2007 95.37 6609700 07/13/2007 93.50 1,984.43 133285 09I21I2007 001433 SOUTH COUNTY HISTORICAL 091307 09/20/2007 2,500.00 2.500.00 133286 09/21/2007 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 083107 08/31/2007 97,838.06 97,838.06 133287 09/21/2007 003288 JEFFREY SOUZA 092007 09/21/2007 498.00 498.00 133288 09/21/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 091407 09/20/2007 40.00 40.00 133289 09/21/2007 005506 WALTER STEPHENS JR INC 0065481-IN OS/31/2007 49.95 49.95 133290 09/21/2007 000616 STERLING 23260 09I07/2007 149.56 23237 OS/31/2007 120.00 269.56 133291 09/21/2007 004666 SWRCB FEES 091107 09/11/2007 872.00 872.00 133292 09/21/2007 005798 TRAINING OFFICERS 091407 09/20/2007 395.00 395.00 133293 09/21/2007 006365 TREE GUILD OF ARROYO 4748 06/27/2007 69.50 69.50 133294 09/21/2007 002468 THE TRIBUNE ACCT2674840 08/20/2007 168.00 168.00 133295 09I21I2007 000653 DOROTHY TRULOCK 091707 09/20/2007 1,232.00 1,232.00 133296 09I21I2007 005252 ULTREX BUSINESS 75861 OS/31/2007 274.23 27423 133297 09/21/2007 006364 UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES 091307 09/20/2007 81.10 81.10 133298 09/21I2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 0581844530 08/22/2007 88.94 0577289787 08/09/2007 8.62 97.56 133299 09/21/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 769889 08/30/2007 488.76 769678 OS/23/2007 48�8� 537.63 133300 09/21/2007 001222 KELLY WETMORE 092007 09/20/2007 25.51 25.51 Page: 8 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 9 10/Ot/2007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133301 09/21/2007 005819 CHAD WOHLFORD 4 09I17/2007 1,395.20 1,395.20 I133302 09/21I2007 002289 WULFINGS BACKGROUND& 082207 08/22/2007 200.00 200.00 � 133303 09I21I2007 006059 YOUNG&ASSOC INC, 9190702 09/19/2007 114.80 114.80 133304 09121/2007 002324 MICHAEL ZIGELMAN 091407 09/14I2007 585.00 585.00 133305 09125/2007 006372 KELLY BLEWIS Ref000080311 pg/�g/2p07 34.71 34.71 133306 09125/2007 006373 STACEY BROMLEY Ref000080312 09/18/2007 28.52 28.52 133307 09/25/2007 006370 KRISTEN FINCH Ref000080309 09118/2007 58.40 58.40 133308 09125/2007 006371 JENNIFER RICKS Ref000080310 09118l2007 6029 60.29 133309 09/25/2007 006369 STEVEN RIDGE Ref000080308 09/18/2007 64.68 64.68 133310 09/25/2007 006368 STAN WHITING Ref0000S0307 09/18/2007 136.10 136.10 133311 09/26/2007 000822 US POSTMASTER 092607 09/26/2007 1,103.23 1,10323 133314 09127/2007 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 00048115 09/10/2007 736.32 736.32 133315 09/27/2007 000040 ARROYO GRANDE COMM 072507 07/25/2007 147.00 147.00 133316 09127/2007 002168 ASCE MB 238833 0 09/04/2007 250.00 250.00 133317 09127/2007 005507 AT&T 9/7-0183 09/07/2007 192.42 9/8-9816 09/OS/2007 77.52 9/7-3953 09/07/2007 32.96 9l7-3956 09/07/2007 32.96 9/7-3959 09/07/2007 32.96 368.82 133318 09/27/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6871387 08/01/2007 287.86 T6906767 08/07/2007 8�•94 375.80 133319 09/27/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA V 09/27/2007 0.00 0.00 133320 09/27/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 9/8-7762 09/OS/2007 1,822.10 8/9-2083 08/09/2007 1,502.18 9/8-9436 09/08/2007 482.z$ 9/8-9163 09/08/2007 379.33 Page: 9 I apCkHist Check History Listing Page: �o ' 10/01@007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check ToWI 9/8-6795 09I08I2007 25�•�� 918-9444 09/08/2007 227.67 9/8-2059 09I08I2007 225.97 9/8-0915 09I08/2007 145.04 9/8-4272 09I08/2007 106.86 9/8-9328 09I08I2007 �$•$� 9/8-2581 09I08/2007 18.10 5,179.57 133321 09127/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 092707 09/27/2007 62.89 62.89 133322 09127/2007 000105 CA CONTRACTORS 0101 S 09/06/2007 86.49 86.49 133323 09127/2007 002488 CALBO-CA BUILDING 083107 OS/31/2007 35.00 35.00 133324 09127/2007 003853 CALIFORNIA LIGHTING 7017 09/13/2007 529.59 529.59 133325 09127/2007 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-194633 09/19/2007 2.12 2•�2 133326 09I27I2007 003168 CELLULAR ONE 01243 09/08/2007 136.16 136.16 133327 09/27/2007 000154 CENTRAL COAST SOD INC 64493 09/20/2007 58.83 58.83 133328 09/27/2007 006039 CHEVRON &TEXACO CARD 7898072884709 09/01/2007 221.19 221.19 133329 09/27/2007 005685 CLARK CENTER 092607 09126/2007 30.00 30.00 133330 09/27/2007 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 751426 09I10/2007 1,845.00 1,845.00 133331 09/27/2007 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 20196 09/07/2007 871.91 871•91 133332 09/27/2007 006374 CAROL CURIEL 092607 09/26/2007 60.00 60.00 133333 09/27/2007 000195 L N CURTIS&SONS 113410700 09/17/2007 157.80 157.80 133334 09/27/2007 000577 LEONARD B DE LOS SANTOS 026894 09/20/2007 98.00 98.00 133335 09127/2007 005671 DEATHRIAGE &CO. 7135 09/04/2007 99.00 7152 09I07I2007 99.00 198.00 133336 09/27/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 12989045 09112/2007 124.45 ( 12951736 09/06I2007 $3.23 207.68 , 133337 09I27I2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP XC5XPTCT6 09/10/2007 1,662.64 � Page: 10 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 11 10/01/2007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check ToWI XC5RPJ5P9 09/06/2007 731.07 XC5TKXPR2 09/07/2007 216.26 XC5WF91F6 09/07/2007 156.88 2,766.85 133335 09/27/2007 006141 DEMSEY, FILLIGERBASSOC 1415 09/21/2007 1,000.00 1,000.00 133339 09I27I2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 943492 09/17l2007 27.38 27.38 133340 09127/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 13887112 OS/10/2007 230.00 230.00 I 133341 09/27/2007 000225 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 225199 07/22I2007 69L25 I 225493 08/22/2007 635.00 1,326.25 133342 09/27/2007 006375 SHELLEY EMERSON 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133343 09/27/2007 000853 EXECUTIVE 29315L 08/01/2007 4,325.00 4,325.00 133344 09/27I2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1356793 09/11/2007 1,400.75 1,400.75 133345 09/27/2007 001058 TONY M FERRARA 092607 09I26I2007 105.06 105.06 133346 09/27/2007 OOOS97 FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD 775 09/13/2007 336.00 336.00 133347 09/27/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY 26070 09/17/2007 38.79 38.79 133348 09/27/2007 005975 FROELICHER, JAMES P 1059 09/23/2007 1,810.52 1,810.52 133349 09127/2007 003025 GSI SOILS, INC 20029 07/02/2007 300.00 300.00 133350 09127/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 868599 09/05/2007 712.05 712.05 133351 09/27I2007 002405 CHUCK HARE 092507 09/25/2007 60.00 60.00 133352 09/27/2007 000307 BOB HICKS TURF 25784 09I18I2007 22.57 22.57 133353 09/27/2007 000317 HONEYWELL INT'L INC 3352243 OS/29/2007 8,025.75 8,025.75 133354 09/27I2007 006376 AURELIO HORTILLOSA 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133355 09/27I2007 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 205864 09113/2007 85.00 85.00 133356 09/27I2007 005201 JAS PACIFIC INC BI 9512 09/11/2007 6,624.00 6,624.00 133357 09/27/2007 001793 J J KELLER&ASSOCIATES, 006953597 09/11/2007 669.99 669.99 Page: 17 i apCkHist Check History Listing Page: lz 10/01/2007 821AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE � IBank code: boa � Check# Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total � 133358 09/27/2007 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC 256668 09112/2007 238.33 256941 09/17/2007 43.19 281.52 133359 09/27/2007 005762 MICHELLE KOTHE 092607 09/26I2007 30.00 30.00 133360 09I27I2007 005187 ANGELA KRAETSCH 092607 09/26I2007 332.03 332.03 133361 09127/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 092507 09/25/2007 40.00 40.00 133362 09/27/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 092507 09/25/2007 100.00 100.00 133363 09/27/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 092607 09/26I2007 225.00 2z5.�� 133364 09/27/2007 000402 MAIL BOXES ETC 21607702 03/19/2007 17.14 9019343 09/12/2007 14.86 36891 08/22/2007 6.60 38.60 133365 09/27I2007 000398 KEVIN MC BRIDE 092607 09I26I2007 90.00 90.00 133366 09/27I2007 000418 JOHN MERSHON 091907 09/19/2007 54.62 `.�4•62 133367 09/27/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 221841 09/14/2007 109.28 221865 09/14/2007 69.83 221608 09/12/2007 57.73 222671 09/20/2007 8.61 222235 09/17/2007 8.61 221495 09/11/2007 5.38 221709 09/13I2007 4.06 222485 09/19I2007 3.75 221930 09/14I2007 0.73 267.98 133368 09/27/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 121537 09/12/2007 151.53 FOCS181916 09/13/2007 77.05 FOCS181923 09I13I2007 39.95 268.53 133369 09/27I2007 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE 411 09/20/2007 525.00 406 09/11/2007 275.00 800.00 133370 09127/2007 006328 NICK'S TELECOM 2939 09/11/2007 137.72 137.72 133371 09/27I2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 400713061-001 09/14I2007 57.89 Page: 12 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 13 10/0112007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 400713637-001 09/14/2007 22.05 401019544-001 09/14/2007 8�» 88.11 133372 09/27/2007 001886 OFFICEMAX-HSBC 0793000054625 08/15/2007 8.70 8•�� 133373 09/27I2007 000477 P J'S TOP SHOP 350777 08/29/2007 452.55 452.55 133374 09(27I2007 006377 ANGELITA PARRA 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133375 09/27I2007 000488 PEPSI-COLA 86135463 09/13/2007 326.55 326.55 133376 09/27I2007 006378 KAREN PHARR 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133377 09/2712007 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 7658355-SP07 09/13/2007 855.45 855.45 133378 09/27I2007 006384 POLYMER 8�STEEL TECH 120043 09/14/2007 269.25 26925 133379 09/27I2007 000503 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS, 130125 08I31I2007 144.39 144.39 133380 09/27I2007 005284 R&B MOBILE EQUIPMENT& 1262 08I07I2007 34.78 34.78 133381 09/27I2007 000523 R&T EMBROIDERY, INC 31685 09112/2007 382.70 382.70 133382 09127/2007 002751 RANGE MASTER 113236 07119/2007 389.73 113659 08/28/2007 4�•2� 431.00 133383 09/27/2007 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 6858 08/27/2007 248.04 248.04 133384 09/27I2007 003649 CHARLES D(DON)RUIZ 092507 09/25/2007 16.00 16.00 133385 09/27I2007 000538 S&L SAFETY PRODUCTS 248627 09/04/2007 226.11 248639 09I05I2007 ��2•1$ 398.29 133386 09127/2007 000569 SAN LUIS PAINTS G37827 09/24I2007 116.10 116.10 133387 09/27/2007 000583 ALLEN SCHOFIELD 5689 08I30I2007 185.39 185.39 133388 09/27/2007 006379 DONNA SHAFFER 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133389 09/27I2007 006380 KELLY SHIPLEY 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133390 09/27/2007 005172 CEHLI SIMMERMAKER 092607 09/26I2007 30.00 30.00 133391 09/27I2007 000731 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S 090407 09I04I2007 24,204.60 24,204.60 Page: 13 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 14 10/0112007 8:27AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check q Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check ToWi 133392 09127/2007 003288 JEFFREY SOUZA 092607 09/26/2007 178.00 178.00 133393 09I27I2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 092507 09l25/2007 40.00 40.00 ', 133394 09/27/2007 000613 STATEW IDE SAFETY& 57080 09/13I2007 234.93 234.93 133395 09/2712007 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 1246 08/31I2007 480.46 480.46 133396 09/27/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1022083 09/12I2007 298.60 1022088 09/12/2007 280.63 1022085 09/12/2007 63.50 1022086 09/12/2007 37.03 1022084 09112/2007 27.69 1022082 09112/2007 18.58 1022087 09112/2007 2•89 728.92 133397 09/27/2007 005317 TRACE ANALYTICS, INC C07-5646 09114/2007 136.50 136.50 133398 09/27/2007 004233 TRI COUNTY OFFICE FURN, 31839 09/11/2007 758.04 31838 09/11/2007 374.32 1,132.36 133399 09I27I2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 286100 08/20/2007 6,764.32 287886 09/O6/2007 566.68 288111 09/10/2007 307.14 286390 08/20/2007 15.21 7,653.35 133400 09/27/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 68414033-001 09/19/2007 124.51 68162978-001 09/10/2007 33.13 157.64 133401 09/27/2007 000677 PEGGY VALKO 092407 09/24/2007 186.44 186.44 133402 09/27/2007 006381 CRAIG VAN HORN 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133403 09/27/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 0585322484 09/07/2007 445.24 0584441624 09I04/2007 Z9�.83 743.07 133404 09/27/2007 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 23588 09/O6/2007 9,453.08 23589 09I06/2007 452.30 23590 09/O6/2007 113.00 10,018.38 133405 09127/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 770296 09/17/2007 155.10 155.10 Page: 74 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 15 10/0712007 8:21AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa �� Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133406 09/27/2007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 092507 09/25/2007 24.00 24.00 133407 09/27/2007 006382 CAILI WI�K 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133408 09/27/2007 006383 PAUL YBARRA 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 133409 09/27/2007 004595 STACIA ZIRPOLO 092607 09/26/2007 30.00 30.00 boa Total: 273,872.99 214 checks in this report Total Checks: 273,872•99 Page: 15 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 9/7/07-9/20107 09/28/07 FUND 010 398,495.72 5101 Salaries Full time 229,606.87 FUND 220 17,047.19 5102 Salaries Part-Time- PPT 20,543.35 FUND 284 784.76 5103 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 12,439.61 FUND 285 784.80 5105 Salaries OverTime 16,986.68 FUND 612 7,759.68 5107 Salaries Standby 391.67 FUND 640 20,507.17 5108 Holiday Pay 1,008.34 445,379.32 5109 Sick Pay 5,004.89 5110 AnnualLeave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback - 5113 Vacation Pay 6,840.32 5114 Comp Pay 4,232.08 5115 Annual Leave Pay 3,807.74 5121 PERS Retirement 73,070.72 5122 Social Security 21,089.76 5123 PARS Retirement 425.17 5126 State Disability Ins. 665.61 5127 Deferred Compensation 725.00 5131 Health Insurance 39,950.64 5132 Dental insurance 4,489.71 5133 Visionlnsurance 1,035.07 5134 Life Insurance 583.92 5135 Long Term Disability 945.14 5143 Uniform Allowance - 5144 Car Aliowance 600.00 I 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 244.53 5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00 5151 Ceil Phone Allowance 417.50 445,379.32 8.b. MINUTES ' REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 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 7:03 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 Cierk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director � of Community Development Rob Strong, and Assistant Planner Ryan Foster. 3. FLAG SALUTE ( Member of Boy Scout Troop 314 led the Flag Salute. , 4. INVOCATION Pastor Randy Ouimette, St. John's Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS i 5.a. Mayor's Commendations —Teresa McClish, Associate Planner and Jeremy Kaufman, Public Works Maintenance Worker. Mayor Ferrara presented Mayor's Commendations to Teresa McClish, Associate Planner and Jeremy Kaufman, Public Works Maintenance Worker, in recognition of their membership in the City's Platinum Service Club for service above and beyond the call of duty. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Costello moved, Council Member Guthrie 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 Jesse Arnold, Cambria, spoke about genetically engineered crops and the need for labeling to protect consumers. He urged the Council to encourage labeling of genetically engineered crops. Shawna Galasi also urged the Council to encourage labeling of genetically engineered crops. 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. Jane Line, President of the South County Historical Society, referred to Item 8.d. concerning consideration of the City's membership in the Historical Society, and urged the Council to consider approving the highest level of inembership. Mark Vasauez, representing Tony Janowicz, referred to Item 8.e. and requested the Council continue the item. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Tonv Janowicz, applicant, referred to Item 8.e. and requested a continuance in order to resolve some issues regarding the proposed project. No further public comments were received. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold pulled Item 8.e. Council Member Fellows pulled Item 8.d. Action: Council Member Fellows moved, and Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.c., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Fellows, Guthrie, Costeilo, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period August 16, 2007 through August 31, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of July 24, 2007 as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of FY 2006-07/FY 2007-08 Annual Local Sales Tax Allocation Report. Action: Approved the proposed FY 2006-07/FY 2007-08 Annual Local Sales Tax Allocation Report and authorized staff to distribute it to all households and businesses in the City. 8.d. Consideration of Funding for South County Historical Society. Recommended Action: 1) Approve a City Silver Level membership in the South County Historical Society; and 2) Appropriate $1,000 for the membership. Council Member Fellows expressed support for the City joining at the highest level (Platinum) membership in the South County Historical Society. Discussion ensued about the valuable resources the City receives from the South County Historical Society; some concern about the City's ongoing operational expenses and the potential for reviewing a higher level of inembership at the end of the fiscal year; and a suggestion to join at the mid-level (Gold) now and move to the highest level (Platinum) membership next fiscal year. Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to approve and appropriate $2,500 for a City Gold Level membership in the South County Historical Society, and to re-evaluate the membership level at the end of the fiscal year. Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8.e. Consideration of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009; Applicant — Tony Janowicz; Location 795 East Cherry Avenue. Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution Upholding an Appeal and Denying Plot Plan Review No. 06-009; 795 East Cherry Avenue; Applied for by Tony Janowicz. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold stated he had met with the applicant to review a revised project pian; explained that the applicant did not understand the development review process as it relates to returning with a revised project; noted that the Planning Commission had approved a larger project and it did not make sense to send a smaller, revised project back through the ARC and Planning Commission; and supported a continuance of the item in order to allow the applicant to return directly to the Council with a revised proposal. Brief discussion ensued in support of the applicanYs request for a continuance. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to continue consideration of Plot Plan Review Case No. 06-009, applied for by Tony Janowicz; Location: 795 East Cherry Avenue, to the November 13, 2007 City Council meeting. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Feilows, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 11.a. Pre-Application Review 06-006; The Pike and South Elm Street. Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council review and comment on the applicanYs proposed project to construct five (5) studio apartments, four (4) two- bedroom townhouses and fourteen (14) three-bedroom townhouses on 1.27 acres in the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning district, possibly coordinating with adjacent commercial use to create an integrated mixed-use project. He further recommended the Council provide direction to staff regarding potential Development Code amendments to provide clarification on mixed-use projects as it re�ates to density. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Steve Puqlisi, project architect, stated that whether the project was mixed use or residential, the project appears to meet State law requirements as it relates to the proposed density. He stated that the project has been presented twice in concept to the Planning Commission and was redesigned to include the most extensive agricultural buffer that could be created; noted that one Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 driveway along Elm Street was removed; however, not ail driveways along Elm Street could be removed due to circulation, fire and public safety access requirements; and explained how the proposed residential project ties into the adjacent commercial use to satisfy the properties' mixed use zoning designations. Mr. Puglisi responded to questions from Council concerning totai square footage of the property; depth of the pocket park into the agricultural buffer; pedestrian amenities within the project versus the pocket park; and how the water run-off from the project will be handled. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: — Prefers the residential design over mixed use noting that the "island" configuration does not provide for a mixed use project; — Is okay with the proposed density and acknowledged State law requirements; — Could go either way with the proposed pocket park; if the landscape buffer is tall enough, the park is probably a reasonable use there; — Agricultural buffer is reasonable as proposed; need to follow City policy. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: — Agreed that he does not support the property as commercial mixed use; — Supports residential; there will not be potential for mixed use on the site; — The proposed density is reasonable and will meet the State's affordable housing requirements; — Would like to see a littie more parking; however, he acknowledged the project meets the minimum requirements; — Would rather not see the pocket park in the proposed location within the buffer zone; however, he could support the park since the adjacent property is a cemetery and is not actively used for agriculture and the nearby agriculture use is a pesticide free farm. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: — Can support higher density; — Agreed that parking should not be in the agriculture buffer; — Stated that the park should be eliminated; so that the buffer functions as a buffer; — Did not support gap in the agriculture buffer and suggested that the Elm Street entrance be moved to the far northern end of the property; — If the project is approved; suggested landscaping on the east side of S. Elm adjacent to or in the drainage swale. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: — Stated it was a good project; however, he expressed concern about the parking configuration within the project; — Stated that there are organic farming and cemetery uses across the street and that there is justification to require the minimum buffer distance requirement; — Supported the need for a pocket park within the project due to lack of open space behind the units; — Expressed concern about creating policy to restrict commercial use from agricultural buffer zones; — Expressed concern about the trash enclosure located behind buildings 8 & 9; Minutes: City Council Meefing Page 5 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 — Supported addition of a bike lane; — Supported pedestrian access to the adjacent 7-11 store; would like to see enhancements to the 7-11 store in order to tie the two properties together; — Wants the design of all residential units to be the same regardless of affordability. Mayor Ferrara provided the foilowing comments: — Clarified the revised location of the trash receptacles, which had been relocated pursuant to direction from the Planning Commission; — Agreed with comments regarding the zoning and use of this project; agreed that the 7-11 store is a commercial "island"with no adjacent commercial use; — Sees this project moving forward primarily as a residential project; — With regard to the buffer zone, he said there cannot be a "blankeY' buffer type or model and configurations of buffer zones need to be treated on a case by case basis; — Suggested that when staff provides a report on the agricultural buffer issues, that the issue concerning commercial uses within the buffer be addressed; — Acknowledged the adjacent organic farm and additional screening of trees along S. Elm Street; — Does not see any way around eliminating ingress/egress access within the buffer; can support some parking in the buffer and looking at some other driveway configurations; — With regard to the pocket park, he could support some area designated as open space; — Would like to pedestrian amenities added such as picnic benches and barbeques. In response to a request for direction by City Manager Adams, the Council concurred to direct staff to come back with alternate language dealing with a more specific definition of mixed use, and recommendations dealing with the inconsistency of how equivalent density is applied currently in mixed-use zones. Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project. There was no formal action on this item. 11.b. Consideration of Viewshed Review Alternatives. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council review the preliminary staff report regarding Viewshed Review (VSR) alternatives and provide comments and direction for a possible Development Code Amendment to be considered at subsequent public hearings. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: — Explained the reason he brought this issue up for review, stating that the City has gone through lengthy processes on viewshed review applications which have been costly for applicants, neighbors, and the City and stated the issue was worth discussing. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Council Member Costello provided the following comments: — Stated that he would support looking at protecting pubiic views only; — Stated that no one has an inherent right to a view; — Did not think there should be a discrepancy between new construction and additions and that they should be evaluated equally; — Stated that when someone buys property, there should be some expectation of development around them to the development standards that are in place; — Agreed that any viewshed review must not be subjective; — Should focus on public views from public streets or places. Council Member Guthrie provided the foliowing comments: — Supported the viewshed review process and preferred to leave the existing process in place. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: — Stated that there has to be some kind of viewshed review process in place; — Believed that the community supports the viewshed review process and that views are a valued commodity; — Suggested strengthening the criteria to measure reasonableness when reviewing viewshed issues; would support conducting community group meetings by neighborhood to let them determine whether D-Overlays regulating height are appropriate; — Not in favor of requiring viewshed review on vacant lots; — Would support refining the viewshed review process, but not eliminating it entirely. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: — Agreed that the viewshed review process needs to be refined to make is less subjective; — If considering neighborhood specific design overlays, supports idea of involving the community — Does not want to mix viewshed review issues with other standards relating to floor area ratio, etc. — Believed that viewshed review process is needed and intervention is required; does not want to restrict process for just public views; — Viewshed review should be determined on case-by-case basis or on a neighborhood specific basis. — Suggested involving Cal Poly Urban Planning students to assist in following up on this issue. In response to Council comments, City Manager Adams clarified that the Council's direction to staff was to maintain the current viewshed review process and to propose some minor changes to the viewshed review process to make it less subjective, develop certain criteria, and get the community involved. He further noted that this issue would be included in the status report on remaining Development Code updates required to achieve consistency with the General Plan. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, September 11, 2007 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Ferrara announced that SLOCOG would be meeting tomorrow to review housing allocation figures. He reported that the proposed figures are 75% less than those proposed at the last round. He noted the Board would be looking at criteria to determine how the figures should be allocated � throughout San Luis Obispo County. 75. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Keily Wetmore, City Clerk (Approved at CC Mtg ) � g.�; � . � o� P�ROyoc � � INCOqPOqATED 92 V � D m * JULY 10, 1911 * . . � c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN SUBJECT: OCTOBER 9, 2007 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEM 8.c. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE SIDEWALK PROJECTS DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2007 Attached ,you will find a full size copy of the Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Enhancement Plan map;'to replace the incomplete copy supplied in your Agenda packet. c: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk � � � },°- ;.�-xc' _ �` r . _��.' i �� I ,. .. _ _au, � r... .,. � .�...,, .�:� ,� ,.. t .�:�.»� :.�r�r. � �._.�� «.,. �. u' tl � ` .futme �,HiddenOak � � s .. �� . . . 'ri '� • �,,,� Schaoivw �.: � : � ; �, c . ,�n;= . ✓ , { ,.",." " ' , .., .�t''^; ':t.:, f a _�.f y.�r� . _. I I .. + . • ..-,..,� . . � . ' ' ?,:. :. �( v,,:. . ' R3�vJw 't ., 'erve, . € � � umMe �wv`,«n . ... ., x�.:; . "�� Gn`k be:�SM ' W+n � � L�i . ' r � . .: _., k � . ' � �' _ ` �°" .�' `"'°.... > ` �i.. a i E� . MN�� E,� � .. . .. -� ... . . p . e) .� '� � . �....., . .- � � � SdMRf ., FNaCkks � _. �� ... PN/: .. . Canter � .Q . • �„ ; I' . ... :FuN�e '.Vad;B�h�� r o J ,..o i ab9� t � �,�j � �� . � �.�.�Y , � �� . v.�,Y�, .,� . . i ^ . t01� �� `FumY1 a a� UewnView �� N ��". � .:J` .v • `PodBilm El�manYry r � CI b •• "" � �� .i .. Q n.. .�.� .... ' pen� . r��,„.,_ - �om.o • ,. _ � F.. � � � smb� . ;Po� � - ' �= � Arroyo Grande .r , ,. =u.�� ,0 + � �.. Pedestrian «a � � ' � Enhancement . � , , � ^Ms�,�m�� \ Plan . = �I , , i 1..� S PotlfkCqrst lightlwuw��. ��Ma Sclroti�n Elm ... ChrlsliWn � fYghS[liool ' ._. �` �_1) t]��f� .�_.... .. � � She3t Xhool . � w�G �� -e ., �gaps�x,t r h� S 7 ��a�kr .. k ,mmu�Xr �� Sidewalk Gaps [«rox""`: Q xo,vaN Q i .,�..,,. .,� � Schoois M HarWe 101'. E4ma�dry ,�„ . ■ Points of Interesc „. „_ -_� :. , : , ., � � Public Restroom�s ,,..ti�. � ,,,,.., : _ . Wo� ,s � � � Transit Stops(6ikes allowed on RT�I ... .,.v„k . n '�v�` �� Parks i 8.c. E pRROV� � cP hINCORPONATED 92 ' � � o MEMORANDUM � JUIY 10. 1911 * c4�/FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER /,�-J� V"�/ BY: MICHAEL GALVIN, PW INTERN SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE SIDEWALK PROJECTS DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the following criteria for prioritizing sidewalk projects to be undertaken as part of the Capital Improvement Program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact of the recommended action. The recommended action will only affect the order in which relevant projects are completed. As the relevant projects already exist in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) this action will have no financial impact. There is $125,000 budgeted in each fiscal year of the FY 2007-08/FY 2008-09 Biannual Budget from Local Sales Tax revenues. In addition, staff is pursuing Safe Routes to School grand funding. BACKGROUND: At the May 29, 2007 Budget Workshop, the proposed sidewalk improvement projects were discussed. Based on this discussion the staff has developed criteria to prioritize the proposed sidewalk projects. The criteria were developed based on the a number of issues associated with the placement and use of sidewalks. Listed in no particular order are the following: • Coordination of the sidewalk project with other improvement projects: Any sidewalk locations that can be constructed in conjunction with a proposed , capital project. • Routes to School: Projects that would provide a continuous sidewalk where they don't currently exist with a higher priority for those that may receive funding from the Safe Routes to School funding. . Right-of-way (acquisition): Proposed projects that can be constructed within the existing right-of-way will receive a higher priority than projects that require acquisition of additional property. to complete the construction. • Connections to existing sidewalks: There are instances where portions of sidewalks are missing. Projects have been identified to complete the sidewalk for pedestrian circulation. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE SIDEWALK PROJECTS OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 • Level of pedestrian traffic: Priority will be given to areas where the levels of pedestrian traffic are highest including routes used by students and pedestrians attending special events. Sidewalk projects would be evaluated as to how many and to what degree of the criteria listed above apply to each proposed project The need to develop these criteria was discussed specifically in regard to projects listed in the City's CIP Project Number 5658 (see attached). ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the criteria for prioritizing sidewalk projects; - Do not approve staff recommended criteria for prioritizing sidewalk projects; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Each time the CIP is updated, there will be new locations designated for sidewalk improvements. The criteria will assist staff in prioritizing the affected projects. However, it should be noted that acceptance of criteria will not result in either acceptance of additional projects or loss of existing sidewalk projects. The criteria will be used only to develop recommendations. City council will maintain the authority to modify the proposed project priority, order and timing. ADVANTAGES: The primary advantage of the recommended action is that it will allow staff to objectively prioritize current and future sidewalk projects. Doing so will make it easier to explain to members of the pubiic why a particular project is being undertaken ahead of other(s) projects. DISADVANTAGES: There are no foreseeable disadvantages to taking the recommended action. However, specific locations may not rank as high as others thus becoming lower priorities. 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, October 4, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, October 5, 2007. No public comments were received. Public notification will be given for each project separately. Attachments: 1 . Project No. 5658 from CIP 2. Arroyo Grande Sidewalk/Pedestrian Enhancement Plan I � I j Fund: 350 Pro"ect;Tttle.�-�wMiscetlar�eousSEn in ;:Grasswalks;=Sideioatks,a�rd,Handir_: ,Rana s�':�.... , m�;� .. .:�„�:. .._._::: �-s+ : .� ;, .,,:Fro ec�No ::r..,x. . -5653; PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Project Cost $550,000 . This projec[will entail the folloiring: (1) Southeast Corne�of Elm and Ash Sheets,and Crown HiII at 6ast Branch Street in FY 2008-09 � (2) East Sicie of 41'est Branch Street Rodeo Drive to lbbmen's Center in A7'2009-2010 (3) Tall}'Ho Road,Via La Bar�anca[o Highway 227 in PT 2010.2011 ' i Revenue , Tota] �Funding Carry FY 2007-OS FY 2007-OS Funding to � Account Source Budget to date Over New Funding Total Budget 2008-09 2009-10 ?010-11 2011-12 Complete d950 SalesTax 550,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 100,000 ]00000 100000 550000 � - Total 550,000 125,000 125,000 1ti,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 550,000 Expenditures Total Expenditures Carn� FY 2007-OS FY 2007-08 � Cost � Acmunt Description Budget to date Ocer Expenditures Total Budget 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 201t-72 Complete ' 7001 Construction 550,000 ]25,000 125,000 125,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 550,000 ; Total �50,000 ]25,000 125,000 125,000 100,000 1U0,000 1OQ000 5�0,000 � � � I � � n , _ � � Z � � � 05/09/07 8.d. o� pRROY�c FINCORPOR.�TEO 2 ° " MEMORANDUM # �u�r ,o. �a„ * c4�/FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER��7,L SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ' CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS FOR THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO REMOVE INVASIVE ENGLISH IVY ALONG THE ARROYO GRANDE CREEK DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the proposed agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and the California Conservation Corps (CCC) in the amount of $15,000 for the removal of invasive English Ivy along the Arroyo Grande Creek between Mason Street and Bridge Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: i The total cost of the project js proposed to be $25,000. A total of $20,000 in local sales !' tax revenue was budgeted in FY 2006-07 for this project in the Capital Improvement ;� Program, and $5,000 in grant funding will be provided from the State Water Resources Board. The remaining $10,000 will be used for a separate agreement related to some areas that will be sprayed rather than hand pulled. An additional $7,500 will need to be budgeted annually for the next three years for monitoring and maintenance, which is i� proposed to be funded from local sales tax revenues earmarked for creek restoration ,� projects. � BACKGROUND: ' The 2007 draft Creek Study included several recommendations for creek preservation � based upon existing studies within the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed. The Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan, including technical studies from Swanson ' Hydrology and Geomorphology, identified the eradication of invasive plant species, such as English Ivy as a high priority for watershed and creek protection. The project includes the removal of ivy from approximately 800 linear feet (approximately 2-acres) from the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek between Mason and � Bridge Streets (please refer to proposed project signage in Attachment 1). CCC ; members will manually remove the roots and shoots from the approximately 2/3 of the , project area riparian corridor over the course of 2 weeks, including girdling the ivy i I CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS FOR THE REMOVAL OF INVASIVE ENGLISH IVY ALONG THE ARROYO GRANDE CREEK OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 around the tree trunks. One especially steep section of the project area, on the southern creek bank near Bridge Street, will be treated with a herbicide in accordance with the Department of Fish and Game permit requirements instead of hand pulling the roots. All areas will be revisited by hand crews to remove ivy that was missed or that reappears. Upon the removal of all ivy from the project area, slopes will be seeded with native seed mix. In particularly steep areas, slopes will be seeded, mulched and then covered with jute netting for additional soil stability. Volunteer work days will be organized by Central Coast Salmon Enhancement to plant native trees and shrubs. Specific plant species will be determined by a qualified biologist. Native species may include Cottonwood, Sycamore, Box Elder, Coyote Brush and Elderberry. Plants will be chosen for their ability hold soils in place thereby decreasing soil erosion. Additional volunteer work days will be organized to return to the site for continued ivy removal bimonthly. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the proposed Agreement between the City and the California Conservation Corps; - Do not approve the proposed Agreement and postpone or cancel the project; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: As stated above, the eradication of invasive plant species along creeks in the watershed has been determined to be a priority issue for creek preservation. Invasive species like English Ivy should be removed on a scale that inhibits their dispersal and potential re- establishment. The small, localized scale of the proposed project was chosen to evaluate the effectiveness of ivy removal methods and riparian plantings. The findings of this pilot project will be used to implement a watershed-wide English Ivy removal plan. ADVANTAGES: The pilot project is one of the City's planned collaborations projects with regional groups and agencies to implement key creek protection projects. The project will demonstrate the feasibility of English Ivy eradication for the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed through English Ivy removal along 800 feet of riparian corridor (2 acres). A host of removal techniques will be evaluated for effectiveness of removal, cosUbenefit ratios and labor/time intensity. English Ivy is a non-native, long-lived noxious weed. The vines choke out native plants, harm native trees (potentially killing them), and can create ivy deserts. The riparian zone is crucial in maintaining a healthy stream environment. Riparian vegetation stabilizes stream banks, prevents surface runoff and erosion, supplies shade to regulate water temperatures and provides a pollution buffer. The riparian zone of Arroyo Grande Creek will be partially restored by removing exotic ivy S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSISTAFFl07-0071vy removal projecticcsr100907 ivy removal l.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS FOR THE REMOVAL OF INVASIVE ENGLISH IVY ALONG THE ARROYO GRANDE CREEK OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 and planting native trees and shrubs. Once the ivy is removed, the existing trees will be free to grow without competition from the ivy, thus ensuring a healthy canopy. In addition, native species will be given an opportunity to become established; returning the area to a more natural state. The project is proposed to proactively enhance a publicly accessible and visible section of the creek in the heart of the Village in order to prevent a more costly restoration project in the future. The project will also serve to provide a positive example by instituting practices and programs for creek protection that is consistent with the City's creek care guidelines to be used for residents who live along creeks as well as a guidance tool for project review. DISADVANTAGES: Potential disadvantages include uncertainties with the project success. Although the project is based on proven ivy eradication techniques and protocol, it can be a difficult task to prevent the ivy from returning and varies according to project circumstances. Project contingencies are included as part of required permitting by the Department of Fish and Game. In addition, while the ultimate outcome is projected to be enhancement of the appearance of the creek area, the initial result will be a significant reduction in overall vegetation until the replacement planting has an opportunity to take hold. Therefore, the City may receive complaints regarding the temporary appearance of the creek. Lastly, there is some risk of erosion following initial removal of the ivy. However, staff believes all necessary actions are being taken to avoid temporary negative impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15307 of the CEQA Guidelines. I PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: , Notification will be provided for all property owners within the project area and public education signage will be posted in the project area. Attachments: 1. Draft project signage 2. Agreement i S:ICommunity Deve/opmentlPROJECTSISTAFF107-0071vy removal projecticcsr100907 ivy remova/f.doc I �__ ♦ � ��._.�� .;;y�� '. .�,,;" p � D � �` �� s .j� � �, � ��S � w� � �•• • vP�' =»i. '�: `� .. '� � ' . t �s, fl;• _� � f . '.� P`'.. � . � `"'�� ing(Pictured s '' � ' � >,� ? er commonly usedv nl�andh`ghly comPp�ae' , ,a��P.� �� ., ,` G],ISH l��vasive groundc°v vine habit.The Lyp �climb m ;�- . ' ��• �MQV� EN �ative.in iling o exception• de$e�s ana con� �. . Y �eaves and tra Q� w H non- T�ees ace n �alled�vY lants pro- � � �, heiix�is a waxY ts. ' � °` gedera �ick, lan are out. E�ve p � „�^^' gnglish i�Y � identified by its out aU othec P resulting�eas Steelhead tt Na .s� -,�= �- � �t can ba choking The birds and to�ide. '�'...� . belo l� en results�n �t(P�ctured belo�'wid{ife like v �oes not p '�w � ' 'y'' and its PT�Se°ce o� killing ative lish� Y on}ine• The eventually �a p�oblem to tQ wildlife that Eng Guide lth- � � ~ uee's canoPY� .�ls can d shade Creek C� hea � , . etum Qn�y Engash i�y S aces�habitat)�' de Ve a�oPY of the betlar foc creek � S de Creek�°s a living P w'tll ha to t�y�at are ON EF�QFZT A�oY°Gr b d cre long vide foo , City of An�Y�Gran altemanves RESTO�T� y han remoVe�nglish ivy along ation on will be cem°ved inonths>the With inform �REEI<. ade to bribge • Aft er [n the coming wners 1 state. Eng��sh I�` a gridge Streetestablish�e creek wiU pTOVide lando E�orts�e being rr' �tura uide ^y the m°re n MasQn Street an e laced t�re S 4� � creek to a between S will b P .�`�� y�has been rem`'�a'preven t o�erosion, ow��*'ill be � axea) � Te-� to the project �� the ivY � oval of�"Y ��,� . i ;� ,,_ banks(riparian 5 tn��lve habit,con�°otunt er crewi$not regY°ing ana that ,.�.. '�:• � , r, iw LO I _ �ue to English aintenance- Sure the h7 �. `�� ?'? imP°�t��o rse f�'g�tab r dake q��—r r• � .�.. areaa � ecom �,w„�4 p3tive plan 2Te b �mun Watec Boacds, � �.. j 1 Coatt Sa �sv o� � S entta ttpyo o . . ��dinatedby che City af A l iwasor8sniuda�w�g�o�ideA�'ConservatianAisu�icc ' ,�� .{�i, V�r.. � �q VV p��{,, . '�CtiisP�ol�t.Fundin&supP° LuisAeso+ace ttol8oacdan �v�y;�'>�i �, VI . Enhanceme ��e�astal5an gesoucces G� coP� -`� am � ' �ro gh �^t fram`a Noh�nt SouccePollution Conu°�P �. t3SEPAlundecFtde �3t91�1- Clean Wat�Act sa+' EnYSn�emp°t(805) 41ea%�� nd Cen g221�o�y�Tynaf A[[oY° ation. a73- y420 for moc�i°fa[m {805)d�3- _ , ATTACHMENT2 CALZFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS PROJECT EVALUATION - CCC-58 [A] PROJECT DATA Center Code : 603 LOS PADRES Project/Work Code : R-08-4028 Location Code : Contract : - - Resource Category: CRC Project Title: ARROYO GRANDE CREEK IVY REMOVAL Project Description: CCC will assit the City of Arroyo Grande with the eradiciation of English Ivy in Arroyo grande Creek. This will be a demonstration project centered in the downtown area of Arroyo Grande. CCC will cut and remove ivy from trees and in specific designated areas . Other areas mmay be treaterd with herbicides creating the "demonstration" for citizen education of this highly invasive weed. [B] SPONSOR INFORMATION Agency Code : Sponsoring Agency: Address : 40000 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PO BOX 550 City: ARROYO GRANDE State : CA ZIP: 93421- Sponsor Representative : Title : Phone : TERESA MCCLISH PROJECT PLANNER (805) 473-5420 Technical Supervisor: Title : Phone : DON SPAGNOLO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS (805) 473-5440 [C] EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION CDF Incident # - Request # - OES # - HQ Ref . # - CCC Index # Corpsmember Overtime Pay Serial # [D] ESTIMATE INFORMATION [E] WORKSITE INFORMATION Directions to Worksite Location: Hours : 800 Arroyo Grande Creek is in downtown Arroyo Grande .Take Grand Ave. exit from Highway 101 . Go east . 5 mile . Stait Date : 10/15/2007 ZIP : 93421- County Code : 40 County: SAN LUIS OBI [F] FOR Hq USE ONLY P LAFOLLETTE 09/27/2007, 9 :45am Received: Logged: Verified: Analyst : Entered: Checked: iField Operations Database System Ver: 2 . 2 . 1 (07/03/2007) CCC-58 Project/WOrk Code : R-08-4028 ARROYO GRANDE CREEK IVY REMOVAL Page: 2 [G] EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES Sponsor: Educational presentation to increase Corpsmember understanding of the natural environment . Length of time scheduled: 0 . 50 Hrs . Crew will receive information on the destructive nature of English Ivy and the proper methods of eradication. CCC: The CCC will be doing the following work/learn activities . Length of time scheduled: 0 . 50 Hrs. Crew will conduct daily tailgate safety meetings as well as have discussions on productivity, quantifying the work and crew organization. ' [H] EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND LABOR To be supplied by Sponsor: To be supplied by CCC: flagging of desireable species hand tools dumpsters ivy removal tools project direction crew supervision access to restrooms workman ' s comp Special SPIKE equipment needed by crew: SPIKE Information (description and location of housing) : Field Operations Database System Ver : 2 . 2 . 1 (07/03/2007) CCCw58 Project/Work Code : R-08-4028 ARROYO GRANDE CREEK IVY REMOVAL Page : 3 [I] NARRATIVE ON HOW PROJECT WILL MEET ALL LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED OBJECTIVES (Assign a numerical rating: 0=none, 1=1ow, 2=medium, 3=high) Conserving, improving, developing natural resources, maintaining environmentally important lands or waters . RATING: 3 English Ivy is very invasive and detrimental to the riparian ecology. Removing the ivy will help the resources recover and become healthy. Providing public benefit or access (Estimated visitor use, increased safety, reduced maintenance costs, etc . RATING: 3 The demonstration aspect of the project provides education opportunities to the public as well as a benefit in protecting the local natural resources . Providing Corpsmembers with opportunities for training in employable skills (e .g. specific tools and use, fire control, carpentry) RATING: 2 Crew will learn natural resource management techniques, tool usage and teamwork. [J] PROJECT CHECKLIST & SIGNATURE BLOCKS SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT VERIFIES THAT: ■ A Sponsor Agreement (CCC 96) is on file at Headquarters . ■ If a reimbursable project, a CCC-96A or STD-13 agreement has been submitted to Headquarters . ■ If the Sponsor is a non-profit entity, a statement of non-profit status and Private Property/Sponsor Authorization form have been submitted to HQ. ■ If the Sponsor is a for-profit entity, a Private Property/Sponsor Authorization has been submitted to HQ. ■ The project conforms to CCC ' s Injury and I lness P ntio Program (IIPP) Project Coordinator: Print Sign . Dat : BRUCE BONIFAS Z 6 istrict Director: THE SPONSOR REPRESENTATIVE AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING: ■ If there are hazardous materials present, the sponsor has provided the location, identity, and amounts of any hazardous substances at the worksite and provided all Material Safety Data Sheets for hazardous materials that are present at the worksite R ■ To the best knowledge of the sponsor, the worksite is free of any known hazardous materials . D ■ That all applicable local , state, and federal permits, approvals, and clearances have been obtained. Sponsor Representative : Print Sign Date : Field Operations Database System Ver: 2 . 2 . 1 (07/03/2007) ' STATE OP CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS AGREEMENT ADDENDUM Paee 1 of 2 CCG96A(REV.05106) � ' Agreement#_ Index# 6603 CCC Work Code: R 08•4028 (CCG ConVact O�cer Assgn� (CeMer Projed Manager Assigns) A] The California Conservation Corps (CCC), agrees to provide crew labor for the project titled: See CCG58:Project Evalualion Form for aetails. Arroyo Grande Creek Ivy Removal (Check box and complete reverse if multi-year)❑ FIRST YEAR FISCAL DISPLAY FY 07108 LABOR Hours RatelHr Totals Bj The term of this agreement shall be: CM Re ular Time: $ $ FROM: 10/15l2007 CM Overtime: $ $ T0: 06/3012008 Performance-Based Labor: $ 15,000 Staff BILLABLE Re ular Time: $ Staff Overtime: $ , EXPENSES C] Sponsor agrees to reimburse the CCC for E ui ment: $ estimated costs in accordance with the Fiscal Tools: $ Display. Materials: $ Vehicle Operations: $ Consultin : $ NOTE TO SPONSOR: OtI12f: $ Budget detail will not be providd on peAormance based contracis See Section D. TOTAL: $ 15,000 D] The total amount payable by Sponsor to CCC under this agreement shall not exceed:................ $ 15,000 E� The CCC shall forward billing for labor and/or operating expenses with supporting documentation in triplicate to sponsor � Monthiy ❑ Quarterly ❑ At end of contract Sponsor agrees to pay CCC within 50 days from receipt of bill. Negotiated Advanced Payments $ Sponsor Organization: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Organization: City of Arroyo Grande California Conservation Corps - "Date: I 1 Date: ,Signature: Signature: Pnnt Print Lucia Becerra Title: Title: Acting Chief Deputy Director SPONSOR MAILING ADDRESS CCC DISTRICT VERIFICATION City of Arroyo Grande PO Box 550 Conservation Superoisor Arroyo Grande, California 93421 Attn: T. McClish SPONSOR BILLING ADDRESS: FORWARD PAYMENTS T0: same California Conservation Corps Accou n ti ng/Receivables 1719 24�h Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 8.e. � pRROy� � cP , INCORPORRTED 9 � Z " m MEMORANDUM � � JULY 10. 18 H * c9��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 2007-08 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND REPORT ON REMAINING PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council receive and file or set for City Council discussion at future regular meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed program for General Plan/Development Code consistency anticipates continued commitment of Community Development Department staff and some limited use of professional consultants to assist the Historical Resources Committee and/or Planning Commission consideration of potential Development Code Amendments. The scope, schedule and estimated cost of consulting assignments will be addressed in separate subsequent Request for Proposals reported to the City Council if not covered in the approved budget. BACKGROUND: The attached 2007-08 Annual Report on the General Plan ("annual report") is the current summary submitted to the State Office of Planning and Research and the Department of Housing and Community Development, as well as the City Council. It briefly outlines the progress made during the last six years since the 2001 General Plan was adopted on October 9, 2001. The annual report requires no action by the City Council, but is intended to illustrate the subsequent General Plan amendments and updates the City has completed to maintain and refine the policies within the interrelated elements and to demonstrate the adoption of implementation programs and particularly the major Development Code Amendments and Updates accomplished. This summary report provides the foundation or background to better understand the work program and priorities of the Community Development Department proposed in the FY 2007- 08/FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget. As requested by Council Member Guthrie, at the August 28, 2007 meeting, the Supplemental Report on Remaininq Proqram for Development Code Consistencv is a tentative work program and schedule for this fiscal year's General Plan Amendment CITY COUNCIL 2007-08 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND REPORT ON ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 of 4 proposals and Development Code Amendments remaining for priority implementation and consistency. It should be understood that these are proposals that will be initiated by the City, exclusive of projects or applications that may be submitted by private property owners or developers. For discussion purposes, the supplemental report is also arranged in the same topics or elements as the annual report. ALTERNATIVES: These reports are submitted to both the City Council and Planning Commission for review and comment. Alternatively, if requested, they can be agendized as a discussion item at a subsequent regular meeting. The proposals are tentative suggestions by staff, which would later be initiated by either the Planning Commission or City Council for required public hearings. Other programs or policy changes may emerge which are considered higher priority and therefore modify the schedule or eliminate some considerations, depending on staff workload or consultant costs. Recommended Alternative The recommended alternative would focus staff efforts on the following General Plan and Development Code Amendments in order or priority: 1. Amend Housing Element and Development Code for consistency regarding Affordable Housing and Density Bonuses. 2. Update the Conservation and Open Space Element to include water, energy, greenbuild and creek resource conservation policies; and landscape design guidelines. 3. Amend the Development Code to establish and apply a new Conservation/Open Space zoning and/or overlay districts. 4. Continue creek setback and development standard refinements within Village area and other districts to accommodate creek trail system, access drives and parking with CUP approval. 5. With consultant assistance, clarify Historic Resources designation process and criteria and consider adoption of other implementation and incentive programs. 6. Complete other Development Code Amendment clarifications regarding viewshed review criteria and design overlay; underground utility in-lieu fees; parking standards and sign regulations; low impact development standards; and final clean-up provisions. Other alternatives Other alternatives would require that some or most of these staff recommended priority proposals be deferred to enable attention to other projects or proposals which the Planning Commission or Council may consider more important. These include programs which otherwise would be delayed to 2008 or after: 1. Reconsideration of General Plan policy and design standards for Agricultural buffer setback (e.g. 130 vs. 100 feet minimum). CITY COUNCIL 2007-08 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND REPORT ON ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 of 4 2. Sidewalk on-lieu fee/Amend Pedestrian Enhancement Plan. 3. EI Camino Real Streetscape Enhancement Plan. 4. CEQA Guidelines update, including Thresholds of Significance. 5. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administration alternatives. 6. Agricultural and historic resource directional and entry identification sign programs. 7. Village Parking Improvement Project, including parking credit resolution and funding for surface lot expansions. Other intermediate and longer term implementation measures outlined in the 2001 General Plan, include: 8. Designation of all deed-restricted open spaces as Permanent Open Space, requiring creation and rezoning to such a district, and/or acquire easements or ownership where necessary (Ag/C/OS-9.) 9. Create cluster development, transfer of development and/or other Planned Unit Development and specific plan implementation programs (Ag/C/OS) 10-13). 10.Establish "plan lines" for widening, extension or realignment of arterial and collector street system (CT 5-5.2). 11.Amend subdivision and local street standards to enable low impact developments, neo-traditional subdivisions and complete streets. A final alternative involves appropriating additional funding for consultant services to accelerate progress in alternative priorities. However, this is not recommended given resources necessary related to the Historic Resources process and time necessary to solicit proposals, select and orient a consultant firm. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The recommended alternative is an ambitious program of remaining highest priority General Plan Element Updates and Development Code Amendments to complete consistency required by state laws. The other alternatives are additional proposals which the City has identified as possible desired revisions or refinements, but considered lower priority given staff and budget constraints. Generally, however, these City initiated planning proposals are all subject to schedule or scope changes if application activity increases for development review, diverting available staff attention. If this occurs, staff would alert the Planning Commission and City Council and propose increased use of professional consultant assistance or reconsideration of the project priorities. Another option is to defer certain proposals to later years or consider increased staffing. ADVANTAGES: The six recommended priority proposals would achieve basic consistency between the adopted General Plan and complete the key Development Code Update program. It CITY COUNCIL 2007-08 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND REPORT ON ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 4 of 4 continues the Council's emphasis on Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space policy implementation programs, as well as state required Housing Element, affordable housing and density bonus regulations. Further, it proposes refinement to creek setback standards, historic resource designation criteria and other important "code cleanup" clarifications. DISADVANTAGES: The eleven alternative proposals also intended for consideration by the City would be deferred to 2008 or after, unless additional funds are budgeted or additional staffing is approved or the project priorities adjusted. The only "time sensitive" proposal listed as an alternative is the Housing Element Update which must be initiated in 2008 according to State law. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item at this time. However, each of the proposals or projects initiated as part of the recommended program will be subject to separate environmental review. It is probable that some of the eleven alternative proposals, such as Village Parking Improvement Project, street plan-lines and/or increased Agricultural buffer setback, might require Mitigated Negative Declarations or focused EIR prior to adoption. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: This consent item is preliminary information for both Planning Commission and City Council review and comment. No public notification has been published or mailed, but the Annual Progress Report will be sent to Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and Housing and Community Development (HCD) if accepted by the City Council. Each subsequent proposal or project will be separately initiated by the Planning Commission or City Council for appropriate public discussion or public hearings. Attachments: 1. 2007-08 Annual Progress Report on the General Plan 2. Annual Planning Suroey for 2007 3. Supplemental Report on Remaining Program for Development Code Consistency ATTACHMENT1 2007-08 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INTRODUCT/ON California Government Code formerly required the planning agency of each city and county to prepare an annual progress report on the general plan by October 1St of each year (Section 65307). In future years, it will be submitted by April 1 (Section 65400). The planning agency is responsible for: 1) Investigating and making recommendations on reasonable and practical means for implementing the general plan so it will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds related to subjects addressed in the general plan, and 2) Providing an annual progress report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of the plan and progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. This annual progress report was submitted to the City Council for review on October 9, 2007. The City of Arroyo Grande adopted the 2001 General Plan Update policy document, including seven elements required by State law and three optional elements, arranged in six interrelated chapters used in this annual report to discuss the status of the General Plan. Each of the following six topics briefly discusses progress made and proposed priorities for further means of implementation. 1. AGR/CULTURE, OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION Prior annual reports since the adoption of the 2001 General Plan have noted the progress toward implementation of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element: • 2003 — Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande, adopted by the City Council. • 2004 — Development Code Amendments (DCA's) to create and apply a 100-foot minimum Agricultural Buffer Overlay District adjoining all Agriculture zoned properties; General Plan Amendments to redesignate four properties back to Agriculture. • 2005 — Contracted with the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County to prioritize an Agricultural Conservation Easement program and criteria. • 2006 — City Council initiated special study regarding Creek Setback Policy and Creek Development Standard Alternatives. An interagency study group has been meeting monthly and conducted several public workshops on low impact development, creek protection, flood and erosion/siltation prevention, and wildlife habitat enhancement proposals. • 2007 — Creek Study concludes and City Council adopts an interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management; amended the Conservation /Open Space Element to include policies and implementation measures for watershed and City creek protection and Page 1 of 6 guidance and other best management practices for low impact drainage and development in conjunction with creek setback and development guidelines. • Additionally during 2007, the City, Lucia Mar Unified School District, and several private property owners adjoining Arroyo Grande High School agreed by MOU to agricultural mitigation measures, drainage, and road extension improvements involved with construction of Castillo del Mar Drive, between Orchard Street and Valley Road. This important neighborhood circulation improvement is planned for construction during 2008-09. • The City also completed Newsom Springs Regional Drainage Plan Final EIR and is reviewing final map and improvement plans for a 30-lot Cherry Creek subdivision, which will include a 130-foot wide agricultural buffer, creekside open space, and the initial segment of a "bioswale" drainage channel between Arroyo Grande Creek and East Cherry Avenue. • Durinq 2008 — The City's Community Development Department will prepare and process an Update of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element to further integrate recommendations from the Creek Study; water and energy conservation proposals including "green building" and residential and commercial landscape design guidelines for both water conservation and low impact development; and proposed Conservation/Open Space zoning district and other Development Code Amendments to implement the GPA protections along area creeks and other sensitive environmental resource areas. 2. FR/NGE AND URBAN AREA LAND USE: Since the 2001 General Plan Update adoption, the City has progressed with several Land Use Element implementation programs: • 2003 — Cooperated with Local Agency Formation Commission to complete Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update required by state law, and processed two outside service agreements for water to two mobile home parks and two County subdivisions adjoining the City to solve supply problems. • 2004 — Annexed an existing church adjoining the City and conducted public workshops regarding a specific plan for SOI area. Prepared new Mixed-Use Districts and design guidelines and standards and expanded overlay districts for Village Area and Tra�c Way as part of DCA's. • 2005 — Continued DCA for Gateway, Fair Oaks, Highway and Office Mixed-Use districts and design guidelines and standards including revised Regional Commercial, Public Facility and other non-residential zones. • 2006 — Revisions to residential zones and design development overlay districts and establish a historic resources designation process and a Historic Resources Committee (HRC). • 2007 — The Council appointed members to the new HRC, which met and has recommended criteria for designation of local historic resources. • Durinq 2008 — The HRC will be continuing review of the Historic Character D-2.4 Overlay District historic resources inventory and considering nominations and incentive programs for properties that qualify for local designation. . As mentioned above, the focus of 2008 Development Code Amendments for Urban Area Land Use will be creation of a new Conservation/Open Space Page 2 of 6 zoning district, C/OS zone, to apply to environmentally sensitive private properties such as creek corridors, steep hillsides, wetlands, and woodlands. • Also during 2008, the City will complete Development Code Amendments for update of the Affordable Housing and Density Bonus provisions, review and revise sign regulations, mixed-use and dwelling unit equivalent density definition and refine the parking standards. 3. C/RCULATION/TRANSPORTATION: Following 2001 General Plan adoption the City has focused on several circulation/transportation proposals: • 2003 — The major improvement project for circulation was the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan which involved reconstruction between Oak Park Boulevard and Elm Street including landscaped medians, bulb-outs, drainage, utilities and pavement improvements. • 2004 — The Arroyo Grande Creek Walk between the historic swinging bridge and Bridge Street, including landscape and parking lot improvements along Olohan Alley, were accomplished in the Village. . 2005 —The Traffic Way bridge rail was replaced and the City reviewed traffic impact studies for West Branch Street, Camino Mercado, and upgraded signalization at East Grand Avenue and Halcyon Road. A phased program for Traffic Way Streetscape Enhancement was prepared concurrent with U.S. Post Office relocation to Station Way. Also in the Village, the City acquired a vacant property for public parking expansion and possible future mixed-use development on Le Point Street. • 2006 — Bikeway and Pedestrian Enhancement Plan was prepared and adopted as a Circulation/Transportation Element and Parks and Recreation Element General Plan Amendment. Rancho Parkway was restriped to include bike lanes and turn lanes. • 2007 — Bike lanes and two-way left turn median are being included in resurfacing and restriping on James Way, Traffic Way, and East Grand Avenue between Halcyon Road and Freeway 101 for improved traffic safety. • Durinq 2008 - A major streetscape enhancement grant project is being designed for construction along Branch Street in the historic Village area. The City will be reimbursed for most of the proposed improvements including storm drainage, lighted crosswalks, landscaped bulb-outs, street lights and furniture improvements between Traffic Way and Mason Streets. • Additionally, during 2008, the City staff will be preparing an EI Camino Real Streetscape Enhancement Plan to include two-way left turn on segments between Brisco Road and Hillcrest and bike lanes from East Grand Avenue to Oak Park Road. In the Village area, the LePoint Street public parking lot expansion project will be coordinated with the Branch Streetscape Enhancement project. 4. HOUSING: After 2001 General Plan Update, the City proceeded into a major Housing Element update to comply with State HCD requirements, assisted by an ad-hoc Housing Task Force. . 2003 — The City adopted a new Housing Element to comply with State HCD requirements, assisted by an ad-hoc Housing Task Force. Page 3 of 6 • 2004 — The State suggested several revisions and refinements to the Housing Element, which received additional City review. • 2005 — The adopted Housing Element received State HCD certification including new mixed-use districts, higher density multiple-family and apartment zones, residential development standards and increased inclusionary housing requirements. • 2006 — Concurrent with the above planning program, the City achieved more than 170 affordable housing units actually constructed, including 107 senior apartments, 34 town-homes, 15 senior condominiums and 16 single-family houses. • 2007 - The City simplified development standards for secondary dwellings to provide another form of affordable housing within established single-family neighborhoods without Conditional Use Permit as provided in State law and more than a dozen such units were constructed or permitted. The City has scheduled public hearings to consider new density bonus provisions and other affordable housing DCA's while continuing to develop additional inclusionary affordable units. • Durinq 2008 — The City is working with SLOCOG on Regional Housing Needs Analysis and countywide allocations for 2008-9 Housing Element Update as required by state law. The City will refine and focus on provision of very-low and low-income rental housing project assistance to supplement prior senior housing projects. 5. SAFETY, NO/SE, AND ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT Since the 2001 General Plan update, the City has achieved several implementation projects related to Safety, Noise and Economic Development. • 2004 The City obtained special bond measure approval to construct a major expansion and upgrade of the headquarters Fire Station on Station Way. Lopez Reservoir dam was also upgraded by seismic retrofit for reduced risk of catastrophic dam failure. Poplar Street ponding basin near Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue was expanded to enable adjoining commercial, office, and mixed-use economic development including Longs Drug Store, Santa Lucia National Bank, retail and senior apartment projects. • 2005 — The City acquired a vacant lot adjoining the police station on North Halcyon Road to facilitate future facility expansion and needed parking improvements. An economic development strategy to encourage visitor services identified seven priority sites for hotel use and Hampton Inn was approved for one at West Branch Street and Camino Mercado adjoining Freeway 101 Oak Park Boulevard on and off ramps. A special retail study in cooperation with Grover Beach identified several commercial opportunities along East Grand Avenue near Oak Park Boulevard and a CDBG fa�ade enhancement grant program was expanded from the Village area to include Traffic Way and East Grand Avenue assistance. • 2006 - A temporary modular office for police department expansion was installed adjoining the police station. An undeveloped property at EI Camino Real and Faeh Street was acquired for possible hotel economic development, and neighborhood water and sewer infrastructure engineering is currently being designed to enable new hotel construction. • 2007 - In the Village area the City is negotiating with adjoining property owners for possible mixed-use retail, office, and residential development on Le Point Street in Page 4 of 6 combination with off-street public parking behind the Council Chambers building and commercial frontage along Branch Street. On East Grand Avenue, the City and Chamber of Commerce have formed a Business and Property Owner's Association to organize special events and activities as well as provide representation regarding community development and area concerns. • Also in 2007, the RDA has assisted redevelopment of a private ponding basin on East Grand Avenue frontage near Courtland Street to accommodate a new Applebee's Restaurant and parking lot expansion and enhancement of signage, landscaping and access and Recycle Center improvements to the adjoining shopping center parking lot. • Durinca 2008 — the City will be proceeding an agreement for a new hotel development project on the site adjoining EI Camino Real and Halcyon Road. This will include water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure improvements to the adjoining neighborhood, as well as to serve the hotel site. Related to safety, the City is also studying Police Department facility expansion alternatives. 6. PARKS AND RECREATION Following 2001 General Plan Update the City made several major improvements to Parks and Recreation facilities: • 2003 — After several years of design, the City secured an improvement grant and disposed of some surplus properties to fund construction of an 8.5-acre community park called Rancho Grande Park. • 2004 — The new park was completed to provide active and passive recreation space, particularly for the northwest quadrant of the City. In the southwest area, two of the sports fields at Soto Sports Complex were lighted for nighttime active recreation. • 2005 — The City completed ADA access improvements to the Women's Club Community Center and several existing park restrooms. • 2006 — A volunteer group of community organizations completed a plan and began fund-raising for a major new Recreation CentedGymnasium facility on the 5.0-acre City owned property on West Branch Street at Old Ranch Road. The Conditional Use Permit and lease agreement have been approved. • 2007 - The City replaced a picnic ramada at the Elm Street Park and opened a new Class 1 bike and pedestrian path connecting from Parkside/Bakeman Lane through Soto Sports Complex, which is expected to be constructed by volunteers during 2008. It also approved a Dog Park lease agreement. . Durinq 2008 — The City will focus on plans and improvements along Arroyo Grande Creek. These include invasive ivy removal between Mason and Bridge Street; a "bio-swale" in City Hall parking lot; future trails within Creekside mixed-use complex along Tally Ho Creek, and other drainage and storm water pollution prevention and enhancement projects. CONCLUS/ON The City's Community Development Department, assisting the HRC, Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council are actively maintaining and implementing the adopted General Plan and Development Code to improve Arroyo Grande. This summary annual report outlines some of the major past accomplishments and identifies key elements for the 2008 work program. For more information or questions Page 5 of 6 please contact the Community Development Director, Rob Strong, AICP at (805) 473-5420 or email rstronq@arroVO4rande.orq. An expanded Annual Progress Report including Housing Element Reporting Requirements, consultation with other agencies, and other planning and development review activities will be submitted by April 1, 2008. -End of 2007-08 Annual Report- Page 6 of 6 County/City 2007 Local Government Planning Survey � Page 1 of 8 � ATTACHMENT2 *�....s ��r.�..��'` Q��'��,�,�`FY,�,�� R � ' . • , _. , a.. __t�.. 2007 Local Government Planning Survey for Arroyo Grande Instructions: Please enter information reflecting the status of conditions within your jurisdiction as of January of this year,or as otherwise i questions below. (*Required Fields) I.IDENTIFICATION ID# 1070 Agency Code County Jurisdiction San Luis Obispo County Name "City Jurisdiction ,qrro o Grande Name Y 'County Seat San Luis Obispo � 'Numberof ___._................ Professional Planners 5 (.e.•999) � "Director's Info � Mr. •`'': Robert Strong Salulation� First Name Last Name Community Development Directoi � Title «Age��Y Name Arroyo Grande Communiry Development Department ; o,ddress 214 East Branch Street ' ciry,state,zip Arroyo Grande ' CA 93420 _�� "Mailing Info Address P.O. Box 550 __ _ City,Srate,zip Arroyo Grande CA ' 93421 _�— *Phone � 805 � 473 _ 5420 x�� ' I Fax � 805 j 473 _ 0386 X� i Email rstrong@arroyogrande.org Please ven(y Gre accuracy o(youremailadtlress. websice http://www.arroyogrande.org �i.e.,nttP:awww.�ur;sdicrion.ca.us) I Incorporetion Date 1911 i � CharterCounty/Ciry7 � ' Population 15,851 (not changeable;supplied by the Department of Finance yearly) II Square Miles 6 ��,e., gg,ggg.gg� i I http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 � County/City 2007 Local Government Planning Survey Page 2 of 8 StateAssembly ... ....._.. ......... __.. ......... .._... Districts 33 (separated by cortmas) �� State Senate Districts ��g � � (separated by commas) Geogrephic Location Latitude 35 07 LongiWde �20 II.GENERAL PLAN Please enter the years the following general plan elements were last revised Land Use 2001 Circulation 2006 Housing 2005 Open Space 2001 Conservation 2001 Safety 2001 Noise '.2001 III.OPTIONAL ELEMENTS Please enter the years the following optional general plan elements were last revised AdminisVation: � Emergency: � Parking: � Aesthetics: Ener Park RecreaGon: 2001 ..._. 9Y. _............ AgricWture: 2003 ' Environment � Public Facilities: � Air Quality: � Fire Protection: � Redevelopment � Airports: � Fiscal: � Regionalism: � Archaeological: Flood Control: � Resource: � BicyGe: � Foreshy: � Scenic Hwy: � Biological: � Geothermal: � Seismic: � Childcare: � Governance: � Public Services: � Coastal: � Growth � Social Services: � Managemenl: Commerce: � Hazardous: � Trailways: � Community: � Historic: � Trensportatiorr. � CulturaC � Implement � Urban Boundaries: � Design: � Military: � Waste Management: � �� http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 County/City 2007 Local Government Planning Survey Page 3 of 8 Economic: 2001 ' Mineral: � Water Resources: I I �J Education: � Other Optional . ..... ..".......... .......... Elements: Survey for the year 2007. Climate Change&Global Warming-Planning Policies Answer 1) Has your jurisdictbn adopted policies and/or programs to address global - warming and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions? yes'�.._` no :o` ta) If yes,what form do these policies and/or progrems take?(Check all ihat General plan policy(ies) aPP�Y) General plan implementation measure(s) Climate action plan Other(Please explain) 1 b) If yes,do these policies and/or programs address yourjurisdiction's own � public activities or do they address private development activities or both?(Check one) I I 1c) If yes,is compliance with the policies and/or programs(including ......., , implementation measures or plans)voluntary or mandatory?(Check all ihat aPP�Y) I 2) Does your jurisdiction have a green building program in place? - yes+o! no !.._ 2a) lafPPl�)what types of building does the program target?(Check all that �public n Commercial O Residential �Other(Please explain) http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 County/City 2007 Local Government Planning Survey Page 4 of 8 2b) If yes,how is the program implemented?(Check all that apply) General plan policy � �Resolutions �Development agreements �Conditlons of approval n Other(Please explain) Climate Change&Global Warming-Environmental Review Process Answer 1) Does your jurisdictbn require a CEQA analysis of the impacls of a - proposed pmject on global warming(e.g.,increased greenhouse gas Yes`._.' no i?� emissions)? 2) Does your jurisdiction require a CEQA analysis of the impacts of global - warming on a proposed project(e.g.,sea level rise)? yes':_,' no '.o' 3) What kind of CEQA threshold of significance does your jurisdidion rely Quantitative upon when making a determination of significance for greenhouse gas � emissions?(Check all that apply) �,pualitative ��No CE(]A fhreshold of significance uOther(Please . ....�...`.�.............. explain) Climate Change&Global Warming-Project Permltting Answer 1) Does yourjurisdicfnn routinely impose standard conditions of approval - on building permits(ministerial permifs)that are designed W reduce yes'. i no ':v' greenhouse gas emissions from new development? 2) Does your jurisdiction routinely impose standard conditbns of approval _ on conditional use permits or special use permiLS that are designed to Yes`._' no '_o" reduce greerihouse gas emissions from new development? 3) If you answered yes to either question if6 or#7,please identify the rypes � guilding design,including LEED standards of sfandard conditions of approval:(Check all ihat apply) � �Site design standards �Energy conservation measures(beyond Title 24 ��Water conservation measures(incl.landscape) u On-site distributed generation/coyeneration �Other(Please explain) http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 County/City 2007 Local Govemment Planning Survey Page 5 of 8 Will follow 2008 G: with DCA. Generel Plans&Regional Planning Answer 1) Sfate Planning Law divides generel plan requirements into seven :-�_.,7 separate&distinct chapters elements(Government Code Section 65302).Please select the format _ that best describes your jurisdiclion's adopted General Plan:(Check one) ;o_,Some combined mandatory/optional elemenGs �,Functional chaplers(Community,Economic,ett ��-,Other(Please , � -' explain) � 2) Cities and counties must contad and consult with California Native - American Tribes prior to any amendment,adoption,or update of the Yes'.o' no '._.' General Plan(Govemment Code Section 65352.3).Has your jurisdiction developed protocols for the contacl and consultation requirements pursuant to this staWte? 3) Has your jurisdiction assigned an individual to act as the main point of - coniact for wnsultation with Califomia Nalive American Tribes yes'.o' no `._! requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3? 4) Has yourjurisdictbn incorporated text into the General Plan dealing with .-, ihe protec6on of California Native American cultural places? yes'�.._! no 'o' 5) Does your General Plan have any health-related policies,goals,or - , , objectives? yes'.._,^ no ':o' Sa) If so,please give an example. http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 i County/City 2007 Local Government Planning Survey Page 6 of 8 f ,. . i � , ,.. _. i � 6) In your jurisdiction are there any of the following:military installations, - Vaining areas,training routes,airspace or land adjacent to any of these Yes l._' no 'v' � areas? 6a) If yes,do you have policies in your General Plan to address these milifary considerations? yes no 7) Is yourjurisdiction participating in a regional planning effort(s)? - yes'o' no '.._ 7a) that a W�hat issue(s)does the regional planning effort address?(Check all �;Trensportation Planning PP Y) � C Housing �Land Use Planning n Finance/Tax Sharing n Wildlife Habitat �Other 8) Do you believe ttiat a regional blueprint plan in your area would result in . .-. � benefitsfotyourjurisdiction? yes':o' no `.._' Broadband/Technology Answer � 1) Is high-speed internet(ex.Comrast,AT&T,etcJ offered in your - jurisdicfion? yes:o' no '�.._' 2) By which method(s)does your jurisdic6on encourage the use or Building Codes insfallation of broadband?(Check all lhat apply) � �General Plan Lan9uage �Policy Entities(ex. Economic Dev.Commission; n Zoning Codes http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 County/City 2007 Local Govemment Planning Survey Page 7 of 8 �Other(Please : �� ., -' �� explain) -� 3) Has yourjurisdictbn implemented a municipal wireless project? .-. . yes'._% no 'o' 3a) If NO,is your jurisdiction planning to implement a municipal wiretess .- . projectS' Yes'._�' no 'o` Formerly Used Defense Sites Answer 1) In February 2006,OPR published the Technical Advisory:Consideration ,-. .-. of Formerly Used Oefense Sites(FUDS)ia the General Plan.Are you Yes'..J no l_' aware of this Technical A�visory?(DOwnload a copy of the FUDS Technical Advisory at httpJ/www.opcca.gov/index.php? a=sch/an nouncemenGS.htrnl) 1a) If yes,how helpful has this document been for you? ' I I 2) Has your jurisdictbn evaluated impacts assodated wifh FUDS in .-. - devefopmentapplicatians? yes'.._! no '._' 3) HasyourjurisdictbncontactedfheDepartmentofToxicSubstances .- .- ConVOI to obtain additional information regarding FUDS? yes'._.' no '�._' 3a) If yes,did you receive the information you needed? yes no 4) Has yourjurisdictbn contacted the US Army Corp of Engineers to obhain .-. ,- additional information regarding FUDS7 yes'.._' no '�..�' 4a) If yes,did you receive the information you needed? yes no Land Use Plannin9 Funds Answer t) If State funds were available for land use planning,how would spend the -u�- CEQA environmental documents money?(Check all that apply) n General Plans �Public review/hearings/outreach [Transportation Plans L Water plans �Wetland Restoration Plans n Zoning �Other(Please explain) http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG-strEditCit... 10/1/2007 County/City 2007 Local Government Planning Survey Page 8 of 8 ; EOF Submit http://www.calpin.ca.gov/agency_admin/ccl_edit.asp?strentityID=1070&FLAG=strEditCit... 10/1/2007 � ATTACHMENT3 Supplemental Report On Remaining Program for Development Code Consistency October 9, 2007 The 2001 General Plan Update and Integrated Program EIR was adopted October 9, 2001. In the subsequent six year period, the City has also approved numerous General Plan Amendments, including a State certified 2005 Housing Element; Circulation(fransportation Element to integrate a bike and pedestrian enhancement plan; and Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element revisions for Agricultural buffers, cre�:k setbacks and other resource protection. Additionally„ the City has systematically updated most of the Development Code zoning regulations, including new Mixed-Use districts to replace former exclusive commercial and industrial zones; revisions to all Residential districts and design overlays for consistency, secondary units and increased Multiple-Family densities; and establishing Agricultural buffer and creek setback standards and overlay combining districts. This supplernental Report on Remaining Program for Development Code Consistency outlines the recommended priority proposals and schedule for General Plan i implementation during 2007-08 and 2008-09. It is also arranged in the six topics used in the combined Elements of the 2001 General Plan: j 1. Aqriculture, Oqen Space and Conservation ; Reflecting the City's concern for natural resource protection the Conservation and Open SK�ace Element Update is the major focus of the Community Development DepartmenYs 2007-08 work program: I A. During October through December 2007, the City staff is coordinating with San � Luis Obispo County Planning Department and PMC Consultants to propose I water, energy, greenbuild and creek resource conservation policies, landscape design guidelines and other standards to integrate into current Conservation and Open Space Element. B. During January through June 2008, the City will hold public hearings to consider � both General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendments to adopt I these policies and establish and apply a new Conservation/Open Space zone ' and/or overlay districts. C. Concurrently, and during July through October 2008, the City will continue creek setback and development standard refinements to accommodate creek trails, access and parking with CUP approvals. 2. Frinpe and Urban Area Land Use � A. With consultant assistance during 2007-08, the new Historical Resources Committee will revise and clarify the local designation criteria and procedures, as well as possible incentive programs. i B. During 2007-08 and 2008-09, staff will also complete other Development Code � Amendments to clarify viewshed review criteria and designate additional design i Supplemental Report On Remaining Program For Development Code Consistency October 9, 2007 Page 2 of 3 overRays, complete underground utility in-lieu fees; revise parking standards and sign regulation, and propose low impact development standards for streets and drainage. C. If the Arroyo Linda Crossroads Specific Plan is resubmitted or other major Planned Unit Development project (e.g. Traffic/Cherry) is applied for, the City will consider cluster development and transfer of development credit programs and low-impact development standards. 3. Circulation/Transqortation A. The City will resurface and restripe East Grand Avenue and Traffic Way during 2007-08 to implement the respective Streetscape Enhancement Plans and provide for left turn medians and bike lanes. The Brisco/Halcyon Interchange PA&ED will also be considered and final project design started. B. In 2008-09, James Way will also be resurfaced and restriped with left turn medians and bike lanes. The City will also program Village area public parking lot expansion on LePoint Street and implement the Branch Streetscape Improvement Project, following State Route 227 relinquishment and increased SLOCOG grant funding. C. EI Camino Real Streetscape Enhancement Plan preparation will be deferred until 2009 due to other priorities and CIP schedule for street resurfacing and restriping and coordinate with EI Camino Real and Halcyon Road hotel development. 4. Housinq A. The top priority consistency issue for 2007-08 is Housing Element Amendment and Development Code Amendment to integrate State requirements for Affordable Housing and Density Bonuses. These will be heard and adopted during October through December 2007. B. Concurrently and during the first half of 2008, the City will work with SLOCOG to comply with the State's Regional Housing Needs Analysis methodology and begin preparation of the 2008-09 Housing Element Update. C. The City is currently preparing to acquire a site for very low and low-income rental apartment development in cooperation with People's Self Help Housing, the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority or other contractor. 5. Safetv Noise and Economic Development A. The City is completing a Police Department Expansion Feasibility Study during 2007-08 to evaluate project alternatives. During 2008 the City may consider acquiring adjoining property to enable more economical single story expansion and additional parking. B. The City will assist South Valley Developer's design and Conditional Use Permit process for new hotel development at EI Camino Real and Halcyon Road (Faeh Street), to implement economic development strategy. The Hampton Inn at West Branch Street and Camino Mercado will be completed in spring or summer 2008. Supplemental Report On Remaining Program For Development Code Consistency October 9, 2007 Page 3 of 3 C. Other Economic Development proposals for 2008-09 implementation include CDBG Fa�ade Enhancement projects, restaurant and retail center redevelopment and/or expansion plans in cooperation with private developments. 6. Parks and Recreation A. Creek trail-improvements, particularly in the Village mixed-Use district, are being integrated into several proposed development projects adjoining Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks following Creek Study refinements. B. The Village Green improvement project including new sidewalks, street trees and lighting will be constructed during spring or summer 2008. C. P�dditional bike lanes and ADA access improvement to existing park r�sstrooms will also be accomplished during 2008-09. Other General Plan and Development Code consistency issues and proposals will be discussed at Planning Commission or City Council regular meetings prior to April 2008. Annual Progress Report submittal to OPR and HCD approaches. No major inconsistencies will remain following this priority program unless City or State law changes create an apparent new requirement. The adopted plan and development code have l�een maintained and are being implemented without need for basic General Plan Update study sometime after the City 100�h Anniversary. � pRROY� �� ° �� , INCORPOR�TED 92 h V m � �r �o, �e�� * MEMORANDUM c4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL ' FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR , BY: JIM BERGMAN�SISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 07-019 AUTHORIZING NO PARKING ON EAST AND WEST BRANCH STREET, THE CLOSURE OF SHORT STREET AT EAST BRANCH STREET AND THE USE OF SAFETY MEASURES ON EAST AND WEST BRANCH STREET BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND MASON STREET ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 31, 2007 FOR "HALLOWEEN IN THE VILLAGE" DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve Temporary Use Permit 07-019 and approve Option A by adopting a Resolution authorizing no parking on East and West Branch Street, the closure of Short Street at East Branch Street and the use of safety measures on East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street for "Halloween in the Village" to be held on October 31, 2007. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Direct equipment and staffing costs vary according to alternatives presented and � include placement of traffic detour barricades and signs and utilization of on duty staff as available and overtime staff as needed. Option A -- No parking on East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street, utilization of delineators, tape and caution signs and closing of Short Street at East Branch Street = $2,500 ($1,800 direct costs, $700 additional staff coverage). Option B — Closing East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street and implementing no parking between Traffic Way and Mason Street = $4,500 ($1 ,800 direct costs and $2,700 additional staff coverage). BACKGROUND: At the request of Council Member Fellows, staff has investigated the feasibility of closing East and West Branch Street during Halloween in the Village. Halloween in the Village consists of a voluntary closure of the majority of Branch Street businesses on Halloween to allow merchants an opportunity to pass out candy to young children in a CITY COGNCIL TUP 07-019 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE20F5 safe daytime environment. This loosely organized tradition has occurred for at least 10 years and has been promoted through the Village Improvement Association (VIA). Although the event is not advertised outside of the City, attendance has steadily increased with an estimated 2,500 children participating last year. To staff's knowledge, there has never been an injury or incident. However, due to the amount of children present at last year's event, it has been suggested by members of the City Council that street closure be considered. As a result, staff has recommended using the Temporary Use Permit process for the event and the VIA has agreed to act as a coordinator. Staff and the VIA both support the use of the Temporary Use Permit process to better address thE safety needs of the participants of the event. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached Resolution utilizing option A— No parking on East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street, closing of Short Street at East Branch street, and the use of delineators, tape and caution signs; - Adopt the attached Resolution',utilizing option B — Closing East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street and implementing no parking between Traffic Way and Mason Street; - Modify the Resolution to approve the Temporary Use Permit, but continue past practice of allowing parking and access, but enhances safety through use of crossing guards; - Modify as appropriate and adopt either attached Resolution; - Do not utilize the Temporary Use Permit process and allow the event to occur as a spontaneous event; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The purpose of the Temporary Use Permit and highway closure is to increase pedestrian safety by reducing pedest�ian and vehicle interaction related to the crowds of children and arents who con re ate and circulate on both sides of the four-block core P 9 9 . . of the Village during the event. The'large numbers of participants fill the sidewalks at many points and cross uncontrolled intersections with the help of crossing guards. Motorists have been observed moving slowly on Branch Street, which is appropriate for the situation. To date this system has proven to be adequate since no incidents or injuries have occurred. Staff from the Police Department, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation and the Community Development Department analyzed two alternatives as , discussed below. Option A - Option A — No parking on East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street, closure of Short Street at East Branch Street and the utilization of delineators and tape on the curb line and the use of Slow/Caution signs to warn motorists of the upcoming event. S:ICommunity Deve/opmentlPROJECTSITUP107-079 Halloween in the Villagelstaff 2port V.3.doc CITY COUNCIL TUP 07-019 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 Option A proposes to use City owned delineators placed on top of the curb and two levels of tape to encourage children to stay on the sidewalk between Traffic Way and Mason Street. This option also eliminates parking on East and West Branch Street to create an additional 8-foot buffer providing increased reaction time, eliminates children entering the street between cars and significantly improves sight line visibility of children on the sidewalk and those that may stray onto the street. This option also continues to utilize crossing guards at uncontrolled crosswalks. r � � r a a��, �$,�5�i�r �,.yY„� 6 i y#� xy t�;- 3P�� S� � � � F rg+�3i�1Y4 �} �t� ��ry��.. Y { i` �}� � - A E ��_ .+��k . � .S � �a�:x o �y. $ �r ,.�: �p� . y5 °1s w� f� SS� . � �Fa. �' � ��n (, v�.:.�'" t s�y�t� i , t � �7�3�� ' t. � � �� `N.� ' xs�; � ::;�.� , � . t � ry i�4 �� . �3 .µ ,y„k . � `�i� ' ';�p^ri "�#'�jz�ta� A.,t„�''','-'�.i -� ��".�ti Use of delineators and tape. Option B proposes closing and eliminating parking on East and West Branch Street between Traffic Way and Mason Street. The closing of Branch Street would require that through traffic be diverted or detoured by Police Department personnel using Traffic Way, Nelson Street and Mason Street. Eastbound traffic approaching the Village from East Grand Avenue, West Branch Street and Wesley Street will be diverted south on. Traffic Way, east on Nelson Street and north on Mason Street. West bound traffic approaching the Village from East Branch Street, Crown Hill, Crown Terrace and North Mason Street will be directed south on Mason Street, west on Nelson Street and north or south on Traffic Way. Nevada Street would be closed at East Branch Street and traffic from Hart Lane and Le Point Street would be routed south on Mason Street and either east on West Branch Street or onto Nelson Street to Traffic Way. Routing commercial trucks through the residential streets poses serious concerns to staff due to the event occurring on a work day, narrow street widths, parked cars and inadequate turning radiuses at intersections such as Mason Street at Nelson or Allen Streets. Staff suggests that large commercial trucks be routed around the village. Those trucks traveling eastbound should be routed south on Traffic Way, east on Chetry Avenue and east on Branch Mill Road. Westbound trucks should be intercepted on Highway 227 at the bus barn and routed east on Huasna Road, west on Branch Mill Road, west on Cherry Avenue and north or south on Traffic Way. Staff counted 24 large � trucks during the one-hour period of 3:00 and 4:00 pm on Wednesday October 3, 2007. S:ICommuniry Development�PROJECTSITUP107-019 Halloween in the VillagelstaNrepoR V.3.doc CITY COUNCIL TUP 07-019 OCTOBER 9, 2007 , PAGE 4 OF 5 The closure of East and West Branch Street requires the approval of Caltrans and a request for closure can been made. ADVANTAGES: Option A — Containment of children to the sidewalk by the use of delineators and tape improves safety for young children as compared to last year by increasing the distance ' between vehicles and pedestrians and by eliminating blind spots and increasing visibility of children. Option B - Street closure will provide a safer environment for participating children as , compared to last year and will allow the children to cross the street at any location and help the event to operate more efficiently. This option does improve safety at uncontrolled intersections as compared to the use of crossing guards. However, it may transfer crossing issues to other intersections as discussed in the disadvantages section. DISADVANTAGES: Option A � • Does not totally eliminate pedestrian / automotive interaction at uncontrolled intersections or on East and West Branch Street. • Parking would be prohibited on East and West Branch Street after 1:00 pm in order to clear the street and ensure that no vehicles will be moving in the closed • area when children are present. As a result, the City will likely receive some � complaints from businesses in the Village. • Restricting parking will reduce available parking in the Village Core by approximately 100 on-street spaces. Le Point Street and Olohan Alley provide substantial off-street parking opportunity, but the reduction in parking will make it more difficult for participants to access the event. Option B • The closure would occur during the workweek and during an active business traffic time period. To the best of staff's knowledge, East and West Branch Street has never been closed for long periods of time, other than for emergencies, during peak traffic times. • The actual street closure would start at 230 pm and fully reopen at 6:00 pm; . Sch��ol busses from Paulding School and SCAT bus routes would be minimally impacted. • Commercial deliveries could be delayed and/or impacted and large trucks may have to be diverted to various residential streets within the Village. • Parking would be prohibited on East and West Branch Street after 1:00 pm in orde:r to clear the street and ensure that no vehicles will be moving in the closed j area when children are present. , S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPRqIECTSITUP107-019 Hal/oween in the VillagelstaNreport V.3.doc I CITY COUNCIL TUP 07-019 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 . The street closure will reduce available parking in the Village Core by approximately 100 on-street spaces although Le Point Street and Olohan Alley provide substantial off-street parking opportunity. • There may be complaints regarding commercial and general vehicular traffic routed through the residential neighborhood on Nelson Street. • There may be complaints regarding limiting customer access to local businesses. • Since a limited number of businesses east of Mason Street participate in the event, pedestrians crossing Mason Street will slow traffic turning off and onto East Branch Street, thus slowing the ability to reroute traffic around East Branch Stre�et. Therefore, staff is unsure of the level of traffic delay that will result. • The closing of East and West Branch Street will cause increased automotive congestion on detour routes that may be utilized by pedestrians walking to and from the event. This may act only to displace automotive and pedestrian interaction to areas that are less controlled. As a result, the potential for accidents could actually increase. . The number of off-duty Police officers necessary to facilitate re-routing of vehicle , and large truck traffic will result in a significant out-of-pocket cost to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This temporary event is not considered a project under CEQA. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: None required. A condition of approval has been developed, which will require the applicant t� notify property owners and businesses located within the area of street closures and/or restricted parking. Prior to staff's preparation of the staff report, the President of the Village Improvement Association solicited input from Village businesses regarding the proposal. They were generally supportive, although some concerns were � expressed regarding lack of parking. In addition„ the Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, October 4, 2007. The Agend'a and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, October 5, 2007. No public comments were received. I S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITUP107-019 HaOoween in the Vi/lagelstaff report V.3.doc I q RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 07-019 AND AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF SHORT STREET A,T EAST BRANCH, IMPLEMENTING NO PARKWG ON BRANCH STREET AND USE OF SAFETY MEASURES ON WEDNESDAY GCTOBER 31, 2007 FOR "HALLOWEEN IN THE VILLAGE" WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association (VIA), acting as a coordinator for individual merchants wishing to participate in "Halloween in the Village," applied for a Temporary U�;e Permit for the purpose ensuring the safety of the children who will be visiting various Village: businesses; and WHEREAS, the temporary closure of Short Street will help to facilitate a safe Halloween for all Citizens participating in the event and traveling through the Village area; NOW, THEREIFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Temporary Use Permit 07-019 authorizing the following actions subject to the conditions as :>et forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 1. Short StreE:t at East Branch Street will be closed from approximately 2:30 pm to 6:00 pm on October 31, 2007. 2. A "No Par4cing/Tow Away Zone" will be established on both sides of East and West Branch Street frorri 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm on October 31, 2007. 3. The applicant shall be refunded the Temporary Use Permit application fee. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9w day of October 2007. RESOLIlTIONI NO. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY j � 1 a r � -- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 i EXHIBI7 "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 07-019 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Temporary Use Permit 07-019. 4. The applicant 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 altemative, 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. � 5. The a licant shall notif all effected businesses and residents of street closures and PP Y parking restrictions at least 48 hours prior to the event. s B RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 07-019 AND AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF EAST AND WEST BRANCH STREET BETWEEN TRAFFIC WAY AND MASON STREET ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 31, 2007 FOR "HALLOWEEN IN THE VILLAGE" WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association (VIA), acting as a coordinator for individual merchants wishing to participate in "Halloween in the Village," applied for a Temporary Use Permit for the purpose ensuring the safety of the children who will be visiting various Village businesses; and WHEREAS, the temporary closure of Branch Street will help to facilitate a safe Halloween for all Citizens participating in the event and traveling through the Village area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Temporary Use Permit 07-019 authorizing the following actions subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 1. East and West Branch Street will be closed from approximately 2:30 pm to 6:00 pm on� October 31, 2007 and traffic will be rerouted to Traffic Way, Nelson Street and Mason Street while truck tra�c will be routed around the Village. 2. A "No Parking/Tow Away Zone" will be established on both sides of East and West Branch Street from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm on October 31, 2007. 3. The Police Department will apply to Caltrans for highway closure authorization. 4. The applicant shall be refunded the Temporary Use Permit application fee. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing.resolution was passed and adopted this 9�' day of October 2007. RESOLUTIOI� NO. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETAAORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: i '! STEVEN AD�►MS, CITY MANAGER i ;I ii APPROVED �S TO FORM: i '',I TIMOTHY J. GARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY , I , ,i I RESOLUTIONI NO. ; PAGE 3 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 07-019 GENERAL CONDITIONS: I 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. I2. The ev�nt shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Cornmunity Development Department. 3. The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Temporary Use Permit �D7-019. 4. The applicant 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 alt�mative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorneys 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. 5. The applicant shall notify all effected businesses and residents of street closures and parking restrictions at least 48 hours prior to the event. . pRROyO OF �',p � INCORPOA�TE� 9Z V T # JULY 10. 1B11 * � MEMORANDUM 4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: �� KELLY HEFFERNON �� ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT PAGES OF TABLE 1 FOR ATTACHMENT #8 (DRAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS) OF EXHIBIT "A" TO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (ITEM 9.a.) DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 Attached please find replacement pages for the above project. The pages in the packet do not include the entire table. � Table L SUB BASIN 2 DRAINAGE STRATEGIES ANO OP710NS � Road S4ategy �ascription O tions � A B C D Lierl 1 Grade lots�o slope toward Lietly Road; Dired runoff b Che Ave Dired runoH to Cherty Ave Concurtently with A or B, Conartently with A or 8 and/w C direcl GraOe Lietly Road to slope towards Cherty Ave. with Curb 8 Gutter wilh bar ditch swale)_implement Low Imoact mnoH into Agriculturel Buffer(AB)�construtl Development Practices LID's Bioretenlion basin in AB;on south sitle of as referenced in LID Table below basin construd wer flow bertn so if basin overtops it will sheet fiow to Cherry Ave. i ( , t G2tle lots to slope�oward Lietly Road; Grade portion of road North Direct runoR lo Cherty Ave Direct runoff to Che Ave Concurtently with Strete9y 2, , " of Ihe access easement to slo toward lhe easement;Grede portion of mad with Curb 8 Gutter with bar ditch(swale) im lement Low Im act South of access easement to slope towards easement;Grede easement to Development Practices(LID's) slope toward Sub Basin 1;Shape easement as very shallow(4'deep) as referenced in LID Table below rassed tra ezoitlal swale. 3 Indivitlual lots shall be allowetl to construd a subsudace ground water Conartently with Sha�e 3, _ recharge vaNL The vaults must be placed within Ihe sandy gwvel layer of soil implement Low Impact _profile.Vaults may be consWded of pertoratetl 24"diameter drain pipa as Develooment Pwctices(LID's) shown in�rawing.The lot shall be graded lo drain inlo Catch Basin. as referenced in LID Table below " 4 IntliWtlual lots shall be allowed b wnsimct a ground watar recharge basia Conwnentl with SiralegY 4, The basins shall be connecled to gravelly layer in soil profle by wa of a im lement Low Im ad pertoraled stand pipe(catch basin). Development Preclices(LID's) The la shall be 9raded to tlrain into catch basin. as referenced in LIO Table below 5 Lols along Creek are allowed to qrede lots Io sheet flow runoff�o Creek Concu�rently vdth Stratepy 5, provitled they plant a fltersirip per NRCS Specifcation Filter Slnp(393). implement Low Impacl Developmenl Preciices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below 6 Lots along Agncultural BuRer are allowed to gade lob to sheet Flow runoB ConsVUCt a wel swale Concurtently with Strategy 6 into BuRer.AgriculWral buRer shall either have a retentioNdelention basin or be or bioretention cell in implement Low Impact graded to slo towards Cherty Ave. AG bu((er ' Development Prectices(LID's) as referencetl in LID Table below Miner 1 Gratle lots to slooe towartl Miner Road' Direct runoff to Cherry Ave Direct runoR to Cha Ave Concurtently wilh A or B, Conarrently with A or B and/or Q direct Grade Miner RoaO to slope towards Cherty Ave. with Curb 8 Gutter wilh bar ditch swale implement Low ImpaM runoff into Agnculturel BuRer(�;consimct (This Eces not include Miner lots on ihe East side of Road) Develooment Pradices(LID's) 8ioretention basin in AB;on south side of as referenced in LID Table below basin wnstmct over Oow berm so if basin overtops it will sheet fiow to Cherty Ave. Table t:SUB BASIN 2 DRAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS Road Strota9y Desenption. O tions A B C D 2 Grade IoGS to slo e�oward individual recha e basins on lot; Dired runoftto Basin Direct mnoRto Basin Concunently with A or B, In Creek Buffer mnsimct Bioretenlion Basin Grede Miner Road to slope fowaNS Biodelenlion basin in Creek Buffer with Curb&Gutter with bar Citch(swale) im lemenl Low Im acl lo handle only slreet stortn water runoft Development Pradices(LID's) (Miner Parcel p6) as re(erence0 in LID Table below 3 Indivitlual lots shall be allowed to construcl a subsurtace round water Concurrently with Stretegy 3, I� recharge vau�t.The vaulh must be placed within the santly grevel layer of soil implement Low ImpaM profle.Vaults may be constmtted of peROrete�24'diameler drain pipe as Development Prectices(LID's� shovm in Drawing. The lol shell ba raded to drain inlo Catch Basin. as reterenced in LID Table below 4 Individual lots shall be allowed to consVUCI a groun0 water recharge basin. Concurtently with Strate9Y 4, The basins shall be connec[etl to ravelly layer in soil p��le by wa of a implement Low Impact peAOreted stand piPe catch 6asin). The lot shall be raded lo tlrein inlo - �evelopment Practices(LID's) catch basin. as referenced in LID Table below � 5 Lots alon Creek shall be allowed to grade lots lo sheet flow runoff to Creek Concunenity with Slrategy 5, rovided they planl a flter stnp per NRCS Spaci(wlion Filler Slri (393). implemenl Low Impacl Davelo ment Pradices LID's) as reterenced in LID Table below 6 Lots along Agnwltural BuRer are allowed to grade lots W sheel flow runoff ConsWCt a wet swale Conwrtently wilh Stretegy 6, into Buffer.Agncultural buHer shall eithet have a relention/detention basin or be or Oioretention cell in implement Low Impact redetl to slope lowartls Cherty Ave. AG buHer Development Prac�ices(LID§) as referenced in LID Table below _ � _ � _ _ _.. I _ �i 9.a. I � pRROy� � C? FINCORGORATED 92 U m # ,�u�r �o. ieii * cq��F�RN�p CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL '�i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING � On TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 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. Proposed Solid Waste Rate Increase. The City Council will consider rate increases for solid waste disposal services, which would become effective December 1, 2007. The proposed rate increases are necessary for South County Sanitary Service to continue providing safe, environmentally sound and reliable solid waste removal, transportation and disposal services for its customers. The rate increases requested are primarily due I' to increasing operational costs associated with providing this service, including, but not i� limited to the rising costs associated with the operation of a garbage company, increased costs associated with operation and fuel for vehicles, ongoing maintenance, increased labor costs, and increased costs associated with meeting more stringent State and Federal regulations. Consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218, specific notice of the proposed solid rate waste increases was mailed to all property owners within the City limits. The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the,City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information about this item is available by contacting the City Manager's Office at 473-5404. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. C.f v Kelly Wet ore ity Cierk (Publish 1 T, The Tribune, Saturday, September 29, 2007) � � E pRROy� � C� , INCORVORATED 9•l F V � m ♦ a�r �o, �e�� * MEMORANDUM c4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL � FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATE INCREASE AND FRANCHISE EXTENSION DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: - � It is recommended the City Council: 1) adopt the attached resolution approving South County Sanitary Service, Inc. integrated solid waste collection rate increase; and 2) approve the attached First Amendment to the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement extending for one year the existing franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service, inc. for integrated solid waste collection services. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost to the City related to the proposed action. The rate review was paid for by South County Sanitary Service, Inc. Annual franchise fee payments to the City are projected to increase by approximately $6,700 as a result of the rate increase. BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1997, the City entered into a franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service, Inc. for collection, diversion and disposal of solid waste. On August 24, 1999, the City also entered into a franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service for recycling services. The agreements specify procedures for rate adjustment requests, review and approval. Per the agreement, rate review is established in accordance with the "City of San Luis Obispo Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Integrated Solid Waste Management Rates." The franchise agreement allows for a base rate adjustment each three years and interim rate increases the other two years. In interim rate periods, the , operator is limited to increases resulting from inflation, tipping fee adjustments, and franchise or regulatory fee increases. During base rate increases, the operator is able to request adjustments due to changes in other operational costs as set forth in the Manual. This year will be a base rate review. On April 3, 2007, the City received a request from South County Sanitary Service, Inc. for a rate increase of 3%. Since the manual was CITY COUNCIL INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASE AND FRANCHISE EXTENSION OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 developed by the City of San Luis Obispo, the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano Community Services District jointly contracted with Bill Statler, City of San Luis Obispo Finance Director, to perForm the formal rate review. The cost of the review will be paid by South County Sanitary Service, Inc. The City's existing franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service, Inc. is also due to expire on November 11, 2007. On September 24, 2007, the City received a request for a 15-year extension of the Agreement. A copy of the request is attached. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt a resolution approving rate increase of 3% and approve a one-year extension to the franchise agreement; - Continue item and request additional information; - Approve rate increase, but take other action in regard to franchise extension; - Do not approve an increase if justification can not be found in the rate review; - Provide staff direction. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The proposed rate increase is due primarily to increased costs for fuel and labor and is below the existing inflation factor. Attached is the final Integrated So�id Waste Rate Review report. Mr. Statler will make a brief presentation of the results at the October 9, 2007 City Council meeting. His findings indicate that the increase is reasonable and allowable under the terms of the Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual. It also found that the City's rates continue to be competitive when compared to other jurisdictions within the County. The increase will result in the following residential rates effective November 1, 2007: • 32-gallon container - $14.71 • 64-gallon container - $19.13 • 96-gallon container - $23.55 This represents a monthly increase of 54 cents for the 32-gallon container, 56 cents for the 64-gallon container, and 69 cents for the 96-gallon container. Attached is a resolution approving the rate increase for City Council consideration. With regard to the franchise extension, staff does not believe the request has provided time sufficient to conduct the appropriate level of analysis and negotiation needed. Therefore, it is recommended a one-year extension be granted at this time to provide sufficient time to assess options and needs, develop appropriate recommendations, and conduct negotiations if proposed. 5:�.4dministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Refuse Rate Increase Report 10.9.07.doc - - CITY COUNCIL INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASE AND FRANCHISE EXTENSION OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 ADVANTAGES Approval of the rate increase is consistent with the terms of the existing franchise agreement. South County Sanitary Services, Inc. is agreeable to the one-year extension, which will provide staff time to determine the course of action in the best interest of the City, will allow time to coordinate recommendations with neighboring jurisdictions, and will enable staff to identify any needs and/or issues that should be addressed through potential franchise agreement amendments. Quality of service provided by South County Sanitary Service, Inc. has been good. Therefore, the recommended action will enable continuation of uninterrupted refuse collection and recycling services at a reasonable fee level. DISADVANTAGES While staff believes the fee increase request is minimal and reasonable, any increase in fees results in a negative financial impact to the City's residents. The primary disadvantage of approving a one-year extension of the franchise agreement versus a longer extension is that it may delay capital improvements, the costs of which would be amortized over a longer agreement term. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public notice was published in the Tribune on Saturday, September 29, 2007. In addition, in conformance with requirements of Proposition 218, notification of the proposed rate increase and public hearing was mailed by South County Sanitary Service, Inc. to all property owners� Attachments: 1. 2007 Base Year Rate Adjustment Application 2. Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review 3. Request from South County Sanitary Service for Franchise Agreement Extension S:�Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Refuse Rate Increase Report 10.9.07.doc RESOLUTION NO. � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE RATES WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande establishes rates and charges for solid waste, recycling and green waste collection services pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 40059 (a) and AGMC §§ 8.32.100 and 8.32.210. WHEREAS, South County Sanitary Service, Inc. has submitted a rate increase application (the "application") in accordance with the City's franchise agreements for solid waste, recycling and green waste collection services; and WHEREAS, the application has been comprehensively reviewed in accordance with the City's rate-setting policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: The application for a rate increase is hereby approved and the integrated solid waste, recycling and green waste collection service rates set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein shall become effective on November 1, 2007. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Exhibit A SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE i RATE INCREASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2007 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE r ;� t rt � �- � �.� ,. „ {�w�w , , r � i%;��; � , Current�Monthly N�;��,�'�� Pr4posedMonthly� , ,,, , , '"� �� `�� , � , g��Pickups °Rate�Effective� 5 ' Proposed�Rate ; �Rate�Effective ', i! I i ''"�;� it '�x fN"� +s s{Al;w�Y �Es r �'w^*fi "P�t �'�f,�'d �k . 'r°" ' �tm"S"�i '. �d� nH�. d�kkwrecx .,,: � ��f�4nService Descr,iption ;��,,i,, �Per�Wesk,! ;:��,, :;1-06.;�� , Adjustment�%�"3; '�°.�,�71I01/07,, ,�,��! RGSWGNI�AL k�lA.S�%i�{ t iW £ k� }f+.9Y4 �T} �v��.T 2" Rd° K�1.:�' !}y�'GMf4� C i i � t=m11t#f}} � ed. t'Yee wP & '9'2 }.i� � ��°•Y4Y� #$'J y ( `t 4Hti M. Y .�r.. ,�. . rr ,,: � . .w "= ., r"': 32 Gallon Waste Wheeler 1 $14.28 3.00%o Y $14.71 64 Gallon Waste Wheeler 1 $18.57 3.00% $19.13 96 Gallon Waste Wheeler 1 $22.86 3.00% $23.55 TWO-64 Gallon Waste Wheelers 1 $27.15 3.00% $27.96 ONE 64 &ONE 96 Gallon 1 $31.45 3.00% $32.39 TWO-96 Gallon Waste Wheelers 1 $35.73 3.00% $36.80 Garbage e�ras (per bag) $4.04 3.00% $4.16 E�ended Vacation Service $11.59 3.00% $11.94 Residential customers must use the waste wheelers provided by the garbage company. Notations in parenthesis ( ) refer to information found at the end of this rate schedule, on page 4. .:+"` , �'4*.°#�� n t-r•r' i 'S v.� x.� �.'�.� t �:�.;� APARTMENTS„TRIP,IEX;�DUPLEX�'?�ff� �_ . . ; . . �...$.:;� ,,.�,.... . . ,, ,.., ., ;:; .r. � .. _. ��. Rates are the same as commercial rates (below). COMMERCIAL'DUMPSTERS ALL;AR,EAS ' `" ^�''§ ' ' �' � �<fl*'�� ' _�x.� �w.�_u..�y. . � x. .s�. �`� .s..i . . .,�,.��am.., r.. ��-� 1 yd dumpster 1 $70.56 3.00% $72.68 1 yd dumpster 2 $102.95 3.00% $106.04 1 yd dumpster 3 $135.38 3.00% $139.44 1 yd dumpster 4 $173.50 3.00% $178.71 1 yd dumpster 5 $203.98 3.00% $210.10 1 yd dumpster 6 $242.12 3.00% $249.38 1 yd dumpster 7 $294.28 3.00% $303.11 1.5 yd dumpster 1 $80.09 3.00% $82.49 1.5 yd dumpster 2 $123.93 3.00% $127.65 1.5 yd dumpster 3 $175.42 3.00% $180.68 1.5 yd dumpster 4 $228.79 3.00% $235.65 1.5 yd dumpster 5 $278.36 3.00% $286.71 1.5 yd dumpster 6 $314.59 3.00% $324.03 1.5 yd dumpster 7 $368.36 3.00% $379.41 2 yd dumpster 1 $89.63 3.00% $92.32 2 yd dumpster 2 $150.62 3.00% $155.14 2 yd dumpster 3 $213.54 3.00% $219.95 2 yd dumpster 4 $282.16 3.00% $290.62 2 yd dumpster 5 $348.89 3.00% $359.36 2 yd dumpster 6 $390.84 3.00% $402.57 2 yd dumpster 7 $454.44 3.00% $468.07 3 yd dumpster 1 $106.76 3.00% $109.96 3 yd dumpster 2 $202.10 3.00% $208.16 3 yd dumpster 3 $282.16 3.00% $290.62 3 yd dumpster 4 $367.95 3.00% $378.99 3 yd dumpster 5 $436.60 3.00% $449.70 3 d dumpster 6 $520.48 3.00% $536.09 3 yd dumpster 7 $664.80 3.00% $684.74 Exhibit A SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE RATE INCREASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,2007 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE '�'"�`"��,„�," '� �` ^� �#��'� ,,, ; * , ' ��Current,IVlonthly' ,'4'�'��$, °+,' ' �� Pioposed Monthly�� <k°� ""� ' " `��' :Picku s ,Rate'EffecbYe 5 ;;'�Pio'osed Rate, ` '�"� �ateEffectrve `�_� s'f ��,� . P , HI p R �ServiceDescrlptaonr�"}�,: PerWeek :, �„u� 1,-06" k Ad�ustinent�% �� 11/p1/OT . f�� ,e�.. � . .. � � .. q _ � i � i' 3 ' COMM€RCIAL,pUMP.3TER3� AL��AREAS' Ce.n�t) ' y t,�,,� � r'. : :, x ,. :�x r ....,. .s 1 r ..n .!w ��.��. . .L.3...{A. f 4 yd dumpster 1 $133.47 3.00% $137.47 4 yd dumpster 2 $236.41 3.00% $243.50 4 yd dumpster 3 $339.35 3.00% $349.53 4 yd dumpster 4 $436.60 3.00°/a $449.70 4 yd dumpster 5 $539.55 3.00% $555.74 4 yd dumpster 6 $640.61 3.00% $659.83 4 yd dumpster 7 $815.83 3.00% $840.30 The rates shown above include the monthly container rental fee and a semi-annual dumpster cleaning. The rates are the same for bins and garwoods, when volume is identical. Bins and garwoods are types of containers used for recycling. .. ..: . . . - � .... a: : : , � � _ C4MMERCIAC GARBAGE.GANS='ALL AREAS:? r�`.�. .. .. m .:�. `�' �:.af. . ' ^.r . .... . ;ra 1 Can ' 1 $17.16 3.00% $17.67 2 Cans ' 1 $3622 3.00% $37.31 , 3 Cans' 1 $41.95 3.00% $43.21 4 Cans' 1 $53.37 3.00% $54.97 ' Garbage extras (per bag) $4.04 3.00% $4.16 Garbage e#ras (per yard) $8.52 3.00% $8.78 Commercial Waste Wheeler rent $3.12 3.00% $321 Compactors(per yard) $11.48 3.00% $11.82 * Maximum volume and weight per garbage can : 33 gallons/80 pounds _.W_... . �� COMMERCIAL-'OTHER CHARGES '_ . .. . ;,�', _�„ 'i _ ., ,t:;�, ��. � . `�;�'"�".�".. ,. .'``�� Monthly charge for additional 96- gallon green waste service � $2.80 3.00% $2.88 In yard service (per can) per monm $10.10 3.00% $10.40 Sunday Service(in additional to garbage service level) per montn $50.56 3.00% $52.08 eac per Recycle bin rental month $5.62 3.00% $5.79 Rates for all commercial customers include recycling pickup twice per week for any quantity.One 96 gallon waste wheeler is provided free of charge. If you need a bin for recyling there is a charge (see above). If you need more frequent service, it can be provided at a 75% discount from the garbage service rates for the specified level of service required. Exhibit A SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE RATE INCREASE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,2007 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE �� ; ` *=Curr�rat Monthly ". x � Prapased Monthfy:� , F�ickups xRate Effective 5 Proposed Rate ; Rate Effective : _yy,. Service Descr�pqon : _ Per Week .: r k1�t16 ..�;._ : Ad�ustment°!a ,-; .' . :11Id1/O7 . MISCEILANEOUS CHARGES ALL,GUSTOMERS . � , . . Short Term Dumpsters: Delivery& Pickup --- $28.97 3.00% $29.84 Rental Per oay $2.14 3.00% $2.20 Empties Per Yard $23.52 3.00% $24.23 Mattress: Twin Each $10.93 3.00% $1126 Double Each $2028 3.00% $20.89 Queen eacn $28.07 3.00% $28.91 King Each $32.77 3.00% $33.75 Late Fee (8) Per Monm $5.00 $5.00 � AD6ITIONAL`INFORMATION=ALL-CUSTOMEf�S '�: : �! � "= "' ' ', �. y �. �., Low income customers enrolled in PG&E or the Gas Company low income programs are eligible for a reduced one can rate. Contact the garbage company for details. Late Fees are imposed for residential customers over 60 days delinquent and commercial customers over 30 days delinquent. The fee is 1.5% per month of the outstanding charge, with a minimum fee of$5.00. No prior notice is required, as this late fee policy is stated at the bottom of every bill. Please recycle, its cheaper and it helps the Community achieve its AB939 goal to reduce waste. I I FIRST AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AND SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE, INC. This First Amendment to Solid Waste Franchise Agreement ("First AmendmenY') is made and entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the City of Arroyo Grande ("City"), a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, and South County Sanitary Service, Inc. ("Contractor"), a California Corporation. WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Franchise Agreement for the Collection, Diversion and Disposal of Solid Waste Within the City of Arroyo Grande dated November 12, 1997 ("Franchise AgreemenY'); and WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement expires on November 11, 2007; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Franchise Agreement, City has the sole option to extend the Franchise Agreement for up to thirty six (36) months in periods of at least twelve (12) months; and WHEREAS, City desires to exercise the option to extend the Franchise Agreement for one twelve (12) month period. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The term of the Franchise Agreement shall be extended for one twelve (12) month period commencing November 12, 2007 and expiring at midnight on November 11, 2008. 2. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. 3. Except as modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the first date indicated above. [SIGNATURE PAGE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE INC. By: By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor Its: Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved as to Content: Steve Adams, City Manager Approved as to Form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney South County Sanitary Service Inc. (805)489-424G ATTACHMENT 1 �� _ ../�. % � �/�;_ , . .L"�__ ' ~ _ t_ , o Tri-City Disposal Service s74 Gr�nd nvrnur Nipomo Garbago Company (ROS)48935i4 Grover 8each, C�Iifornia 9id33 (805) 4893534 City Of Arroyo Grande Steve Adams, City Manager P O Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 April 3, 2007 Deaz Steve, Enclosed please find the 2007 Base Year Review. We are asking for a 3.0% increase. The Bureau of Labor 2006 al] cities inflation factor is 3.2%. There appears to be no relief in sight on diesel fuel prices. We have projected 2007 fuel prices to be the same as 2006. Labor retention remains a struggle. We continued to ]ose drivers due to the high cost of ]iving in our area. Depreciation expenses for new [rucks that comply with the Califomia Air Resources Board diesel engine compliance continue to increase. In 2007, we are purchasing 4 of a planned 12 CNG powered garbage trucks. After an extensive review of Oxnard's and Santa Monica's 100% natural gas powered garbage and recycling collection operations, we have concluded that natural gas power has advanced beyond its problematic early history. This move will dramatically lessen air pollution and reliance on constantly increasing diesel fuel. It will also help you comply with the emissions reduction protocol that APCD is enacting. The good news is that a robust south county economy and customer growth have dampened the effect of all the previous bad news. Please call if you have questions. I can make myself available whenever your schedule permits. Your last increase was 3.76% on 5-1-06. / Tom Martin, General Manager South County Sanitary Service 2007 Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Summary CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE [�"?�.�a �.�t'a�'`�Reques�ted�In�"'crcese„�`y��' m�x'°'�t�t��!�"� 6��'�:�' ,��T "'� - ��_� s� 1. Rate Increase Requested 3.0% �. �i,3�n'.,��CH.y��''4 v�,1 IZ9t�e��$c}I�'�u10�p ,.r .`�r`a r�i k14;� ,�``�'y,�ri��p,t1' '4o-�i'¢',r.w.�z � � ^x''s`P• i�:,.--=s.��—...v �° - �S�`v...'+uaL.w;-,,.�.�Y.,'�..u� ��TMi�,�.:a:S�dawWL.,n.� . �'r`.�^'� Curren[ Increased Adjustment New Cost Per Ra[e Schedule Rate Rare (a) Rate Galbn Sing/e Family Residenfial 2. Economy Service(1 -can curb) $14.28 $14.71 $14.71 $0.46 4. Standard Service(2-can curb) $18.57 $19.13 $19.13 $0.30 5. Premium Service(3-can curb) $22.86 $23.55 $23.55 $0.25 (a)Calculated rates are rounded up to the neares[$0.01. 6. Mu/tiunit Residential and Non-residential Ra�e��reases or s.o� will be applied to all rates in each swcture with each raie rounded to the nearest 50.01 �t�S-,`��,�y..'t "�rs��. �Ya .r''�C ctSf�eB}IOR°�!6.��"�� d� � �'�r"y":�C� r�� »i. ..✓ i S.st� Ta�he besf of my knowl Wge,the da�a and iufortnation in W s application is complete,accura4.and consistem with Ihe inswctions provided by lhe Rate Setting Manual. r,�e: Tom Martin rue: Controller SignaNre: Date: �.3�2��07 Fisca/ Year: 1-1-2007to 12-312007 Pg. 1 of6 S�rvN G�wy SsNiery Smiue � BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Historical CuRent PrqecteA Finoncial lnjormation Baze Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (from Pg.4) �•�'•��1 't f^r••v �*'.aus�°`�+4M. • e!' 7 4v a� 5:.°wr r �- - . . �`,;,'f�,�G3iL'��'t��*�j�SaNanl-AllowableCoets,��`�°'.a..��`y�.�ii�s�'Y?a`c'��'�*�'{'.:�'�, 6. Directl,abor $2,018,523 52,134,383 $2,413.062 $2,784,237 $2,812,079 7. CofporateOverhead $248,537 5255,993 $264,185 $274,224 $276,966 8. Otfice Salaries $467,751 $458,699 3519,320 $607.859 $613,937 9. Other General and Admio Cosis 32,684,622 E3,075,794 $3,237,391 $3,448,306 53,520,720 ]0 TotalAllowable Cos4s 55,419,433 $5,924,869 $6,433,958 $7,114,625 $7,223,703 }��iFS'��7J�p ��'r��'�"s��,Sii'Noo II��abk�wow'.�tl'na Prolifc �:I:aett��"+^r.'�„.�....�u��.7`t6"..��"'. kti.W"�Yl 3"�+ �!E._..`.�"+u'ry a � . ..V<.X. . 12. Allow`ab e Operating Profil $493,13� $824 62� $804 99� $618 66� $628 148 �ty SYfi� �w.F'm;�;��i d` fv�eli+ �, -v. °aE�x^� rrG1 2'�iq��tXf.t,� �y"h°3P�� "�"4.�., :w,� .{t,;�a`'1.,��ScctimlQ=PinYti�ough�CoenA. -�". '^tiJ�k� ^ a. ��+, 13. TippingFees $I,605,897 $1,630,306 $I,653.728 $1,700,276 81.717,279 I4. Franchise Fees $785,453 $856,965 $894,320 5921,600 $940,032 _ 15. AB939 Fees $0 $0 EO EO $0 16. Lease Pmts to Affiliated Compani $0 � $0 $0 $0 $0 l7. Total Pass Through CosLS 32,391,350 32,487,271 $2,548,048 $2,621,876 $2,657,311 18. RevenueRequirement $8303,920 $9.236,761 f9,787,001 $]0,355,164 SIQ509,162 19. TotalRevenueOffsets $8,303,920 $9,236,761 $9,787,001 $10,085,909 510,243,196 (from Page 3) p��p, � ��.��r;,...L'dGi� `w�Sab_yVJ'=Nd3hoitfal(Suiylw)�iwW�'�4.��r�.�'��'�`��f:!Pp"Ar,�, 20. Net Shortfall(Surylus) � $269,255 21. Total Residentiai and Non-residenlial Revenue withou[increaze in Baze Year(pg.5,line 76) $10,007,881 $]0,007,88I 22. Percent Change in Residen[ial and Non-residential Revenue Requirement 2.7 2,7% 23. Franchise Fee Adjustment Factor p-6 percenQ 90.000 94.000% 24. Percent Change in Existing Rares , 3A% 29% Fiscal Year. 1-1-2007to 12-31-2007 P . 20/6 ..s��m co��5 s��s�rv�� Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Revenue Offset Summary - �u�i �; +�,t�e� iu=�rn v�.� � �„ �c,�z �,-�.�r�,•.tra �{a;r � �r.m}�i,�x; �.��Y -rro. ,�,,,, . ��rn��IN�1 .��;�,Section VQ _Revem�e Ot[sets��w�R� 7!7 k �5 a,� ,4}i,��-s€�e.� Historical Curtent Projected . �� Base Year � 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Residential Revenue(without increase in Base Yr.) 28. Single Family Residential $4,399,979 $4,901,651 $5,606,779 $5,606,778 $5,718,914 Multiunit Residential Dumps[er 29. Number of Accounts �� 30. Revenues 31. Less Allowance for Uncollectible Resid Accounts �� $� � 32. Total Residential Revenue $4,399,979 $4,901,651 $5,606,779 $5,606,778 $5,718,914 Non-residential Revenue(without increase in Base Yr.) Accoun[Type Non-residential Can 33. Number of Accounts 48 50 34. Revenues � $14,422 $14,566 Non-residential Wastewheeler 35. Number of Accounts 157 165 36. Revenues �� $146,178 $147,640 Non-residen[ial Dumps[er 37. Number of Accounts � 1952 1972 38. Revenues $3,903,941 $4,303.704 $4,140,596 $4,282,531 $4,325,356 39. Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Noo-resid �� $0 $0 40. Total Non-residential Revenue $3,903,94] $4,303,704 $4,140,596 $4,443,131 $4,487,562 45. Interest on Investments 0 $31,406 $39,626 $36,000 $36,720 46. Other Income �� $0 $0 47. TotalRevenueOtTsefs $8,303,920 $9,236,761 $9,787,001 $10,085,909 $10,243,196 Fiscal Year. 1-1 2007 to 12-31-2007 P . 3 of 6 .SwiA firvn�y iuti�ery Servi�x Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Cost Summary for Base Year � px� +..:»,. ,�:' �;.;..,nr i��.'n,�B 4a �ti t '� K FI N 1 t�ree t w�; ,Satlon��Bese Yeer'Cwt'� AIIonUoqy,�ie...`ye.'�:ai:�rt'. .1'�%•�u�-0'^�ifa''''�-=�;:;y� Description of Cost Zooa Zoos zoo6 BA ZE�oYEAR Labor $1,857,876 $1,966,245 $2,223,339 $2,565,076 PayrollTa�ces $160,647 $168,138 $189,723 $219,161 48. Total Direct Labor $2,018,523 . $2,134,383 $2,413,062 $2,784,237 49. Corporate Overhead $338,998 $266,829 $283,551 $295,648 Less limitation(enter as negative) ($90,461) � ($10,836 ($19,366) ($21,424) , Total Corporate Overhead $248,537 $255,993 $264,185 $274,224 Office Salary E438.045 $428,578 $485,070 $569,499 Payroll Ta�ces $29,706 $30.121 $34,250 $38,36(1 50. Total ORice Salaries $467,751 $458,699 $519320 $607,859 Alloca[ed expenses $0 $0 $0 Bad Debt $16,188 $45,329 $68,988 $42,000 Bond expense $27,854 $47,511 $39,653 $42,034 Computerservices $2;183 $19 , Depreciation on Bldg and Equip Depreciation on Trucks/Containers $792,644 $890,729 $849,938 $1,071,718 DuesandSubscriptions $7,965 $9,314 $ll,857 $12,307 Gas and oil $342,042 $411,090 $615,196 $62Q572 Interest Expense $21,322 $0 $0 Laundry � $17,841 527.349 $22,366 $22,800 Legal and Accounting $28,827 520,323 $9,353 $9,708 Miscellaneous and O[her ($34,968) (E37,489) ($34,193) ($33,621 OfficeExpense $]13.688 $144,096 $140,942 $141,395 Operating Supplies ' $12,616 $34,497 $32,349 $36,123 Otherinsurance $393,104 $444,836 $441,491 $440,794 Other Insurance-medical $347,896 $360,210 $402,558 $476,643 OtherTaxes $21,612 $33,869 $24,815 $25,588 Outside Services $142,212 $162,793 $I12,347 $28,640 Postage $5,408 $9,205 $9,261 $9,613 Public Relations and Promotion $8,692 $9,637 $6,213 $6,449 Permits $10,267 $1Q296 - Ren[ $45,644 $46,854 $46,836 $48,032 Telephone $33,471 $19,025 Tires(included in repairs) 597,898 $93,913 $96,120 $99,600 Travel 53,541 $4,885 � $2,299 $2,386 Truck repairs-interco 55,383 $2,073 $3,319 $3,445 Truck License $70,575 $80,505 $64,452 584.948 Truck Repairs $151,312 $183,756 $215,435 $214,251 Utilities $43,203 $50,490 $12,058 $13,560 S I. Total Other Gen/Admin Cosfs $2,684,622 $3,075,794 $3,237,391 $3,448,306 52. TotalTippingFees $1,605,897 $1,630,306 $1,653,728 $1,700,276 53. Total Francltise Fee $785,453 $856,965 $894,320 $921,600 54. Total AB 939/Regulatory Fees 0 55. Total Lease Pmt to A�1 Co.'s � � 56. Total Cost � �� '� � �' � ..�'�S7;81d;783 ��pi 58�412;1'40, r,�,r;,�;.^!56,982006': ;T��,�i$9;736,�901� Fiscal Year. 1-1-2007 to 12-31-2007 Pg. 4 of 6 <wUi Cam�Y Siii�+vy Swiu , Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Base Year Revenue Oi/set Summary For Information Purposes Only '�nN.��in ' aii3i!'I "�ta scy: !" ..�Y T'YY 3 Yf� �� , 3 i 6�'�T:":�x. �y. �t � a n s 3 FX'w::v �'�,,,iectlon�Vl[Re�emeOdtNS��<:G��4'{s{`'s FP'.w�i?'��+�";,�LKU::sc�`.'?�'ue�a4��'�'.•��$.f4�.��'�'�'.�..�...�$:;T�:��"�".�XiSsr'� Description of Revenue Overall Franchise Refuse Co1leMion Non-[ranchise Tolal Tolal Arro o Pismo Grover Uniurn oraled Tolal Residential Revrnue (withou�increose in Base Year) 57. Single Famity Residentiai �.�5'S;606;7.78} $5,606,778 31.243,583 5838,774 $795,602 $2,728,819 0 Multiunit Residential Dumpster 58. Number of Accounts "�� "4�k�.�'.1��'';. 0 59. Revenues �,�i'>�'�,w�!'$Oi $0 60. Less Allowance for Uncollectable .�'s�-�:,�.:"�..�5sL.�i't�SO`: $0 61. Total Residential Revenue �55;606;R8i $5,606,778 E1,243,583 $838,774 � $2,728,819 � Non-residentin!Revenue(without increase in Base Year) Account Type � rvon-res�aennai can 62. Number of Accoums �;5"5�is�,��48 48 26 12 IO 63. Revenues �'4'<',`�r.i.�513�22'P $14,422 $7,440 34,766 $2,216 Non-residential Wastewheeler 64. Number of Accounts °,�:'�1�57 157 58 SS 44 65. Revenues . �..�.`,.�'5146�8i $146,178 E38,530 $86,026 $21,621 Non-residential Dumpster �. ,s 66. Number of Accounts �:�'��'�1952 1949 401 289 389 870 3 67. Revenues �54;282�,531T+' S4.240,503 8981,687 5847,083 $746,356 $1,665,377 $42,028 68. Less:Allowance for Uncollectible Non-residential Accounis �i�,�Y:�''r�'�'�Oi $0 . .-._..___..k �� 69. TotalNon-residentialRevenue S�r�E4;4$3;131n $4,401.103 $1,027,658 $937,875 $77Q193 $1,665,377 $42,028 74. Interest on Investmenis ��i.��536;0U0i � $36,000 75. Olher[ncome �c",��'+rf'�,"�/�;^�`�'x"-itSO! � $0 '"'� "' . _ Y . � .. ��...,» - t _ ,� o- _ �... �, 76. TotalRevenueOtFsets ',510,085.909d w SI0;007:8$1 �'��'�32;271;241� .t�S1Z76.649a '�P.:#1ST10,193i t � 34;394;196 `�"�R.,��578',Q28�°. Flscal Year: 1-1-2007 to 12-31-2007 Pg. 5 of 6 SouN Comiy Smiiuy S..viu Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Operating lnformation Hisrorical Curtent Projected Percent Percmt Pement Base Year Percrnt � 200d Change 2005 Chan6e 006 Change 2007 CTange 200g nt,�:#i}1��p iS��.54 s.�`,+`��'f.k" SSeltlou IX O PB Dete �:�v.w� @�"yi"�.iG,F;l� y`'+d+•`,�r:,�. "j4+'b�o!§, -.�5,��:,.+.,?_:i'.�:_......�.,._.,,....P,£.d°Sr..�s��,�.u.s.�lt.wx��.e.uc'.a..�,.'izP� � � �..:sr :--,.. ��.'� Residentiu( Accoursts 77. Arzoyo Grande 5,275 2.196 5,385 2.5% 5,522 0.1% 5,530 0.2% 5,540 Grover Beach 3,575 1.2°k 3,617 8.8% 3,934 0.3% 3,946 0.4% 3,961 Pismo Beach 3,337 0.7�, 3,360 5.2°k 3,536 0.2� 3,544 03�, 3,554 OceanoCSD 1,399 3.0% 1,441 9.6� 1,580 0.5% 1,588 1.1% 1,606 NipomoCSD 3,095 6.1% 3,285 92°.6 3,587 O.I'Xi 3,592 0.1% 3,597 Counry 4,627 73�90 4,964 4.0% 5,162 0.1'& 5,165 0.1°6 5,170 21,308 3.5% 22,052 5.8% 23,321 0.2% 23,365 03% 23,428 78. Routes-Garbage 9 0.0� 9 I1.1% 10 OA� 10 0.0� 10 79. Routes-Recycling 5 0.0% 5 0.0� 5 20.0°h 6 0.0%a 6 80. D'vect Labor Hours 43,680 0.0% 43,680 4.8% 45,760 4.5% 47,840 0.0% 47,840 Non-residen�ia! Carbage Accounts 80. AaoyoGrande 546 01% 547 -11�.0% 487 -0.4% 485 0.4% 487 Grover Beach 660 -0.8% 655 -31.8% 447 -0.9% 443 0.9% 447 PismoBeach 439 0.2% 440 -182% 360 -1.1°h 356 1.1% 360 OceanoCSD 251 1.2% 254 -29:1% 180 33% 186 32% 192 NipomoCSD 207 53% 218 -SJ96 199 -1.096 197 1.0% 199 County 595 -2.5% 580 -16.0% 487 0.0% 487 0.0% 487 2,698 -0.1% 2,694 -19.8% 2,160 -03% 2,154 0.8% 2,172 81. Routes-garbage 6 0.0°k 6 0.0% 6 0.0% 6 0.0% 6 Routes-recycling 2 0.0% 2 0.0� 2 0.0�, 2 0.096 2 82. Direct Labor Hours 16,640 0.0% 16,640 0.0� ]6,640 0.0�, 16,640 0.0� 16,640 Recyclable Materinls- A7l areas-Commrng/ed Recycling(in torss) � Accounts 83. Tri-Cities 6,972 2.0� 7,113 32% 7,341 2.0% 7,488 0.096 7,488 Nipomo/OceanoCSD 2,523 13.9% 2,873 7.5% 3,088 2.0% 3,150 0.0% 3,150 84. County 788 29.1% 1,017 1.0% 1,027 32.6% 1,362 0.0% 1,362 10,283 7.096 11.003 4.]% 11.456 4.7°/u 12.000 0.0°k 12,000 Recyclable Materia/s- AU areas-Greerswas[e Recycling Routes 4 -25.0% ' 3 0.0% 3 333% 4 0.0� 4 Tons Collected 8,400 18.4%u 9,942 8.9°h 10,828 4.8% I1,350 2.0�, I 1,577 D'vec[Labor Hours 10,400 0.0°h 10,400 0.0% 10,400 20.0% 12,480 0.0% 12,480 Garbage Tons Collected 49,079 -0.7% 48,724 -0.6% 48,417 -02� 48,317 0.0% 48,317 Fisca/ Year: 1-1-2007 to 12-31-2007 Pg. 6 0/6 ATTACHMENT 2 South County Sanitary Service INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE RATE REVIEW For the Communities of Arroyo Grande Grover Beach Oceano Pismo Beach Prepared by William C. Statler August 2007 �`�•''.: £ ¢r �a South County Sanitary Service Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review August2007 � • • Report Purpose 1 Overview of Findings 1 Rate Recommendations Rate Summary for Residential Customers Background 2 Rate Review Workscope 2 Revenue and Rate-Setting Objectives 3 Franchise Agreement Summary 3 Cost Accounting Issues 4 Financial and Operational Overview 6 Costs by Type 7 Revenues by Source 7 Service Fees by Area 7 Service Accounu by Type 8 Rate-Setting Process and Recent Rate History 8 � Are the Costs Reasonable? 9 Detailed Cost Review 9 Trends in Extemal Cost Drivers ]0 Rates in Comparable Communities ]0 What Is a Reasonable Retum on These Costs? 11 Methodology 12 Preparing the Rate Request Application 12 Implementation 12 Coordination with Other Agencies 13 Summary 13 APPENDIX Base Year Rate Request Application from South County Sanitary Service South Count Sanita Service - � � • � � - � Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano and Pismo Beach REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this repoR is to review the rate increases requested by South Counry Sanitary Service (SCSS) for the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach and the Oceano Community Services District, and to make rate recommendations to these four agencies as appropriate. SCSS provides similar services to each of these agencies under formally approved franchise agreements that regulate rates and establish procedures for considering rate increases. Because the financial information for SCSS is closely related for these four agencies, this report jointly reviews rate requests.and recommendations for each of them. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ■ SCSS has fully provided the supporting documentation required for rate requests under franchise agreements in Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach and Oceano (and recommended in Grover Beach). SCSS's complete rate adjustment application is provided in the Appendix. ■ SCSS provides a broad level of high-quality service to these four agencies-including garbage, recycling and green waste collection and disposal as well as hauler-provided "waste wheeler" containers for all three services-at very competitive rates compared with many other communities. In fact, even with the proposed rate increase, rates in these four agencies will be among the lowest of those surveyed. ■ SCSS has done a good job of managing costs and revenues. Given increased cost pressures in key areas such labor, insurance, fuel and fleet replacement costs, the proposed rate increases compare favorably with an increase of 43% for 2006 in the Los Angeles- Riverside-Orange County consumer price index (all urban consumers). Rate Recommendarion. It is recommended that the goveming bodies of these four agencies adopt SCSS's requested "base year" 'rates for 2007. As supported by their rate request documentation and the adopted rate-setting methodology, this results in a 3.0% across- T46(e I.Sing(e Family Residentia!Rates the-board rate increase for the communities Container Size Gallons of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and 32 64 96 :. Oceano; and 2.9% in Pismo Beach. (The �AnoyoGrande $14.71 $19.73 $23.55 minor difference in rate adjustments is due Grover Beach 13.33 18.03 22.71 to the 6% franchise rate in Pismo Beach Oceano 11.93 17.16 33.57 compared with 10% in the other three Pismo Beach 12.63 25.26 37.89 communities). Arroyo Grande 14.28 18.57 22.86 Rate Summary jor Residential Cuslomers. Grover Beach 12.94 17.50 22.05 Table 1 summarizes the current and Oceano 11.58 16.66 32.59 proposed rates for single-family residential P�smo Beach 12.27 24.54 36.81 (SFR) customers. As reflected in this Arroyo Grande 0.43 0.56 0.69 summary, the increases will be very Grover Beach 0.39 0.53 0.66 modest. For example, for collection of a Oceano 0.35 0.50 0.98 Pismo Beach 0.36 0.72 1.08 - � - Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review 32-gallon garbage container (the most common SFR service level) as well as separate waste wheelers for recycling and green waste, the proposed monthly rate will increase by 38 cents on average for the four agencies. BACKGROUND In March 2007, SCSS submitted a "base year" rate request for 2007. Their rate request was prepared in accordance with the rate review process and methodology formally set forth in its franchise agreements with Arroyo Grande, Oceano and Pismo Beach (and recommended in Grover Beach's). In establishing a rate-setting process and methodology, each of these franchise agreements specifically references the City of San Luis Obispo's Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for b:tegrated Solid Waste Managernent Rates). This comprehensive approach to rate reviews was adopted by San Luis Obispo in 1994, and establishes detailed procedures for requesting rate increases and the required supporting documentation to do so. It also sets cost accounting standards and allowable operating profit ratios. As noted above, the financial information for Arzoyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano and Pismo Beach is closely related. For this reason, these four agencies jointly contracted with Bill Statler (who also serves as Director of Finance & Information Technology for the City of San Luis Obispo) as an independent consultant in May 2007 to evaluate SCSS's application for a rate increase. This is the third "base year" analysis performed under this rate-setting methodology. The first was prepared in September 2001 and the second in August 2004. As discussed below, two sets of"interim year"rate increases have been prepared and approved since then as well. RATE REVIEW WORKSCOPE This report addresses four basic questions: ■ Should SCSS be granted a rate increase? And if so,how much? ■ How much does it cost to provide required service levels? ■ Are these costs reasonable? ■ And if so, what is a reasonable level of retum on these costs? Document Review and Ana[ysis. The following documents were closely reviewed in answering these questions: ■ Franchise agreements and amendments for each agency. ■ Audited financial statements for SCSS. ■ City of San Luis Obispo's Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manua!for Integrated Solid Waste Management Rates (Rate Manual). ■ SCSS rate increase application and supporting documentation. ■ Interviews and briefings with agency and SCSS staff. ■ Rate surveys of Central Coast communities. -2- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review , REVENUE AND RATE SETTING OBJECTIVES In considering SCSS's rate increase request, it is impoRant to note the revenue and rate setting objectives for solid waste services as set forth in the franchise agreements via the Rate Manual. Revenues. These should be set at levels that: ■ Are fair to customers and the hauler. ■ Are justifiable and suppoRable. ■ Ensure revenue adequacy. ■ Provide for ongoing review and rate stability. ■ Are clear and straightforward for the agency and hauler to administer. Rate Structure. Almost any rate structure can meet the revenue principles outlined above, and generate the same amount of total revenue. Moreover, almost all rate structures will result in similar costs for the average customer: what different rate structures tell us is how costs will be distributed among non-average customers. The following summarizes adopted rate structure principles for solid waste services: ■ Promote source reduction, maximum diversion and recycling. ■ Provide equity and faimess within classes of customers (similar customers should be treated similarly). ' ■ Be environmentally sound. ■ Be easy for customers to understand. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT SUMMARY Historically, each agency has had its own approach to determining service levels and adopted differing franchise agreements accordingly. However, as summarized in the chart below, these four agencies currently have a similar scope of services in FranchiseAgreemenrSummary their franchise agreements Solid Waste Greenwaste Rec clin . .: with SCSS (although this EHectiveDate 1v97 1t/98 10r99 occurred at different times, rerm io vears s vears' �vears' and with different coverage Francnise Fee 10% 10% 10^/0 terms). • • :-. EffectiveDate 11/97 11197 11/97 Term 10 Years 5 Years' S Years' Each agency contracts with Franchise Fee �o% �o% �o�e SCSS for garbage, green - waste and recycling; and EHectiveDate 12/97 ivsa ioiss SCSS provides the container Term 10Y�ears SYears' 7Years' FranchiseFee 6/0 6k $1,SOO/Monlh (waste wheelers) for each . .. . * service. The key differences EHective Date 5/99 No Separate Agreements are in the franchise rates, Term io vears (InGuded with Solid Waste) whiCh arC 10% in Arroyo Franchise Fee 10% Rate inaeases limited to 10°/a Grande, Ci�OVC[ Beach and 'Subsequently eutended to expire with solid waste agreements. -3- Integreted Solid Waste Rate Review Oceano; and 6% in Pismo Beach. Additionally, while not applicable in this case, Oceano's franchise agreement limits rate increases to 10%per fiscal year. As reflected above, all of the "solid waste" agreements continue to be in place; and amendments have been made to the agreements in Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for green waste and recycling services for these contracts to end concurrently with the solid waste agreements. Based on these amendments, the franchise agreements in these three cities will expire this year in November(Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach) and December(Pismo Beach). COST ACCOUNTING ISSUES Or: Who's Paying What? As noted above, SCSS's financial operations for Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano and Pismo Beach are closely related. Keeping costs and revenues segregated is further complicated by the fact that SCSS, as a subsidiary of Waste Connections Incorporated (which acquired the parent company in April 2002), shares ownership with the following local companies: ■ San Luis Garbage Company ■ Mission Country Disposal ■ Morro Bay Garbage Service ■ Coastal Roll-Off Service ■ Cold Canyon Land Fill Additionally, within the south county, SCSS's service area includes: ■ Ciry of Arroyo Grande ■ City of Grover Beach ■ City of Pismo Beach ■ Oceano Community Services District ■ Nipomo Community Services District � ■ Other unincorporated areas in the South County such as Rural Arroyo Grande and Avila Beach Cost Accounting System Behveen Companies. Separate "source" accounting systems are maintained for each company. Moreover, audited financial statements are prepared for each company by an independent - certified public accountant; and SCSS's auditors have consistently issued a "clean opinions" on its financial operations. In short, good systems are in place to ensure that the financial results reported for SCSS do not include costs and revenues related to other companies. Additionally, virtually all of the financial operations of SCSS and its affiliated companies are regulated by elected governing bodies such as cities, special districts and the County. -4- I Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review Within tke SCSS Service Area. Within the SCSS service area, a combination of direct and allocation methodologies are used in accounting for costs and revenues between communities. In general, revenues are directly accounted for each franchising agency, while costs are allocated using accepted accounting principles. Cost Accounting Findings. The accounting and financial reporting system used by SCSS is reasonable and consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. It treats similar costs similarly (such as collection and disposal, where there are no significant differences in service levels and unit costs between the four agencies), while recognizing community differences (such as different franchise fee rates). Because the financial operations of SCSS are closely related for all of the communities it serves,there are significant advantages to perfomting concurrent reviews. Area of Possible Concern. While the service characteristics and resulting per unit costs are the same for Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano and Pismo Beach, this is unlikely to be true for the other areas in South County serviced by SCSS. Because of their lower densities, collection costs are probably higher in these areas, but these are not accounted for separately by SCSS. On the other hand, there are three mitigating factors that reduce this concem: ■ Higher Rates. Depending on service type, rates are up to 30% higher in these areas, recognizing the higher collection costs for similar services. As an example, Table 2 shows the percentage difference behveen the current rates in the Nipomo area and Table 2. Nipomo Area Rate Dijjerentials those in Arroyo. Grande, Grover Beach, Container Size Gallons Oceano and Pismo Beach. For a 32- 30-40 60-70 90-101 gallon service, rates in the Nipomo are Arroyo Grande 5% 16°/a 23°k 30% higher than in Oceano and' 22% GroverBeach 16% 23% 28% higher than in Pismo Beach. In short, Oceano 30% 29% -14% these rate differentials significantly Pismo Beach 22% -12% -23% mitigate "equity" and cost accounting Avera e 78% 14% 3% concerns. ■ Smaller Percentage of Accounts. As noted below, the four agencies covered by this report account for about two-thirds of the accounts serviced by SCSS. Accordingly, while there may be "cost per accounY' differences, they account for a smaller podion of SCSS operations. ■ About 50% of Revenues from Non-Residential Accounts. As noted below, about half (46%) of SCSS revenues come from non-residential accounts, which have the same rate structure and similar service-versus-cost characteristics throughout the SCSS service area. If costs for Arroyo Grande, Grover Bead�, Oceano and Pismo Beach are so simi[ar, why are t/ie residential rates so different? The short answer is: history and different approaches to rate structure philosophies. -5- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review History Until 1999, service levels under the franchise agreements with SCSS between these four agencies were significantly different. The most recent example of this is in Grover Beach, which only moved in 2001 to providing "blue" waste wheelers to its customers for recyclables instead of "orange bins," whereas this service (and cost) were included from the beginning in the recycling franchise agreements with the other agencies Further, until 1999, Oceano did not have mandatory service. In implementing this, Oceano negotiated rate decreases of 2% to 4% for residential customers. And as noted above, the franchise rates between agencies are also different; and this fact alone would result in different rates between communities. Rate Structure Priuciples Most significantly, each agency has adopted different rate structure principles to recover similar costs. For example, Pismo Beach has adopted a rate shvcture for its residential customers that more closely reflects a "pay-as-you-throw" philosophy under which the "per gallon" costs for 32, 64 and 96 gallon containers are the same (for example, a 64-gallon container costs twice as much as a 32-gallon one.) This results in lower monthly costs for 32-gallon customers and relatively higher rates for 64 and 96-gallon customers. On the other hand, Arroyo Grande has adopted rates that do not have as much difference between container sizes (but still offer an incentive for smaller containers over larger ones), recognizing collection economies of scale for larger versus smaller containers. In this case, 32- gallon containers in Arroyo Grande are more expensive than in Pismo Beach, but 64-gallon containers are less. Both rate structures have their strong points: in the case of Pismo Beach, rates are more reflective of disposal costs, whereas in Arroyo Grande they are more reflective of collection costs. But the important point is that the revenue generating capability is the same even though the rates are different. Lastly, non-residential rates (which account for almost 50% of SCSS revenues) are similar in all four agencies: it is only in residential rates that there are significant differences behveen communities. FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW While detailed financial and service information is provided in SCSS rate request application (Appendix), the following summaries their actual costs, revenues and account information for 2005 (the last fiscal year for which there are audited financial statements at this time) for all areas serviced by them. -6- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review Costs By Type. Total expenses for 2005 (afrer deducting for non-allowable and limited costs as discussed later in this report) were $8.4 million. As reflected in Table 3, just four cost areas accounted for 75% of their total costs: ■ Direct labor and outside services ranie s.cos�a ey rypa:Sa.a Muron � for collection services o aner coscs ■ Vehicle operations and +3% maintenance(including insurance ODlrec�Labor ❑Admin& 8 Oulsitle and depreciation) , o�me� Senices i �� ze% ■ Tipping fees(landfill, recycling and composting costs) °F Fe s1Se r, ' ��°.{I 6 ■ Franchisefees orPO��F�, O Ve�icle �gg6 Operations Revenues By Source. Total revenues 8 Maint in 2005 were $9.2 million—about 7B9e $800,000 more than expenses. This resulted in an "operating ratio" of 88% compared with the target ratio of 92% _.__ as set forth in the Rate Manual. i Table 4.Revenues By Source:E9.2 Million j � i As reflected in Table 4, only about I ❑ omer 50% of SCSS's revenues come from Re�%°e i single-family residential accounts. Services to multi-family residential I and non-tesidential customers account ■ aner ° �R I for 46% of their revenues, with a very �^� s�ece small part (1%) from other revenues �I s3� I such as interest earnings. I i Service Fees By Area. As shown in L * i Table 5, of [he $9.2 million in revenues from customer accounts in 2005 (99% of total revenues), about two-thirds (62°/a) comes from the four TaWe 5.Service Fees By Nea:59.2 Million agencies covered in this report: ■ Arroyo Grande (23%) °�"1°i° I Giantle ■ Grover Beach (16%) il �% o ar�nr� ■ Oceano (7%) ' 3s% j �Gmwl I ■ Pismo Beach (16%) i � ea,u, i � is% The other areas served by SCSS (such i � as Nipomo and Avila Beach) account i °P'�"'° o a� for a little over one-third (38%) of its B�`�' �% � is% revenues. — -- -�- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review Service Accounts By Type. While single-family residences (SFR) account for only about 50% of revenues, they represent 89% of total accounts (Table 6). This reflects the fact that per account, multi-family and non-residential customers generate more solid waste than single-family residential customers (and Tabk 6.Accounts ByType:21,ns thus more revenue per account). o ang Aca�nls 11% � RATE-SETTING PROCESS +� ` � � O SFR Under the Rate Mmrual, the rate-setting ,� �,: "8�' process follows a three-year cycle: ' { � ■ Base Year. The 5rst year of the I cycle—the Base Year—requires a � comprehensive, detailed analysis of revenues, expenses and operating data. This information is evaluated in the context of agreed upon factors in the Franchise Agreement in determining fair and reasonable rates. As noted above, the last "base year" analysis for SCSS under this approach was prepared in August 2004. ■ Interim Years. In both the second and third years, SCSS is eligible for Interim Year rate adjustments that address two key change factors: changes in the consumer price index for "controllable" operating costs; and changes in "pass-though costs" (primarily tipping fees), which SCSS does not control (they are set by the County Board of Supervisors). These adjustment factors are "weighted"by the proportionate share that these costs represent of total costs. For example, in the cunent Base Year analysis for 2007, controllable costs account for 73% of total costs, with pass through costs (tipping and franchise fees) accounting for 27%. The rate review for the two Interim Years requires less information and preparation time than the Base Year review, while still providing fair and reasonable rate adjustments. Rate Increase History. The following summarizes the "interim rate" increases approved by these four agencies since the last"base year"review in 2004: Table 7. Recent Rate lucrease History Base Review Interim Rate Increases Agency 2004 2005 2006 Arroyo Grende 5.60% 3.09%a 3.76°/a Grover Beach 5.60% 3.09°/a 3.76% Oceano 5.60% 3.09% 3.76% Pismo Beach 5.30% 2.95% 3.60% As noted above, rale increases in Pismo Beach are slightly /ess than the other lhree agencies due to d�ere�ices in jranchise rales. Placed in the context of the modest rate increases for the past three years, the proposed rate increase of 3.0% for three of the agencies (and 2.9% in Pismo Beach) reflects a high level of rate stability and price containment for SCSS customers. -8- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review ARE THE COSTS REASONABLE? The first step in the rate review process is to determine if costs are reasonable. There are three analytical techniques that can be used in assessing this: ■ Detailed review of costs and service responsibilities over time. ■ Evaluation of extemal cost factors, such as general increases in the cost of living (as measured by the consumer price index). ■ Comparisons of rates with other communities. Each of these was considered in preparing this report, and the following summarizes the results. Detailed Cost Review In their rate submittal, SCSS provides detailed financial data for five years: ■ Audited results for the two prior years (2004 and 2005). ■ Results for the last year(2006, which have not yet been audited). ■ Projected costs for the Base Yeat(2007). ■ Estimated costs for the following year(2008). This allows for a detailed analysis of changes in key cost components such as labor, repairs, fuel, insurance and tipping fees. In this case, while there are deviations in various categories (for which SCSS has provided supplemental documentation), their submittal shows that overall they have done a good job of containing costs. The following highlights significant cost areas. Direct Labor. Including contracted labor costs (classified as "outside services"), direct staffing costs for collection accounts for 30% of total costs. These increased by 10% in 2006 and are projected to increase by 11% in 2007. While some of this cost increased is due to wstomer growth, most of it is attributable to increases in compensation. SCSS believes that these increases are necessary to retain and amact qualified workers in continuing to provide a high level of service. Given cost pressures in the regional labor market — and the modest rate increases requested by SCSS in supporting these increased costs—this appears reasonable. Medical Insurance. Accounting for 5% of total costs, this increased by 12% in 2006 and is projected to increase by another 18% in 2007. This reasonably reflects current trends in health insurance costs. Gas and Oil. This key element of fleet operations accounts for 6% of total costs. While this cost increased shazply in 2006, rising by 49%, it is projected to level-out in 2007. Depreciation o�� Trucks and Containers. Accounting for 11% of total costs, depreciation declined slightly in 2006. However, the replacement of thirteen trucks in 2006 and 2007—at an � -9- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review average cost of $25Q000 each – results in an increase of $221,000 (26%) in projected depreciation costs in 2007. Addirional Accoun�Break-Ours in 2006 and 2007. In several cases, costs have been broken-out further in 2006 and 2007 compared with prior years. For example, the County's solid waste permit is broken-out separately under "permits" in 2006 and 2007 from truck licenses in 2004 and 2005; and telephone costs are broken-out separately from other utilities. In each of these cases, there are no significant cost changes when comparing"apples and apples"between years. AmortiZation of Air Pollution Contro[District (APCD) Grant The credit cost shown under "other costs" ($33,621) reflects the amortization of a $220,000 grant from the APCD for the purchase of a compressed natural gas truck. Overall, costs are estimated to increase by 6.8% in 2006 and 8.4% in 2007. Given increased cost pressures in key areas such labor, insurance, fuel and fleet replacement costs,these cost increases appearreasonable. Trends in External Cost Drivers The most common external "benchmark" for evaluating cost trends is the consumer price index (CPI). As noted above, the CPI for all urban consumers in the Los Angeles-Riverside-0range Counry region increased by 43% in 2006. While SCSS sees several key areas where costs will increase by more than this for 2007, the proposed rate increase of 3.0% for three of the agencies (and 2.9% in Pismo Beach) compares favorably with this CPI benchmark. Rates in Comparable Communities Lastly, reasonableness of rates (and underlying costs) can also be evaluated by comparing rates with comparable communities. However, survey results between "comparable" communities need to be carefully weighed, because every community is different. For example, even in the South County where service levels and costs are very similar,.there are rate differences. In short, making true "apples-to-apples"comparisons is easier said than done. Nonetheless, surveys are useful assessment tools—but they are not perfect and they should not drive rate increases. Typical reasons why solid waste rates may be dift'erent include: ■ Franchise fees and AB 939 fee surcharges. ■ Landfill costs (tipping fees). ■ Service levels (frequency,quality). ■ Labor market. ■ Operator efficiency and effectiveness. ■ Voluntary versus mandatory service. ■ Direct services provided to the franchising agency at no cost, such as free trash container pick-up at city facilities, on streets and in parks. - to- Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review ■ Percentage of non-residential customers, and how costs and rates are allocated between customer types. ■ Revenue collection procedures: Does the hauler or the city bill for service? And what are the procedures for collecting delinquent accounts? ■ Services included in the base fee (recycling, green waste, containers, pick-up away from curb). ■ Different rates structures. ■ Land use and density (lower densities will typically result in higher service costs). With these caveats, the following summarizes single-family residential rates for other cities in the Central Coast area, and compares them with the proposed rates for SCSS. As reflected below, even with the proposed rate inc;eases, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano and Pismo Beach will have the lowest rates among the agencies surveyed. Tab/e 8. Sin [e-Famil Residentia(Rate Surve :Au ust 1007 Container Size Gallons 30-40 60-70 90-101 Atascadero $18.65 $33.00 $42.70 Paso Robles 25.35 33.25 36.70 San Luis Obispo 11.36 22.72 34.08 San Miguel (Rates for 1 container and 2-4 containers) � 25.20 n/a 39.70 Santa Margarita 27.30 39.90 52.50 Santa Maria 22.21 25.40 28.54 Tem leton 22.26 34.67 43.96 . . _. � . Arroyo Grande 14.71 19.13 23.55 GroverBeach 13.33 18.03 22.71 Oceano 11.93 17.16 33.57 - Pismo Beach 12.63 25.26 37.89 Summary: Are the Costs Reasonable? Based on the results of the three separate cost-review techniques-trend review, extemal factor review and rate comparisons-SCSS's costs are reasonable. WHAT IS A REASONABLE RETURN ON THESE COSTS? After assessing if costs are reasonable, the next step is to determine a reasonable rate of retum on these costs. The rate-setting method fortnally adopted by Arroyo Grande, Oceano and Pismo Beach in their franchise agreements with SCSS includes clear criteria for making this assessment. It begins by organizing costs into three main categories, which will be treated differently in determining a reasonable"operating profit ratio:" - tt - Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review Allowable Costs (Operatio�ts and Maintenance) ■ Direct collection labor ■ Fuel ■ Vehicle maintenance and repairs ■ Depreciation ■ Insurance ■ Billing and collection Excluded and Limited Costs ■ Charitable and political contributions ■ Non-IRS approved profit-sharing plans ■ Entertainment ■ Fines and penalties ■ Income taxes ■ Limits on officer compensation Pass-Through Costs ■ Tipping fees ■ Payments to affiliated companies (such as leases,trucking charges and AB 939 fees) ■ Franchise and "AB 939" fees (recycling, source reduction,household hazardous waste programs) Methodology After organizing costs into these three categories, determining `bperating profit ratios" and overall revenue requirements is straightforward: ■ The target is a 92% operating profit ratio on "allowable costs." ■ Pass-through costs may be fully recovered through rates, but no profit is allowed on these costs. ■ No revenues are allowed for any excluded costs. In the case of SCSS, about 73% of their costs are "allowable costs" subject to the 92% operating profit ratio (or 8% of total allowable "rate base" revenues); and 27% are pass-through costs upon which no profit is allowed. No recovery is allowed for excluded costs. Preparing the Rate Request Application Detailed "spreadsheet" templates for preparing the rate request application—including assembling the required information and making the needed calculations—are provided in the Rate Manual. SCSS has prepared their rate increase application in accordance with these requirements (Appendix); and the financial information provided in the application ties to their audited financial statements. Implementation The following summarizes key implementation concepts in the adopted rate-setting model: _ �Z_ Integrated Solid Waste Rate Review ■ The "92% operating profit ratio" is a target; in the interest of rate stability, adjustments are only made if the calculated operating profit ratio falls outside of 90% to 94%. In the case of this Base Year application, it clearly does. ■ There is no provision for retroactivity: requested rate increases are "prospective" for the year to come; there is no provision for looking back. This means that any passed shoRfalls from the target operating profit cannot be recaptured. ■ On the other hand, if past ratios have Table 9 Operating Ra(ios been stronger than this target (as they ��f,�`+,��9�� '�l�t ••�' ° � • •�•° were in 2005 and 2006), then the V ��l�� 9�la i . -. �•• revenue base is re-set in the "base year" 2004 $493,137 91.7% review. 2005 824,621 87.8% 2006 804,995 58.9% ■ As discussed above, detailed "base 2o07 (Proposed) 618,663 92.0% year" reviews are prepared every three years; "interim teviews" to account for focused changes in the coosumer price and tipping fees are prepared in the two "in-between"years. ■ Special rate increases for extraordinary circumstances may be considered. This has never occurred in any of the agencies that use this rate-setting methodology. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES SCSS has submitted similar rate requests to the two other agencies that regulate rates and services in the other South County areas that they serve: the County of San Luis Obispo and the Nipomo Community Services District. The requested rate increase to the Counry was approved on July 24, 2007. SUMMARY Based on the rate-setting policies and procedures formally adopted by Arroyo Grande, Oceano and Pismo Beach in their franchise agreements (and conceptually approved by Grover Beach), this report concludes that: ■ SCSS's wsts are reasonable. ■ And their proposed rate increases meet the "reasonable return" criteria set forth in its franchise agreements with these four agencies. Accordingly, this report recommends adoption of the rate increases requested by SCSS. ATTACHMENT Appendix: Base Year Rate Request Application from South County Sanitary Service i�y°`�' :� �r„:,n.,�. �r�i. r,� ...�;.b • �' :e � ��a Yi..Srq•�u:1. , nt4:. . ,.G'� `� n� �, s:.. � . r +_ . n � - 13- Appendix BASE YEAR RATE REQUEST APPLICATION '�-'�.j��'�t��T��a�>`�*� # Y�n'^ ��tm�.ne*mai ��c*� .T*�:;i%7' c .w- ,�„ J t.�i'^=!2r.'r�y'r"s' ��K+ "f�. �.;r��.�..n. '��St...9'�#.. '��,��s f s�,��£,�4�Y �I.r s`;��+Er.�� "., a�`.'i5�,»��"�"'�,3...�P�'�'�baiRn�"� �s,� a;a'ut,#t,�.�.s ,# i�t. ' �_...e�rl.i'�U` w;�u.�.�'a Base YearApplication Summary ' 1 a. Arroyo Grande lb. Grover Beach 1 c. Oceano 1 d. Pismo Beach Suppartiitg Schedules 2. Financial Information: Cost and Revenue Requirements Summary 3. Revenue Offset Summary 4. Cost Summary for Base Year 5. Base Year Revenue Offset Summary 6. Operating Information ( South County Sanitary Secvice 2007 Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Summary CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE l. Rate Increase Reqvesmd 3.O�Yo Curzent Increased Adjustment New Cost Per Rate Schedule Raze Rate (a) Rate Gallon Single Family Resldentlal 2. Economy Service(1-can curb) $1428 $14.71 314.71 $0.46 4. Standard Seevice(2•can curb) 518.57 $19.13 $19.13 $0.30 5. Prcmium Service(3-can curb) 522.86 $23.55 �23.55 $025 (a)Calculated rates aze rounded up to the nearest$0.01. 6. Multiunit Resideniial and Non-resldentlal Rate inneasu of 3.05� will be applied to all rdes in nch sttu<Nrc wiN each rate munded W tAe nearest 50.01 To 16e but of my knowledg0.�he dau and infmmation iu this applicaUon is compiaa accunte,end wnsisieol with,�he iaswctiou provided by the Raz<Seuing Manual. r,��: Tom Martin rn��: Controller s��amR: oar�: 03/20/07 Fiscal Year. 1-1-2007 to 12-31-2007 Pg, 1 of 6 South County Sanitary Service 2007 Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Summary CITY OF GROVER BEACH 1. Rate Increase Reques[ed 3.0°�6 _ Current Increased Adjustment New Cost Per Rate Schedule Rate Ra[e (a) Rate Gallou Single Famfly Residential ' 2. Economy Service(1-can curb) $12.94 $1333 $t3.33 $0.42 4. Standard Service(2-can curb) $17.50 $18.03 $18.03 $028 5. Premium Service(3-eau curb) $22.05 $22.71 $22.71 $024 (a)Calculated rates are rounded up ro the neazest$0.01. 5. Multiunit Residentfal and Non-residential n��m�s�or s.o� wiu be applied to all ra�es in�swcm�e wi�h'ac6+ate rowded to ihe nnrat 50.01 � 7o Ihe bat of my Imowledge,the data and infoemation in Ihie appGaUOn is wmplGq accuraze,and consisteo�wi16 i6e i¢swclions provided by the Rate Setfing Manual. � r,��: Tom Martin r�u�: - Controller s�az��e: n.m: 03/20/07 Fiscal Year. 1-1 2007to 12�1 2007 Pg. 1 of6 Soutli County Sanitary Service 2007 Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Summary OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT l. Rate Increaze Requested 3.03'0 ' Current Increased AdjusVnent New Rate Schedule Rate Rate (a) Rate Single Family Resideniial 2. Economy Service(1-can curb) $L I.58 $11.93 $11.93 4. Standard Service(2-can curb) $16.66 $17.16 $17.16 5. Premium Service(3-can curb) $32.59 $33.57 $33.57 • (a)Calculated rates are rounded up to the nearest$0.01. 6. Muliiunit Residential and Non-residential Rateincieasaot 3.0'% ' w��x appsm ro ail mu io ram.wrnve ' wilh ea�taro rounded to the oearcrt 50.01 Ta ihe but of my knowleAge,t6e daza and infortoauon iu�his appticatiou is complae,aaunta and consistm[wiih the insmueiana provided by We Rate Seuiug Mauual. N�: Tom Martin ruu Controller s�ati.�: na«: 03/20/07 Flscal Year: 1-1-2007to 12-3J 2007 Pg. 1 of6 � South Cowty Sanitary Service 2007 Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Summary CITY OF PISMO BEACH L Rate Increase Requested 2.9% Curren[ Increased Adjustment New Cost Per Rate Schedule Rate Rate (a) Rate Gallon Single Family Residential 2. Economy Service(1-can curb) $1227 • $12.63 $12.63 $0.39 4. Standard Service(2-can curb) $24.54 $25.25 $0.01 $25.26 $0.39 5. Premium Service(3-can curb) $36.81 $37.88 $0.01 $37.89 $0.39 (a)Calculated ntes aze rounded up to the nearesc$0.01. 6. MulliunitResidenlialandNon-resldential Re�einunsc�of 2.9� will be applied to.11 ntes in each swenve wieh each ntt munded to the urarat 50.01 To the best ot my knowtedgq[he dam and infortnation in this epplira�on is complrte,acnvate,and comistrnt with Ihe inswcuoas provided by Ne Rate Setting Mauual. � N��: Tom Martin rn�: Controller Sigualme: ' Daa: 03�2��7 Fisca! Year: 1-1-2007 to 12�31-2007 Pg. 1 of6 ��.,s.:�,� BASE YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION , �t5tOI1C2� � CWitO� �f(I;CCIl� Finaneia!InJornra�ion Baze Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (from Pg.4) 6. Directlabor 52,018,523 S2,134,383 52,413,062 f2.784,237 E2,BI2,079 7. Corporatc Overhead S7A8.537 E255,993 5264,185 5274,224 527G,966 8. Office Salariu 5467,751 5458,699 ES19,320 5607,859 5613,937 9. OWer General and Admin Costs 52,684,622 E3.07S,794 53,237,391 E3,448,306 E3S20,720 10 Total Allowable Costs 55,419,433 55,926,869 56,433,958 57.114,625 57,223,703 11. OperatlngRatio 91.7% 87.8% 88.9 92.0% 92.0% 12. AllowableOperztingRofit 5493,137 5824,621 5804,995 5618,663 3628,148 13. TippiogFees 5I.605,897 51.630,306 51,653,728 EI,700,276 E1,717,279 t4. Francltise Feu 5785,453 5856,965 E894,320 E921,600 5940,032 15. AQ939 Fees $0 EO SO SO SO 36. I.ease Pmts to Affiliated Comp2ni SO SO SO SO 50 17. ToW Pass 7lvough Casa " 52,391,350 52,487,271 52.546,048 32,621,876 52,657,311 18. AevrnueRequirement 58,303,920 E9,236,761 59,787,OO1 SI0,355,164 SIOS09.162 19. TotalReveoucOffsets 58,303,920 b9,236,761 59,787,001 �310,085,909 E10,243,(96 (fromP e3) 20. Net Shortfali(Surylus) 5269,255 21. Total Ruidwrial and Non-residcuual Rweoue withou[increase in Baze Ytar(pg.5,line 76) $10.007,881 310,007,881 22. Prrcent Change in Residential a¢d Non-issidenual Revenue Requircment 2.7 2.7'6 23. Franchise Fee Adjustmeut Pactor(I-6 perccot) 90.00 94.000% 24. Paceot Change io Ezisung Ra�es � 3.0� 2.9'➢0 Fisca! Year. 1-1-2007 to f2-31 2007 Pq.2 of 6 SwN Camq'SwtrY Servis Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Revenue Offset Summary � Historical Current Pro'ec[ed �� Base Year � 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Residential Revenue(without increase in Base Yr.) 28. Single Family Ruiden[ial $4,399,979 $4,901,651 $5,606,779 SS,606,778 $5,718,914 Multiuni[Residendal Dumpster 29. Number of Accounu �� 30. Revenues 31. Less Allowance for Uncollec[ible Resid Accounts �� 32. Total Residential Revenuc $4,399,979 $4,901,651 $5,606,779 $5,606,778 $5,718,914 Non-residen[ia[Revenue(without increase in Base Yr.) Accoun[Type Non-residential Can 33. Number of Accounrs � 48 50 34. Revenues O�� $14,422 $14566 Non-residential Wastewheeler 35. Number of Accounts 157 165 36. Revenues 00 $146,178 $147,640 Non-residential Dutnpster � 37. Number of Accouncs � 1952 1972 38. Revenues $3,903,941 54,303,704 $4,140,596 54,282,531 54,325,356 39. Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Non-rosid �� SO $0 40. Total Non-residential Revenue $3,903,941 $4,303,704 $4,140,596 $4,443,131 $4,487,562 45. Interest on Investmenu $31,406 � $39,626 $36,000 $36,7?A 46. Other Income � � $0 ' $0 47. TotalRevenueOffsets $8;303,920 $9,236,761 $9,787,001 $10,085,909 $10,243,196 Fiscal Year. 1-1-2007 to 12-312007 P . 3 of 6 r Soa6 Cwn:Y Suii�uY Sur'ia Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Cosf Summary for Base Year Description of Cost BASE YEAR 2004 2005 ]A06 2007 Labor 51,857,876 51.966,245 $2,223,339 52.565,076 PayrollTaxes 5160.647 $168,139 SI89,723 $219,161 48. Totat Direct Labor 52,018,523 52;i34,383 52,413,062 52,784,237 49. Corporate Ovenc�ad � 5338,998 � E266,829 $283,551 5295,648 I.ess tivtitanon(enter as negadve) (590,461) (510,836) (519.3C� ($21,424) Total Corporate Over6ead 5248,537 . E255,993 5264,185 5274,224 OKice Salary $438,045 5428,578� 5465,070 5569,499 ` PayrollTaxes 529,706 E30,121 534,250 $38,360 50. Total Office Salaria 5467,751 $458,699 5519,320 5607.859 Allocatedexpenses SO SO $0 BadDebt 316,188 545.329 $68,988 342,000 Bondexpense 527,854 547,S11 539,653 542,034 Compurerservices 52,183 S19 Depreciation on Bldg and Equip Depreciation on Trucks/Containers E'I92,644 5890,729 5849,938 51,071,718 Dues and Subscrip[ions 57,965 39,314 511.85'7 SI2,307 Gaz and oil 5342,042 5411,090 5615,196 5620,572 Interost Expense 521,322 SO SO Laundry $17,841 527,349 522.366 522;800 Legal and Accounting $28,827 520,323 59,353 59,708 Miscellaneous and Olher (534.968 ($37,489) (534,193) (333,621 , Offia Expense 5113,688 5144.096 5140,942 5141,395 OperatingSupplies 512,616 534.49? 532,349 536,123 O�herinsurance $393,104 $444,836 5441,491 5440,794 Otherinsurance•medical 5347.896 3360,210 $402,558 5476,643 OtherTazes 521.612 ' 533,869 524,815 325,588 OutsideServices 5142,212 5162,793 5112,347 328,640 Postage a5,408 59,205 59.26I 59,613 Public Relations and Promotion E8,692 $9,637 $6,213 $6,449 Pemtits 510,267 SI0,296 Rent $45,644 346,854 546,836 548.032 Telephone 533,471 � 519,025 Tias(included in ropairs) 597,696 �_$93,913 $96,120 $99,600 Travel S3,S41 54,885 52,299 E2,386 Tmck repairs-interco 55,383 $2,073 53,319 53,445 Truck[.icense $70,515 580,505 564,452 $84,948 TmckRepairs 5151,312 SI83,756 $215,435 5214,251 Utilities a43,203 550,490 512,058 513,560 � 51. Total Other GedAdmin Costs $2.684,622 33,075.794 53,237,391 53,448,306 52. TotalTippingFees 51,605,897 $1.630,306 51,653,728 51,700,276 53. Total Frauchise Fee 5785,453 5856,965 5894,320 $921,600 54. Total AB 939/RegulaWry Fees S5. Total Lease Pmt to Affil Co.'s � 56. Total Cost Fiscal Year: 1-1-2007 to 12�1-2007 ' Pg. 4 of 6 i sotl��ae05.�uysvrr. Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Base Year Revenue OHset Summary For Information Purposes Only Description o/Revenue oo�r■u Fnocntce ReNse Collectlan Noo-tr��ntse � Total Total Arroyo Picmo Grover Uninco onted Total Resideuia!Revenue (without incrrase in Bare Year) 57. SingieFa+nilyResidential 55.606,778 E1,243,583 . $838,774 5795,602 52.726,819 Muluunit RuidenGal Dumpstu 58. Number of Accounts 0 59. Revcnucs SO 60. l.ess Allowance for Unwilectable SO 61. ToUI Resideutial Reveuue 55,6W,778 31,7A3,583 3838,774 E2,728,819 SO Nan-residenrial Revenuc(wirhaul intreatdin Base Yea�) Account 7ype rvon-rcs�aenna�can 62. Number of Accounts 48 26 12 10 63. Revenues 514,422 57,440 54,766 E2,216 Non-residential WaStewhaler 64. NumberofAttoun[s 157 58 55 44 65. Revrnues E146,178 538,530 586,026 521.621 Nou-residenrial Dumpsta 66. Number of Accouots 1949 401 269 389 870 3 67. Revenues Ed,240,503 5961,687 5847,063 5746,356 E1,G65,377 542,028 ' 6S. Less:Ailawance for Uncollectible Non-rcsidential Accounts SO 69. Total Non-resideotial Revenue 54,401,I03 51,027.658 5937,875� E770,193 51,665,377 542,028 74. Inlerest oo Inveslmenl5 536,000 75. 016v lucome SO 76. Total Reveuue ORsets �'0_� B: . . 2�j'� �� Fiscal Year. f-1-2007to 12-31-2007 Pg.So/6 �,. • SeWCsmbSNUrf3a�+� I Base Year Rate Adjustment Application Operating lnformaflon Historical Curtent Projx[ed Pacent Pereent Pacent Base Ywr Pucent 2004 Qwn6e Z(q5 CTange 7A(16 manee 2007 @an8� 2008 � Residentia! AuouNs 77. Artoyo Grande 5,275 2.1% 5,385 2.5% 5.522 0.196 5,530 0.2% 5,540 Grova Beach 3,575 1.296 3,617 8.8% 3,934 03% 3,946 0.4% 3,96I Pismo Beach 3,337 0.7% 3,360 5.2% 3,536 0.2% 3,544 0.3% 3,554 OceanoCSD 1,399 3.0% 1,441 9.6% 7,580 0.5% 1,588 1.1% 1,606 NipomoCSD 3,095 6.196 3,285 � 9.2% 3,587 0.1% 3,592 0.1% 3,597 County 4,627 7.3% 4,964 4.0% 5,162 0.1% 5,165 0.1% 5,170 21,308 3.5% 22,052 5.896 23,321 02% 23,365 03% 23,428 78. Routes-Garbage 9 0.0% 9 11.1% ]0 0.0% ]0 0.096 . 10 79. Rou�es-Rxycliog 5 0.0% 5 0.0% 5 20.0% 6 O.O�Ro 6 80. D'vectLabor Hours 43,680 0.0% 43,680 4.896 45,760 4.5% 47,840 0. 47,840 Non-residential Garbage Accounfs 80. Arroyo Grande 546 0.296 547 -1I.0% 487 -0.4% 485 0.4% 487 GmvcrBeach 660 -0.8% 655 3L8% 447 -0.9% 443 0.9% 447 PismoBcach 439 0.296 440 -18.2% 360 -I.l% 356 1.1% 360 Occano CSD 251 1.2%, 254 -29.146 180 3.3% 186 3.2% 192 Npomo CSD 207 5.3% 218 -8.7% 199 4.096 197 1.0% 199 County 595 -2.5% 580 -16.0% 487 0.0% 487 0.0% 487 2,696 -0.196 2,694 •19.8% 2,160 -03% 2,154 0.8% 2,172 81. Routes-garbage 5 0.0% 6 0.096 b 0.0% 6 0.0% 6 Rw1es-raycling' 2 0.0% 2 ��0.0% 2 0.096 2 0.0% 2 82. D'uect Labor Hours 16,640 0.0% 16,640 0.0'b 16,640 0.0% 16,640 0.0% 16,640 Recyclable Malerials- A//areat-Commingkd Reryt(ing(irt tons) Acrourtlr 83. Tri-Cities 6,972 2.0% 7,113 3.2% 7,341 2.0% 7,488 0.096 7,488 NipomWOceanoCSD 2,523 13.996 2,873 7.5% 3,088 2.09b 3,150 O.OWr 3,150 84. County J88 29.1� 1,0I7 1.0% 1,027 32.6% 1,362 0.0% 1,362 � 10,283 7.0% 11,003 4.1% 11,456 4.7% 12,000 0.0% 12,000 Recyclable Materiols- AU arcu-0rernwaste Recyding. � Rouus 4 -25.0% 3 0.0% 3 33.3% 4 0.0% 4 TonsColix�ed 8,400 18.4% 9,942 8.9% 70,828 4.896 11,350 2.0�, 11,577 ' Dvect Labot Hours 10,400 0.0% 10,400 0.0% 10,400 20.0% 12,450 0.0% 12,480 Garbage Tons Collecicd 49,079 -0.7% 48,71A -0.6% 48,417 •0.2% 46,317 0.0% 48,317 F(scal Year. 1-1-2007 to 12-312007 Pg.6 0/6 South County Sanitary ServicecHmeNT 3 -- �,� �_� - -� , I _� - � ,,�,, �� . ' i - �;T;: �. , �_ . Q -- . 0 .��..-- 866 West Grand Avenue • Grover Beach, CA 93433 805-�89-4246 • 805-489-3534 • 805-489-2104 City of Arroyo Grande Steve Adams, City Manager PO BOX 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 September 24, 2007 Dear Steve, The franchise agreement between South County Sanitary Service and Arroyo Grande expires November 11, 2007. Given that lawyers are involved, we need to get started. There are two significant changes coming that will effect our new agreement. The first one is the Cold Canyon Landfill expansion. We are down to roughly two and half year's worth of capacity. The expansion project has been filed with the County of San Luis, Obispo and the EIR is being prepared. The expansion will provide 30 yeazs of future disposal capacity, an elevated C&D recycling line and an improved public recycling azea. We aze estimating it will require us to spend a minimum of$9,000,000 plus county required mitigations. As before, Cold Canyon must borrow the funds and the Bank of America wants proof they will be paid back. They want to see long-term franchises from Cold Canyon's customers so the tonnage is committed. The second change is the Air Pollution Control DistricYs push to reduce emissions. In order to comply with the requirements we will need to upgrade our truck fleet substantially: Our upgrades should provide a large part of the reductions that APCD will set as the goal for Arroyo Grande. We have started to replace our trucks with CNG powered garbage trucks. However, given the number of remaining diesel trucks and the cost of a CNG truck it will take many years. The biggest concem for a garbage company is recovering the cost of the various advance expenditures. The longer term we have for recovery, the less impact it has on rate changes. San Luis Garbage has a 15 year franchise agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo. Mission Country Disposal has a 15 year franchise agreement with the Cayucos Sanitary District. I would like to meet with you to discuss a 15 year franchise. That will help keep Arroyo Grande's and South County Sanitary Service's costs to a minimum for the long term. Tom Martin, General Manager pRROyO O� �',p � INCORPORATED 92 u m � ,nn. ,o. �e„ * cQ��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER�� SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 9.a. — CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATE INCREASE AND FRANCHISE EXTENSION DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 Attached is a revised amendment to the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. The Solid Waste Franchise Agreement has been amended twice before; therefore, this is the third amendment. The document has been modified accordingly. Attached is the Third Amendment to Solid Waste Franchise Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and South County Sanitary.Service, Inc. � ; f G THIRD AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AND SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE, INC. This Thixd Amendment to Solid Waste Franchise Agxeement ("1'hird Amendment") is made and entexed into this _ day of , 2007, by and betcveen the City of Axroyo Gxande ("City"), a Municipal Coxpoxation of the State of Califoxnia, and South County Sanitary Sexvice, Inc. ("Contsactox"), a Califoxnia Corpoxation. WHEREAS, the parties entexed into a Fxanchise Agreement fox the Collecrion, Divexsion and Disposal of Solid Waste Within the City of Axroyo Gxande dated Novembex 12, 1997 ("Pxanchise 1lgreement"); and WHEREAS, the Fxanchise Agreement was pxeviously amended on Maxch 23, 1999 and June 25, 2002; I WHEREAS, the Ftanchise A�eement expires on November 11, 2007; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Secrion 33 of the Franchise Agxeement, City has the sole option to extend the Fxanchise Agxeement fox up to thirty six (36) months in pexiods of at least twelve (12) months; and WHEREAS, City des�es to etexcise the option to extend the Fxanchise Agreement fox one twelve (12) month period. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, in considecauon of the mutual covenants contained herein, and fox othex good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the paxties agree as follows: 1. The term of the Fxanchise Agreement shall be extended foz one twelve (12) month period commencing Novembex 12, 2007 and expiTing at midnight on Novembex 11, 2008. 2. The above xecitals are true and coxxect and ace incorparated hexein. ' 3. Except as modified hexein, all texms and conditions of the Fxanchise Agxeement, as amended, shall xemain in full foxce and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the paxties have executed this 'I'lurd Amendment on the fixst date indicated above. [SIGNATURE PAGE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] � - � CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICES INC. By: By: Tony Fexxaza, Mayox Its: Attest: Kelly Wetmoxe, Dixectox of Administxauve Seroices/ City Clerk Approved as to Content: � Steve Adams, City Managex Appxoved as to Foxm: Timothy J. Caxmel, City Attoxney i ,' 9 pRROY� �■�■ OE C,p � 1NCORFOR�TED 92 u m CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE * ��Y �a• �e�� CITY COUNCIL c4��FORN�P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 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. Development Code Amendment 06-004 to Amend the Zoning Map; Applicant: City of Arroyo Grande; Location — 12.77 Acres North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Subarea 2 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan) and Approval of Neighborhood Plan No. 04-001 (East Village Neighborhood Plan); Applicant: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location — 22 Acres East of Noguera Court Subdivision, North of East Cherry Avenue Extension, and South of Arroyo Grande Creek. The City Council will consider a proposed Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the zoning of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. The City Council will also consider a proposed Resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan which is intended to coordinate infrastructure for the area. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Department has determined that the project is • categorically exempt per Sectiorr 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information about this item is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Keliy We more City Clerk (Publish 1T, The Tribune, Saturday, September 29, 2007) r - � p,RROy� ° �� INCORPORqTED 92 J � m � JULY 10. IBII * I c4<<FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: � � KELLY HEFFERNON, ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF: 1. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 06-004 TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF�; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — 12.77 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION 2. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NO. 04- 001 (EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN); APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — 22 ACRES EAST OF NOGUERA COURT r SUBDIVISION, NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION, AND SOUTH OF ARROYO GRANDE CREEK DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: � The Planning Commission recommends the City Council; 1) Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the designation of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF); and 2) adopt the attached resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City. BACKGROUND: The Subarea 2 property is currently zoned Residential Rural (RR) and is divided into ten (10) parcels developed with twelve (12) residences (the Janowicz and Caldwell i properties both have second units). In 2001, the General Plan was updated to change � the land use designation of this property from Low Density Residential (LD) to Medium Density Residential (MD), or from one (1) dwelling unit per acre to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The purpose of this Development Code Amendment (DCA) is to bring the zoning � into compliance with the General Plan by changing the zoning from Residential Rural , (RR) to Single Family Residential (SF), pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65860(c). If approved, the future development in this area will conform to the City's Development Code for SF zoning. CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9, 2007 DCA 06-004; NP 04-001 PAGE 2 According to the 2001 General Plan (LU2-7), the 12.77-acre property (Subarea 2) and I the adjacent nine (9) acres (Subarea 1) are subject to a requirement for a Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, Creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. The Council considered the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) on October 10, 2006 and determined it met the requirements of the General Plan provisions based on a finding that Subarea 1 adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to accommodate future development of Subarea 2 at its current General Plan designation (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes). On November 28, 2006 the City Council adopted an Ordinance to change the zoning of the adjacent nine (9) acre Subarea 1 property from RR to SF, separate from the Subarea 2 property. Council directed staff to present zoning changes involving Subarea 2 separately for consideration so that potential density impacts, site constraints and other issues could be reviewed in greater detail. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Development Code Amendment on December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007. On a 2:1 vote, the Commission recommended the City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF) ' consistent with the General Plan (see Attachments 2 and 3 for Meeting Minutes). Issues discussed included constraints of the property, changing the General Plan and zoning designation to a lower density while creating "no net loss" of residential units citywide based on State law (discussed further below under "compliance with State law"), creating an overlay for the property to allow a lower density, and applying a Specific Plan designation to the property. The City Council considered the project on July 10, 2007 and took tentative action to approve the Neighborhood Plan pending additional information regarding drainage solutions and continued consideration of the Development Code Amendment (see � Attachment 4 for meeting minutes). It was also determined that references to planned unit developments (PUDs) be removed from the Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood Plan has been amended accordingly. Included as Attachment # 8 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan are drainage strategies and options prepared by Mark Barnett of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Public Works Department has reviewed the drainage strategies and concluded that all of the proposed alternatives are technically feasible (see Attachment 5 for Memo from Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director). ALTERNATIVES: � The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: - Adopt a resolution approving the Development Code Amendment and Neighborhood Plan; - Continue deliberation if unresolved issues are identified; - Propose alternate zoning and direct staff to prepare ordinance, General Plan Amendment and other land use changes to offset reduction in density. - Propose Specific Plan requirement; or CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9, 2007 DCA 06-004; NP 04-001 PAGE 3 - Provide other direction to staff. � ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Road Improvements Subarea 2 is accessed by a fifteen-foot (15') wide private road (extension of East Cherry Avenue, commonly referred to as "Dirt Cherry") that is currently unpaved and owned by many individuals. If the approved Cherry Creek Project proceeds, Dirt Cherry will be widened to thirty-two feet (32') along the Subarea 1 boundary. It is anticipated that Dirt Cherry will also be widened to City standards along the Subarea 2 boundary, including extending utilities under the road, as a condition of future development. After discussions with the residents, staff is recommending the roadway be narrowed to twenty-four feet (24') wide through Subarea 2 with no on street parking. Road widening and improvements would be the responsibility of future development and would extend from the boundary of Subarea 1 to the property proposed for development. Property owners of Subarea 1 (Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC) have initiated the road acquisition process for Dirt Cherry (from Branch Mill Road to the end where I Dirt Cherry turns south). The attached road acquisition agreement (Attachment 6) has several parts to it, including a construction license and quitclaim deed. Once current owners of Dirt Cherry sign the quitclaim deeds, they will be placed into an escrow account. When road improvements have been completed and the road accepted by the City, the escrow account will close and the road would be transferred to the City. If for � some reason the road improvements are not constructed, escrow would be cancelled and the deeds would be returned to the original owners. Another private access road within Subarea 2 is Lierly Lane, which connects perpendicular to the fifteen-foot (15') wide private extension of East Cherry Avenue between the � Janowicz and Estes properties. Lierly Lane also has a narrow width (varies between eight , and ten feet) and is considered inadequate to serve future development. Upon future subdivision in this area, Lierly Lane would require widening to a minimum of eighteen feet � (18')for emergency access purposes. Aqricultural Buffer All new residences in this area would be subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2) including a minimum of a one hundred foot (100') wide agricultural buffer that incorporates a minimum twenty-foot (20') wide landscape strip. The Neighborhood Plan previously considered by Council identified a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide buffer for both subareas. It should be noted that the intent of the agricultural buffer is to minimize potential conflicts related to new development adjacent to any designated agricultural district, and not impose restrictions on existing development. "DevelopmenY' in this case is defined as subdivision of land, !'. use permits and building permits for new residential units. i Drainape As stated above, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) evaluated the project and submitted an analysis of drainage strategies and options. Six (6) alternative _--- - CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9,2007 DCA 06-004; NP 04-001 PAGE 4 strategies are proposed, with four potential options for each strategy. As a summary, the first strategy provides a typical subdivision type layout with all of the lots sloping towards the proposed streets. These streets would then drain to Cherry Avenue and then into the drainage facilities for the,Cherry Creek project. The second strategy would address Lierly Lane only, which would grade the street to drain to the approximate middle. Drainage would then flow down the access easement toward the Cherry Creek project and into the proposed drainage facilities. The third strategy allows the individual lots to construct a subsurface recharge vault, which would provide a holding area for storm water to percolate into the groundwater. The fourth strategy is similar to strategy three, but would allow for construction of an above ground basin somewhere on the property of each individual lot. Strategy five provides for drainage to the creek for those lots that are adjacent to the creek, and strategy six allows lots along the agricultural buffer to be graded for sheet flow run off into the agriculture buffer. All proposed strategies are technically feasible per the Public Works Department. It is anticipated that a combination of the strategies would be utilized. As projects are proposed, strategies available to each property would be evaluated to determine the preferred option to coordinate with adjacent properties. Note that drainage options outlined in the NRCS memo require additional information for each proposed future subdivision. Specifically, topographic surveys and percolation testing will be necessary. Drainage impacts will be addressed prior to approval of any future subdivision or additional residential units. Please refer to Attachment # 8 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) for more information on drainage strategies and options. Proposals would need to be consistent with the EVNP alternatives. Staff would also review street improvement plans to ensure roads are graded to accommodate these strategies. Density Analvsis If the Development Code Amendment is approved, the new medium density zoning (SF) for the area would allow densities of up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre, or forty-five (45) new residences. Given the various site constraints of the property (such as the creek channel and setback, riparian vegetation, agricultural buffer, and existing pattern of development), it is not physically possible to develop the 12.77-acre property to the allowable maximum density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (or 57 total residential units). Based on a conceptual design prepared by RRM Design Group, Subarea 2 could have a total of twenty-six (26) lots, or 2.0 dwelling units per acre under the General Plan designation and proposed Neighborhood Plan. The table below summarizes the size and ownership of all existing parcels and the I allowable density of each parcel for SF and RS zoning based on gross acreage. i Calculated constraints on Subarea 2 include 69,000 square feet of agricultural buffer and 104,000 square feet of highly sensitive creek habitat (3.97 acres total). With the I proposed 4.5 dwelling units per acre, this equals 39 residential units allowed. As indicated in the table below, the Development Code does not allow rounding up of densities. Therefore, the total estimated number of units allowable within Subarea 2 is 37. I CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9,2007 DCA 06-004; NP 04-001 PAGE 5 Densit Anal sis Existing Existing Existing SF SF RS RS Difference 10 Parcels Residences Parcel Density Concept Density Zoning Between (s.f. est.) (4.5/gross Layouta (2.5/gross Maximum SF and RS acre acre A: Janowicz 1 unit 14,586 2 units 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None B: Titus 1 unit 12,106 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None C: Loone 1 unit 60,333 6.2 units 4 units 3.46 units 3 units 1 unit D: Estes 1 unit 87,026 9 units 8 units 5 units 5 units 3 units E: Harrison 1 unit 12,882 1unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None F: Janowicz 2 units 30,630 3.2 units 2 units 1.8 units 2 units` None G: Janowicz 1 unit 43,513 4.5 units 4 units 2.5 units 2 units 2 units H: Summerfield 1 unit 28,115 3 units 2 units 1.6 units 1 unit 1 unit I: Caldwell 2 units 78,541 8.1 units 4 units 4.5 units 4 units None J: Miner 1 unit 188,083 19.4 units 10 units 10.8 units 10 units None Totals 12.units 12.77 56 units 37 units 29 units 30 units 7 units acrest maximum° (2.9 maximumb du/acre Notes: a The attached Subarea 2 concept plan for SF zoning is provided to show the realistic development density for Subarea 2 based on lot size and area constraints. Using the General Plan land use density of 4.5 du/acre and individual property constraints, the development potential is significantly less than using gross acreage. ° The Development Code does not allow rounding up on densities, therefore fractional units were not rounded up. `2 existing units on this property. Compliance with State law As an alternative, the Council could consider a Residential Suburban (RS) zoning designation, which allows up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre, or thirty-two (32) units total (20 new units). This would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA). If the Council determines that RS is a more appropriate zone for this area, it will require compliance with Government Code Section 65863'(b) and (c), set forth below. "(b) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, or legislative action, reduce, require, or permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following: (1) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. _ CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9,2007 DCA 06-004; NP U4-001 PAGE 6 (2) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. (c) If a reduction in residentiat density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regionai housing need pursuant to Section 65584> the jurisdiction may reduce the density on that parcel if it identifies sufficient additionat, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater residentiai density in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residentiai unit capacity." As indicated above, the City cannot reduce the residentiai density for any parcel that is below the density identified in the City's certified Housing Element unless it can be determined that sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites can offset the loss of density. Based on gross acreage (not considering existing lot configuration or site constraints), the 12.77-acre property would alfow 57 units under the SF zoning and 32 units under the RS zoning. Given State law, it would be necessary to make up the 25- unit difference somewhere eise within the City. Staff has analyzed other potential sites that couid offset the decrease in density of the ; subject property and has determined that only one site qualifies, which is an eleven (11) acre property off of Vailey Road adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. Council approved a zone change for this site from Community Facilities {no residential development potential) to Residentiai Hiliside (1.5 dwelling units per acre gross) on August 22, 2006. The increase of seven (7) units is not adequate to offse# the 25-unit difference required if the City changed the projeet site from SF to RS. There have been no other up zoned properties since the Housing Element was certified. Therefore, it does not appear that the City can make the necessary findings of "no net loss" of density with down zoning of the subject property, unless other residential properties can be concurrently considered by GPA and DCA to provide at least eighteen (18) units of additional housing potential. Neiqhborhood Pian As mentioned above, Council determined that the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) met the requirements of the Generai Plan provisions and deemed the EVNP adequate last October. The EVNP has been modified to reflect a more accurate calculation of density given the various site constraints. Specificaliy, "Attachment #3" of the EVNP has been replaced with a new concept p�an for Subarea 2 and editorial changes have been made to reflect the new exhibit. Finally, staff recommends that the revised Neighborhood Pian be approved by adopting the attached resolution. Specific Plan As mentioned above, the Planning Commission discussed the option of requiring a specific pian for Subarea 2 as a method of controlling the density and ensuring that adequate infrastructure and an effective and well-planned agricultural buffer would be provided. This option would also require a General Plan Amendment. Specific plan CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9, 2007 DCA 06-004; NP 04-001 PAGE 7 regulations are outlined in Government Code §65450 and require comprehensive analysis. In summary, a specific plan must include the following (see Attachment 11 for "The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans" for more information about preparing specific plans): (a) A specific plan shall include a fext and a diagram or diagrams which specify al!of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by fhe plan. 2. The proposed distribution, /ocation, and extent and intensity of major components of public and privafe transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid I waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located ' within fhe area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the � conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. ' 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry ouf paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relafionship of the specific plan to the general plan. There are two areas within the City that require a specific plan, including Berry Gardens , (approved in 1998) and the Fredrick' property located in the southeast portion of the City. Historically, the specific plan process has been cumbersome (especially with multiple property owners) and expensive. It is staff's opinion that requiring a specific plan is unnecessary, since an effective Neighborhood Plan already exists. Coordinating a more detailed specific plan with ten (10) separate property owners would be a long and complicated process. ADVANTAGES: As proposed, the Ordinance and Neighborhood Plan will: ! . Make zoning in this area consistent with the General Plan; • Provide housing to meet the City's housing needs; . Provide improved circulation and drainage; . Provide City sewer to an area currently reliant on septic systems; • Provide for a more orderly and coordinated development of the area. DISADVANTAGES: I The primary concern expressed by City Council has been the inability to require installation of the agriculture buffer prior to any development occurring. This is difficult to achieve since buffer requirements can only be imposed on development of property 11 i CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9,2007 DCA 06-004; NP 04-001 PAGE 8 within the buffer area. Some neighborhood concerns have been expressed regarding the future density and impact on the rural character of the area. However, there is general unity in the neighborhood's support for the proposal. Lastly, City Council expressed concerns regarding the potential for meeting the maximum density if ownership of the parcels were consolidated. While the Neighborhood Plan sets forth specific guidelines for future development and restricts proposals inconsistent with the Plan, it is not possible to eliminate the ability of future City Councils to make modifications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff has determined that the proposed project is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Note that any future development requiring discretionary review in the Subarea 2 area would require comprehensive environmental review. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and was published in the Tribune on Saturday, September 29, 2007. Included as Attachment 5 are letters received for the Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2006 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2006 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2007 4. City Council Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2007 5. Memorandum from Don Spagnolo, Public Works to Kelly Heffernon, Community Development Department dated September 28, 2007 6. Road Acquisition Agreement S:\Community DevelopmenhPROJECTS\NP\Cherry Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07N 0-09-07 CC DCA rpt.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates � the subject 13-acre property as Single-Family Residential Medium-Density with a Neighborhood Plan requirement; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map designates the subject property as I Single-Family Rural Residential (RR); and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has initiated Development Code Amendment 06- 004 to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Single-Family Residential (SF); and ! WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning designation would establish land use, � development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 06-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and recommended approval of said amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development Code Amendment 06-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on October 9, 2007, in I accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the i following circumstances exist: A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the i General Plan. � J ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Medium Density residential development within the project area would be required to meet development and design standards under the SF zoning designation that insure orderly development. D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2� Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3� If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION d� Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Exemption. SECTION 5� A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION s: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of 2007• � I i I I I I i i I ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN D. ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A � ` "- � I � � 1 / ' _ ,1 �——L_ �1-- � H U A 5 M A R O .�,�---- `� � ' �� 1�� ' 1 � —� �� 1 �� / i r� ' I��' � ` /?�J '�. � —` � � 1 ' —, �, �' /�/� ' ` � � � /S\ � _� � � /� \ •�� \ __��._.�� _�, � \\ \ � 'y .�..----- � \� � \, f� _� � \ � �� ' �' \ d � I �/ �'0 '��' �� LPt �:: ` � � V� � � � � ..T��R' — �-,�: V �,� tt 1��1�/ •y* �r.r`- , ' / � � �"�— ' �� ' " . S _ ��`�:+ ott �� /�st w?�k � :;Rezdne from � _ ��r�,�;. i _` � ' � /{j �� Re'sidential Rural (RR) y �� `��\'"`� �'.*'`� 8� , to Single-Family (SF) �'' d � � � ,/ / /� ,r-` � a�ry . �:� i \ T\t ///�\\ :��.* � � _ � -Y' / \ �� /� \�/ J \ \ IY1i., � T< �� - °�:.��/� / :1 � ` �/ \ ffjV � . .' \ / �� 'y��' ``�� Mr'w'`x .�w _� r �/ � / \ / � � � d4*F. .a��s -,;�;t� �/� � / ,,,�� , � � ;��,.� � � . �. p� �c. yc, �, ..: �. �,��l G� \`� \ //� � x � .� \ �i \ � '�� ` / � \\ � \ (�� . . �a ' �/ i� � � �\ �� ___� � . � �. k,;� , /, c, ,- �<' �9,p( l� � /� ,��,/i� . � '. �.0�- �; y �� \�: ��`'�%y — \ i N��\� /(" \�',p . \ \�� , ` /ll�. `y ' i 9�,\ \ / \ V � S\ v�, �( '\�!�� \ � "� � 0 0 <o ,� �t\ , �� ' ag i ' � � ` \� �� / �4 � '� �� ----_ \ � �_. "--�_ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04-001) FOR APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF THE NOGUERA COURT SUBDIVISION, NORTH OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION, AND SOUTH OF ARROYO GRANDE CREEK; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan which became effective on November 9, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan specifies that the "21± acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek east of Tract 409 (Noguera Park), and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family Residential — Medium Density (SFR-MD) is subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural butter, creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map"; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) on October 10, 2006, July 10, 2007, and October 9, 2007 and determined it met the requirements of the General Plan provisions; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on November 14, 2006 for the Cherry Creek Project, including Neighborhood Plan Case No. 04-001; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and relevant evidence, the City Council has determined that the EVNP, attached hereto as ExhihiLA, can be adopted based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan because circulation, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer and conservation/open space considerations have been adequately coordinated. 2. The proposed Neighborhood Plan will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern because Subarea 1 adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to accommodate future development of Subarea 2. 3. The Neighborhood Plan is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts Neighborhood Plan Case No. 04-001, approving the East Village RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 Neighborhood Plan, a copy of which is on file with the Community Development Department, based on the above findings. 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 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY i ' _'- EXHIBIT A ppROy� pf Cp � ixconrona1e 2 � �+ -/ � �� 'C7</FORN�P� � ___-_�) �� East Village Neighborhood Plan k4 '" . , .. J"� M1�* . ' ' . E�• .dhq Xte ��,�,.M � ` ` . �� 4F x . . { •. . °.. , t .. ; tg .�. �M �, :, .. .... ., . � , � � � � . ;. . '°� '� '�;�. - ' ' *"�`,�`� *.� �-s �+ � _ .m. , ,:. . � Q. . .:3'k .'...' ' i � 5 �I�i�[ryk •. k � JeY" �Y �'�' '.q.,� ;. �p r Y � a y . 7 ,f i "' � ,� � r 1- kz w,,� � . � �h !ax � 1�}4 '��i. � {{ �+`'� # $ V p.^� A 'S � � ��F � � �y � S . �:. ��,� 'S W y.,$�� t�� S� . � � � �y�. � . F �f ! � '.. y . T 'S'� .$` � ki ,�,�> ��.x. '�„ �'l "y�.'� »r. . :.+ n 4 "� �1. � . . t� u�': '�:' ar ^ 1 `� � �� ' '� '� "i �� .'.x 't �'� � � � . . .. � �y r � '� qri♦ � � ,. ��t�ry#f 'k�F� �� A s ' as '' � �imt{F.�S,.?. �'�.'�t a4ryf,kp, in =��,w ,� ♦ M1 r� t r'�� w �� k �'�tv�+.�� . "�s��d�� *� ,�.�� x« � �v . � �� 3 x �qy f � m i �„ �^ a et � ��`� ' '� x��Ab�." .. !�` � t ' 1°'` -s. .+�s ��.. �'�'�...ra ..w .,.�'�'�k� ; October 2007 i i � I . I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction Neighborhood Plan Location and Setting 3 Existing Environmental Setting 3 eackground 3 Summary of Neighborhood Plan Subareas 4 General Plan 45 � II. Neighborhood Plan Proposals --- Subarea t Purpose and Objectives 5 Archeological and Biological Conditions �6 Architectural Design Guidelines �6 Land Use and Property Development Standards 6 Access, Circulation and Parking Standards �7 Traffic Impacts �8 Green Space �8 Agricultural Buffer Zone 7S Fences, Walls, and Special Entry Features �9 Water, Sewer, and Utility Facilities �9 Wp__f2[$UppIY $YSt2rn 9 Sanitary Sewer Collection, Treatment, and Disposal 9 Off-site and On-Site Drainage �10 Creek Side Path �10 Inclusionary Housing �10 III. Neighborhood Plan Proposals---Subarea 2 Considerations for Subarea 2 �91 1 � IV. Implementation and Administration Entitlement Reauests 11 Proposed Phasing of Development in Neighborhood Plan Area a912 Special Conditional Uses �12 Administration and Implementation of the Neighborhood Plan a-i 12 -1- S�\CommuniN Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Chem Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07.tloc2BB6959-6reeksi9e- I E-stat LIST Of ATfACHMENTS Attachment #1 Subareas Attachment #2 Existing Ownership Attachment #3 Neighborhood Plan Attachment #4 General Plan Attachment #5 Water Supply System Attachment #6 Sewer System Attachment #7 Storm Drainage System AttachmenT #8 Drainaae Strateaies and Ootions � � -Z- S:\Communitv Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Chem Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc29B6B�B-6reeksi6e- I � I I. Introduction Neighborhood Plan Location and Setting The East Village Neighborhood Plan area is comprised of approximately 22 acres in eleuera fourteen f 141 separate parcels. It is located east of ihe existing Noguera Court subdivision, north of the East Cherry Avenue extension, and bounded to ihe north and east by Arroyo Grande Creek. Currently, there are only plans to develop the western nine f9J_acres, called Subarea l. The development in Subarea 1 is proposed by a partnership between Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande. Subarea 2 consists of the remaining parcels to the east. Refer to Attachment #1- Subareas, and Attachment #2-Existing Ownership. Existing Environmental Setting The entire southern edge of the Neighborhood Plan area borders the Dixson Farm, which is an active agricultural field and is subject to a 130 ft. agricultural buffer. Arroyo Grande Creek forms the border to the north and east, which requires a minimum 25-foot setback from the top of the � creek bank. Most of the developable portion of the Neighborhood Plan area is level to slightly sloping in the direction of the creek. Subarea 1 has three houses and is dotted with non-native walnut trees. Subarea 2 is developed with a mixture of homes on largeF lots. Other vegetation in � the area includes various fruit and avocados trees, as well as some palms. The creek area contains a variety of native and non-native Ip ant species. � Background The developers of Subarea 1 began to research and implement the details of the ^'�CitY�S � Neighborhood Plan requirement after acquiring the Stillwell property. These requirements were focused on developing a cohesive strategy for the current and future development of this area. This concept worked well with the goal of'engaging the community in the planning process. Drawing from past experiences, the developers of Subarea 1 believed ihat the community surrounding the proposed development�could provide valuable input that can help shape � the design aspects of the project. With the help and vision of the neighbors, a community based concept has been developed. The public outreach process was initiated by having the developers walk door to door in the neighborhood. They introduced themselves, briefly explained their goals, and distributed a "Hello Neighbor Letter" and reply card. The requirements for ihe Neighborhood Plan were easily incorporated into the development's public outreach effort, allowing both to proceed concurrently. The developers compiled the suggestions and concerns posed by the community regarding both the Neighborhood Plan and the proposed development. These became the topics of three community meetings that were held. To help facilitate these community meetings, a planner from RRM Design Group was present and active, as well as c-it�-Citv staff from the Communitv Develooment I Deoariment. The first neighborhood meeting engaged ihe property owners within the entire East Village Neighborhood Plan area. At this meeting, topics were discussed that affected the Neighborhood Plan, such as east-west collector alignment, agriculture buffer, and density.The layout and vision for the site was also discussed. For the second community meeting everyone that returned a reply card was invited, as well as everyone in the immediate neighborhood surrounding our development.This meeting focused on how the site would interact with the existing neighborhood to the west.Traffic, drainage, and site layout were all discussed. Following the second meeting, four alternative concept site plans were generated in response to the community's suggestions. These drawings were presented at the final community meeting and the pros and cons of each design were discussed. -3- S�\Communitv DeveloomenflPROJECTS\NP\Chem Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiqhborhood Plan 10-09-07 doc2�B96959-6reeksi6a I The preferred concept plan for Subarea 1 was prepared for review and approval by ihe Planning Commission. The final plan for Subarea 1 was revised several times after hearings and extensive public input. Modifications were made to the plan to address comments received during the hearing process. Summary of Neighborhood Plan Subareas Subarea 1 is approximately 9.0 acres and is being processed as a Planned Unit Development, bringing the zoning into conformance with the 2001 General Plan. The �eaiu�.land use desianation of inedium density single-family residential as specified by-in ihe 2001 General Plan enables a density of 4.5 units per gross acre, or 40 units for the nine acres. Based on ihe latest plans submitted to the City at the time of review of the Neighborhood Plan, a total of 30 lots are proposed at a density of 3.3 units/acre. The three existing homes in Subarea 1 will be placed on lots within the new subdivision. Subarea 2 is approximately thirteen 131 acres and has no current plans to develop. The � adoption of the Neighborhood Plan and a Development Code Amendment will bring Subarea 2 into conformance e#with=the 2001 General Plan with a zoning of 4.5 units per gross acre. Conceivablv, �this would allows a total of�4-57 units within Subarea 2 withoui takinp anv site constraints into consideration.The future development in this area will be subject to additional review by the City as development proposals come forward. At the request of the Planning Commission, ��A4-Bes�-6�euNMark Vasauez of Desian Graqhics prepared a conceptual design of how Subarea 2 could be subdivided. �esed-ea-ikie-�RPA .Once the restrictions of a 130' wide aqricultural buffer, 25' wide creek setback and sensitive riparian areas are removed from the total acreaae, it is estimated that about 8.5 acres of ihe site remain as potentiallv buildable. The table below summarizes the size and ownershio of all existina oarcels the allowable densitv of each parcel for SF zoning based on qross acreape, and a densitv estimate for each oarcel based on site constraints and conceotual lot layout as illustrated in Attachment #3. Calculated constrainis within Subarea 2 include 81.870 sauare feef of aqriculiural buffer and 104.000 sauare feet of sensitive creek area 1'4.27 acres totall. Existinq Existinq Existinq SF SF 10 Parcels Residences Parcel Density Concept s.f. est. (4.5/qross LayoUta acre A: Janowicz 1 unit 14 586 2 units 1 unit � B: Titus 1 unit 12,106 1 unit 1 unit � C: Loone 1 unit 60.333 6.2 units 4 units � 0: Estes 1 unit 87,026 9 units 8 units � E: Harrison 1 unit 12,882 1unit 1 unit � F: Janowicz 2 units 30,630 3.2 units 2 units � G: Janowicz 1 unit 43 513 4.5 units 4 units � H: Summerfield 1 unit 28.115 3 units 2 units � I: Caldwell 2 units 78,541 8.1 units 4 units � J: Miner 1 unit 188 083 19.4 units 10 units � � Totals 12 units 12.77 56 units 37 units acres± maximum° L du/acre -4- S:\Communitv Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc2896B50-6reeksiAe- I Notes: a The attached Subarea 2 concept pian for SF zoninq (see Attachment #3) is qrovided to show the realistic develoqment densitv for Subarea 2 based on lot size and area constraints Usina the General Plan land use densitv of 4.5 du/acre and individual �ropertv constraints, the development potential is siqnificantiv less than usinp qross acreape. °The Develooment Code does not allow roundina uo on densities therefore fractional units were not rounded uq. A summary of the two sSubareas is as follows: � Subarea Maximum Proposed Units Existing Homes Likely Allowable Units Jul 2006 Additional Units � 1 40 units 30 units 3 homes 27 units 2 �57 units n/a �12 homes 25�5 units Summa 4A-97 Units 30 units 1415 Homes 42-52 units Note: Althouqh Ikae-the General Plan would allow a maximum of�9-97 units within both Ssubareas, the total unit count is likely to be below the maximum density allowed piven the various site constrainis. Approval of this Neighborhood Plan restricts Subarea 1 to#k�e30 units �eqese�. Future approvals within Subarea 2 will be restricted to the allowable density within that Ssubarea. . Unused density is not transferable between phases or between individual development proposals. Refer to Section IV,.- Implementation and Administration�for a list of approvals that will be required for each Ssubarea. General Pian The City of Arroyo Grande 2001 General Plan identifies the property as NP or Neighborhood Plan (refer to Attachment #4-General Plan). The text of the document includes the following policy relative to what should be included in a Neighborhood Plan,_ � Policy LU2-7 7he 21+/- acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek eost of Tract 409 (Noguero ParkJ, and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-MD) is subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate streef, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, creek side frail, and conservafion/open space consideration prior fo approval of any subdivision or parcel map. Sections II and III address the coordination of the above concerns. II. Neighborhood Plan Purpose and Objectives Very high goals have been set for the 22--acre East Village Neighborhood Plan. This area is one of the last developable parselsproperties in the�illegaVillaae areo and should reflect all its best attributes. Feedback received from the community has been an invaluable tool in preparing the Neighborhood Plan. The collective vision of the community was to have a quality neighborhood that incorporated the historical Vandeveer residence, the existing Stillwell residence, and created a pedestrian-friendly community that incorporates open space. -S- S'\CommuniN Develoomenl\PROJECTS\NP\Chem Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07�Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc2B06B5B-6reeksi9e- I Archaeological and Biological Conditions Given the unique creek side setting of this project, Phase 1 and Phase II archaeological studies and a biological survey were performed for Subarea 1.The archaeological studies included both pre-historic and historic investigatiorr.The archaeological studies concluded that the site contained limited pre-historic archaeological resources. Historic resources included the existing stone house (Vandeveer�, . The area in front of the house, primarily in the creek corridor, contains historical trash dumps. Additional sub-surface testing � and/or monitoring by an archaeologist will be necessary prior to the construction of the storm � drain outfall into the creek area. An archaeologist will also be required to review the plans prior � to consiruction to address any potential changes. Separate Archaeological studies will be I needed for the parcels within Subarea 2 as development proposals are submitted. The biological survey for Subarea 1 revealed limited concern of sensitive biological resources with the exception of the riparian corridor along the creek. Provided that construction in or near the creek corridor is minimized, there should be limited biological impacts.The one exception is the outfall of the storm drainage that will discharge into the creek. Mitigation will be required in accordance with standards and requirements by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the State Department of Fish and Game. Extensive environmental monitoring by a qualified biologist will be required in pccordance with the approved environmental document.The complete reports and mitigation reauirements are on file with the City of Arroyo Grande. Gedaei�Separate Biological studies will be needed for#kie-parcels within Subarea 2 located I adiacent to the creek as development proposals are submitted. Architecturaf Design Gutdeitnes A portion of this property lies within the existing historic design overlay district fD_2•41. As a part of � this district, specific architectural guidelines and standards are provided. These are contained in a separate document ihat is subject to review by the City's Architectural Review Committee (ARC�. The project includes the standards;that would require all of Subarea 1 to be consistent with the previously adopted Village Design Guidelines. This will require that the homes built in the neighborhood are of a cohesive community style. All architectural styles will be allowed, as specified by the historic district design guidelines, except Spanish Eclectic. To establish a high level of craftsmanship, minimum standards for building materials, such as roofs, siding, and driveways, will be specified. Resirictions on architectural style will promote an attractive streetscape and community interaction. . Architectural stvle seb�ai#e�of homes oroposed within Subarea 2 will be reviewed when meFe3pesifis development proposals are submitted. Land Use and Property Development Standards Development within the Neighborhood Plan Area will be subject to the standards and requirements of the SF district of the City's Development Code. An excerpt from the Development Code referring to the SF District is contained below: i -6- S\CommuniN DeveloomenflPROJECTS\NP\Chem Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-OTNeiahborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc2A96B5�6�eeksiAe- I I __-_. _— _ _ _ � 16.32.020.E. Single-Family Residential (SF) District. 7he primary purpose of the SF district is to provide for residential development on common sized suburban lots. This district is infended as an area for development of single- family detached residential, smoll lot single- family detached residential, and mobilehomes at p maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. y�, o�f,.�,r�tio,a Fi •�,i «; .ti ��VnrdF'.�..4'i. r. Fh 1 i.}' P 4 F .J `•^^�',.,^'� ,��^i•^9—'^ fllB—FN,�l17F--�1PC11h-39f2Yj 1V2��61f2�� "co�.`J°^..-r+:.^-.-;�-� Access, Circulation and Parking Standards There will be two public access points for the Neighborhood Plan. One connection will be at the intersection of East CherryAvenue and Branch Mill Road.The second connection will be located at the extension of Myrtle Street. These connections provide convenient access to sity-Citv streets and helps split trips on both East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street. East Cherry Avenue Extension: East Cherry Avenue will be extended as a public street through � Subarea 1 to provide access for Subarea'9 and future development in Subarea 2.The improvements will include a 32 foot wide paved roadway, curbs on both sides,with parking and a sidewalk on the north side within Subarea 1.The extension of East Cherry Avenue from the � intersection of Branch Mill Road should incorporate the existing, dirt, 15' strip immediately north of the Dixon Ranch property. Fxtension of;East Cherry Avenue east of Subarea 1 (into Subarea 2) � could include a reduced road way width,at the discretion of the City. To address public safety concerns, a minimum road width of 20' shall be provided, or as otherwise required by the Fire Code. Easf Cherry Avenue Enhances: Within Subarea l, East Cherry Avenue entrances will be � identified with an accented pavement roadway with two travel lanes, both 12 feet wide. Both sides of the roadway will consist of a concrete curb, gutter, landscape border, and sidewalk. Entrances within Subarea 2 will be subject,to separate review. Myrtle Streef Enhance: Myrtle Street will be extended to form a second entrance to the neighborhood. The existing cross section of a 40 foot wide paved roadway will be transitioned to a 36 foot wide paved roadway as it enters into the subdivision.This will allow for parking on both sides. Before the historic Vandeveer residence, Myrtle Street will turn south, out of its current alignment. � Infernal Streets:The internal streets provide access to the majority of lots in this community. Due to low traffic volume, community input, and space considerations, a 36-foot wide pavement � _�_ SiCommuniN Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-OTNeiohborhood Plan 10-09-07 doc2+B94959-G�eekciAa I roadway with concrete curbs and gutters on both sides is proposed within Subarea 1. The internal streets will include detached sidewalks with trees lining both sides of the road. Narrower, tree-lined streets will help create a more pedesirian friendly neighborhood. To address public safety concerns, a minimum road width of 20' shall be provided for roads within Subarea 2, or as otherwise required by the Fire Code or the City. Emergency Access:To provide additional emergency access between Subarea 1 and Subarea 2, a 20' wide emergency access easement is being provided as part of the plan submittal for Subarea 1. This emergency access easement will need to continue into Subarea 2 at the time of development of the Looney property. Traffic Impacts Higgins and Associates studied the traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood as a result of development. Two studies were performed: Existing conditions plus Subarea 1 build out, and existing conditions plus Subarea 1 and 2 build out. The study concluded that the impact under all conditions would be less than significant, and no segment or intersection would experience a decrease of LOS (level of service) in the first siudy. Both Myrtle Street and Garden Street (north of Myrtle Street) will notice increased traffic due to the fact that they are currently very lightly used. This impact is considered less than significant, and both streets maintain a TIRE (traffic infusion on residential environment) neighborhood quality of life level A. Therefore, project impacts to these streets will not be significant.The complete traffic study can be found on file with the c-ityCitv. � Green Space Green space was central to the design process=�with much of the community input supporting � green space and open space within the Neighborhood Plan. Within Subarea 1, green space was achieved by providing: �1) a large landscape buffer along Cherry Avenue, �2) a vegetated channel through the center, and (3) open space next to the creek. Green space within Subarea 2 will include the creek channel, the 25' creek seiback and the 130' wide Agricultural Buffer. � Agricultural Buffer Zone The use of an agricultural buffer is a central feature of�is-�e�e4e�aaea#both Subareas. The site � borders the Dixson Ranch to the south,which is an operational farm and in a permanent agriculture preserve. Separation of these two diverse land uses ensures a high quality of life for the residents of this community, as well as the continued productivity of the neighboring farmland. Some of the issues this buffer addresses are farm operation noise and lights, airborne drift (both chemical and dust�, crop pilferage, and domestic animal inirusion. The buffer will extend from the edge of the Dixson Ranch property line for 130 feet to the edge of the first residential property line.The buffer width will apply to both Ssubareas for new residential units onlv. Contained within the buffer will be features that aid in the isolation of the two land uses. In Subarea 1, the buffer is further enhanced by the provision of a masonry wall. There will also be a fence on the south side of the East Cherry Avenue extension to discourage crop pilferage, � animal intrusion, and block any farm operation light sources. Within Subarea l, a landscaped area ranging from a minimum of 60 feet wide to a maximum of 80 feet wide will be provided. The Citv's Development Code reauires a minimum of a 20-foot wide landscaped sirip. The total buffer width is 30 feet larger than the minimum 100 feet required by ihe��Citv's � agricultural buffer policy. The buffer will be planted with several rows of trees and tall shrubs. This area will aid in mitigating any airborne drift. After the landscape buffer, a 6 foot high masonry wall atop a 2 foot tall berm will act as an acoustic shield. Behind the wall there weuld-will be 5 � feet before the edge of the first habitable structure. Fences, Walls, and Special Entry Features -8- S1CommuniN DeveloomenflPROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc2996B59-6�eeksiAe- I € Jaa�-96.9ec These features will be incorporated into this site in different forms to enhance privacy, separate residential and agriculture land uses, and to establish the entrance to a distinctive community. Within Subarea 1, the agricultural buffer along East Cherry Avenue will contain a wall described � above. Elsewhere in the development,walls and fences will mainly act as privacy and site enhancement. A 6 foot high steel picket fence will be provided for lots that back up to the vegetated drainaae channel. A 6 foot wood fence will be used for the internal fencing where � privacy is needed. A 6 foot high wood rail fence with hog wire will be provided to restrict access to the agricultural field across the street. It will also provide protection for ihe drainage inlet where water drops underneath Eas1 Cherry Avenue. � Within Subarea l, the main entrances to this development will be located on the East Cherry � Avenue extension. Street trees will be planted to line the entry roads, while enhanced paving and decorative landscaping will be provided to establish a sense of entry. Fencing, walis, and entry features within Subarea 2 will be reviewed separately upon time of submittal of development proposals. Water, Sewer, and Utility Facilities Master Plans for Water, Sewer and Storm Drain facilities are attached. These plans are based on the likely development scenarios within the two subareas. The approval of the Neighborhood Plan does not "lock in" or approve the layouts within each Ssubarea. Individual proposals will be � reviewed separately by the City. Water Supply System The City of Arroyo Grande supplies water service within its eCity limits (including the Plan Area). � Municipal water is provided by the Lopez Reservoir and, in part, by the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. Historically, the City has had good water quality. The Plan Area will utilize three poinis of connection to the existing City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply System including connecting to an existing 16" water line on Branch Mill Road and a 6" water line on Myrtle Street. Water system design criteria shall conform to the City's standards.The existing and proposed Water Supply System can be found in Attachment #5. � Sanitary Sewer Collection, Treatment, and Disposal ' The City of Arroyo Grande provides sanitary sewer collection services connecting to a trunk line leading to a 7.6--acre sewer treatment plant near the Oceano Airport. This facility is operated by the South San Luis dbispo County Sanitation District. ' wc�#eF � Sewer service in fhe Plan Area will be provided via a new connection to the East Manhole at I Pacific Railroad Way. This is a new connection as adjacent development was determined to have insufficient capacity. Design criteria for the sewer collection system shall conform to City of Arroyo Grande standards. The proposed Sewer System can be found in Attachment #6. Off-Site and On-Sfte Drainage The site is located in ihe downstream end of the Newsom Springs drainage area. In low-flow ! situations, drainage flows around the edges of the farmer's fields (south of the Neighborhood I Plan area) and through a system of earthen ditches to Arroyo Grande Creek. In higher flow situations, or a 100-year storm, the drainage will sheet flow across the farm fields and continue _g_ � S:\Communitv Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07�Neiahborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc213B4959-6reeksi9e- I �� I across the site to the creek. In the past, large storms have caused flooding to surrounding neighborhoods. To address flooding and other drainage issues in the area, development of Subarea 1 has been requested to facilitate the installation of a 48-inch wide pipe adjacent to the Dixson Ranch farm (along Branch Mill Road). The water will then flow under the extension of East Cherry r.�°� Avenue into the vegetated channel. The channel will assist in cleaning out the sediments and other contaminants. After the water leaves the vegetated channel, it will outfall into Arroyo Grande Creek.The proposed Storm Drain System can be found in Attachment #7. � I Creek Side Path II According to the General Plan, the feasibility of a creek side pedestrian path must be explored. ' This topic was discussed at a neighborhood meeting, and it was intensely rejected by the surrounding residents. A creek side path from downtown to the site would have to traverse approximately 15 existing residential properties bordering the creek. It became clear talking to I neighbors that they would not tolerate a path through, or adjacent to, their private yards. Furthermore, the examination of aerial photographs revealed that in many instances there was not even room to weave a path through these properties. Although there are fewer property owners to the east of the site, the same issues are present, making a path to the east not I feasible. The Myrtle Street right of way currently extends to the east end of the Neighborhood Plan area, although it drops into the creek bank toward the east end of Subarea l. The banks of ' Arroyo Grande Creek are very steep, and constructing a path in this environmentally sensitive area would be very difficult. Due to the existing ownership patterns, the location of the creek bank, and the opposition from affected property owners, it has been determined that a creek side path would be infeasible. i Inclusionary Housing Inclusionary housing is a very important part of any new development. It creates diverse neighborhoods and promotes a healthy demographic. , , Inclusionarv Af#erNebl�housing�revisiens-within Subarea 2 will be subject to affordable housing requirements in affect at the time of submittal of individual development proposals. -10- S�\CommuniN Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiahborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc2�BB60�0.6reeksi9e- I III. Neighborhood Plan Proposals -- Subarea 2 Considerations for Subarea 2 The developers of Subarea 1 have no current ownership or financial interest in any property contained within Subarea 2. However, there are important considerations regarding the impact development in Subarea 1 will have on future development of Subarea 2. Access and road alignment in the Neighborhood Plan area were both topics of community meetings. It was decided that the only viable access was to continue East Cherry Avenue in its existing � alignment.This would be improved to the end of Subarea 1 when it is developed.This would enable its future path to be determined to suit future development. Utilities, sized to service the future development of Subarea 2, will be brought to the end of Subarea 1 during its development. The zoning proposed by the 2001 General Plan is SFR-MD and would be enabled by this Neighborhood Plan.This wo�ld allow for subdivision up to a density of 4.5 units per gross acre conforming to the Ceity's Ddevelopment Deode. . It is important to enable this zoning at this time to prevent any future development conflicts. Emergency service or fire access can be provided via a private driveway and public easement on the west side of Subarea 1. IV. Implementation and Administration Entitlement Requests A variety of approvals are needed in order to implement the Neighborhood Plan. A summary of these entitlements is described below. Developmenf Code Amendment: A Development Code Amendment rezones the property from its current Resideniial Rural IRR) non-conforming zoning to Single-Family Residential 9is#ie�(SF). � The SF zoning allows for development of single family homes within the Neighborhood Plan at a maximum density of 4.5 units per acre. Neighborhood Plan: The adoption of this Neighborhood Plan further defines and restricis what can be developed within each Subarea. The standards and requirements within this Neighborhood Plan will supplement the standards contained within the SF zoning district. � Land Division: In order to subdivide property, a tentative subdivision map or parcel map must be submitted for review.The City of Arroyo Grande shall confirm that it complies with the standards and requirements of the Neighborhood Plan. A vesting tentative subdivision map has previously been submitted for Subarea 1. Future subdivision proposals will likely be submitted for Subarea 2. The Subarea 2 proposals will be subject to separate review by the City of Arroyo Grande at the time of submittal. -11- S:\Communitv Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07.doc2�B96959-6�eeksiAe- I I Environmental Review: Environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be required for each development proposal.E�atiea-ei-er� I . Future development proposals in both Subareas�will be subject to separate environmental review when individual proposals are submitted. Proposed Phasing of Development in the Neighborhood Plan Area Development will commence in Subarea 1 as soon as the Neighborhood Plan is adopted. Individual homes are anticipated to be built primarily by a single home builder/developer. Development of Subarea 1 is estimated to be largely completed within 2.5 years. Once the Neighborhood Plan is adopted, development in Subarea 2 could begin at the landowner's discretion, pending ermit approval by the Citv. � Special Conditional Uses The Neighborhood Plan enables the zoning specified by the 2001 General Plan. Certain conditional uses such as daycare, churches, and private schools may be granted subject to a Csonditional Udse qPermit. It is the Ceity's responsibility to approve, conditionally approve, or � deny such requests in accordance with the zoning of RSF-MD. Administration and Implementation of the Neighborhood Plan Subarea 1 will require a Homeowners Association (HOA) to administer maintenance of open space�rJc�and common areas, as well as the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions � (CC&Rs�. The developer of Subarea 1 will submit proposed by-laws and articles of incorporation for the HOA and CC&Rs for the State of California Department of Real Estate and the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department and Citv Attornev review and approval. � -12- S�\CommuniN Develooment\PROJECTS\NP\Chem Creek\DCA\CC 10-09-07\Neiohborhood Plan 10-09-07 doc2BB6B59-C�eeksiAe- I Estates-New-EMer+v .. , l' �-'` �w�l'� ,r:.i 9.,�1�: ♦,� . � S '.t ��, t flt� . ��.. —. f . �� `� �4 � � � � ;=� i �� ,(,,.... � � 1 ♦ �� ,�� 4.,� f J�A� .� � � � � � � � y �� J '��4 �� ' ��'i.. ', w h.� , f �\S k{� �7 r. � ." f '�S " }� .ji � �� • � �.�1 � _ !� . �� :�y''�t�� , `y,, .� , ��,� �� \,,. �...� �tv � � �T,' S �:lr r � `�' `- �,�,�7 �� i1,, , � ' . � � �.� � ��• i i-. .�� '�' �� ' �'r') ' �f ` _ '� . �•}�• . - , l, ,! M1 � , , r�' , , • r �1�� , + •"�,. .,..�: .yi �- r , � r,,,, � .�� 1 . rr � ��r �'� �' l -r ` � ��... 4`k ��,.,�'4' � � � � �� r �°' � .. �°" � . �� /Y ' � � " � � :; - . � ,� ' . �j�� - �� , . r /..:: ' n �,,, - � •, �"d. ''. A �- -4' � . � � jj.� , . ��'-� r, , tl�y� � ' , ,� i ',:, "V �Aill: . ��,�`� .. � ' .J, � k ♦. �l �. ! � ry ` ,- , .. +b' � .'�7✓� . , ..� �+ � ` x,: : _'.� . � . . :'�'r e ,_.� �"�t�.:. ��l . ( � 1,, � ',. �, � ' l. �... t .l': � �Y. �'. n�� C� � � � ✓ �+,� , v . .� 't.'i ! �`� � � ..� 1� �.� \ + ;{� j '' �r if�' �� , F � � '�; _ :/y . y � .� �yd�''� .r ,��'c`�� S�'1''fj t? � � ` '�! 1 �r to a/,. ��. :. � x.+'��q,e ��I- ' �1 „`t�� ' � kk � ,�n� FC�"� »� �y��J'� #'. ,��h ry`9� ��> �,L� ! � ^M. �. "_ . ,� � '� 1 � Y�yR' � f iE1_ �` �� • �g '� � 'e,�+•/ � j� ��y�/ i/7,, �¢ t t .•� . � e: �, + ;�n � _ i . ��".%�r��r �:-,. .L � �\. .Nj2 .,.l�. . C �v � � w,,,� �� , . p '` . ,�R.�',�.r . ,.lP�' .� +�� I� i ':?f j„��i� � . 1 t � i V +�y,br � � y �_'i � w� lii � j�� if��'.` , �a �ti . �i � � S � �� 1 � �� _t[ ,�r�` r = � , � T 't °�� r�_ s � • , . y � � .. �. ' ^� �s r' t t�. . a a ._ � �'' 2°,� • r.t, a a�1''- e. . i J t�'�'.ti� j�`+�� t. r :.i y '� � .�.:} ��, ; � �S .y''•� .� :�"'.: . y��+ 1 .�.�� ...` p��' � , 10��j ' - �t'�.��,. . li �Yt� i �'+ 1.`-�� I j - � "_ \ - �c b�ck � � � � I� a �' '�\� . ; ��i �::t �I � . ♦ Grcek ,E+� . � 1F y� ,. . �� p (.n �R�� (�;[ � � t • �/.f"`. '. �'� •" .ir'i}.�� "t�; . - � � '` � =i�p�lr�3� i�.- � , ♦ ` � �i] i y_ ��kl��y2 L2��1 �i w..s 3 'rCn � � <'3' ,�Y"'�'�•� S� r � �iP �r��' � '�A.� .r �� t.� ' .� � . t�� a '�`qq r �Sy _. . -. � I y v �-,. . sy„ ;� �' u�t i ".l��j +� '*K. .� t"/''��'� , . �I`� ` .htifi9p.p� � . ♦ -. � � ��{{{��, - t, �"S'�3Y i ' :�. 'd ' � \. a �: 'Sa^ . .'r ♦ , l�r+`�'� i � � ' - ' Y �L1 � F 1 QQQjjj �, �e[ 1.es tf � ! � �t�e� � l�st . ..-. 1 . tQ� tytx � ' a,T \\� ,,,�y`�'�"�„� �� ` , .' k t�� I� I r`�+.yy _a] vfF y � Y +,� �-. ��:., �gS � '� u. {4 � ��l �� ' � � , V. �?r X Fx.+� ♦ �*�� CALO�� . � � ,''S y ,. r j :-. " . �� 't s : ' '� �i '�- 1�.a � x. 3'�'t �. I z+; r � 4 r� . . � � 1 � � , � � � � . � l.. 4 �.. e ri'� +t� :. `f.'. t . � te ilANUWtC2 7 r. „ �� \ r:. � � �t tx«Y � iy^y+ s I ,r._'�� t�� , �t� � h � t ._ k e� t � - r ' �z ,� r J � ` T F FN`!' 'yt . -. � � i��t -,-4t � .i r t � � iy t-. �! . s � I . ;h��g„ m ..� ` 1 ..� � '�'`�' 1r� :' � � t`v.� J . r { V' tl�� 5'� . �j� , �` 15�,�u'�^��'}t ��S�Well . � �{ ,A P ! �i � ,(� i:. /� u.. 2. .• 1 'L � k 'i . �,' . 1 + . � t�(�"'� J. • I rC p C I .Oy \ �17`1Nq t�'�f' �''Y A91��Y1 �Q(`y1BUD , Y . . �3� i`Y+t��5 ,s. . ��/ . . i `� � �a � ' . HA� " <i` �h 1�/'t '��Iy� c �iLL x�9, � +.-� � y�. . f r � \ '�, � �` ', ' \ . � �Y�" - t u. , v�,��,4�- � Ra � f� . tl F� 'S � . . ��a '� '� �w` e I� . �! �, ti §�` ,��' ,. � �� '' �ca4 �`� ' t � °� �.c. � :�'.i➢ ,t,;i:♦ ,/r£.� \1�"iC°�N31,��'{� LOONEY :;i + tll at. �<< .�,,u � .v � r.s °� ,� � .- � t � � r . �: � �n _ . � 1 '.< �`' � d F t a d y`� � y .. ; � r F f ,�,rr t'g._ �b � i i k " � 's' � 1 crr "' �k 2 -' �� ' � �i:?�i \ ' o b . . � a� � .r+ �. ... - 4.Y �t�Nl VA t l f �. �� A;k. "'d L3 � f p a 5\ti �'\ s i {� a.., !G� ix`�+e ljr` Q r .e{� p\ .�SER4 � '� S,� 'L ti '°t -� t � - ti � � �� ap V r -s r r y :a "' r r J r �4 -�y,� � a � + �*1'-r a ,�s . r :,� y z. S> . _ r ' r�a r t. 16. : � w rm t::-A rf�l S' �s � G +`" ._ .r � `3r:i-� 1- '�.�yt4}��,'`�r - �t� }�t � ��X '� � ..• � ��K- ' t � r � Y �, rp :ay � '" �"4= " ,� '� \ ,}�• `� 4t� � �� i`�,I G <'�' .�A �� a � Y u `"�c jy. � 'd�' 0.NOW16� F� :. * � . - '� � � . . u� !' � il1 �.` � > r� r i-� f 7 � 4 �,�,v `'C ��; yv� . .n `,,+,� �,.�p�IPNtiEVE"�i �"� Mt e x i I� i S i '.! `' '.t� � � 1'��}' 1 s v s a � T � y� :� ^' r. ,„ ...s� e' . w s .��/ � 1 .,t.J' �j'. :.� •� .✓ iR', 1 t..e1Y1 � 4 � �� } \'1 6 t 4 � � ) 4 . Y � �`�°A S'X � � ♦ b "�i 4 e � � � r t� � . 7 �° � a ' � ' . ;� �� 4 . }� t�r bt gjiLLWEL� ti �z lK�a T'��.. 1 '� s � �-. . ,�t°� a� '/` ,�� am�,yttts 14l\ °x .t� � . in'F � '{ � _ X c � r . � �A�i,`'S ` _♦ J ( ' - ; '' \�,,;� S q °Cpo� � � . �,at.� Y F.+t\s f 9 �' �� 2� ° ' � �1 �i�. -�i 'ttL, c2. I '..r ♦y� ' � v. '� x !�s � r � x ` _ S � �,j�x�°��1,� \� Y�H �� i ti . � K"° � '1 �� *1 '�, /�y-` \,. .. � .ti y .t {�. -,�� {� � '' `'., � v l f < � :. .� � - I a t��yty.. •'r \ . � � j y S.' �� T y � � } y �y.��l� {`�� \�� ,� t 1 t "y'' �`,�-: ` ;, ''�J ` i i . c, { � �:,; r . i,c„t .! �� , . �:5 � � :5.. � yt J' .^�. � -*'�., \ fl��j � t \ ��, • • �'If`�.: �` /,/ R ,, ♦ . i 1 , ` _ _ � Attachment #3 � � � � � "�p a- yw _'1 �y ii � , . x`3'.,,'y . �l � ?4 1~i�.,��y '.. # ' ' J � �i �� a �' J�� :. ^ , �� ,q- . .� �- �4�r ,q� � E p a � ; � ay !_� �, v��l s*•'� 3@s � � �� „ R Qy _� � � � i ��_ � . a �e � � -a. y �,, °� , t',�. . �# I �� . ._ ' F .r,:,fi � l A A " � �� .''� � .� � � � �� r � ^,( q '�y � ,�� , ,.` a��y; � I �§ � � r �\�a« �' �� . �"� � � E � ' `��'�k�, �` x � �. t tl y 9. , � ,��:d� �Y � -�a,��s��;� 8 g � i. , � � 't � `�h�\" ` = m ,, � �3 $ �9 �� t s6 ..�^c� � 1 ° \`��.` 8 E Y � � / , �s ,� � � � �'.- _ � � � ��r � v � I9 + 1 � � . i L' , ', g i 5 �.. � �� ,�� J � , z \t o $ � � ,,,; �'� .+ � � �, ge * F ! . a� �a\,.�T t� ��is i (��. ' ` ��¢��¢!!€�¢�$E ii!! �� f � � � � p �..� �� l+FfiY� � y p,w .� ysBrB° p ��q,y�°ra 'Ff,� �Y�iY��HE� `� �i"• & � d g � ' g�� r p �4. �F•t, R �� .;��a ) �.. aRIE��E�i €1 �YZ � � � � � azr ,_ ��BE_. � .v�� "q e ��3 � . �r x ., «.o�n.«.� °F, 33�p �$ fr � \ \ �tl� , E9 � dt� ��%� � �dp � � `. ��y,� a 1 �..� ��5�i��d�2 9F a�dd S � 3 � O ,.,� �l�f �a��k`f � /s t . hl� � _:��"-� ,� � �I \�:,. � Fq � �:y. � �� a p v. , . n' €$< <' t�� .'�'" � ai� «l.� ti ,�F.' F � t '�� ' �� jy ,5-� `'�� . � °"� �� a -t,�,i�" .��,�� rt� � � `.,n� .) . � � a i �� .ro � ��1i�A �.S � 6R� o°i .,, `� � r� ,,�.� �� ` ` t ' °N S°\ *��°� ° $ � y��,�. �w: C �.-�1 �S`.+p � �� s�K.� �� ` i�.Y > Zi�t� " \ `.. 4 �M1-°' � � �� . d ' �\ .e .44��,��i� \�.�` ^�, 1" . s �. � i-� . � ' t <Qb y O .: ��,A ,J \� ' . ?� a'°,�k a � _ � �..n v�'L ;a i �� z V i � u�,._ �l ��. q � =" � � � 4 s � � ��.Ia' �� . � � �� . � .e . �.Z � pbt, �il ��.. ., � � b � 7� , . ♦ . -,"�; . w , � . �a; � d .. i' �� q d _ i i: r b�' �� g ' � � Y °a�: , � _ � �. .. w � �' � c �n- � S``� 3_ Z �3� o e � .. ' .. {�g � .. . . :. .Y I . . ' . . ,hVi ' j ��. ' " � ?*> � � . 1.,, . � 4 � r E�7 ' t. ,��j, - '�• ��. :. ' i. [ ! � ,u,�a ^::.. � c' � . r,,. � i � 1f� fs,: � � � Q � ! ^� {C W � 'r� � i h \ �/. , .:'U r'w� �1 {i ] q � •! �Ry, �� -0 `t j�y� �{ .4� �t C( ^ /� �`t j r ' ' , , �., , � . , � . � . a; � _ �tiS3 � a� .e � i y . � , J — � � � R. �+ i� � ,' ; .� , � ;� , ';s, :, ' "� �. I � ; ,. . � � �� ; �� _� ;��_ � f �:,,�}��¢ � � 8 - _ '� � �R r ,. , = c ' � , ' � < ` - a � ... .� . ,. ." t ', Y j�� R/ � � ..K . ., , -v+n Vr � . � - � l S . � � g , ' �.r + r ...$ ,. L " � /� A� i � •� �\, g �y� l`° � / /.��j ' .�11 _ ^a 'Y"d' .La l,�'�\ ..._..>�.'�. • !'..- ''J .3u �..�� , .;. , � �' � �� "� .. . . �..��►,J .� .. . . �� ., . j�I� �.��r� � .•�'�' :.► .�� a '. ,;..�,�•,•,�'�• c.� �1j1i : , •• y;•.•. �,� �.�1i.��:�af. `f : .h, ,��:��.,,. �I ♦ I 1�� `� � • . C�� /� � ��' o f �•�':.�r �� +: :i►i '� �� '•. �j��,�,r ��,�t��j .�� ';:9 ��I� If� ,��1p��i�� •,� > � �♦ 1• ♦ ♦.:� ��•�� 1h►� �' • .: ��r I• �►�i '•. ��1t� �.��,� �,I 3rfti�f� I� R�. �.��,�� a��1,��.. •., �. ♦ I►��1 �i ��; � r'.., � �. , �/ ii. +i> � � � , � � ��,��I/� � �i�. �� ,�[ ,1 v ; a �1 � �l, 0 1 1 !ji L . � � ��i A�`C +�,�� ``�� `� � �. � .� �►��, pN� � �� • i� ��7�`�� i � � �� V �� Sf `�i �.j ,/ � .. � �i� � �tit�l�� a �` �r��I�,Ii A� • ,'� ��I�� % �► .. + • �► ► � • ►. . � � �,i�� p'• :° � /111t �1� � .• � t �►� `- !� 1/�► // � ,.r ■ a►li ►mD --�::�ie ,� : ,� �,I��,��'!p ��°��i��,�,' ��I111��r !I�`��j / , �`�,•��`��'. �'�``��`��<. `,*�� ~�.i/� � ; .��';v'' t ti•i��` '' � ; �� '� �'' `�� ►�� ;},!d�.��• �,,��'� i �� ,,�/� ��,�, � . �t� ••��nm j s ,��Qia i� � ' �, - " `��/-✓� �'�a .. ��:�ii `�`��o'��\��l�i`0.� ',:.�,:�t�•'��. ��, ' � ,� a i��.��. �- t8��-.�..c;cr+�_:...�4� ..�*wl/�r� w.. . �/� � � i� ♦�� ,��I�e,1..yo+��a��.. , rsayv� r� ��jl��/ �i O�O O�Q • � �-�s � ► ► �� i'.� ��► .��\\\�i�-i��j�,��;i,�1�%%. ::�r„ `1 / �. � '�' 1 ��4 7''� i I �� F, ��1 t�� *'��.��i }TI�V,�',.. .�`�r..,,;�� ',�, � � *j♦ i��\^ �� y'i �i,��•��+ ,��.��' � ♦ ,.a��i��G� �G �� o .1�� `I�'i i �� 1%��,�� '`� • Slh `��i�,i��,��Q��` ,'��i0'�i+�v �/ \� `�� *O�`�0� ��°,, �:0�s° i �� ,i��^� �,�`y+,a►�,0> \ �t�� .`� \ ,�..�� \\ I •��. , �" �. s,',, •s�I�I ,,� � �� ri � I I�� j � �� T� ♦ �� ,✓ � %`� ��'r�i� , . �� .� V `� l `\ � \• �� _ �► � . � � , � �► • -,► �'�� . � > ., ,, � ; �=.�''.'� ��.' 1`�� J�� / ��Q,.., �- -- — " •, � � � � � � J/ ,� � � .,` � , t . / . . 8. �� i 6. . l� ,� � /I' / �i � ,\ / I� \ � � �,�o � t y �� / f — — — ,-.. ` �rn"� � ` � �„a.u�e�� . �� s� �,�m,v�,"s° f ` � . . �„ ,% `� � � ��e.��°' : `. � � � . r' �� `� � �. . ,j r�� y � -:.;:-. �,::w �� f �F��uuu�w�r,.,wm�. . � �.m�� mo `�� { �� 18 �� 4 � �Il�y�B � $ \ � � I �/� i�� aGtl� l i i� � ood� '�'�`s�' � hborh � East villa9e Nei9 � � u $eW�r 5ys«�►, � ' � - ` �.. � C� ' ' , , � - � ` \ I ' � � _ � / i � i . �i � � �� ` D `�� i / f � 0 — — 'µP% i � -� �.. „" / \ _ ` ♦♦ \ I \ \` � \ � \ � \ ♦ � \ \ � \ \ �Gtre�Y �4 \ �� k 1aubdivM�Y�u^�forNluroeuD \ � yee1. � ` !' ♦ 9 � � ' i � %r AOFIEID LHCtENO �„�u. � - "i-'` ^^e... O ""� 0 � �� EI�^M g�SS W . i� p � � � � � � � � E.ast Vi��a9e Neighborhood� �''S`"�" I � � I � � # � �+ Draina9e �y�`., y � � , f � / / � � , � \ ` - J f \ .r � / � f - � si , � � / _ � % ` a��B��"ert R � - - ` ", -,... i°�f / r�-� � � �� cine""'_ IECt�NO �,ro++°°'"".. Cu1� em �' � re� V�� g � pGF1ElA n a.�M' `4 �� J / � Attachment # 8 United States Department of Agricultu�e 545 Main Street Suite B-1 � .....�:.: ��. ��_;�::.. . � �t°'�i Morro Bay, CA 93442 � n I ��C aeso��ces (805) 772-4391 I � J conscr•�anori FAX (805)4772-4398 Sen�ic? September 28, 2007 City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 Attention: Steve Adams, City Manager Dear Mr. Adams, As you know, the City of Arroyo Grande has asked that I develop a table of potential storm water drainage strategies to be implemented in Sub,Area 2 in the event Sub Area 2 is allowed to further subdivide and develop. Please keep in mind, that at your request, this is not an in depth analysis but a quick overview of concepts and ideas. Hydrology An in-depth hydrological analysis was not performed. The storm water runoff was calculated for both the 10 yeaz-10 minute and the 100 yeaz-10 minute storm events on developed, small (8,000 sfl and large (13,000 sfj lots. The runoff coefficients and storm intensities are based on data from the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works Hydrology section of the Standard Construction Drawings. Soil According to the San Luis Obispo County NRCS Coastal Soil Survey (1984), the soil type within Sub Areas 1 & 2 is predominately a Mocho Silty Loam. The soil profile and properties are shown in Table 3. As one can see, at a depth of 45"-60"the soil profile is stratified sand to gravelly sand with a permeability of between 6"/hr and 20"/hr. Although a percolation test should be performed on each lot, this data suggests sub area 2 is a potentially favorable site for retention basins or vaults as well as ground water recharge. Strategy Based on the potential for each lot to construct ground water rechazge vaults, I did not look at pre-developed runoff versus post-developed runoff, but decided to focus several of the strategies on retaining all post-developed runoff for a 10 minute-100 year storm event (the worst case scenario). The thought process suggests that if each lot has the potential to retain a 10 minute- 100 year storm event, then individual retention vaults or basins would be acceptable to the City for even the most stringent drainage policy. The Na[ural Resources Conservation Service works in partneBhip with the Amencan people to conserve and sustain natural resources on private lands. An Equal Opportunity Employer There are three main design strategies: • A neighborhood approach where property owners address storm water runoff as a collective effort such as in strategy 1 in Table 1 for both Lierly and Miner roads. Here the drainage infrastructure consists of the entire neighbarhood agreeing to grade the roads toward Cherry Avenue. The problem with this approach is that not all landowners will be ready to develop their properties, and thus pay for infrastructure, at the same time. • All landowners are responsible for the routing of the runoff from their individual lots to an acceptable body of water or drainage structure. An example is each lot constructing ground water recharge vaults as in strategy 3 for both roads. • The third strategy is a combination of the two above where some landowners may choose to combine resources and shaze the costs of drainage infrastructure for adjacent lots while other landowners construct projects on their own. The drainage strategies shown in Table 1 are presented in no particularly order. As shown, each strategy or drainage approach should be implemented concurrenfly with Low Impact Development(LID) projects. Examples of LID's are presented in Table 2. In Conclusion I have tried to present a set of drainage strategies that offer flexibility and flood protection to the landowner and City. Please keep in mind, to finalize the feasibility of the strategies presented will require at a minimum a topographic survey and percolation testing. With that said, in my opinion, the best approach is likely to be one where the City agrees to a grading plan for each entire road and allows each landowner to have the flexibility to construct a combination of LID projects that will meet the storm water runoFf requirements of the City. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Mark Barnett, P.E. NRCS Civil Engineer 545 Main Street, Suite B-1 Morro Bay, Ca 93442 1984. Permeabiliry �.wK� Unified HYdTOlogic �oastal Soil Surve Toup (inlin Ob+sp°�ount goil G inthY r NRCS San�u'S USDA Te�ture erties Pe Depth .1 goil Prop 0.� 10-.13 7able 3: goil Name (in) 2-6.0 CL � •�� viap �--� B 0.� .03-.06 Symbot gilty GaYn S dy°L � CL-� � 6.20 G1aY toam 38 SandY�oaL sm.giltY GaY�_°a°= gP SM 5 Mo�ho Siity ..��_�.� Lo�Sand to Gravelly Sand -- 6 SVaCified _,-� '1, BASlN 2 DRAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OP710NS gy Description O tions A B C p Grade lots to slope toward Lierly Road; Direcl runoff lo Cherry Ave Dired runoff to Cherry Ave Concurrently with A or B, Concurrently with A or B ai Grade Lierly Road to slope towards Cherry Ave. with Curb&Gutter with bar ditch(swale) implement Low Impact runoff into Agricultural Buff� � - - - Development Practices(LID's) � Bioretention basin in AB;c as referenced in LID Table below basin construct over flow b overtops it will sheet flow tc Grade lots to slope toward Lierly Road; Grade portion of road North Direct runoff to Cherry Ave Direct runoff to Cherry Ave Concurrently with Slretegy 2, of the access easement to slope toward the easement;Grade portion of road wilh Curb&Gutter with bar ditch(swale) implement Low Impad South of access easement to slope towards easement;Grade easement to Development Practices(LID's) slope toward Sub Basin 1;Shape easement as very shallow(4"deep) as referenced in LID Table below grassed lrapezoidal swale. Individual lots shall be allowed to construct a subsurface ground water Concurrently with Strategy 3, recharge vault.The vaults must be placed within the sandy gravel layer of soil implement Low Impact prof le.Vaults may be constructed of perforated 24"diameter drain pipe as Development Practices(LID's) shown in Drawing.The lot shall be graded to drain into Catch Basin. as referenced in LID Table below Individual lols shall be allowed to construct a ground water recharge basin. Concurrently with Strategy 4, The basins shall be connecled to gravelly layer in soil profile by way of a implement Low Impact perforated stand pipe(catch basin). Development Practices(LID's) The lot shall be graded to drain into catch basin. as referenced in LID Table below Lots along Creek are allowed to grade lots to sheet Flow runoff to Creek Concurrently with Strategy 5, provided they plant a filter strip per NRCS Specification Filter Strip(393). implement Low Impact Developmen[Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below Lots along Agricultural Buffer are allowed to grade lots to sheet flow runoff Construct a wet swale Concurrently with Strategy 6, into Buffer.Agricultural buffer shall either have a retention/detention basin or be or bioretention cell in implement Low Impact graded to slope towards Cherry Ave. AG buffer Development Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below Grade lots to slope toward Miner Road; Direct runoff to Cherry Ave Direct runoff to Cherry Ave Concurrently with A or B, Concurrendy with A or B ar Grade Miner Road to slope lowards Cherry Ave. with Curb&Gutter with bar ditch swale) implement Low Impact runoff into Agricultural Buff (This does not include Miner lots on the East side of Road) Development Practices(LID's) Bioretention basin in AB;c as referenced in LID Table below basin construct over Flow b _ overtops it will sheet flow tc i II BRSIN 2 DRAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OPTIONB gy Description Options A B C D Grade lots to slope toward individual recharge basins on lot; Direct runoff to Basin Direct runoff to Basin Concurrently with A or B, In Creek Buffer construct E Grade Miner Road to slope towards Biodetenlion basin in Creek Buffer with Curb&Gutter with bar ditch(swale) implement Low Impact to handle only street storm _ Development Practices(LID's) (Miner Parcel#6) as referenced in LID Table below Individual lots shall be allowed to construct a subsurface ground water Concurrently with Stralegy 3, recharge vault.The vaults must be placed within the sandy gravel layer of soil implement Low Impact profle.Vaults may be constructed of perforated 24"diameter drain pipe as Development Practices(LID's) shown in Drawing. The lot shall be graded to drain into Catch Basin. as referenced in LID Table below Individual lots shall be allowed to construd a ground water recharge basin. Concurrently with Strategy 4, The basins shall be conneded to gravelly layer in soil profle by way of a implement Low Impact � perforated stand pipe(catch basin). The lot shall be graded to drain into Development Practices(LID's) catch basin. as referenced in LID Table below Lots along Creek shall be allowed to grade lols to sheet Flow runoff to Creek Concurrently with Strategy 5, provided they plant a filter strip per NRCS Specification Filter Strip(393). implement Low Impact Development Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below Lots along Agricultural Buffer are allowed to grade lots to sheet flow runoff Construct a wet swale Concurren[ly with Strategy 6, into Buffer.Agricultural buffer shall either have a retention/delention basin or be or bioretention cell in implement Low Impact graded to slope towards Cherry Ave. AG buffer Development Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below � A I' trees, , y .`. ' . _ '. . . '. . ` � . � ' ' . . . 4 shrubs . . I . , � ` . ;. � . . . . a � . . � - I • - � . � ! ,. ` �: _ ,. i � W LL � ,,;, . �IORETENTI❑N AREb ; ` - _ . ? ...,,• � .. = : ,� �... I . ' � '. roun g ;. d;...�•' I ' � cover ii-� • * Z' wide grass filter strip - WV � — � —' - ° —. � . . . . , .• . .: .^ . . . 0 0 0 �. �. o 0 0� •. . ±. o 0 0 � . . .SHEET FL�W . . . ' existing A ' edge of ' Pa�ement PLAN VIEW Cnot to scale) i I tt^ee5 tY'ees overflow to sultabte surface dlscharge 2' wide grass area filter strip I � °�x I sheet i flow _` �'�9round shrubs � ! C v2Y' 3�1 Maxiroum slo e i f . ... �. � ; ; -- � � • . .. : ::;. .: . . •.. .. , : � ; , ::: .,:..: . , . . I � �� — -� � � �-`_ � j -� � � � Min, 12" of �� ' ; � � . �� aMended � � �'�_� � � —i ��i ' coMpost �— ` � � � � � —� i � � -� � —� � 12' roaxinuM I �I❑RETENTI❑N AREA - I � water depth I � � SECTI❑N VIEW A—A ' i ICnot to scale) y�'s l�:. 1. N`"� °A'vU .K+� puq,ee .Ya�F Banelt �, r �,, Sub Basin 2 � '° p > •� p� Nro�9amey A ° � _�' BioRetention Basin �.� ; r �.. .: ��...:.. :- ::. .. , � ` ` ` ` Ernatd c,;�itr Po;sa�rc;Gm�t//m Dkldat ro� _ � i � � VotuMe = 288 cf � � .5 � � � � ,4 � ( VoluMe = 200 cf � .3 u � � � 2 I � •1 I I �. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 IO 11 12 13 14 IS l6 17 I , Mlnutes (V N t Modified Rational Method Hydrograph '� o C13,000 sf lot) � �' m � � C� = 30 yeur-10 ��ute storn event � � `� � = 300 yenr-10 nlnute storn eveni VoluMe = _198 C'F N � U 5 ,4 VotuMe = 138 cf � �� 3 I �`` � � . 2 I � .1 I .� � a.z.,:. . _. ' �r�,.:,,..�": ] 2 3 � 5 6 7 8 9 10 S1 12 13 1� IS l6 17 �.A.,p.c" '' '?,,::,r`I,..,. IOwtes Modified Rational Method Hydrograph "` C8,000 sf lot) '`'� � � : � = 10 yenr-10 n�nute storn event I � � = 100 year-10 nlnute storn event Storaqe Voluroes Required for No Runoff �' a , . � Hydrology Calculations Given: Total Area of Sub Basin 2(acres)= 12.7 Area of AG Buffer(acres)= 1.6 Area of Creek Buffer(acres)= 2.4 Developable Area(acres)= 8.7 Using Rationale Formula and Based on County Runoff Coefficients for Developed Areas,Table 1 (drawing H3), Soil Type=C Slope<=2% Based on County Drawing H-1,Average rainfall=18" Design based According to Table 3 of County Drawing H-4, The 10 yr-10 min storm= 2.8 inches/hr The 100 yr-10 min storm= 4 inches/hr Assume: Large Parcel: Area= 13000 sf RunoffCoefficient= 0.4 Small Parcel: Area= 8000 sf Runoff Coeffcient= 0.45 Calculate total volume required to retain entire storm event: Large Parcel Size Small Parcel Size Storm Event Storm Event 10 yr-10 min 100 yr-10 min 10 yr-10 min 100 yr-10 min Runoff Flow Rate(cfs)= 0.33 0.48 Runoff Flow Rate(ds)= 023 0.33 Volume(c� = 200 288 Volume(c� = 138 198 Length of 24"Pipe(ft) = 64 92 Length of 24"Pipe(ft) = 44 63 for Detention for Detention Length of 36"Pipe(ft) = 28 41 Length of 36"Pipe(R) = 20 28 for Detention for Detention ��uNe GroUnd � fiHer fabric - ��^----=--�-- " sediment collection 48' precast cotch 2A� basin w/o bottom perforated catch basin with bottom drnln pipe �' c• (-- 25' � - ` ' � 1 �� to 3� washed drain rock . for 100 yr-10 roinute Storn Event (100 ft of 24' Pipe> X-SECTION OF TYPICAL DRY WELL NTS p from i contribu[ing �" � �drainage area y � n�. o iJ L� " x �� 150'max.Flow pafh m � 2%�maz,.slope .c E' (lateral) � �o grass « �n � � 6"min ��edge�oFpavement �-O overfloW � �or roadway shoultler � / ' .� . �:��.� . . � . ��. . . . ... . . . .. :....... ..� 18"foreach 50'of contributing �� L� flow spreader extending entire y'-1 Z '� "i � length of pavemeni �� V�i� �' V�� flow path(12"min.) wa5hed I'oCk � 18��m�° NOTE: S2me i i� , ��' `� ` � and site limitat I 2%max.slope � � �� , length"L" � � ' � (4'min.) I — flner strip —1� �°�` "�' ��y(, I�2'min�15'min � A J widlh"W" I I INFILTRATION TRENCH X-SECTION I NTS PLAN VIEW irtace flow spreader or gravel filled trencfi(see rrofe) 5%max. g filter5trip --� filterstrip �ass 5'min �—�� t"drop a a (1%-15/o long.slope) d�ivg'N y ° C;;,:: 6„ s,.min -�� i �� ' ;.:'�:.;:,. , 2"compost tilled Into overflow � � ` ` q � � �� ..i;.:;i;,r;v:;:_ .,, 6"of native soil � K �� :_e:.tiif.:�c,,, . I � �� \'.:;:':'.":'.: •.. �','`\y��\�\��\�� ...�_'i::tii:, �.. 1.. \\\/��4��%D,/��s/�,� washwd rock 18i m�n NOTE: Same length dimer N 4�P�G.� ��v�,�pp(VtEhfT STRATEGfES Descri tion — � act Deve�u ment Strate ies Grassed drainage channels or swales function as mechanisms to reduce runoff ateobod estl wetlatndsoor1 hi 1thl tler b��' ( grassed�erimeter of lot � t has been back-fi11ed with stone to form a subsurface basin. Storm water runotf is diverted into the trench and is 'I etated buffer strips on perimeter oi lot Stri s of ve etation,ei�ha r natural or lanted,around sensdrve areas suc as w ' An excavated trench t � infiltraUon trenches stored untif it can be infilG'ated into the soil. lantin materials to filter runoff stored p practic�ana9e and treat runoff by using a conditioned planting soil bed and p ' .a bioreteMion ceU in a shallow depression , all excavated pit backfilled with aggregate,usually pea g�avel or stone. D wells function as infiltration systems used to conirol runoff � A sm a dry well from rooftops. lanted between pollution source and downstream water body Bands of close growing ve etation,usuall rass with a minimum width of 25',P stem consisting of impervious blocks with is of a plastic network ot cells 811ed with g�vel;a sy {e pavements he pace belween the olcks filied with 95ass;a system of impervious blocks with the space belween the blocks filled with grave. ---- :.-.:-�,; , - ,.: . ., .9 ._.. �... .. :. .:...:....:..:.::.... . �. : .�.,. . , .,-:,�:.,..;::.�`� ��j �,.�.: �:.:.:...::..: :. v �: _ .��;:�,;:,:,:_,:;� � . .:..:. .�a� i ,.::,;�_� z�^ : ..,,y�; ,u., s:;;��^:::;_=.-•.xa, .; �.p 2,y,,F(��y s . :il'.' ..�N'�'.ilpl:i: �'..V' 4'�ji?;,R.'.i 'lljr:."': hy;::i Ti:i'9Y!�I^ .e�xPF✓:; 4�^p.�:�'.:i:��, n � �':i'i. ."e:�i.'y..63�.�„i;^i:�:.ux...y,�:' . k;�� ' , ��'.z.\t'' "�� .zi(+�� .Pi..•i:?2i9.f4rd.';::;.a�...v ' i .4:(�".:Zi��$�M�r��.�.4}.�:_ •..�.:�� . ' E.�i.�L:� ' �� '.�iti::.c'.L:.S,C;°"�e v�.i�;.. . ,..� ,,�.'��9'+xif . �;^�..,,�:'.tti.:�'�5��'°��' � . `�w:...: � k,;i�k'.��;.. � : ,'.;';��. . . {+ �k�` �� : , i.:�, n..v,!'... �-, ;+:� +' ,k . :;;:,' � 1'�9ei ` .:�,.,i'."'Li..� .ct.. f��ta:; :,`t"�a . .»,;: ��i;F'�:::ait:;.v . i' .7.`; ' yC yy:;w:i. - ��". . .:;;�. � . ."'i.��', ,y. `��"_[ ..lr;? � '.,� _ _,, ._- ti��. � ti,r::�. � . �:��.,. �:i P • . . �;J. '.' � � " v,..,' ," . ...:`'E,,,.. . �.r,_. . r ' .`;'�.,4'U .w tC:.:.�.. ' .. . ;_!..��' ^ � � f ::i:;:µi: �.'. "•:{�;:�ii�.,�`�': ; . :[K' . ; e.. , �.; : . . u:ia.�� , ..::., . ` ( ' ',a_�ui .:.:s. ..:.F . ...�� . : . :,�,. . . ':.�.;�:�r . ' :'il �,:' '' ��In:.!y,rv!: : ..,;... . � C ..: . ... .:.. � :"!::1:4 . L�; � t:. 'i<S�T� ' " �.4't'xi�.t:jX< . . . ��i' .x.t. �.. .._;5 _ `.:i� :: ;` v":`�Ir:�kai,. � f� ., t R� ..., ,•.:..'..; ��:h�'�'.*a53i'..::°.":: :.�i .y.': ...,•::3. �y s M ;.i,� �r:'i", .�..ipi:..�:�.� • ,(<•.ii.v:a.. ...in�i ..,; '.�:Y..-'w'�s�: �...:.:: ^lr '. :.. �._:.:ri;:nji' � ,�y`..�l:. .,� :.�: r.::`�"�:.s'µ.£It_�.';. .. {"'j=: � �',;}:i'{S'��r e �r�Jii':c"',.�., y'e3 �4�' 1 F:��' �F ::_Z"f' .r��'3�ti:et�'v'^3:':&a�' � _ -s.�:.:.1' i'.WJ . •i•i�'"�.I;r:'#":Fd. .5'A:i.�?'i'�i f.,. __' ::I� +'- i:' _ :,v='. ,�t� ' ' �L 'r"r . :..:.*,:' ..° :- ':i".� .. ..._ , .. .'. - ..�: ..... i;�.a �ser.v�, . �� '�i'b..�Ifl:1�' '�y .i... . .., e,..::. . �.vW'.�, ' � n�: J.;i? :r:f'.r'�`b�Y�.�::.i'... �. �9�Criy1^?L._'+.i+�•'v':a.i. f.'_. . �d.l xt;'r:':- :�,a {��i . .. . . 1. ,n.r y ',i'nFV,i, i ,� •�v -:d�' Y�, c . x+w;�e �'•' ' '��f K�KM13� N'(•: ; `'�i,�•� , iI':' '�!i. . r' !' �: �• r .�ry�:.;.. . ... :'...., � ; • . '.. :: �..� 1 ' � . . 4 . :. t � ..�. . . � .� "�. g . ...1:{'�. . �' e� i� .. �"' :.��ii�.�:� ' ��r'•'i.Y . - ;:�Iq44�'�., "'' . �,1� .i:�i':I .; .��: .. „»",r"P��,1 , � �:sx..� . �;��4'::..i . a.3, : ' .�.i�.�t.:.v a k'i•(Y�i.:. . ��.��. i.Nif' .�hv,• .L9. . _ 2... m�.:., *�Ai, k .i�:� : <'.,,". �µr�;ur '� =*�„n4.'' ' � C�R.t'_� . a'.t��z- ;'.�,'..; . . y. •,��, :."$4:a.�.:�,:�' :.rt.:�t,.''.=';"c�i;'�� ;:.k� a�9'i:' ,i,yy;��v. b,k;%+e>N�..'`'�'„n,:�sr:i°"�;�;9 .' �;. �7i��:,. . ' .: '.i`�>' � � . : ..� ::4+�'.•'�M��iv"'�— ��,pr}ti!Ti."4"i�' e. �� ,� :c. -)'c:." ,n�i�' �'r'fvi!.:::no'irc'J.:�LF��"�' -e'N�ry:�i°;re:'�:=.e:.::. . .-..;... �� v e .�4u,,:`��. ;. .�::.�..FLi:.dhw .ir: b�,� n w-kv "'i.�:;��.8..�t� +�;��.,k ,.,e�.�.. .s�,�_;r�;;�t.. z,�: .�, .., �- .:;.j.`�""�t',i4�. �-' es-a:;:'.:r:sa- �w,�.<;..;. y� .. .If.. .,n.....,-.:,i{:.: ��P: �p :aR�:=.�., h.r��'�' � :. ... .... ...:..r,t +� x �. � . ... :� -. �v 3.l::ff:�rv�I::t:'li:'.:'" . _ �an..�. `'s-;: ':ih.4+ ":.;�!'-' '.:..'ji{"�' .. �, � a ,�. �,, ,,,, _�,�.�-:'i� . �, ::... : :,;� �;�• _�. �� <,�s:.:;:;:=s �;,�.: �:e.,r_°:?:;��;y_", . ..,i� .. :.�§I .. . :�,�=_C�„{ _ ' v..v P.i-.n�.::.Yp,n•. (" �.� �, ....... s;31:". ''t:'N'. :v;�'��-� �t�:::.tri:,;,i�i��lY+,�;• �..� : �... .�tl�ui'e'.!4:Yi.r':- . ;: ... 'r , ( �'•+n�Cn t!••:x'ye�. : ., � �: � 9i: ' v M_ .. •�:_ e. I� 'i:I�I� :.�a : . y' .•. ie2a� ii� Jt::�i.�."r:' � .. - �te�!."��yµ��ll.i'��;-' . „ '1:ij{16;, '':}'.}..n�:£;c:Ir��5,y�1-�E:�4, � 'S';.�ii{`i`�9'xijh::�.' _ ''''.1,.�.:'':I .:: .'f n.:. ��4p. . _�r.. . - . .;, ,. ,.j•, � ,��r: �� v'j.'�i'��.t�.�� ' ��a��u,�;l,.� ' ... �'�: ';_�,:�: �."�'� l , . . `4��\i .. . :��."�;' . .';tt� . �:i ...—..:dE��'.+('�� :. �. :: ...[•y,. i��aM1 .. ' � •J . �,�, `;.:.�. �" !�'i.i'i�r�"�"-'.(��.�, .. . :i.43 � � 1��.��:.:�'�:�ia . �'SV:i� '. .. ' .�;Iq:za. n��, SL.:..'�tii�'� :��, . . �:?�.' . • i��*,T:I'i. � �^'„".,�+.... . . .i:' q �!: ... .�R i �� .�C�t�i_ ' R :i�Fx,•��tl:i::.. ".�.,..,_..a:,. �,ie�� o p� � 5i!`;�.:•s:,. 'YTi,).... . �S .� �':�Y.r '�I:..?i5:d.t .I....,j v. `d i ic... i .�>.°�� ' .�,.(jx.'a):ii, i'.��IG.,:�yyy:,; ' � t.:.�. ..... ._..�. . _ _ .,1-. z. - nc:.... i:F x . c.. �,•. ;. �.-"i . vL' $��'};- .�• .�:6": :;.4;:.f:_..g.�'(�4� �:�'��I.i:... . vro. � .. �.c�:i}iii:�! �. ." � ,�..,,:'..��.1�;�. • i'fi.,:;6G�. .� . , n�':i��:. , '`, .. +,'�,,,d it.;m�x�jn.yi a ' r^,i7iiah,''"' �t':- . . ae+. vS3w!!`I<:� y.. �,. ' , :. ..y r 3 - .'i :.f... - , a'C''e'"4t:v�� ..'� �� . � " . �: t .`�v✓ ,..�".�� e �. '�a: C^ T �..� -F.,. , i':q.:o. ' .'. ..�i.. r:A� �i;:: .. �, iu�' ..G�i: ;,.' .. ....;� ... ..� . i.. } '.' r �':c lt . . ' ' . . �.ti ��i;'. . � M1�� . .;lY '��ti,''�� ':'{�S i��°.• � . . �h,;.. '.:''Y`1.?.t.. -�-� ..i : ' - .. Y. � � 1��..: . .., ��,, . .�f} ..�>' � � , i....:. ':i- '-.��:t� .'F 'tt�.c •::�, � . . .�: " ;.�',ii-i +F.,=i��.}'iu' : V'=5'. ::� . ., ,... �,...:.:. .k1:. 4•.r'.�i. 'il°la� '..Y� . .. • �j n . . � . � :: ; . �' ..a.," T'arvy}..I"v.� S: ;.� ._v?=q°> �Fii, :�{I:i,..f�£ ' H :�'v,.l.i , : -�s3.:'PO'..v� ' . '�: '. ':.:.. �.�.�f.P��x. i., .m'_tl.:i-': ��.4,n'-c�tr.. :� , .�w.0 . .�. �4... ub'.:).�...r��.-.. ... . ,��} ,_.}Y. . _ ::i�'41�.:;:.;.'. ,.-.: .r. �. ,,_.. ,.; fi., : ..-,;.;. . „ y ,,�.'''° ` -�:.� . .-�.,�°,_.;. . ,� :.: . :...., . ,�,, �,�, ;.�,`: ie�u ;`�:�t:4T..i.s i�*��.!'�,'.': �i,n:�r . ::�: ��ry .) ( . ', .��{.�'•.,�'4I. � ' �� G . � ��t,:�; • '•. ' ��t..� . :� '.... �:`. . . 4 �. v . ' 1. ... :.�: . . . . . .An�.� . .. Y..�I:I ' � � . � _ 'y�� .> � :CL ' . . .i 44�i:}. �. . , . 4h'y:. ,�l...a,(. . [. .. . , „ � ;.i�:i� : �"r'. _^ ... , � . . ��li; . , � 'a n: ��yl?� ":4' :, � , 'r , i:�� •y . . g .�i`t'�'.x��'µi:y. .' ,�.it;:. :_4�,, �:F : �j� ..A� .ih: .'i�'k..b�. . ! n.` '� '�y..' . =..A � ' _y;,.�rtiy� , rv� �.iS::...j� .tix_� : . .{ y �°'xFe.,r��i_'�n�^�r� - '.�i'�I''��v8�.rr��?u rc��:+=c�� ' a :� 4. . ..+ ' !:' ,� y:� . :' . !y .... . �: S . 1 ;. .�P5"Y'.� $ �e - '�..� �� f}�::i. .is�i� Sf::. . � 4, v .:N �. :... �.�'�� :3 fXj*P .t�.�'s.:$c�:h��f:•�'iv'iy:.,�� R�F}�i�� ..li �X:�i'ii'.. GiSil�..:.. 'y'nN�. '..9G'y . .S�"; �y � e'{3.�(W,y: �„ , 'i.:v" 1 .^�� yI..�y�.�:li:.:••�,v . ..� .:. .r'�.�a e' ti::;;."sr�e:.',��".."&'! :i�-�s.:.:'..'; i.;.4�{y:('d '.p,t .t� ,"�:t:..�.� _':i�l:.': - a"a , �6�* .. . . .�."....b � ':.Ya�' � na'i';i _ k:� �:'.: `=s.; ;t•tv ; _ ... . , ..-�'�.':-..p[).i "{y'.(. �" . %'p',�:�..,, � ��`'� x' ;��y�.�,,.. _ ,r�::yr�* ,"�.�a �`"F`.!rx.,,`�y y;`��s' .d.oin�=.�t :,FX�y;�,�:. _ :.�m� � . � .;,;� ; ' � 4'i . ..;°:' .r' r t �::; .niit�i"` ��;:,� ' �Ev{�; . . .-:, f . ��: . . t:q}� ,;:,�;:;: . -,d1 � °�""e'i 'ii,..��' .. -,.�.r. "�.�. . .. ...• ,�{";`:. . ..... � . �, . ' u;a _ .��p.' ' s••�".: '. +°� i('�''ik , � :.�.�... y "� � . ...:. .� {�i� k'. �^:::'.;. . . :: . , j.��.h .:. ;.••:; .. . � � d . tl.a� . . i� .' [ ':l:'J.':�. " . O . . . . �}�� HF��.�: .:.. m, 'y ' , ::"Y' . ;i,; • „ . ....... �,-. a ,�>: ,,.:. . _ , ` .. n .. . ,.,::::: .•-�" �; . . ,,,, - , :. �,�-�....,,. . . :. r.; : , �, K�� :;;,, �;;".x.: ., ,;,,, .�._.. ,. .,:. , „ _..,, _ �'ti� �i ..i�. �k`t :'_{:i • > ' �..' ,,:.r.v..,, F��:"pt•t'=��7'i4E�' �"�; : '- =:.:�.;:. � - � " s'.7z-:',�,"°:;..' ` =i>:: �r�..Y.. .y. �....:'.1 'I�. RC .:.;... .. .�...�i � �� ` � i'F� �� j7� ,,y NI .. .. ��: .:, ��;.` .e�g^.ri,,,z.....t:'} £';Y 'K��j��:'. �" ....:�:fi+. �'� ..l'w 4':uv' �'�`.: k:':'iJ�. - .:{.' �.._ _y_ �. Y,i�jV. .v� ' ,..YK�v'i�3P� 't.:� vy.mf.e:ufil.�'y.. �. r ;� .yi;F`a,�::..: .. _. , . . c'-_i'�'�'Y73:: ��: '.;,.iY'i4'd-�;' r�;';'#.. , , y ... :fyf�'�': ;�'4 . ��?;s�r. :d. . ., i: o-y}+.a..��a: vi';ri :.:�,+w.'wi�,^-r d'4�;.'.t.i ;:.�ti-y--.,�•"�(!�"s •.x n. � �;r:.. Jg.:,. -. , . ��f ., � �;� : na:��!? e1"t^ -'^.a'.. . til;,,vr'r{"4'}+� ` 'O „7..i R:..%'�- _ .. ..? �1.L'�` . "i y� "' F:vr:� . , . x , � � y�'�':":='r�'.'''� „„;>.�+i' ... ;, y�.��, � •... r ,.v : . . �,-._:t.;i�� c E � y,�� . .t' : . . � [� '.b... ��. ..«.�' '.�'S,.P't . 'FM:r+w✓� '. �J• .a��g� . ?.'�'�i. � �4 : " ' .� . �O � Q .,et ' " �+:I��' t v . .E;•' . ��X •'• R � J ''�r..� :::h:. :r . '„��... ,. , �',-�?�h V �. . ..�� '� .• - :: :::.��. nn..�i:. � . ;ii�. '..r . (p :: ,�h.o-:. , .. �,', �' :a,. . I E s:°.. .�- .� _:s!,x..,:' �'''� l0 o U . ..-... � . � . rF"' . , q. K�...." . . i�y+..: ^, �i�: Yy. : . .. � �; 4.Y .. .y��.::�i�.i�fitqi's:, ^ ,,:.r,•. .ty ��.[.',:F�.p Y.':E'u �I J �' L , � '.: �.-o-C .i. n�i. ..A,: + ,j.... 'ilf. ". e: .� O - N � . �Y , tA:. - ,;,,;�r��,- :� ,�-....:�d:4;;�a"`,:y.:i��.. :;t"F:�,,�.�.,"�'t'-:f>�ti�, .s... .ui:k. a.� u t?��. _ � N kw . ...-..:.�;:: ..:�:�a.�;,.:' ��e ' � ;�C z`.;,.;' r'l,��:r. '.�'�:�;` ;;i�-.:�i`.>'•; .,..;::;� o ... ,;��-;.m.-. . .. ;. ::i�:,�x .i..u�',w:•. _ . �,:.z.;'t,: �-pz,iN;�.�,,u.fa; , x<'.,.. � 10 `m �C +.C.,ven.'�,v�a"'i-:; ' �';b�';e�,�cy�S:i- ., r.`�.r":Sr `=��f� .a�Y ��- . C E U N 'i9 v:...;i,:.. . . r..,rv�w• e L ... . ' •�.�'.5'. 'm �.e:�.:•..": � • • y�ty: .I.Srr . ' . . 1 � , a�, y.p.... . .;:." . :�' �k :"afiyey'fS�Y�d '..i"i;Y�'s:^y,Y��i, .(( . .:�'� ... . "ee � U � � iyyy+��tif�{�'' ' '�M'�' "4p;ry. '�':E:'�k¢Jy' � .. '.�.t ��:. . � w, 7 :Xe�..n.,:�I..S. . ...lNl�.;ti a .. ' . VI � � �', n� i ..,�,_ � � 7;, . . '��: .... . � .� I��`�' � � J N ATTACHMENT1 \ Minutes: City CounclllRedevelopment Agency Meettng , Page 4 Tuesday, October f0, 2006 - 8.0. Consideration of Enginee�'s Report and Adoption of Resolution`of Intention to Form the Grace Lane Assessment Dlstrict(Tract 3�)� Action: Reviewed and approve�he-Engmeer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 3959 as follows: "A RESO�U�ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DE�LA12rG AN INTENTION TO FORM THE.GRACE IANE ASSESSMENT DI�.TRI ". 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council Member Dickens declared a conFlict of interest due to his indirect financial interest in the Dixson Ranch and stepped down from the dais. , 9.a. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Neighborhood Plan 04001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Development 04-002; Applicant: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location — 22 Acres Located East of Noguera Court and North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Cherry Creek). Associate Planner Heffemon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for residential development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting oi two (2) subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed thirty (30) unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) acres. Subarea 2 encompasses thirteen (13} ac�es where no subdivision is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission recommended the Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declarelion insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project. The Pfanning Commission further recommended that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental detertnination. Consulting Engineer Campbell gave an overview of the existing drainage flows from Newsom Springs; demonstrated how the improvements proposed by the Cherry Creek development would significantly improve drainage flows, explained future drainage improvements in the regional plan; and responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the appiicant or representative to address the Council first. John Knight, RRM Design Group, representing ihe applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which highlighted regional issues associated with the project (Neighborhood Plan, drainage, agricultural buffer, and emergency access), and site specific issues associated with ihe project (density and lot size, drainage, street design, agricullural buffer, and creek enhancementj; noted that the applicant had met with the neighbors to create a conceptuat IVeighborhood Plan for Subarea 1 that would address infrastructure (sewer, water, drainage system, agricultural buffer, creek setback, and emergency access) improvements which would also serve Subarea 2; reviewed components of the previous site pian for Subarea 1; reviewed the revised site plan for Subarea 1, including proposed density and lot size, drainage system, street design, agricultural buffer/entry features, and creeWchannel features; and provided an overview of the supplemental environmental studies conducted for the proposed project. He asked for Council support of the project. ________ __ Minutes:City CouncillRedevelopmenf Agency Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, Oetoberf0, 2006 Cliff Branch, co-ownedapplicant, addressed the density issue and noted that a lot of land was required for drainage swales, setbacks, open space, and buffers, so the lot sizes had to be reduced so the land could be used for other things. He explained the project includes 27 �ew lots and anything less would not be feasible; therefore ihey are proposing the lowest density possible which is lower than the City's standards allow. He refeRed to the creek and stated it was important not to have parking along that side of the street. • Mayor Fenara invited commenis from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Larry Tumer, Noguera Piace, spoke in support of the project as proposed, requested the City abandon ihe existing drainage easement behind Noguera Place, supported the drainage plan, and suppoRed the proposed single story homes behind Noguera Place. Steve Ross, Garden Street, spoke in support of the revised project; however, he encouraged the improvement of E. Cherry Avenue. Gary Scherquist, ShoA Street, urged the Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and expressed concern about the historical resources on the site, potential impacts to the creek, potential traffic impacts, and the proposed density of the project. Poliy Tullis, Garden SUeet, distributed photos of the former Stilwell property located at 734 Myrtie (on file in the Administrafive Services Department), spoke about its historic walnut farm, that it was impoAant to recognize that the trees on the site have historic value, and expressed concern about ihe removal of the walnut trees and the toss of prime farmland soils. She urged the Council to require an EIR for the project and stated she would like to see fewer homes on the property and see it used for heritage farming and gardening. She said there are many environmentai issues that have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaralion (MND). Jim Dickens, Branch Mili Road, representing ihe Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve, provided , comments about the MND, referred to page 4, and said the land use classification for the property ' located to the South of the project (the Dixson Ranch) should be designated as "Agriculture Preserve", not "Agriculture" and that the current uses of the property are not "Undeveloped". He said a more accurate and appropriate description of the land uses to the South of the proposed Iproject would be "Commercia! Agricultural Production". He also stated that ail references in the MND to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) should be sVicken and recommended the City adopt a modified version of the LESA Model which examines Arcoyo Grande's distinctive set of circumstances and site condiGons. Further, he acknowledged ihe Council's direction and progress on the Newsom Springs regional drainage solution; however, he expressed concem that the proposed projecPs drainage improvements were not adequately and thoroughly considered in the MND and requested that appropriate time and consideration be given to ensure the Dixson Ranch is not adversely impacted due to drainage project amendments on or adjacent to their property. He requested that the curtent MND be amended'to reflect the concems he addressed. Coileen MaAin, Olive Street, spoke of the importance of public involvement in local govemment expressed concern about the proposed drainage plan and its continuing evolution; conCern with the Neighborhood Plan and the lack of an improved road on E. Cherry to serve Phase 2; stated that the Mlnutes: C/ty CouncrqRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, Octo6er f0,1006 staff reporl does not address accommodation of development as proposed by the Neighborhood' Plan; stated that the applicant has deviated trom the wishes of the communiry regarding density and said she would like to see less density in Phase 1 or in Phase 2; expressed concern about the proposed;bioswale and how the water gets into the bioswale; said discussion has not taken place regarding;the increase of impertneable surfaces that ihe development will indude; and stated that there continue to be many issues that can be addressed with an EIR, including tree removal, traffic safety, and improvements. She noted that the plan includes an enormous amount of monitoring and wondered how that was going to be accomplished. She further expressed concern with design aesthetics and the issue concerning the prime soils definition and the mitigatio� for prime soils. She noted the project, has gone through many Changes. She referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation for requiring a full EIR and asked the Council abide by iis recommendation. She said if the Council decides against an EIR, she agreed lhat the MND needs to be reconsidered, amended, and recirculated to agencies to reflect the correct land use category descriptions as noted by Mr. Dickens. She concluded by urging the Council to consider an EIR for the project. : . . Cliff Branch, co-owner/applicant, responded to public comments concerning �ihe zoning of the property and stated he hoped the Council could stay consistent with the philosophy that was developed during the 2001 General Plan Update. He also commented that the walnut trees are not native and are near the end of iheir life.cycle and some are dying. He noted that they have done a lot of environmentai studies, and in addition, more study will occur on the drainage plan. Tony Janowicz, Lierly Lane, read a letter into the record (on file in the AdministraGve Services Department}supporting the project as proposed. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, spoke in support of ihe project as proposed and acknowledged ihe drainage,;sewer, road, and emergency access improvements that are paA of lhe project. She urged the Counbii to listen to the majority of neighbors in Subarea 2 who suppoR development of the Cherry Creek project and to develop E. Cherty. She noted that ihe surrounding neighborhoods are higher density with smaller residentlal lots. Polly•TUllis, Garden Street, expressed concem about the proximity of the bioswale to the former Vanderveer house and its potential impact to the structural integrity of the house. She also stated she did not receive a public hearing notice; however, she was not sure if her property was located within the 300 ft. distance tor notification. She also suggested that it would be worthwhile to determine if any of the acreage within the 22-acre property has irrigation rights as it relates io loss of prime agricultural land. There we're no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Mayor Feirara called for a recess at 9:01 p.m.The Council reconvened at 9:09 p.m. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - In determining whether ihe MND is adequate, he stated that drainage and environmenlal impacts to prime soils were the most significant issues and he referred back to the 2001 General Plan Environmental lmpact Report which adequately addressed mitigation for the loss of prime soils in this area; - Noted;that ihe property in question was not zoned as Agriculture; Minutes: City CounctllRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - Expressed concern with drainage and favored the proposed drainage plan; however, he wanted to ensure that the development does not move forrvard until it ties into the completion of the EIR on the drainage issues for Newsom Springs regional project; - Acknowledged thatsetbacks are established for creek protection; ' - Noted that siltation wouid be addressed in ihe regional drainage solution and would tie in with the proposed drainage system; - Does not believe there any additional pesticide calculations that need to be addressed that come from Dixson Ranch; pesticide calculations for the project would be adequately addressed in the MND; - Would like to see the MND amended to show the correct descriptions of the properlies; - Does not think a full EI R is warranted for the project; - Suggested a reduction in densiry with lot sizes larger lhan 6,000 square feet; - Supports proposed lot sizes for the duet lots; - Suggested that Subarea 2 be zoned as Medium-Low Density when that comes forward; - Stated the issues with E. Cherry Avenue should be adequately addressed which guarantees that the road is going to be improved. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Referred to the Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources dated July 2003 (on file) which addresses all the agricultural lands in the City and stated that the agricultural Class 1, 2, & 3 soils on the subject property is referred to on Maps 4 and 5; and acknowledged that farming could not occur on any of the land because zoning for the majority of the property is residential; - Acknowledged that this property has been zoned as residential for a very long time; and if someone wanted to bring commercial agriculture operations to this property, an agricultural buffer would be required and would substantially reduce lhe usable land; - Believed that residential development was planned for this property and is appropriate; - Believes there is a need to mitigate the loss of the one acre of prime soils with an in-lieu fee; - Does not support eminent domain on E. Cherry; .however, acknowledged di�culties in determining/contacting owners; - Supports extension and improvement of E. Cherry Avenue; - With regard to Subarea 2, suggested that Planning Commission revisit the zoning for that area; , Medium-Low Density may be more appropriate; - Supported ihe abandonment of the Noguera drainage easement, assuming this project moves forward with the correct drainage ptan implemenled; - Need to ensure the proposed drainage system is sufficient before development occurs; - Supports number of lots proposed; - Supporls one-story,homes'backing up to Noguera'Place; - Can approve the MND as amended to remove the LESA model and to correct the land use description for the Dixson Ranch. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Referred to the 2001 General Plan Update and remembered specific discussion regarding the rezoning of the property to a higher density classificalion and that the reason was specifically related to the drainage issue and the potential to solve the biggest flooding issue in Arroyo Grande, as well as that this was a good in-fill project adjacent to the Village; Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, October f0, 2006 - Spoke about transitional housing as it relates to the adjacent agricultural use and the agricuitural buffer concept; ' - Did not recall any previous discussion about prime soils on the property which required special consideralion as it has always been zoned residential; - Also noted that in 2003, there were changes to the Agricultural Element and there was no discussion about the prime agriculiural potential on this property; - Believed that the General Plan language'that refers specifically to an EIR required for loss of prime agriculture soils dces not apply for this project; - Supports MND with modifications to the land use definitions for the surrounding property and supports ihe use of the LESA modei. Mayor Ferrera provided ttie following comments: - Referred to 2001 General Plan Update and agreed that discussion regarding prime soils did not come up; however,the issue of density did come up; - Believes the zoning should have remained as Rural Residential or at least Medium-Low density; - Acknowledged the site has always besn zoned Residential and is pleased the proposal for Subarea 1 has fewer units per acre ihan what it is currently zoned for; - Has issue with Subarea 2 as it relates to zoning and spoke about the need for transitional zoning; recommended sending Subarea 2 back to'the Planning Commission for review of potential change in General Plan land use designation; - Stated he is comfortable with the MND for Subarea 1 as it relates to addressing all the constraints on the sfte, including creek protection and the drainage plan; - Acknowledged that anyproposal for Subarea 2 would require detailed environmental review; - Supports the MND as modified to clarify the land use description of the Dixson Ranch as indicated; and before adding language about the use of the LESA model, recommended being clear about ihe criteria being applied; - Supports the MND as it relates to Subarea 1; has issue with Subarea 2 and prefers going back to review the density. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following additional comments: - Requiring mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property would set a bad precedent; - Supports the Neighborhood Plan as it provides adequate infrastructure to develop the rest of the area; - Supports the 130 foot agricultural buffer for the proposed project; - Supports the drainage plan and emphasized how big of an improvement it is to the community; - Noted that development impacts fees will provide for traffic improvements; - Eminent domain for E. Cherry might be necessary as last resort; - Agreed that pa�icing should not be allowed along creekside. , Brief discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to inGude mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subarea 1, as amended to remove the LESA model reference, to change the land use category definilion of the � Dixson Ranch to reflect ihe existing commerciai agricultural operations, to mitigate the foss of the , / Minutes: City Counc!!/Redevelopment Agency Meeling Page 9 Tuesday, Octo6ei 10, 2006 one-acre of agricultural land at a similar rate that was used on the Fair Oaks project, and to send Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission to review the zoning for that area. Council Member Costello asked if the two Subareas could be separated. City Ariorney Carmel responded that he did not think they could be separated without going through the mitigations to see what should be taken out and what shouid not and requiring some level of recirculation of the document. As a matter of clarification, he explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the Neighborhood Plan cornponent, which identifies whether the Subarea 1 project provides adequate infrastructure for Subarea 2. He recommended not separating out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He clarified that Subarea 2 would have a project, o} a sequence of projects, that would all be evaluated separately with full environmental review. ' City Manager Adams explained that recommendations regarding the zoning for Phase 2 could be considered separately. Mayor Fe�rara asked for clarification on whether the City was moving forward with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Neighborhood Plan only. . City Attomey Carmel explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates all components including :'the Development Code Amendment, the Neighborhood Plan, the Planned Unit Development, and the Tract Map. He noted ihat the Development Code Amendment is a Ciry initiated application and process to achieve General Plan consistency; however, the City is not teking action tonight on the Development Code Amendment. He explained that approval of the Mitigated;Negative Declaration allows approval of the Devefopment Code Amendment at a later date; however, does not bind the Council to approve it as currenUy proposed. He explained that the City could amend its Development Code Amendment application to consider Subarea 1 separately and exclude the Subarea 2 portion. Mayor Feirara inquired whether the motion could be separated into two motions to 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) to direct staH to review Subarea 2 separately. " Councit Member Arnold amended his motion to not separate out Subarea 2 from the Mi6gated Negative Declaration; however, he said the remainder of the motion stands. Mayor Ferrara clarified ' _ that the motion includes the issue conceming the mitigation of the Ioss of 1-acre of prime soils. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following rollcall vote: AYES: Amold, Costello, Ferrera NOES: Guthrie ABSENT:. Dickens - Action: Council Member Amold moved to direct staff to amend Uie (Development Code Amendment) application for Subarea 2 and send it back to the Planning Commission to revisit the zoning for that property. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following �oll-call vote: Minufes: City Counci!lRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, Octo6ei 10, 2006 AYES: Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens . Discussion ensued conceming the process for continued review of the project, and clarification that Subarea 2 woufd be considered separately from Subarea 1. Further Council discussion ensued clarifying that approval of ihe Mitigated Negative DeclaraGon addressed environmental issues related fo the project and that Council would be directing the project back to the Planning Commission to review only the specific proposed project (Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development)for Subarea 1. City Attomey Carmel clarified that lhe Council would be direcGng only the Development Code Amendment, Planned Unit Development and Tentative Tract Map for Subarea 1 back to ihe Planning Commission for a recommendation. Action: Council Member Amold moved to continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of November 14, 2006 and to retum the project to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for Subarea 1. Mayor Pro Tem Gulhrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Amold, Guthrie, Costello, FeRara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 1029 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:37 p.m. r 9.b. Consideration of Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 — Location: APNs 006-095-001 8 002;�ding and � Adjoining Arroyo Grande High School at Valley Road/Falr Oaks,Avenue. , Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and�comme den d the Council: 1) Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the-sub�ect properties as Residential Hillsida (RH) and Public Facility (PF), initiated by the C' of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School;,a�nd- Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map I R 06-004 locater s�ulh �f anr incluring-paA �f Arroy� Granre High Sch��l cam'us at Val ey �ar and Fair Oaks Avenue, initiated by'the,City of Arcoyo Grande, including improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Driv,from Orchard Street to Valley Road. City Manager Adams briefly explained issues ihat.had arisen regarding ihe design of the proposed road extension and identificatiun of�eral drainage issues which have increased the cost of ihe project. He outlined the associated-costs and recommended that the Council auJhorize execution of a Reimbursement Agreeine with JH Land Partnership in a form approved by the City Attomey; and authorize ihe itji M nager to execute an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting p oposed changes in the payment provided by JH Land Partnership and any other minor modifications determined to be necessary to carry out ihe direcfion provided by City Councii. � _, PLANNING COMMISSION � I MINUTES I ATTACHMENT 2 I DECEMBER 5, 2006 �= .._- �i �:' .� n �...t,,, � --�'C :.d•'d.c�, �! Discussion: In response to question by Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong�eKrfied that the Police Department will review the lighting plan (including over th�alkway in the parking lot). In response to Commissioner Tait, Commissioner cown added to his motion and Commissioner Ray agreed to: • The mitigation measure for sycamores to be moved k� II be increased due to the size of trees. and adopt: ' RESOLUTIO 0. 06-2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE BCANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APP VING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE N0. . 06-009; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT �6-003 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. -002, LOCATED AT 1400 EAST GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR RCI REALITY, LLC The motion was proved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABS T: None , ob Strong recused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest for the next item. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — SUB-AREA 2 (CHERRY CREEK). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffemon, presented the staff report for this zoning change from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF}. Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding state limits on downzoning; state allowance to consider environmental constraints; timeliness or urgency of rezoning; ability to build out to 4.5 units/acre; concem for lack of environmental review for future development; using eminent domain for all of dirt Cherry vs. only the Subarea 1 portiorr, similarity of planning issues in `both subareas; City Council's and City Attorney's reasons for separating Subarea 2 from Subarea 1; buffer distance in,Subarea 2 of 100' (General Plan minimum) vs. 130' (NP overlay minimum); RRM's estimate of Subarea 2 buildout vs. what Subarea 2 property owners' plans are; concern fo� developers' sense of entitlement to buildout at 4.5 un./ac.; applicability of the "categorically exempt" environmental determination done solely for the purpose of changing zoning vs. for each future individual project; possibility for mitigated negative declarations to be done for future small projects; lack of additional information from RRM regarding the map that shows 2.0 un./ac. buildout; need for changing the General Plan if consensus is to change zoning to RS (Residential Suburban) instead of SF; CEQA exemption 152828T; ability to condition subdivisions vs. plot plan reviews for' road right of way; City Council majority opinion on "Medium—Low Density"; _ PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 !;_-�t�-� ,�: � �;,. MINUTES !+:�.;;'t. 4::i:� I� DECEMBER 5, 2006 � environmental review of new single family residences being built in Subarea 2; and necessity for conditions to have an applicable nexus with each project. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Nora Loonev. 444 Lierlv Lane (in Subarea 2), spoke in support of rezoning as recommended by staff and consistent with the General Plan. She read a letter dated November 13, 2006 from other property owners in Subarea 2 supporting it also. She also read a letter dated December 4, 2006 from Byron Grant (on file at CDD) against downzoning. Her potential buildout at 4.5 units/acre is 3 lots and 4hey wouldn't demo their own custom home. Downzoning would cause them to lose one of those lots. Tonv Janowicz. 445 Lierlv Lane, spoke in support of staff's recommended rezoning and stated that each parcel sfiould be considered on a case by case basis. Existing owners know they won't be able to buildout to 4.5 un.lac. and they won't destroy their custom homes in order to build more units. He'd be willing to sign a deed restriction to limit the number of new lots to three. Colleen Martin. 855 Olive Street, requested the record reflect her concern that these Planning Commission minutes be sent to City Council in plenty of time to consider ' before their own deliberations on this item. Zoning could be different for different properties. She's aware of the concem regarding cluster development from merging two parcels and doing a PUD. At 4.5 du./ac., constrainis would.have to be considered. Ownership changes over time, but when considering zoning, the current owners need to be considered as well as future ones. Transitional zoning is a good idea (from urban to ag). At 2.2 un./ac., all the properties would qualify for secondary units. Damien Mavis, co-owner of Subarea 1, spoke on behaff of the Subarea 1 owners. They have a vested interest in keeping it nice and building nice homes. IYs logical to continue SF zoning into Subarea 2 consistenf with the General Plan. The residents are in favor. While difficult to achieve 4.5 ac./un. density, the zoning makes it much easier to develop as far as minimum lot frontage, lot depth and lot size. IYs actually easier to avoid the PUD (clustering) and follow the Development Code this way. The natural barriers will keep the average lot size up and average density down. The General Plan says nothing about splitting Subarea 1 into a different density than Subarea 2, and it would be difficult to make separate findings to downzone Subarea 2. Downzoning encourages sprawl. This is an infill area and always will be. The Subarea 1 development ended up at 3.3 un./ac. and iYs unlikely to do a cluster development in Subarea 2 at more than that. Karen Estes, 811 E. Cherrv, believes they should at leasf have the option to buitd up to 4.5 du./ac. When an area is downzoned, it increases the cost of each house. There are problems in the City with the lack of affordable housing. Each property owner should be allowed to build up to what they can with appropriate Planning Commission PLANNING COMNfISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES �_��-_; .�; �t,.,,, DECEMBER 5, 2006 !f_J,,w�'_�f,�� review. If they can only build a small amount, it doesn't restrict others from developing and creating more affordable options. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments on the project: Parker: • IYs noteworthy that of 10 parcels, some could build out to 4.5 du/ac., but others couldn't; about haff of them could be affected by environmental constraints. • She has a problem with clustering and is concemed that with 4.5 du./ac., developers will feel they have an entitlement and won't acknowledge environmental restraints, so theyll come in with very dense PUD's. • She agrees with Mayor Ferrara that densiry should slow down towards the east near ag land. • She's concerned applicants will become angry when told about natural constraints if they feel they're entitled to build to the maximum density (4.5 du./ac.) IYs important to be honest with them up front, or it will be hard to work wkh them. If half of them can build up that far, but the others can't build at all, it doesn't seem fair. • She felt she swung around from first comments above, because at the same time, she wouldn't want to sideline those who could build up to 4.5 du./ac. Each property needs to be looked at individually as Plans come in. Brown: . . He agrees with Ms. Parker that iYs bad to create a false sense of entitlement. . He's not willing to vote tonight based on available information and would like staff to get definitive informaiion in regards to changing zoning based on the State approved Housing Element. . When they did the Neighborhood Plan (NP), a 130' ag buffer line was drawn across Subarea 2 and Mr. Estes was not comfortable with that. Therefore, the NP for Subarea 2 wasn't flushed out enough to validate 4.5 du./ac. • He would like a survey of what property owners want to do before changing the zoning. • There's no indication of friendly condemnation on dirt Cherry continuing through Subarea 2. ThaYs important, so whatever Council does with Subarea 2 rezoning, he would like friendly condemnation to go all the way through. Tait: . He agrees they need to take property owners' plans to heart. • At the same time, zoning comes first. . He would have liked somebody to have mapped out the constraints on Subarea 2. . • In an ideal world, iYs fine to let natural constraints dictate density, but it may not actually work that way. • The.current Planning Commission and City Council will uphold the constraints (creek riparian setbacks and ag buffer to protect citizens and the environment), PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES �' �%;:"s ;;'` ''��°;� DECEMBER 5, 2006 ;T''t'"•�'"'=Y� � but he's not sure about future Commissioners and Council members. RS zoning may act as a safeguard for the future. • IYs wise to consider the proposal of 2.0 du./ac. • Councilmembers Costello and Arnold and Mayor FeRara expressed desire for Medium-Low density. � � • Guthrie discussed transitional zoning as it relates to adjacent ag use, and that relates to General Plan Ag 5.3 (land use conversions against land designated a9). . • Things need to be researched more, including current landowners' plans. Ray: � • After considering the staff report, she agreed density should be 4.5 du./ac. With � the public testimony and Commissioner views, while there have been valid arguments for 2 du.lac., she still feels it should be 4.5 because of following: o To match the zoning of Subareas '1 and 2 ultimately guarantees the transitionai nature of Subarea 2. Because lot size and maximum buildout are so varied, it guarantees variety. o She would need to have a really good reason to take away rights of . property owners, and she doesn't see a compelling argument to do so. None of the properties can subdivide to 4.5 du./ac., so the question is just how much can they build. She understands the reason for a blanket 2.5 du./ac., but environmental constraints are so strong, there's no need to take it away from property owners who can do more. � o Discussion with current property owners is too mercurial. What one homeowner wants today may be different tomorrow, as is nature of personal property owner rights. Current owners shouldn't have to sign anything (deed restrictions). o There is an expectation when somebody buys a home of what tliey can do. That expectation is also important to us as a City. o The possibility of cluster development isn't inherently wrong; the Planning Commission would have to review the project. She doesn't want to downzone just for fear of cluster development later. o The extensive environmental restraints will keep density down. o The false sense of entitlement is very valid, but it doesn't reflect the City's honesry. People should be trusted to take the zoning and do whaYs necessary for the City. 'Subarea 1 testifies that the process works. o There have been many PUD's and the process is getting better— like with the recent change adhering to setbacks of adjacent properties. That will really apply here. - o She's not in favor of downzoning and agrees with the General Plan at 4.5 du./ac. Fellows: • Whenever considering a project, Commissioners have to consider first whaYs best for the community. They may get a 100-signature petition, but they have to keep things in context. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES �'��'; � �:;�:• DECEMBER 5, 2006 ,� '" � �� _>i". I _ , �r,. :.� • Subarea 2 borders the creek to the north and east, the Caldweil trust, and has an ag buffer. He disagrees with Ms. Scot-Graham's argument that high density wouid save ag land here, because in this location it's a threat to ag, and the creek. • He also disagrees that high density will make homes more affordable. That wouid be true in other areas, but wouldn't be a large factor here. . He's always felt that it makes good sense to do transitional zoning. He doesn't agree that variety inside a border constitutes that. There should be mo�e density on one side and lower density toward the ag land and creek to diminish those threats. , • Three of five Councilmembers requested Commissioners to consider RS zoning, but that hasn't been done tonight, and it needs further study. "No City shall reduce the residential density to any parcel unless the City makes certain findings." Staff needs to consider it and he's in favor of RS zoning at this point. His uncertainty is if staff can suggest the finding there's no net loss of housing capacity. He needs more information before voting. • People would consider higher density as an entitlement, and zoning is the only way to guarantee that iYs lower. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-004 for further analysis, not particularly to RS or Low-Medium density zoning, but based on the question of whether lower density can be considered based on the Housing Element; also, staff shall come forth in writing with a description of how environmental constraints would be the same or different in Subarea 2 as in Subarea 1 (because there may be more constraints in Subarea 2, thereby justifying transitional zoning). � The motion was approved on the following roll calt vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Parker and Ray ABSENT: None C. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-009; APPLICANT'— TO Y�NOWICZ; LOCATION—T95 CHERRY STREET. Associate 'Planner, Kelly Heffemon, presented the report. She answered Commission questions for clarification of the report regarding: no Planning Comm'ission review requirement if he was o oing an addition; the only difference in the project with different zoning woul setbacks; the distance of the new structure from ag land (a little over 70' • LSA letter and adding conditions to the project regarding cultural resource rvey; handling asbestos during demolition; the ag buffer as the "mechanism minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and non- agricultural lan es"; consideration of the demo and re-build project as a new "use" vs. as a "structure" and the associated interpretation of the General Plan and Deve ment Code; legal non-conforming status of,existing structure and allowance to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , ATTACHMENT 3 JANUARY 76, 2007 ;\ Vice Chair Brown again stated that fo ask anything less than what Sub area 1 required would be wrong; a MND should be prepared for Commission review for this project. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brown, to continue consideration of the project to a date uncertain, and request that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a drainage plan, and a Ag buffer plan, prepared by. a design landscape architect, be brought forward to the Commission. �- Discussion: Commissioner Ray stated that she was having difficulty with requiring a MND, as that would be adding time to a process that the Commission had already dealt with on this project. The reason she'requested a MND was to maintain clarity on the City's position, the process itself regarding the Ag buffer and why Janowici was allowed to build within the buffer, so there would be no ambiguity with sub-area 2. Vice Chair Brown stated environmental impacts are determined by CEQA and governing bodies; any decision made on this project would be precedent setting for Sub-area 2. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Brown, and Ray NOES: None , ABSENT: CommissionerTait 8:40 p.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. B. CONTlNUED PUBLIC HEAR/NG: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — 13 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUB-AREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued consideration of a proposal to amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property from Residential Rural to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Heffemon explained that the Planning Commission continued this item to allow time for Turther analysis on whether a low density residential zoning could be implemented and adequate findings made given state law regarding regional housing needs and affordable housing requirements. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution �ecommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 subject property from Rural Residential to Single-Family or one of the other alternatives suggested in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions on the staff report. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Vasquez, agent for the Sub-area 2 property owners, described the proposal and the project constraints. He explained that the conceptual design was based on input from the neighborhood meetings, a 100-foot Ag buffer, and would have a rural feel to it. He stated that ali the owners had seen the conceptual plan and were in approval of it. Ruel Estes, EasY Cherry, stated his concem at the requirement for an Ag buffer; he would like to use his property as he pleases and does not want to see it downgraded; hopes the Commission does not have a pre-conceived idea of what is going to happen here. Colleen Martin stated the plan is really nice and she likes it; why not zone as proposed and what is appropriate instead of zoning for 4.5 units per acre, which could cause an additional 57 units in this area in the future. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, urged the Commission to designate Sub-area 2 to Single- Family zoning consistent with the General Plan and requested the Commission to not downzone the area. Speaking for all the property owners in Sub-area 2, she stated Mr. Vasquez had designed a good neighborhood plan and all owners of Sub-area 2 have seen the conceptual plan and the consensus has been positive. She understands the concern about PUD's, but they are just asking for a change in the zoning. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • "No net loss" is not possible here, but we do have the best-case scenario. If we can't downzone we end up functionally downzoning anyway and end up with the paper density. We will actually protect rural communities by changing it to SF to meet the General Plan and protect the personal property rights of those people who would be losing opportunity if we downgrade; this is going to be a transitional area because of the enJironmental constrairits. Parker: • The property dictates the zoning; considering the map it almost fits into the City's RS zoning and maybe there could be an overlay allowing for 3.2 units. Brown: • Does not agree with staffs analysis that the density cannot be made up elsewhere; when the General Plan was adopted this area went from a Specific Plan to a Neighbofiood Plan and many hours were spent on sub area 1, and in effect they ended up wRh a Specific Plan; Sub-area 2 has no less of a burden to PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 climb than Cherry Creek, but the process could be speeded up if issues could be resolved up front. • He proposed that a solution for all parties would be to keep the densities the same, call it a Specific Plan area and it would then be equitable to all owners; he could support zoning for 4.5 units per acre and recommend to City Council that Sub-area 2 have a spec�c plan/general plan amendment. Commissioner Parker stated that some owners may not want to have a specific plan at this time and may not be prepared to do this. Commissioner Ray asked how a spec�c plan would protect 11 different owners. In reply to Commissioner Parker's questions Ms. Heffemon explained.that a specific plan would be regulated by State law and could be a long process; an overlay aiready exists as a neighborhood plan. Mr. Vasquez stated that RRM Design Group had done a layout for Sub-area 2 in their neighborhood plan and this could be amended and recommended to City Council to be incorporated into the neighborhood plan. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend that City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family (SF) consistent with the General Plan, and adopt: RESOLUTION 07-2024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONIHG MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004) The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray and Parker NOES: Vice Chair Brown ABSENT: CommissionerTait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16"' day of January 2007. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT4 Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period June 16, 2007 thro h � June 30, 2007. S.b, Consideration of an Award of Contract to Souza Constructiori, Inc., for Con uction of the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project, PW 2007-02. Action: 1) Awarded a contract for the construction of the Brisco Road ehabilitation Project, PW 2007-02 to Souza Construction, Inc. in the amount of$270, ; 2) Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contin ncy of$27,088.00 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the proj t; and 3) Transferred $107,966, currently allocated for the Annual Pavement Manage nt Program. Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to move up em 11.a. on the Agenda to be considered prior to Item 9.a. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 11.a. Consideration of Confirmation of Appoi ent of Chief of Police. City Manager Adams presented the staff port and recommended the Council confirm the appointment of Steven Annibali as the Cit new Chief of Police. Mayor Ferrara invited comments f m those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no pub " comments, he closed the public comment period. At Mayor Ferrara's invitati , Mr. Annibali introduced himself and briefly addressed the Council, staff, and those in the a ience. Action:, Council ember Costelio moved to confirm the appointment of Steven Annibali as the City's new Ch� of Police. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following ro all vote: AYES• Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara NO . None A�SENT: None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Development Code Amendment No. 06-004 to Change the Zoning of the Subject Property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family Residential (SF); Applicant — City of Arroyo Grande; Location — 72.77 Acres NoRh of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Subarea 2 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan); and Resolution Approving Neighborhood Plan No. 04-001 (East Village Neighborhood Plan); Applicant — Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location — 22 Acres East of Noguera Court Subdivision, North of East Cherry Avenue Extension, and South of Arroyo Grande Creek. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Acting Community Development Director Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the designation of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family (SF), and adopt a Resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan. Staff responded to questions from Council regarding zoning and development standards as it relates to density; timing of infrastructure improvements; clarification concerning the Neighborhood Plan as it relates to Planned Unit Developments, proposed road widths, and agricultural buffer requirements; how changes to the project could impact the City's affordable housing allocations required by the State; whether or not all the surrouriding property owners support the proposed plan; and clarification about the drainage plan and its coordination with the Neighborhood Plan. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearingl�` Mark Vasauez, representing the Subarea 2 property owners, noted that the property owners assisted in cooperative efforts to create the proposed conceptual plan. He noted that the issue tonight is a change in zoning to achieve consistency."with the General Plan and to approve the Neighborhood Plan. He stated that the property owners were not presenting a specific project tonight, and that it is difficult at this time to address specific concerns expressed by the Council. He stated that the property owners have an interest in assuring infrastructure improvements are installed for future development. He emphasized that the property owners have had a significant role in creating a conceptual plan and;, spoke in support of approving the zone change and Neighborhood Plan. Reuel Estes, E. Cherry, stated he is the property owner most affected and to the greatest extent; that 1/3 of the land is in the agricultural buffer; expressed concern about the drainage problem; spoke about the effort put forth in the Neighborhood Plan and stated the City needs to help the property owners. � Matt Janowicz, Lierly Lane, stated he currently rents; he would like an opportunity to buy property in the City; and supported the proposal. . Damien Mavis, Subarea 1 developer, explained how the proposal fits into the development for Subarea 1; commended the property owners for their cooperative efforts; stated that they would be breaking ground on Subarea 1 soon and that utilities and infrastructure would be installed; noted that the proposal is a good transition into the rural area; the proposal is consistent with the Housing Element and conforms to the General Plan, and supported the proposal. Nora Loonev, Lierly Lane, thanked the neighbors for their involvement in the Neighborhood Plan. She stated that the Plan addresses all the issues; there is no opposition to the Neighborhood Plan among the current owners; and supported approval of the zone change and Neighborhood Plan. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed tFie public hearing. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Supports zone change to single-family residential; however, expressed concern about potential Planned Unit Developments (PUD) that would cluster enough homes to reach the maximum allowable units and would support a condition to prohibit PUD's;, - Supports approving Neighborhood Plan as submitted; - Noted that issues relating to drainage and agricultural buffers would be addressed' when project applications come forth; - Does not think a Specific Plan is required. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: - Referred to Subarea 1 ,and. the objectives identified in the General Plan associated with rezoning the area, including a comprehensive drainage solution for Newsom Springs, opportunities for in-fill projects, and to provide an agricultural buffer that would permanently protect the neighborhood and the adjacent farm operations, and noted that these objectives were met; - Referred to Subarea 2 and stated it was his understanding that the agricultural buffer would be in place for the entire property and expressed disappointment that was not the case; does not see any alternative at this time; - Acknowledged State's affordable housing requirements; - Prefers a neighborhood drainage solution rather than addressing on individual properties; - Prefers going back to review the drainage solution; - Reluctantly supported moving forvvard. - Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: - Concerned about lack of total drainage solution and agricultural buffer for entire area of Subarea 2; - Cannot support Plan as proposed; - Stated that the agricultural buffer is important because it will protect the farmer in.the future and the homeowners that will be living in Subarea 2: Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: - Expressed concern that approval of the Neighborhood Plan does not provide final approval of the layouts within each Subarea and that individual proposals-for each property will be reviewed separately by the City Council, and that it contradicts approval of the conceptual plan being proposed this evening. City Attorney Carmel read from Policy LU2-7 in the General Plan, which requires a Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, ' agricultural buffer, creek trail, conservation/open space consideration prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. He explained that the intent was to provide flexibility to evaluate each application as it comes in and clarified that the proposal is a conceptual plan: - Referred to the Estes property and opposed the proposed layout and density as shown in the conceptual plan. City Attorney Carmel clarified that the proposal was conceptual, was not intended to be a subdivision, that the Council would refain discretion over subdivision approvals, and approval of the Neighborhood Plan is not bindirig as it relates to the conceptual plan. ` - Inquired whether the Neighborhood Plan should identify who will bear the expense of water and sewer facilities; - Concerned about density; wants to remove option for Planned Unit Developments from the Neighborhood Plan; - Would like to document in the Plan that expenses for infrastructure improvements will be the responsibility of the applicant; - Opposes the proposed density calcutated for the Estes property and would support a change in the conceptual plan to reduce the plan 6y one unit; could otherwise support the Neighborhood Plan as proposed. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Uncomfortable that the Neighborhood Plan is not a binding document; - Recognized that the Council would, have to consider each application as it comes forth individually; however, he believed that the 130 foof agricultural buffer zone shown on the map should be applied from one end of Subarea 2 to the other; � - Prefers that the agricultural buffer in Subarea 2 have a softer look than Subarea 1 as it is transitioning into a more rural area; - Expressed concerns about the overall drainage issue in this area and preferred that staff continue to work with the property owners to create a comprehensive drainage plan; - Supported removing the PUD option from the Neighborhood Plari. Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject property as Single-Family Residential, Development Code Amendment 06-004, Applied for by the City of Arroyo Grande for property located north of the East Cherry Avenue Extension (Subarea 2 of the East Village Neighborhood_Plan), to exclude Planned Unit Developments in this area; to direct staff to continue to work with any potential applicants on any potential projects.to provide drainage plans that will benefit multiple properties; and that the cost of the infrastructure improvements are to be borne by the applicants. City Attorney Carmel advised the Council it would be more appropriate to consider approval of the Neighborhood Plan prior to introducing the ordinance for the Development Code Amendment. Council Member Costello tabled the motion. Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande approving East Village Neighborhood Plan (Neighborhood Plan Case No. 04-001) for approximately 22 acres located east of the Noguera Cou�t Subdivision, north of the East Cherry Avenue Extension, and south of Arroyo Grande Creek; Applicant - Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded the motion. Discussio� ensued concerning the removal of PUD's from the Neighborhood Plan, and City Attorney Carmel informed the Council that the Plan contains numerous references to PUD's and he suggested the Council take tentative action to approve the Plan in order to allow staff to thoroughly review and revise the document based on the Council's direction. Mayor Ferrara asked for clarification that if the Council took tentative action to approve the Plan, then it would come back to the Council in a revised form for final approval. City Attorney replied that was correct. Action: Council Member Costello amended his motion to take tentative action to adopt the Resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold asked if this included a modified Site Plan to reflect seven lots on the Estes property instead of eight. Council Member Costello stated that it was not necessary at this time as the Council would have the option to review individual development proposals on their own merits as they come forward. Discussion ensued to clarify that the Neighborhood Plan would be modified to remove the option for PUD's in Subarea 2 and to include a more detailed drainage strategy for Subarea 2. Mayor Ferrara seconded the amended motion. ,� Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Council Member Fellows expressed concern about dealing with the agricultural buffer later as projects come forward in Subarea 2, as only the people that own land in or adjacent to the buffer would be responsible for providing the buffer. He said that leaves fewer th'an'half of the property owners who would bear that burden. The motion passed on the foliowing roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Ferrara, Guthrie NOES: Fellows, Arnold ABSENT: None City Attorney Carmel recommended that the Council defer taking action on the Development Code Amendment until the Neighborhood Plan has been modified and approved. Action: Council Member Costello moved to continue consideration of the Development Code Amendment to a date uncertain. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded. Mayor Ferrara requested that this item be expedited and returned to the Councii as soon as possible. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellow, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Ferrara cal/ed for a break at 9:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM 10.a. Consideration of Resolution Certifying a Five-Year Radar Speed Survey and Establishment of Speed Limits on Rancho Parkway, Valley Road and North Halcyon Road. Assistant City Engineer Linn presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution certifying a five-year radar speed survey establishing speed limits on Rancho Parkway, Valley Road and North Halcyon Road. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period. Council comments included acknowledgement of the restriping on Rancho Parkway, which has appeared to calm traffic speed; and support for the Resolution as proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPPED SURVEY AND ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON RANCHO PARKWAY, VALLEY ROAD AND NORTH HALCYON ROAD". Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: o� PRROYpcP ATTACHMENT 5 � INCOSPORATED 9Z u � T MEMORANDUM « �� ,o. �a�, * c4��FOR�\P . TO: KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER�,��1 'J SUBJECT: SUB-AREA 2 DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 Public Works has reviewed the. report prepared by Mark Barnett of the NRCS dated September 26, 2007. Mark outlines six alternative strategies for each private road, with four potential options for each alternative strategy. It appears that all the proposed alternative strategies are technically feasible. As stated in Mark's letter, some strategies will require cooperation between multiple property owners to facilitate grading of the private roads. This area is in Drainage Zone "B" of the City's Drainage Master Plan. The alternative strategies that allow draining to the creek are consistent with the City's Drainage Master Plan. Alternative strategies requiring on-site retention will be sized in accordance with the retention criteria identified in the City's Drainage Master Plan. There may also be additional testing� required to verify the percolation rates suggested within the report for the design of retention basins. One additional strategy may be considered.is the use of the agricultural buffer basin for detention rather than retention to remove sediment before discharging to the creek. Please feel free to contact Victor or myself if you have any further questions. C: Assistant City Engineer Associate Engineer—Development Services Project File i S:\Public Works\Engineering\Development ProjeclsVdlSC\Sub-Area 2\Drainage Memo-Sub-area 2-9-28-07.doc ATTACHMENT6 ROAD ACQUISITION AGREEMENT This Road Acquisition Ageement ("Agreement"), is entered into as of , 2007 ("Effective Date"),by and between CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a California limited liability company("Creekside") and ("Owner"). RECITALS A. Creekside is the current owner of certai� real property described as Tentative Tract 2653, in Arroyo Grande, California (the "Cherry Creek Propert�'). B. Owner owns an undivided interest in APN 007-711-004, and an undivided interest in APN 007-711-008. C. APNs 007-711-004 and 007-711-008 comprise a road (the "Roadway") that serves Owner's property and other adjacent properties in the azea(collectively,the "Adjacent Properties"). D. As part of Creekside's development of the Cherry Creek Property, the City of Arroyo Grande(the "City") has required Creekside to improve a portion of the Roadway. E. Once the required interests in the Roadway aze obtained and any necessazy improvements completed, the Roadway wilt be presented to the City for acceptance as a public road. F. Creekside and Owner wish to enter into this ageement to provide for payment of compensation to Owner for his/her/its interest in the Roadway, and for the subsequent transfer of the Owner's interest in the Roadway to the City. G. Creekside also wishes to obtain, and Owner wishes to grant, a construction license over the Roadway in order to complete improvements required by the City in connection with the development of the Cherry Creek Property and other Adjacent Properties (the "Work"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE for ood and valuable consideration the recei t and sufficienc of , S � P Y which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Trar�sfer of Owner's Interest in the Roadway. Owner hereby agrees to transfer his/herJits undivided fee interest in the Roadway to the City of Arroyo Grande, Califomia, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Ownec shall execute the grant deed attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Quitclaim Deed") and deposit it into escrow at Cuesta Title ("Escrow Holder"), C:�Documeru aod$cni�slKNtRaaonU.omlScllmplTempormy Inttmet Fi1a101K/Vload Arquui�'mn Apt 0/.l0.tll.doc t I __ _ Escrow # B7500212 ("Escrow"). The Quitclaim Deed shall not be recorded, unless and until: (i) All other owners of the Roadway have likewise agreed to transfer their interest in the Roadway to the City; 2) the City has agreed to accept ownership ofthe Roadway to be transferred by the Quitclaim Deed; 3) Creekside has obtained any required reconveyances and/or releases of the Encumbrances as required pursuant to Section 1.2 below; and 4) Creekside has deposited the Purchase Price, less any amounts advanced pursuant to Section 1.2, into Escrow and Escrow Holder is prepared to release those funds to Owner immediately following recordation of the Quitclaim Deed. LJNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE OWNER'S INTEREST IN THE ROADWAY BE TRANSFERRED TO CREEKSIDE. If for any reason the aforesaid conditions are not met and the Grant Deed is not recorded within five(5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Furthermore, if the City reqnests that sections of the Roadway be accepted at different times, and/or that the interest conveyed be that of an offer of dedication of a public right of way or easement, Owner agreements to execute any and all documents which are reasonably necessary and/or desirable to complete such a conveyance. 1.]. Owner's Representation and Warrancv. Owner represents and warrants to Creekside that he/she/it is the sole owner of his/her/its interest in the Roadway and that hislher/its interest in the Roadway is unencumbered by any lien,mortgage or other encurnbrance,except as set forth on Exhibit"B" (the"Encumbrances"). Owner further represents and warrants that the transfer of his/her/its interest in tha Roadway is a valid and enforceable obligation against Owner and does not require any third party consent or agreement(other than as disclosed on Exhibit B)to be effective. 1.2. Encumbrances. Owner hereby authorizes Creekside,at Creekside's sole cost and expense, to acquire all necessary releases regarding the Encumbrances which aze required to�ansfer Owner's interest in the Roadway to the City pursuant to the tem�s of this Ageement (collectively, the "Releases").Owner agrees to cooperate with Creekside to acquire such Releases,including but not limited to providing information regarding the encumbrance to enable Creekside the ability to acquire its release,the execution of any and all documents and the performance of any reasonable actions that are necessary or deemed by Creekside desirable to acquire such Releases. If Creekside is unable to obtain the Releases within three(3)months after the Ett'ective Date, or the cost of the Releases or conditions imposed upon the Releases are unreasonable,at any time after said three month period Creekside shall have the right to terminate Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Agreement regarding acquisition of Owner's interest in the Roadway,but retain the License set forth in Section 4,with written notice thereof to Owner. 2. Purchase Price. Upon recordatio�of the Quitclaim Deed(or other similar conveyance document as required by Section 1), Creekside shall pay Owner Five Hundred � Dollars($500.00), which amount is based an appraisal by Warren Reeder which values the entire Roadway at Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($5,500). The Purchase Price shall be deposited into escrow at least two (2) business days prior to the anticipated recordation of the Quitclaim Deed(or other similar conveyance document as required by Section 1). 3. Recordation of Memorandum. A memorandum of this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C" shall be executed concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and delivered [o Escrow Holder for immediate recording. 4. License. C.�vmeMS ad Seni�\KHeRman\LOmI SaaP\Tmqowy le�mr�Fi1nWLKIVtad Acquisi�ioe Agi Oc.JO-0].Ax 2 4.1. Grant of License. Owner hereby grants to Creekside, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, employees,representatives, and assigns, this temporary license and right to enter upon the Roadway, at no cfiarge,to perform the Work. 4.2. Term. This license shal] continue in full force and effect until the.Work, as it pertains to the entire Roadway, is completed. Provided, however, in any event, this Agreement shall terminate at S:OOp.m., Pacific Time, on the date which is five(5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement. 4.3. Notice Prior to Commencement of Work. Creekside shall provide at least five(5) days prior written notice to Owner before commencement of the Work, and periodically thereafter at any time work is commenced after a cessation of more than ninety(90) days. 4.4. Govemmental Approvals. Creekside shal] obtain from governmental authorities, all permits, approvals, and permission that are required, if any,to perform the Work; and,Owner shall sign any and all consent forms required by governmental agencies for Creekside to perform said Work. 4.5. Cost. All Work shall be performed at Creekside's sole cost and expense. 4.6. Indemnification. Creekside shall indemnify and hold hazmless Owner from and against any and all claims and damages, including,but not limited to, personal injury, property damages, fines, and penalties which Owner may hereafter be liable for,suffer, incur or pay which results fmm Creekside's Work on the Roadway. 5. Miscellaneous: The following miscellaneous provisions shall apply to this Agreement: 5.1. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and delivered by facsimile or other means of electronic transmission, each such counterpart being deemed to be an original instrument, and all such counterparts shail together co�stitute the same agreement. 5.2. Laws. It is speci�catly stipulated that this Agreement will be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Califomia. Venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be in the courts in and for San Luis Obispo County, Califomia. 5.3. Arnendments. No modification or amendment of this Agreement will be of any force or effect unless made in writing and executed by both parties. 5.4. Successors and Assir�ns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives and successors. Creekside shall be pernutted to freely assign all or any portion of its inierest in this Agreement. 5.5. Multiple Par[ies. If Seller constitutes more than one person or entity, then all of such persons or entities shall collectively be referred to herein as Seller and such C.�oocumemi+�0 Sq�ing�KHertmpn�LaalSCllinp�Tompmary lnlo�rt�FiksqLK�VfuaA Acquif uioo Ap 01]0-0]OK 3 persons and entities shal] be jointly and severally responsible for the performance of Seller hereunder. 5.6. Further pocuments. The parties agree that they will execute such other instruments and documents as are or may become necessazy or convenient lo carry out the intent and puiposes of this Agreement. 5.7. Pronouns. All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine or neuter, singular or plwal, as the identity of the person, persons or entities may require. 5:8. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains all of the understandings and agreements of whatsoever kind and nature existing between the parties hereto with respect to this Agreement, and the rights, interests, understandings, agreements and obligations of the respective parties and their prior oral agreements, if any. 5.9. Headinr.s. All headings in this Agreement aze inserted only for convenience and ease of reference, and aze not to be considered in the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. 5.10. Attomevs' Fees. If any legal proceeding, arbitration or other action is brought or threatened for the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement,or because of an alleged dispute,breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement,and the prevailing party in any such action(s) should incur any lega] fees, including, but not limited to,attomeys' fees, pazalegal fees, expert witness fees and other similaz costs, the successful or prevailing party or parties to any such dispute or action shal] be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and additional legal costs incurred,together with any other relief to which they may otherwise be entitled, as determined by an azbitrator,judge at trial, or upon appeal or petition. 5.11. Authoritv. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of a party hereto,by his or her signature, represents that he or she maintains full authority on behalf of the applicable party to execute this Agreement, and thereby bind the applicable party to all covenants,duties and obligations contained herein. 5.12. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given (i)if delivered personally, when received; (ii) if transmitted by facsimile, upon the generation by the transmitting facsimile machine of a confirmation that the entire document has been successfully transmitted;(iii) if sent by recognized courier service, on the business day following the date of deposit with such courier service,or(iv) if sent by registered mail, postage prepaid, retum receipt requested,on the third business day following the date of deposit in the United States mail. All such notices shall • be addressed to a party at its address as set forth below, or to such other address or facsimile number as a party shal] notify the other of in accordance with this Section 5. If to Owner: C:�DOCUmcMS aM SmingpKH�RmqnLLOCaI SqtingalTmpor+ry le[cmn Fiia10LK�Vla�A Mqui�Yion Ar W-30-0i EM A Y If to Creekside: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande,LLC P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Attn: Damien Mavis 5.13. Invalid Provisions. If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect,such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and the intent manifested thereby shall be recognized. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on and as of the date first above written. ��OWNER" "CREEKSIDE" CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a Califomia limited liability company By: Covelop, Inc., a Califomia corporation By: Damien Mavis, President By: Covelop, Inc., a Califomia corporation By_ Bradley G. Vernon C',�DOCw�xnis eM SeainpWlcRernooWool Seunp\7emporary Imann Files\OLKNtoad Acquunioo�`�Oa30-07.00C 5 EXHIBIT "A" FORM OF QUITCLAIM DEED I II C Noc�menu MM So�iry�KNeRanon�4oca15ening�Taryvray Intmrcl Fda10LKI1RwA Acquif nioo Ap,1 o4JO-o1.AOc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO, AND MAII,TAX STATEMENTS TO: Creekside Estates, LLC P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Attn: Damien Mavis (Above Space for Recorder's Use Only) No Documentary Trausfer Tax Due: Exempt per California Revenue& Tax Code§11922 � QUITCLAIM DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ("Grantor"),hereby releases, remises and forever quitclaims to the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,CALIFORNTA, all of Granto�'s right, title and interest in the real property described on Exhibit"A"here[o. DATED: , 2007 "Grantor" ***Subject to acceptance by the City ofArroyo Grande, a copy of which is attached hereto. C:�DOtu�11Q�1f Ond SC�i�fIKHeR�rtpn\Wyl$cuiogf\Trnporoy Inicma FibWLKaVIOtl��queition�gl W-)0-0]doc CERTiFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of Califomia County of On before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally lrnown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed'to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/hedtheir authoriud capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the enrity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ,. � ,; C.1WCUmrnn md SenNy\KHCltmqnLLOCd Satin�Tcniporary Immn FiksqLKa�RmA Acyuisi�ion Ap�Oa10+17 doc Exhibit "A" Legal Description Parcel 7 Certain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia,as more particulazly described as: Part of Lot 90 of the Ranchos Coaal de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,State of Califomia,according to the map made by James T.Stratton,in September, 1873 and rewrded in Book A,Page 65 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: ' Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 90;thence North 65-3/4°East along the Northwest line of said Lot,40 feet to the East line of a public road and 744 feet to the most Southerly comer of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a pad of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,as surveyed by RR. Harris,November, 1885;thrnce South 33-V4°East, 16 feet; thence South 56-3/4°West,parallel with the first course,704 feet to the East lien of said public road and 74A feet to the Southwest lien of said Lot 90; thence North 33-1/4°West along said Southwestedy line, 16 feet to the place of beginning.. Except therefrom that podion thereof conveyed to the County of San Luis Obispo for road purpose hy Deed dated July 12, 1911 recorded in Book 88,Page 485 of Deeds,records of said County. (APN 007-117-004) Parcel2 Certain real property]ocated in the City of Arroyo Grande,Counry of San Lais Obispo, State of Califomia, more particulazly described as: Part of Lot 90 of Ranchos Corral de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,State of Califomia,according to map made by James T. Stratton,in September 1973 and recorded in Book A,page 65 of Maps in the office of the Counry Recorder of said counry,and part ol'Lut 7 of the lands of D.F.Newsom and Anna Newsom,comprising part of the Rancho Bolsa de Chemisal, in said city, county and state, according to map recorded June 5, 1891 in Book A,page 77 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County,described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly comer of said Lot 90,said comer being also the most Westerly corner of said Lot 7;thence South 56 3/4°West along the Northwest line of said Lot 90,490 feet to the most Southerly comer of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a paR of the Ranchos Coiral de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,as surveyed by R.R. Harris,November 1885;thence South 33-]/4°East, 16 feet thence North 56- 3/4°East,parallel with the fu-st course,489 feet to the Southwest line of land of J.R.Withrow in said Lot 7 as described in Deed recorded November 4, 1919 in Book 134,Page 170 of Deeds;thence Nocth 43°28'West, 16.25 feer,thence South 56-3/4°West,4.62 feet to the place of beginning. (APN 007-117-008) C:�DOCUmrn6 ui0 Suti�KNCRanonitaal Snungs\TCmporuy INemn Fila10LK/\Rwd A�quisiiian Ag�0430-07.doc EXHIBIT "B" ENCUMBRANC�S [Describe any encumbrances on Owner's interest in t6e Roadway (mortgage, deed of trust, � etc.] C Wicmnenu siW Smi�KHalfmuv�LOd Sc[4ngs\icmpwary Intmut FdnWLKNtwE Aryu'anion Ayt Wa0-0l.do[. EXHIBIT "C" MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT C:�DOwnrm�ana 5cnirysucn�rtcrvonLLaal SaiinqRemW��T Inamc�FtlawLKaVtoea ncqunnbo n5�adao7.mc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND' WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Creekside Fstates,LLC P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Attn: Damien Mavis (Ab'ove Space for Recorder's Use Only) � - Memorandum of Agreement This Memorandum of Agreement (this "Memorandum") is made as of , 200_ by and between ("Owner"), and CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a California limited liability company("Creekside"). 1. Owner is the current owner of an undivided interest in ceRain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, as more particulazly described on Exhibit"A"hereto (the "Property"). 2. Owner has entered into an agreement with Creekside(the "Agreement"), wherein Owner has agreed to: i) transfer the Property to the City of Arroyo Grande, Califomia; and ii) Creekside is ganted a license to perform certain road improvement work on the Property prior to transfer to the City. 3. The purpose of this Memorandum is to give notice of the Agreement and all of its terms, covenants and conditions to the same extent as if the Agreement were fully set forth herein, and this Memorandum is subject to all of the teans, conditions and provisions of the Agreement. If there should be any conflict between t6is Memorandum and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall govem. IN WIINESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum as of the date first above written. , "OWNER" "CREEKSIDE" CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a Califomia limited liability company By: Covelop,Inc.,a California wrporation By: Damien Mavis, President By: Bradley G.Vernon, Secretary C.�DOCmnenf yW Senioys�KNSRmronLLOCaI SNinpl7amporily In�mlet Fila10LK1�RmG Acqu6ibn Ag[0430-07.GOc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of Califomia County of On before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally Imown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and aclrnowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capaciry(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WTI'NESS my hand and official seal. Signature CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of Califomia Counry of On before me, � (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally ]mown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/herhheir authorized capaciry(ies), and that by hishier/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature c.Nocmums aN sertmat�KNOrtmwNl.acal sauneslrnipxary Inemn Filu'ALK��ROad noquisiwn n�a-So-o'!Sw CERTffICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of California County of On , before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally la�own to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be thc person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. W17NESS my hand and official seal. Signature CiDOCUmsnumd5enmgs�KfleRcnoo\LocalSenines\imryonrylnttmetFdaWLK6VtwdArquisIliooAgi WJ0.0'l.doc '� ___ '_ I — _ _ � Exhibit "A" Legal Description Parcel 1 That certain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande,County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,as more particularly described as: Part of I.ot 90 of fhe Ranchos Conal de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,in the Ciry of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,State of Califomia,according to the map made by James T. Stratton,in September, 1873 and recorded in Book A, Page 65 of Maps in the office of the Couniy Recorder of said County,described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 90; thence North 65-3/4°East along the Northwest line of said Lot,40 feet to the East line of a public road and 744 feet to the most Southerly comei of Lot 33 of ihe Resubdivision of a part of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,as surveyed by R.R. Harris,November, 1885;thence South 33-1/4°East, 16 feet;thence South 56-3l4°West,paralle]with the first course,704 feet to the East lien of said public road and 744 feet to the Southwest]ien of said I.ot 90; thence NoRh 33-1/4°Wes[along said Southwesterly line, 16 feet to the place of beginning. Except therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to the Counry of San Luis Obispo for road purpose by Deed dated July 12, 1911 recorded in Book 88,Page 485 of Deeds,records of said County. (APN 007-117-004) Parcel2 That cerfain real propetty located in the City of Arroyo Grande,County of San Luis Obispo,State of Califomia,more particulazly described as: Part of Lot 90 of Ranchos Corral de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,State of CaliFomia,according to map made by James T. Stratton,in September 1973 and recorded in Book A,page 65 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county,and part of Lot 7 of the lands of D.F.Newsom and Anna Newsom,comprising part of the Rancho Bolsa de Chemisal, in said city,counry and stace,according to map recorded June 5, 1891 in Book A,page 77 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Cowity,described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly comer of said Lot 90,said comer being also the most Westedy comer of said Lot 7; thence South 56 3/4°West along the Northwest line of said Lot 90,490 feet to the most Southerly comer of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a part of the Ranchos Corra]de Piedra,Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,as surveyed by R.R.Hazris,November 1885;thence South 33-1/4°East, 16 feet;theece North 56- 3/4°East,parallel with the first course,489 feet to the Southwest line of land of J.R.Withrow in said Lot 7 as described in Deed recorded November 4, 1919 in Book 134,Pa�e 170 of Deeds;thence North 43°28'West, 16.25 feet; thence South 563/4°West,4.62 feet to the place of beginning. (APN 007-117-008) C:�DOCUmew W Sminp�KH<(/mronLLaal Smi�Teeryavr Immet FiIn10LKdYtoad Aury:subn Ayt 0/-30-01.do[ ,, o� PRROVO c � INCORPOAATE Z O t� m � J"`� ,°. 191 * MEMORANDUM c4��F ORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: !� KELLY HEFFERNON " ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT PAGES OF TABLE 1 FOR ATTACHMENT #8 (DRAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS) OF EXHIBIT "A" TO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (ITEM 9.a.) DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 Attached please find replacement pages for the above project. The pages in the packet do not include the entire table. Tabie 1:SUB BASIN 2 DRAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS Road Stntegy Description O tions A 8 C D Lierly --- — � ---- —�— ----- — _ 1 Grade lots to slope toward Liedy Road; Direct runoff to Cherty Ave Direct runoH to Chercy Ave Concurtently with A or 8, Concurcently with A or B and/w C,direct Grade Lierl Road to slo towards Che Ave. with Curb 3 Gutter_ with bar ditch swale) im lement Low Impact runoff into A ricultural BuHer AB;conslrud Develo ent Practices(LID's) Bioretention basin in AB;on south side of as referenced in LID Table below basin construct wer flow bertn so if basin overtops it will sheet flow to Cherry Ave. 2 Grade locs to sl toward Lierl Road; Grade portion oi road North Direct runoff to Che Ave Direct runoff to Che Ave Concurrentl with Strat 2, of the access easement to slope toward the easement;Grede rtion oi road with Curb&Gutter with bar ditch(swale im lement Low Impad South of access easement to slo towards easemenh Grade easement to Development Prectices(LID's) slo toward Sub Basin 1;Sha easement as v shallow(4"dee ) as referenced in LIO Table below �rassed Vapezddal swale. — 3 Individual lots shall be allowed to consWct a subsurface ground water Concurrentl with Strategy 3, rechar e vault.The vaults must be aced within the sandy gravel layer of soil im lement Low Impact rofile.Vaults ma be constructed of rforated 24'diameter drain i as Develo ent Practices LID's shovm in Drawin .The lot shall be raded to drain into Catch Basin. as referenced in LID Table below 4 Individual lols shall be allowed to construd a round water recha e basin. Concurtentl wifh Strat 4, The basins shall be connected to ravell la er in soil �le b wa oi a im lement Low Im act pertorated stand pipe(catch basin). Develo ent Practices(LID's) The lot shall be raded to drain into catch basin. as referenced in LID Table below 5 Lots alon Creek are allowed to grade lots to sheet flow runoff to Creek Concurrentl with SVategy 5, provided the plant a filter ship per NRCS Specfication Filter Strip 393). im lement Low Im act _ Developmen!Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below 6 Lots alon A�ricultural Buffer are allowed to grade lots to sheet flow runoff Construct a wet swale Concurrentl with Strat 6, into Buffer.A ricultural buffer shall either have a retention/detention basin or be or bioretention cell in implement Low Impact graded to slope towards Cherty Ave. AG buffer Development Practices LID's) as referenced in LID Table belaw Miner 1 Grade lots to slo toward Miner Road; Direct runoff to Che Ave Direct runoff to Che�Ave Concunently with A or B, Concurrently with A or B andlor C,direct __Grade Miner Road to slope towards Cherry Ave. with Curb&Gurier with bar ditch(swale) implement Low Impact runoff into Agricultural Buffer(AB);construcl _(This dces not include Miner lots on the East side of Road) Develo ment Pradices(LID's) Bioretention basin in AB;on south side of as referenced in LID Table below basin construct rner flow berm so ff basin overto s it will sheet flow to Cher Ave. Tabie 1:SUB BASIN 2 ORAINAGE STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS Road Strategy Deseription O tions A B C p 2 Grade lots to sl toward individual recha e basins on lot; Direct runoff to Basin Direct runoff to Basin Concurrentl with A or B, In Creek Buffer construct Bioretention Basin Grade Miner Road to slope towards Biodetention basin in Creek Buffer with Curb 8 Gutter with bar ditch swale) implement Low Impact fo handle only street storm water runoff _ Development Practices LID's) (Miner Parcel p6) as referenced in LID Table below 3 Individual bts shall be allowed to construct a subsurface ground water Concurrently with Strategy 3, recha e vault.The vaults must be placed within the sandy gravel layer of soil implement Low Impact pro(ile.Vaults may be construded of perforated 24"diameter drain�pe as Development Practices(LID's) shovm in Drawin . The lot shall be raded to drain into Catch Basin. as referenced in LID Table below 4 Individual lots shall be allowed to construct a round water rechar e basin. Concurtently with Strategy 4, The basins shall be connected to ravelly la er in soil profile b wa of a implement low Impact pertoreted stand pipe(catch basin. The lot shall be raded to drain into Develo ent Practices(LID's) catch basin. as referenced in LID Table below 5 Lots along Creek shall be allowed to grade lots to sheet flow runoff to Creek Concurrentl with Strate 5, ovided the lant a filter stri r NRCS S ification Filter SVi 393). im lement�ow Im ad Development Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below 6 Lots alon Agricultural Buffer are allowed to grade lots to sheet flow runoff ConstnKt a wet swale Concurrently with Strat 6, into Buffer.A ricultural buffer shall either have a retentioNdetention basin or be or biorelention cell in im lement Low Impact _ raded to slope lowards Che Ave. _ AG buffer Development Practices(LID's) as referenced in LID Table below _. ____ � PaROro 11 .1. ' �` �� I F INCORVORATED 9.1 I, � o i m # �u�v ia. ieii * � c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Redevelopment Agency: 1) approve the Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions for a portion of the vacant property at the southwest corner of Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue; and 2) appropriate $1,480,000 from the Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing Set Aside Fund for property acquisition plus escrow, appraisal, soils and environmental tests and closing costs. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the proposed property acquisition is $1,458,612 plus associated expenses. It is proposed that the acquisition be funded from the Redevelopment Affordable Housing Set Aside Fund. Currently, there is approximately $2,588,000 available in this fund for affordable housing projects. The Agency currently has a substantial balance in this fund resulting from the recent issuance of Redevelopment Agency bonds. BACKGROUND: At the July 26, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved amendments to Subareas 3 and 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to provide for mixed-use development at the southwest corner of Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue, also referred to as the Touchstone Plaza Master Plan. The Specific Plan approval designated and restricted the residential portion of the project to rental housing. The property is proposed for acquisition is 104,186.56 square feet and currently consists of a portion of two separate parcels, owned by S & S Homes and Ruth Dea. Staff has determined that it would serve the City's interests to purchase the residential portion of the property for the development of rental affordable housing: As a result, staff has negotiated purchase of the property with NKT Commercial, LLC, who has in turn negotiated purchase of both parcels from S & S Homes and Ruth Dea. S:Wdminishation\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Courfland Property Acquisition 10.09.07.doc CITY COUNCIL � CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF � COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Agency's consideration: - Approve recommendations for acquisition of the property and appropriate funding; - Direct staff to renegotiate purchase; - Do not approve property acquisition; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The City Council has established efforts to address affordable housing needs of the community as a high priority. Rental housing has also been identified as a need in the community to house individuals important to meeting workforce needs. However, the existing rental market has made it difficult for developers to make multi- family rental housing projects economically feasible. Therefore, along with lack of coordination between separate property owners, the rental provisions have served as an obstacle to development of this specific plan area. This has delayed achieving key commercial and residential economic development goals in the "Gateway" segment of the East Grand Avenue corridor. Meanwhile, the Redevelopment Agency has also found it difficult to identify and acquire properties that meet size, location and cost requirements for investment of affordable housing funding. State law requires that 15% of all housing developed in the Redevelopment Area be available at affordable housing costs to persons of low or moderate income. Of this, 40% (6% of the total units) must be available to very-low income households. State law also requires that 20% of tax increment revenue generated by the Redevelopment Project Area be used for affordable housing projects and programs. NKT Commercial, LLC has been the only party that has demonstrated progress in acquiring both properties. However, they are a commercial developer and have been unsuccessful in identifying a partner to develop the residential rental portion of the property due to the existing economic constraints. While they have reached tentative agreement with existing property owners on acquisition of both parcels, they need commitment by the Redevelopment Agency regarding purchase of the residential portion of the property to proceed with the close of escrow. The Agency's purchase of the property would be contingent upon: I CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF � COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE � OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 • Close of escrow by NKT Commercial, LLC on both parcels; • A roval pp of parcel map to create separate residential lot; • Completion of appraisal identifying value of property equal to or above purchase price; and • Successful soils test. Timing issues exist with regard to purchase by NKT Commercial, LLC of at least one of the parcels. Therefore, it necessitates the Redevelopment Agency to move forward with the Agreement in a timely manner in order to take advantage of this opportunity. ADVANTAGES: The following advantages exist regarding the proposed acquisition of this property: • It will enable the Redevelopment Agency to solicit proposals for development of needed affordable and rental housing. • It will enable the Redevelopment Agency to facilitate progress in development of an important economic development mixed-use project, including key retail and restaurant space, which has otherwise been stalled. • Since one of the parcels is in the Redevelopment Project Area, a portion of the mixed-use project will generate tax increment revenue, along with sales tax revenue. . It will assist the Redevelopment Agency and City in meeting State affordable housing requirements. DISADVANTAGES: The following disadvantages exist regarding the proposed acquisition of this property: • Purchase of the property at this time has not yet provided a substantial opportunity for neighborhood input. This will be sought through public hearing(s) when the specific project is designed and proposed. Therefore, neighborhood concerns may exist and will need to be addressed at that time. • Purchase will involve a substantial investment and utilization of housing funds. Based on the type of project considered, it is likely that little of this investment will be recovered since development of low and very-low income projects require a substantial subsidy. It is unlikely that the project developer will be able to obtain the same levei of State funding that was approved for the Cortina d'Arroyo Grande senior affordable housing project also on Courtland Street. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An addendum to the Berry Gardens Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines when the Berry Gardens Specific Plan was amended for Subareas 3 and 4. Acquisition of the property is proposed in anticipation of developing a project consistent with the Specific Plan. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, October 4, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, October 5, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions RUTAN TUCKER LLP Fax:714-5d6-9035 Oct d 2007 03:05pm P002/�13 C a c t � o �t n i .� VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT �� a s s o c t a r � o x AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS O F R E A L T O R S QD (C.A.R.Form V LPA,Revisad 11Q8) Dala ,at Afrovo Grande ,Califomie. 1. OFFER: A. TNIS IS AN OFFER FROM A.rroyo Greads Radeveloome t Aaencv os nominae ("8uyer'). B. THE REAL PROPER7Y TO BE ACQUIRED is described as a zoxfmatel 204 1 .56 s,t. of vacan 1 n that Ss a portfoa of APN 07�-232-033 and a portion of APN 077-13Z-002. to b9 confirmed bv a perce2 map (see Site Hap) attached as S�rhiblt No. 1 to .�FMe(�a}. Addendum No. 1 sttdchad situafed in City � Arirovo GranBe .County of san Lssis �ispo ,Califomia, ("Pmpetty"). C. THEPURCHASEPRICEofferedls Fouzteen Dollarc (S14 Qf,� ner ca ara f t (�� ar t $1 .458 612 fnr 704 1Rfi _ SF c. f pollarsS D. CLOSE OF ESGROW shail occur w ao 2ater than Janvarv 31 200H (date)(or� Oays After Accepiance). 2. FINANGE TERMS: 061aining [he loans below is a cootingency of this Agreamant unless: (ij either 2D or 2L is chedcetl beiow: or(ii) othervvise agreed in writing.2uyer shatl aa diligently and in good faRb to obfain the desgna0ed loans.Obteinirg deposil,doWn payment antl closing costs is nut a tontingency.Buyer itpresents that lunds wili be good w�en tlapcsned with Escrow Holder. A. INITIA�DEPOSIT:Buyer has given a deposit in the amount oi. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. , S 5.000.00 to the agent submitting�he offor(or to� co ba tendered tanc e ),by Personal Cneck for � guyer check ), madE payable to Fidelity Mati.onB2 TitZe-Arrow Gran� , which shall be held unwshed untll Acceptantx and Ihen deposited wehin 3 b�siness Oays after Acceptanca (or � ),wdh Escrow HoWer, (or� in[o Brokers Irust exount). e. tNCREASED DEPOSIT: Buyer sM1all deposit wip, Escrow Holder an increasetl deposk in the amount ot . . . . . E withio Days AfterACCeptence,or❑ C. FIR3T LOANIN THE AMOUNT OF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ � NEW Fifs[Deed of Tmst in favor of � lender, � se0er, � OR�ASSUMPTION of Eulsting First Deed uf Trust: enwmbering the Properry, securing a note payable at ma�mum interest of %�ixed rate,or %ini[ial adjustable rate with a msximum interest rete of %,,balance due in years. amortized over years(OR,R checked, []paya�le in interest-ony insteliments).Payments due monMly,� quarterty,0 semi-annually,Q annueny. 8uyer s�all pay loen tees/points not to exrsad D. ❑ ALL CASH OPFER i�f checked)�. No ban is needed to purchase the Property. Buyer shall, within 7 (or ❑._ j Days ARer Acceptance,provide Se110e writ(en verificatian of suffidant funds to dpse thi�transadion. E ADDITIONAL FINANCING TERMS: . $ F. BALANCE OF PURCHASE PRICE: (not induding cos[s of ohtaining ioans anC other closing cos[s)in the amountof _ , , , _g TBD pez nazcel ma� . . .. . .. ... .. .. to be deposifed wiN Escrow No�dar within suKcien[time to dose escrow. G. PURCHASEPRICE(TOTAL): . .$14_OO. .peL e...f.. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . ... . . . . . . $ TSD per parcel IDd� H. LOAN APPLICATION8:Within 7 lor � )Days ARer A�ptance,Buyer shali pmvide Seller a leaer from lender or mar�qage loan broker stating that, basad on e review ot Buyer's wntten applicatian and uetlit repod, Buyer is prequalified or preapproved for any NEW loan specified abave. I. vERIFICATION OF DOWN VAYMENT AND CLOSING COS7S: Buyer {or Buyers lender or loan broker pursuant to 2H) shafl, within 7(or p_ )Days ARer qcceptence,provide Seller wrl¢en verificBtion ot 8uyer's down payment ana elasing costs. J. LOAN CONTINGENCY REMOVAL(i�Within�7(or� )Days After Acwptence Buyer shall, as speofietl in paragrapb 18, rertrove tne ioan wntingency or cancel [his Agreemgnt; OR (ii) (0 ff checked), Iean conGnganry sheii remain in eBea untii tha designated toans are fu�ded. K. AcVRA15AL CONTINGENCY AND REMOVA�:7his Agreement is(OR, If chacked, p is NOl7 mntingent upon the Propedy appraising at no �ess than tne specitie0 purchase Drice.If there is a toan confingenq, at fhe time tha toan centingency is removed(or,A checked, []within 17 (or ❑ )Days ARer Acceptance), Buyar shall, as specifietl in paragreph 18, remove the eppreisal continganry or cancei this Aqreement. If there is no loan contingency, Buyer shall,as spec�etl ln peragreph 16, remuve ehe app2isal wntingency wiNin'17(or 90 )Days ARer AccePtanra. L. [�NO LOAN CONTINGENCY(if cbecked):Obtaining any ben in paragraphs 2C,2E or elsewhe2 in tpis Agreement is NOT a cnntingency of this AgreemenL IT Buyer does nol obtain the loaa and as a resull Buyer does not purchase the Ptoperty, $eller may be enti[led[o Buyars deposlt Or o.her 1e881 f0f118d105. M. SELI.ER FINANCING:T�e follow{ng terms(or� (if checked)tha terms spedFed in the atta[hed Seller Financing Atldendum(C.A.R. Form SFA)) apply ONL�to financing eutended Dy Saller untler this Ag�eemeot � (t) BUYER'S CREDIT-WORTHINE33: Buyer autnorrzes Setler and/or 6mkars to oCtain, at Buyers expensa, a copy ot 8uyers vedit repo2 Wrthin 7(or Q �Days ARer Accep(ance,Buyer shall provide any supporti�g documentarion reasonaby requested by Selier. Buyer's Initiais( )( ) � TY CGPfIbM,lawi af��q UOIIBO S[9(9!(TI[Ie»u.s.cmo�ravu ma unev.m�trea Sel�er s Inttials( )� j m teqaEUClion c Nie(ortn,a�mry FoqN_p I�Bf60f Ey O��QOOy machina er any qrx means, ino�cvg rA�;Mh o� amamenca ro�,.�aa. eoov,roni � te9;-2o05. Reviewedby Date CAI.IfORN W qSSOdnTiOw pF AFj LTOR9L.INr,qLL pIGHTS RESFftVED. �*w V�Pa REVIBED 1106(PAGE i OF 9� VACANT IqND PURCMA9E AGREEMENT tV(,pA PAGE 1 OF 9) Agent: Deborah Brown Phone:(7�a)801-6100 Faz:(714)646-9035 Prepared using WINForms9 sokware 8roker: Rutan&Tucker,LLP 611 Anton,Suite 1400 CosU Masa CA 92626 Pfoperty' Vacant land west side of Cortland Streat Date: (2) TERMS:8uyer's promissory note, deed o(trust antl other documents as appropria[e shall incorporete and implement the following atlditional terms:(i)the maximum interest rate specified in paragreph 2C shall be the actual fixed mterest rate for Seller financing;(ii)deed of trust shall contain a RE�UEST FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT on senior loans; (iii) Buyer shall sign antl pay for a REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY prior to Close Of Escrow antl at any (uture time if requested by Seller, (iv) note and deed oi trust shall contain an acceleration clause making the loan tlue, when permitted by law and at Sellefs option, upon the sale or transfer of[he Property or any interest in it;(v)note shall contain a late charqe of 6%of[he installment due(or❑ ) if the installmenl is not received within 10 days of the dale tlue; (vi) title insurence coverage in the form of a joint pro[ection policy shall be provided insuring Seller's deed ot[mst interest in[he Property(any increased cost over ownefs policy shall 6e paid by Buyer);and(vii)tax service shall be obtained and paid for by Buyer to nolify Seller if properly taxes have no�been paitl. (3) ADDED, DELETED OR SUBSTITUTED BUYERS:The atldi[ion, deletion or substitu[ion of any person or entily under[his Agreement or to title prior to Close Ot Escrow shall require Sellers written consent. Seller may grant or withhold consent in Sellers sole discretion. Any adtlitional ar substiWted person or entity shall, if requestetl by Seller, submit to Seller ihe same documentation as required for the original nametl Buyer.Seller andlor Brokers may obtain a credit report,at Buyer's expense,on any such person or entity. N. ASSUMED OR "SUBJECT TO"�FINANCING: Seller represenis that Seller is nol delinquent on any payments due on any loans. Seller shall, within the time specified in paregraph 18, provide Cop�es of all applicable notes and deeds of trust, loan balances and current interest rates to Buyer. Buyer shall then,as specified in paragraph 188(3), remove ihis contingency or cancel this Agreement.Differences behveen estimated and actual loan 6alances shall be adjusted at Close Of Escrow by cash down paymen[. Impound accounts, if any, shall be assigned and charged to Buyer and credited to Sellec Seller is advised that Buyer's assumption o(an existing loan may not release Seller from liabiliry on ihat loan. If this is an assumption of a VA Loan, the sale is contingent upon Seller being provided a release of lia6ility and substitution of eligibilily, unless otherwise agreed in wriGng. If the Property is acquired subject to an ezisGng loan, Buyer and Seller are advised to consult with legal counsel regarding the ability of an exis�ing lender to call the loan tlue,and the wnsequences thereof. 3. POSSESSION ANO KEYS:Possession and occupancy shall be delivered lo Buyer at I:30 ❑AM� PM, �on the tlate of Close Of Escrow�, � on ;or�no later than Days AHer Close O(Escrow.The Property shall be unoccupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing.Seller shall provide keys antllor means to operate all Property locks. 4. ALLOCATION OF COSTS Qf chetketl): Unless otherwise specified here,this paragraph only determines who is to pay for the report,inspection,lest or service mentioned. If not specifietl here or elsewhere in ihis Agreement,the determination of who is fo pay far any work recommended or iden[ifed by any such report,inspection,test or service is by the mefhod specifed in paragraph 18. A. INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS: (1) ❑ 8uyer �Seller shall pay to have existing septic or private sewage disposal system,'rf any,inspected (2) �Buyer � Seller shall pay for costs of testing to determine the suitability oi soil for sewage disposal (9) ❑ Buyer �Seller shall pay lo have existing wells,if any,testetl for water potability antl produdivity (4) 0 Buyer ❑Seller shall pay to have PropeRy cornets identified (5) ❑ Buyer � Seller shall pay for a natural hazard zone disclosure report prepared by consultant seZected bv Buver (6) ❑ Buyer �Seller shall pay for�he following inspection or report (7) � Buyer �Seller shall pay forthe following inspecfion or report B. ESCROW AND TITLE: (1� � Buyer � Seller shall pay escrow fee Buver and Se21er each pav ha2P EscrowHOltlershallbe Fidelit National Title-Arro o Grande (2) � Buyer �Seller shal�pay for owner's title insurance policy specifietl in paragraph 14 Owner's title polity lo be issued by FideSitv NationaZ Title Companv (Buyer shall pay for any title insurence policy insuring BuyeYS Lender,unless otherwise agreed in writing.) C. OTHER COSTS: (7) � Buyer �Seller shall pay County trensfer tax or transfer fee unZess &uver ex�t (2) ❑ Buyer �Seller shall pay CRy Uansier[az or transfer fee unless Bu er ex t (3) ❑ Buyer 0 Seller shall pay HOA transfer fees (4) � Buyer �Seller shall pay HOA document preparation fees (5) � 6uyer �Seller shall pay for (6) � Buyer �Seller shall pay for 5. STATUTORY DISCLOSURES AND CANCELLATION RIGHTS: A. NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: Seller shall, within the time specified in paragreph 18, deliver to Buyer if required by Law: (i) earthquake guides(and questionnaire) and environmental hazartls booklet;(II)tlisclose if the Property is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area; Potential Flooding(Inundation)Area;Very High Fire Hazard Zone;5[ate Fire Responsibility Area; Earthquake Fault Zone; Seismic Hazartl 2one; antl(iii)disclose any other zone as required by Law antl provide any other information required for those zones. B. DATA BASE DISCLOSURE:Notice:Pursuant to Section 290.46 otthe Penal Code,information about specified registeretl sex oRenders is made available to[he puhlic via an Internel Web site maintainetl by the Departmenl of Juslice at www.meganslaw.ca.gov Depending on an offender's criminal history,this iniormation will include either the address at which the oBender resitles or the community of fesidence and ZIP Code in which he or she resides. (Neither Seller nor Brokers are reqWred to check this weDSite. If Buyer wants further information, Broker recommentls lhat Buyer obtain information from[his website during Buyer's inspection contingency period.Brokers do not have expertise in this area.) Buyer's Initials ( )( ) � Seller's InRials ( )( ) Copyright�1996-2006,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS�,INC. [wu np;snc VLPA REVISED 1106(PAGE 2 OF 9) RevieweC by Date o>vea�uxrtr VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT(VI.PA PAGE 2 OF 9) Artuyn Grande. P�opehy: Vacant Zand vest side of Cortland Street Dale: 6. SELLER DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE: A. Within Ihe time specified in paragraph 18,if Setler has actual knowledge, Seller shall provide to Buyer,in writing,the following information: (1) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:Any lawsuits by or against Seller,threatening or affectlng the Property,including any lawsuits alleging a defect or tleficiency in the Property or common areas,or any known notices of abatement or citations fled or issued against the Property. (2) AGRICULTURAL USE: Whether lhe PropeRy is subject to restrictions for agricWWral use pursuant to the Williamson Ac[ (Govemment Cotle§§51200-51295). (3) DEED RESTRICTIONS:Any deed res�ridions or obligations. (4) FARM USE:Whether the Property is in,or adjacent�o,an area wi�h Right to Farm rights(Civil Code§3482.5 and§3462.6). (5) ENDANGERED SPECIES:Presence of endangered,threatenetl,'cantlitlate'species,or wetlantls on the Property. (6) ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS:Any substances, materials,or products ihat may be an environmental hazard inclutling, but not limited to, asbestos,formaldehyde,radon gas,lead-based paint,fuel or chemical storage tanks,antl contaminatetl soil or water on the Property. (7) COMMON WALLS: Any features of the Property shared in common with adjoining landowners, such as walls, fences, roads, and driveways,antl agriculture antl tlomestic welis whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the Propeny. (B) LANOLOCKED:The absence of legal or physical access to the Property. (9) EASEMENTSIENCROACHMENTS:Any encroachments,easements or similar matters[hat may affect Ihe Property. �10) SOIL FILL:Any f II(compacted or olhervaise),or a6andoned mining operetions on�he Properly. �11) SOIL PROBLEMS:Any slipDage,sliding,Flooding,drainage,grading,or o[her soil problems. �12) EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE:Major tlamage to ihe Pwperty or any of lhe strucW res from fire.earthquake,floods,or landslitles. (73) ZONING ISSUES:Any zoning violations,non-conforming uses,or violations oi"setback"requirements. (14) NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS:Any neighborhootl noise problems,or other nuisances. B. RENTAL AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS: Within fhe time specifietl in paregraph 18, Seller shall make available to Buyer for inspedion and review,all current leases,rental agreaments,service contracts antl other relatetl agreements,licenses,antl permi[s pertaining to the operation or use of the Property. C. ❑TENANT ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATES: (If checked)Within the time specified in paragraph 18, Seller shall deliver to Buyer tenant es�oppel certificates (C.A.R. Form TEC) completed by Seller or Seller's agent, and signed by tenants, acknowletlging�. (i)thal tenants' rental or lease agreements are unmodiLed and in full torce and eNect(or i(modifed, sta[ing all such modifications); (ii)that no lessor detaults exist; and (iii) stating the amount of any prepaitl rent or security tleposit. D. MELLO-ROOS TAX;1915 BOND ACT:Within the lime specified in paregreph 18,Seller shall:(i)make a good faith efforl to oblain a no[ice from any local agencies that levy a special tax or assessment on the Property (or, if allowed, substantially equivalent notice), pursuant to [he Mello-Roos Community Facili[ies Acl,antl Improvement Bond Act oi 1915,antl(ii)promptly deliver[o Buyer any such notice obtained. 7. CONDOMINIUM/PIANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISCLOSURES: A. SELLER HAS: 7 (or� )Days After Acceptance to disdose[o Buyer whether ihe Property is a condominium,or located in a planned unit development or other common interesl subdivision. B. If the Property is a condominium,or localed in a plannetl unit development or other common interest subdivision,Seller has 3(or� ) Days After Acceptance to reques[from the HOA(C.A.R.Form HOA)�(i)Copies ot any documents required by Law;(ii)tlisclosure of any pentling or anticipated claim or litigation by oi against the HOA; (iii)a statement containing the localion and number of designatetl parking and storage spaces; (iv)Copies of the most recent 12 months of HOA minutes for regWar and special meetings;(v)the names and contact infortna[ion of all HOAS governing the Property; antl (vi)the following if Seller has actual knowledge:(a) any material defeIXS in the condition of common area (such as pools,tennis couAS,walkways or other areas co-owned in undivided interest with olher);and(E)possible lack of compliance with HOA requirements (collectively, "CI Disclosures"). Seller shall itemize and deliver to Buyer all C� Disclosures received from the HOA and any CI Disclosures in Seller's possession.Buyer's approval of CI Disclosures is a contingency ot this Agreement,as specified in paragraph 16. 8. SUBSE�UENT DISCLOSURES: In the event Seller, prior to Close Of Escrow, becomes aware of ativerse conditions materially aHec[ing the Property,or any material inaccuracy in disclosures,information or representations previously providetl to Buyer of which Buyer is otherwise unaware, Seller shall promptly provide a subsequent or amended disclosure or nolice, in writing,covering those ttems. However,a suDSequent or amended disclosure shall not be required for conditions and material inaccuracies disclosed in reports ordered and paid for hy Buyer. 9. CHANGES DURING ESCROW: A. Prior to Close Of Escrow, Seller may engage in the following acis, ("Proposed Changes"), subjed ro Buyeis rights in paragraph 18: (i)rent or lease any part of the premises; (ii) alter, modify or extend any ezistinq rental or leau agreement; (iii) enter into, alter, modiy or extend any service contred(s);or(iv)change the status of the condition of the Properry. B. At leas[7(or ❑ �Days prior to any Proposed Changes,Seller shall give writlen notice to Buyer oi such Proposed Changes. 10. CONDITIONS AFFECTING PROPERN: A. Unless otherwise agreed� (i)the Property is sold(a)in i[s PRESENT physical contlillon as of the date of Acceptance and(b)subject to Buyer Investigation rights;and(ii)the Property is to be maintained in substantially[he same contlition as on the date of Acceptance. B. � Qf checked)All debris and personal property not inclutletl in lhe sale shall be removed by Close Of Escrow. C. SELLER SHALL, within the time specifietl in parograph 18, DISCLOSE KNOWN MATERIAL FACTS AND DEFECTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY AND MAKE OTHER DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY LAW, D. NOTE TO BUYER:You are strongly ativised to conduct investigations of the entire Property in order to determine its present condition since Seller may not be aware of all defects affecting the Property or olher factors that you consider impoAant.Property improvements may not be built according[o code,in compliance with current Law,or have had pertnits issued. E. NOTE TO SELLER: Buyer has the right to inspect the Property and,as specified in paragraph 18,based upon in(ormation discovered in those inspections:(i)cancel this Agreement;or(ii)request[hat you make Repairs or Wke other act(on. 8uyers Initials ( )( ) � Sellefs initials ( )( ) Copyright�1886-2006.CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS�,INC. VLPA REVISED 1106(PAGE 3 OF 9) Reviewed by Date o°v"ai�unv VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT(VLPA PAGE 3 OF 9) Arroyo[:rande. � P�op2hy: vacant land west side o£ Cortland Street Da�e: 71. ITEMS INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED: A. NOTE TO BUYER AND SELLER: Items listed as included or excludetl in the MLS,flyers or marketing materials are not included in the purchase price or excluded from the sale unless specifietl in 11 B or C. B. ITEMS INCLUDED IN SALE: (1� All EXISTING fixtures and fittings thal are attachetl to Ihe Property; (2) The (ollowing items: (7) Seller represents Iha�all items induded in lhe purchase price, unless olherwise specifed,are owned by Seller. (4) All items included shall be Uansferred free of liens and without Seller warranty. C. ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM SALE: 12. BUVER'S INVESTIGATION OF PROPERTV AND MATTER5 AFFECTING PROPERTY: A. Buyer's acceptance of the condition oC and any other ma[ter affecting the Property is a contlngency of this Agreement, as specified in this paragraph antl paragraph 18.Within�he[ime specifed in paragreph 18, Buyer shall have the right, at BuyeYS expense, unless o�herwise agreed, �o conduct inspections, investiga[ions,tes45,surveys,and other s[utlies("BUyer Investigations"),including,but not limited to,the righ[to:(i)inspect for lead-based paint and other lead-based paint hazards; (ii) inspecl for wood des[roying pests antl organisms; (ifi) review the registeretl sez offentler database; (iv)confirm the insurability of Buyer and[he Property; and(v)satisiy Buyer as to any matter specified below.Withou�Seller's prior written wnsent, Buyer shall neither make nor cause to be matle: (i) invasive or tlestructive Buyer Investigations; or(ii) inspections by any govemmen[al building or zoning inspector,or govemment employee, unless required by Law. B. Buyer shall complete Buyer Investlgations and,as specified in paraqraph 18, remove the contingency or cancel this AgreemenL Buyer shall give Seller, at no cost, complete Copies of all Buyer Investigation reports ohtainetl by Buyer. Seller shall make Property available Ior all Buyer Inves[igations. If[he following have already been connected and available, Seller shall have water,gas, eleclricity,and all operable pilot lights on for 8uyer's Inves[igations and through the da[e possession is matle available to Buyer. BUYER IS STRONGLY ADVISED TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDITION AND SUITABILIN OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL MATTERS AFFECTING THE VALUE OR DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPER7Y, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,THE ITEMS SPECIFIED BELOW. IF BUYER DOES NO7 EXERCISE THESE RIGHTS, BUVER IS ACTING AGAINST THE ADVICE OF BROKERS. BUYER UNDERSTANDS THAT ALTHOUGH CONDITIONS ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO LOCATE AN� DISCOVER, ALL REAL PROPERTY CONTAINS CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT READILY APPARENT AND THAT MAY AFFECT THE VALUE OR DESIRABILIN OF THE PROPERTY. BUYER AND SELLER ARE AWARE THAT BROKERS DO NOT GUARANTEE, AND IN NO WAY ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR,THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERN.BROKERS HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT VERIFY ANY OF THE ITEMS IN THIS PARAGRAPH 72, UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING. 0. SI2E, LINES,ACCESS AND BOUNDARIES: Lot size, property lines, legal or physical access and boundaries inUuding features of the Property shared in common with adjoining landowners,such as walls, Fences, roads and driveways,whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an eRect on the Propedy and any encroachments,easements or similar matters that may affect the Property. (Fences, hedges,walls and other natural or construcled barriers or markers tlo not necessarily identiy true Property bountlaries. Property lines may be verifed by survey.)(Unless otherwise specifietl in writing,any numerical statements by Brokers regarding loi size are APPROXIMATIONS ONLV,which have not been and will not be verified,and should not be relied upon by Buyer.) �. ZONING AND LAND USE: Past, present, or proposetl laws, ordinances, reterendums, initiatives, votes, applications antl permits aftecting the current use ot the Pmperty, (uture development, zoning, building, size, govemmental permi[s antl inspeclions. Any zoning violations, non-conforming uses,or violations of"setback"requirements. (Buyer should also investigate wha[her[hese matters afred Buyers intended use of the Property.) E. UTILITIES AND SERVICES:Availability, costs, restricfions and location o(utili[ies and services,including bu[not limited to, sewerage,sanitalion, septic antl leach lines,wa[er,electricity,gas,telephone,cable N and tlrainage. F. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: Potential environmental hazartls, including, hut not limited to, asbesros, lead-basetl paint and other lead contaminatioq radon, methane, other gases, Poel, oil or chemical storage [anks, contaminated soil or water, hazardous waste, waste disposal sites, eledmmagnetic felds, nuclear sources, and other subs[ances, including mold (airhome,toxic or otherv+ise),fungus or similar conlaminant, materials,products or conditions. G. GEOLOGIC CONDI710N5: Geologi�JSeismic conditions, soil and tenain stability, suitability and drainage including any slippage,sliding,flooding, drainage,grading,fll(compacted or otherwise),or other soil problems. H. NATURAL HAZARD ZONE: Special Flood Hazard Areas, Potential Flootling (Inundation) Areas, Very High Fire Hazard Zones, State Fire Responsibility Areas,Ear[hquake Faul[Zones,Seismic Hazard Zones,or any other zone for which disclosure is required by Law. I. PROPERTY DAMAGE: Major damage to the Pmperty or any of lhe struclures or non-s[ructurel systems and componen[s and any personal property induded in the sale from fire,aarihquake,floods,landslides or other causes. J. NEIGHBORHOOD,AREA AND PROPERN CONDITIONS: Neighborhootl or area conditions, including Agricultural Use Restridions pursuant to Ihe Williamson Act(GovernmeN Code§§51200-51295),Righ[To Farm Laws(Civil Code§3482.5 and §3482.6),schools,proximity and adequacy of law enforcement, crime statistics, [he proximity of registeretl felons or offenders, fire protection, other government services, availability, atlequacy and wst of any speed-wired,wireless internet connec[ions or other telecommuniwtions or other technology services and installations, proximity to commercial, indusirial or agricWWral activifies, existing and proposed [ransportation, constmdion and development that may affect noise,view,or traffiq airport noise, noise or odor from any source,abandoned mining operations on the Property,wild and domestic animals, other nuisances, hazards, or circumstances, protected species, we[lantl properties, botanical tliseases, histonc or other governmentally protectetl sites or improvemenls,cemeteries,(acilities and condition of common areas of common interest subdivisions, and possible lack of compliance with any governing documenis or Homeowners'Association requiremen[s,conditions and inFluences of sigmficance to ce�ain cWtures and/or religions,and personal needs,requirements and preferences of Buyer. Buyer's Initials ( )( ) A Seller's Initials( )( ) f ? Copynghl�1996 2006,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REAlTORS�,INC. u VLPA REVISED 1I06(PAGE 4 OP 9) Feviewetl by oate n°v>'o:uum VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT(VLPA PAGE 4 OF 9) nrmyo Grandz. PfOperty: Vacan[ lantl west side of Cortland Street Ddte: K. COMMON INTEREST SUBDIVISIONS: OWNER ASSOCIATIONS: Facililies and condition of common areas (facilities such as pools, lennis courts, walkways, or other areas co-owned in undivitled interest with others), Owners' Association that has any authority over the subjed property,CCBRs,or other deed restrictions or obligations,antl possible lack of compliance with any Owners'Association requirements. L. SPECIAL TAX:Any local agencies that levy a special tax on the Properly pursuant to the Mello-ROOS Community Facililies Act or Improvemenl Bond Act ot 1915. M. RENTAL PROPERN RESTRICTIONS: Some cities and counties impose res�riclions that limit the amount o} rent tha� ran be chargetl, the maximum number of occupanGS and the right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy. N. MANUFACTIIRED HOME PLACEMENT:Condi[ions that may affect the ability to place and use a manufaduretl home on the Property. 13. BUYER INDEMNITY AND SELLER PROTECTION FOR ENTRY UPON PROPERTY: Buyer shall: (iJ keep the Property free and clear of liens; (ii) Repair all damage arising from Buyer Investigations;and(iii)indemniry and hold Seller harmless from all resulting liabiliry,claims,demands,damages antl costs. Buyer shall carry, or Buyer shall require anyone acting on Buyels behalf to carry, policies of liability, workers' compensation and other applicable insurence,defentling antl proteding Seller from liability for any injuries[o persons or property occurring during any Buyer Investigations or work done on the Property at Buyer's tlirection prior to Close Of Escrow. Seller is advised that certain protec[ions may be aRorded Seller by rewrding a "No[ice oi Non-Responsibility"(C.A.R. Fortn NNR)for Buyer Investigations antl work done on the Property at Buyer's direction. Buyer's obligations under this paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 14. TITIE AND VESTING: A. WRhin the time specified in paregraph 18, Buyer shall be provided a current preliminary(�itle) repoA,which is only an offer by the title insurer to issue a policy oF title insurance and may not contain every item affecting litle. 8uyers review of the preliminary report and any other matters which may affect title are a contingency of[his Agreement as specified in paragraph 18. B. Tifle is taken in Rs present condition subject to all encumbrences, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, rights and other matters, whether of record or not,as of the tlate of Acceptance except: (i)monetary liens of record unless 8uyer is assuming chose obligations or taking the Property subject to those obligations;and(ii)those matters which Seller has agreed to remove in wri[ing. C. Within ihe fime specifietl in paragraph t B,Seller has a duly to disclose lo Buyer all matlers known to Seller affecting title,whether of record or not. �. At Close Ot Escrow, Buyer shall receive a grent deed conveying [itle (or, for stock cooperative or long-term lease, an essignment of stock certifcate or oi Seller's leasehold interest), inclutling oil, mineral and water righ[s i(currently owned by Seller. Title shall vest as designated in Buyer's supplemental escrow inslructions. THE MANNER OF TAKING TITLE MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AND TAX CONSEQUENCES. CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. E. Buyer shall receive a standard coverage owner's CLTA policy of tille insurance.An ALTA policy or the addition of endorsements may provide greater coverage for Buyer.A title wmpany,a�Buyers request. can provide information about the availability, desirabiliry, coverage, and cost of various title insurance coverages and endorsements.If Buyer tlesires tiUe coverage other than ihat required by lhis paragraph,Buyer shall instruct Escrow Holder in writing antl pay any increase in cost. 15. SALE OF BUYER'S PROPERN: A. This Agreement is NOT contingent upon the sale of any property ownetl by 8uyer. OR B, �(If checked)The attached addendum(C.A.R. Form COP) regarding the contingency for the sale of property ownetl by Buyer is incorporated info[his Agreement. 16.❑ MANUPACTURED HOME PURCHASE: pf checked) The purchase of Ihe Property is wntingent uDOn Buyer acquiring a personal property manufactured home to be placed on the Property after Close Of Escrow. 8uyer �has �has not entered into a contrecl for the purohase of a personal property manufactured home.Within the lime specified in paragraph 18,Buyer shall remove this contingency or cancel this Agreement,(OR, if checked, ❑this contingency shall remain in effect until the Close Of Escrow of the Property). 77.❑CONSTRUC710N LOAN FINANCING: Qf checked)The purchase of the Properry is contingent upon Buyer ob[aining a constmction loan.A tlraw from the consiruction loan ❑will �will not be used to finance the PropeAy Within the time specifed in paragraph 18, Buyer shall remove this contingency or wncel ihis Agreement(or, if checked, �lhis contingenry shall remain in effecl until Close Oi Escrow of the Property). 18. TIME PERIODS; REMOVAL OF CONTINGENCIES; CANCELLATION RIGHTS: The following time periods may only he extentled, altered, modified or changetl by mutual written agreement.Any removal ot contingencies or cancellation untler this paregraph must be in writing (C.A.R.Form CR�. A. SELLER HAS: 7 (or❑ )Days After Acceptance to tleliver[o Buyer all reports,tlisclosures and informafion for which Seller is responsible under paregrephs 2N,4,SA,6,7A,10C and 74. B. (1) BUYER HAS: 17 (or� 90 ) Days After Acceptance, uNess othenvise agreed, in writing,to complete all Buyer Investigations; approve all disclosures, reports and other applicable information, which Buyer receives from Seller; and approve all mariers affecting the Property(including lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards as well as other information specified in paraqraph 5 and insurabflity of Buyer and lhe Property). (2) Within[he time specifed in 186(1j,Buyer may reques[tha[Seller make Repairs or[ake any other action regarding the Property(C.A.R. Form RR).Seller has no obligation ro agree to or respond to Buyers requests (3) By ihe end of[he time specified in 18B(7)(or 2J for loan contingency;2K for appraisal contingency; i 6 for manufactured home purchase;and 17 (or constmctive home financing, Buyer shall remove, in wtiting, [he applicable Contingenry (C.A.R. Form CR) or cancel this Agreement. However, if the tollowing inspections, reports or disclosures are not made within the time specifed in iBA, then Buyer has 5 (or � thirtv !3�1 )Days after receipt of any such items,or the lime specifed in 186(i),whichever is later,to remove�he applicable conlingency or cancel this Agreement in writinq: (q governmenhmandated inspections or reports required as a condi[ion of closing; (ii) Common Interest Disclosures pursuant to paregraph 7B; (iii) a subsequent or amended disclosure pursuant [o paragraph 8�, and (iv) Proposed Changes pursuant to paragraph 9. C. CONTINUATION OF CONTINGENCY OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION;SELLER RIGHT TO CANCEL: (1) Seller right to Cancel: Buyer Condngencies:Seller,aker first giving Buyer a Notice to Buyer�o Perform(as specified below), may cancel this Agreemen[in writing and authorize reNm of Buyer's deposit if,by the time sDecified in this Agreement,Buyer does not remove in writing the applicable contingency or cancel this Agreement. Once all contingencies have been removetl, failure of either Buyer or Seller to close escrow in time may be a breach of ihis Agreement. Buyer's Initials( )( ) � Seller's Initials ( )( ) CapyrigM G�1996-2006,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS�,INC- VLPA REVISED�/O6(PAGE 5 OF 9) Reviewe0 Ey Date o�p�'��x; VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT(VLPA PAGE 5 OF 9) Arwyo Grm�de. Prop@rty VecanY 2and wast side of Cortland Stree Date: (2) Cootinuation af Contingency: Even after the expiration of the time specified in 186, Buyer retains the right to make requests to Setl� remove in writing the appticable contingency or cancel tbis Agreement untii Seiler cancels pursuant to 18C(t). Once Selier receives Buye written removat of all con6ngencies,Seller may noC cancei this Agreemen[pursuant to 78C(1}. (3) Seller rigM to Cancel: Buyer Contract Obligations: Seller, after first giving 8uyer a Notice to Buyer to Perform(as specified below), m� cancei this Agreement in wdting and authorize return trf Buyer's tleposit for any of the folfowing reasons: (i)it 9uyer(ails to deposit funds a requiretl by 2A or 28; (ii)if t�e funds depositstl pursuant to 2A or 28 are not good when de0osited; (iii)it 8uyer fails to provide a letter a; required Dy 2H; (iv)if Buyer fails to Provide ver�cation as required by 2D or 21 or supporting documentation pureuant to 2M;or{v) it Seller reasona6ly disapproves of the verifiwtlan provide0 by 2D or 21 or the credit report or supportinq documentation pursuant to 2M, Seiler is not requiretl to give 8uyer a Notice to Perform reparding Close Of Escrow. (4) Nodce To Buyer To Perfortn:The Notice to Buyer to Pertorm(4A.R. Fortn NBP)shall(i)be in w�itinq;(ii)Ge signed by Seiler, and(iii)give Buyer at least 24(or� 5 davs ) News�{or untit the time specitied in Ihe applicable paragraph,whichever occurs lasg to take the appticable action.A Notice to Buyer to Perform may not be given any earlier than 2 Da7rs Prior to Ihe expiration of the applicabie time for Buyer to remave a contingency or cancel this Agreement or meet an 18Cf3)obligation. D. EFFECT OF BUYER'S REMQVAL OF CONTINGENCIES: If Buyer removes, in writing, any contingency or canceAation rights, untess othefwise speciFfed in a separate writien agreement between Buyer and Selle�, Buyer shatl concWSivety be deemed to have: {i} mmpleted ali Buye� Investigations, and review of reports an0 other appiicaGle information an0 disclosures pertainiog to that contingency or cance�lation riqht; (ii) elected to proceed with the t2nsadion; and (iii) assumed alt Iiabiiity, respo�sibility, antl expense for repairs or corrections pertaining to that contingency or eancellation right,or for inability to ob[ain financing. E. EFPECT OF CANCELLATION ON DEPOSITS: If 8uyer or Selier gives written NOTIGE OF CANCELIIITION pursuant to rights duty exercised untler the terms of this Agreemerrt, Buyer and Seller agree to Sign mutuai instmctions to cancei the sale and esci�w and release deposits, less fees and costs,to ihe party entitled to the funds. Fees and costs may 6e paya6le to service providers and vendors tor services and products provi0ed tluring escrow. Release of fonds wiit require mutual Signed release instructions trom 8uyer and Selier, judicial decision or ar6itraUOn award. 18. PiNAI YERIFICATtON OF CONDITION:Buyer shali have the nght to make a Flnat inspection of the Property within 5(or )Days Prior ro Close OF Escrow, NOT AS A CONTWGENCY OF THE SALE, but solery to confirm: (i)the Property ie maintained pursuant [o paragrapb 76A �ii) Repairs have been completed as agreed;and(iii}Seller has comptied with Seller s otber obligations under this Agreement. 20. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD CONSULTATION: Buyer and Seller acknowledge: (i) Pederal, state, and Iocal legisiation impose tiatrility upon existing and former owners and users of real property, in applicable situations, for certain tegistatively defined, environmeMaily hazardous substances: (ii) Broker(s)haslhave made no representati4n concerning the applicability of any such Law to this transaction or to Buyer or to 5eiler,except as othe`wise indicated in this Agreertrent;(ifi)Broker{s)haslhave made no representation conceming the ezistence,testing,discovery,location and evaluation of/for, and risks posed by,environmentaly hazardous substances.H any, locatetl on or potentiatiy afleding the Property:and(iv)Buyer and Seiler are eacA advised to consuk with tecbnical antl Iegai ezperts wncerning the existence, testinq, discovery, location and evaluaGOn of/for, and risks posed by, envimnmentalty hazardous substances,if any,iocated on or poten[iaily affecting the Property. 2�. LI�iJ70ATE0 OAMAGES: If Buyer tai�s to compleM this purchase because ot Buyer's Aefault,Sefler sball reWin,as iiquidated dama9es, [he deposit actually paid. Buysr and Sefier agree that this amount is a reasonable sum given Mat it is impractical or exUameiy difficult [a esta6lish the amount ot damages tha[would actually be suffered by Seller in the evant 8uyer were to breach this Agreement. Release of funds wiil require mutuai,Sigoed release fnstructions from both Buyer and Seller,judicial decision or arbitration award. Buyers�nitlals ! Seller's inttiats / 22. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: A. ME6IATION: Buyer and Seller agree to mediate any dispute or daim arising bet�een them out of tbis Agreement, or any resWting trensac[ion, before resorting to arbitraiion or court aciion.Paragraphs 228(2)and(3)below apply wDe[her or not the Arbitration provision is initialed.Mediatioo tees,if any,shaA ba divided aquaily among the parties involved. H,tor any dispute or claim to which this paragraph appiies,any party commeoces an adion without hrst atfempting to resolve the matter through mediation, or refuses to med�ate after a request ha6 Deen made, then tha[Rarty s�atl not be entiUed to recover attorney fees, even if they woWd otherv+ise be availabte to thzt party in any such acdon. THIS MEDtAT10N PROVI516N APPLIES WHETHER OR NOT THE AR8ITRATION PROVISION IS INITIALED. B. ARBITRATION OF OISPUTES: {t) Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resuiting transaction, which is not settled through metliation, shall be tlecided by neutral, bintling arDitretion, including and subject to paragrapbs 228�2)and(3)beiow.The arbitrator shall be a retlred Judge or justice,or an attorney with at least 5 years of real estate tra�reactlonal Law experience,uniess the parties mutua0y agree to a differeM ar0itrator,wbo shall render an award in accordance with su6staMive Calitornia Lavr. The parties shall have the right to discovery ia accotdance wittr Code of Civil Procedure §1283.05, in all othef respects, the arbitration shail be conducted in accordance wfth Title 9 of Part III of the Calitomia Code of Civii Pmcedure. Judgment upon t�e award of the arbitrator�s) may De en[ereA into eny rouA having jurisdiction. tnterpreta8on ot this agreement to arbitrate shall be govemed by the�ederal ArbiUatian Act. (2)EXCIUSiONS FROM MEDIATION ANO ARBITRATION:The foilowing matters are exGudetl from mediation and arbitratlon:(i)a judicial or non•judicial foreclosure or other action or proceeding to enforce a deed oF trust, mortgage, or instaliment Iand sale coMract as defin¢d in Civii Code§2985;(ii)an uniawful detainer action;(iii)the filing or errforcement of a mechanic's lien;and(iv�any matter that is within the juristliction of a probate,small claims,or bankruptcy court. The fi�ing of a court actlon to enable the recording of a notice of pending action, tor order of attachment, receivership, injunction, ur othe� provisional remedies, shaii no[ wnstitute a waiver ot the mediation aod arbitration provisians. (3)BROKERS: Buyar and Seller agree to mediate and arbitrate disDUtes or ciaims involving either or both Brokers,consistent with 2IA and B, provided either or both Brokers shall have agreed to suc�mediation or arbitration prior to,or within a reasonaCle time after,the dispute or claim is presented to Brokers.Any el¢ction by eRher or both Brokers to particiD�e in mediatlon or arbitration shalt not result in Brokers being deemed parties to t�e Agreement. euyer's Initials f )i ) � Seller's Initials t )( ) Copyrightm 199&2006,CAUFORMA ASSOCIATION OF ft£AlTOR5�9.MC. �W,��wp� VLPA REVISEO 7t06(PAGE 6 OF 9) Reviewetl�y Oate arvoxmuirv VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMBNT(YIPA PAGE 6 OF 9) Arroyn G�ande. Property' vacant land west side of CortIand Stzeet Date: "NOTICE: BY INI7IALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLE55 THOSE RIGNTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION. IF YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFiER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY." "WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES'PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION." Buyers Initials / Seller's Initials / 23. PRORA710NS OF PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER ITEMS: Unless otherwise agreetl in writing, ihe following Rems shall be PAID CURRENT and proreted between Buyer and Seller as of Close O(Escrow:real property taxes and assessments,in(erest,rents,HOA regular,special,and emerqency dues and assessments imposed prior to Close Of Escrow, premiums on insurance assumed by Buyer, payments on bonds and assessments assumed by Buyer, and paymenis on Mello-ROOS and o[her Special Assessmant Distnct bonds and assessments that are now a lien.The following items shall be assumed by Buyer WITHOUT CREDIT toward [he purchase price� prore[etl payments on Mello-ROOS antl other Special Assessment District bonds and assessments antl HOA special assessments that are now a lien but not yet tlue.The Property will be reassessed upon change of ownership.Any supplemental tax bills shall be paid as follows: (i)for periotls aRer Close Of Escrow, by Buyer;and(ii)tor periods Drior to Close O( Escrow, by Seller. TAX BILLS ISSUED AFTER CLOSE OF ESCROW SHALL BE HANDLED DIRECTLV BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER. Prorations shall be matle based on a 30-day month 24. WITHHOLDING TAXES: Seller and Buyer agree to execute any instrument, affitlavit, statement or instruction reasonably necessary to comply with federal(FIRPTA)and California withholding Law,if required(C.A.R.Forms AS and AB). 25. MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICEIPROPERTY DATA SYSTEM: If Broker is a participant of a Multiple Listing Service ("MLS")or Property Data System ("POS"), Broker is authorized to report to the MLS or PDS a pending sale and, upon Close Of Escrow,the terms of ihis Vansaclion to be publishetl and disseminated[o persons and entities authorized to use the information on terms approved by the MLS or PDS. 26. E�UAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY:The Properry is sold in compliance with�ederal,state antl local anti-discrimination Laws. 27. ATTORNEY FEES: In any action, proceeding, or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out ot this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitletl to reasonable attorney tees antl costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Selier,except as provided in paragraph 22A. 28. SELECTION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS: If Brokers refer Buyer or Seller to persons, ventlors,or service or protlucl providers("Providers"), Brokers do not guarantee the performance of any Providers.Buyer and Seller may select ANY Providers of their own choosing. 29. TIME OF ESSENCE; ENTIRE CONTRACT; CHANGES: Time is of the essence. All understandings beRveen the parties are incorporetetl in ihis AgreemenL Its terms are intended by the parties as a final, complele and ezGusive expression of their P.greement with resped to ils subjed matler, and may not be con[radicted by evidence of any prior agreement or contemporaneous oral agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be ineffective or invalitl,the remaining provisions will neveRheless be given lull force and effect. Neither this Agreement nor any provision in it may 6e extentletl,amended,modffietl,alteretl or changed,except in writing Signetl by Buyer and Seller. 30. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS,inclutling attached supplements: � Purchase Aareement Addendum(C.A.R. Form PAA pareqraph numbers: ) See attached Addendum No. 1 which is inco orated herein and made a rt hereof. In the event of an inconsistenc between the tezms of this fozm aareement/offer and the texma of Addendum No. 2, the terms set £orth in Rddend� No. 1 sha12 control. 37. DEFINITIONS:As used in this Agreement: A. "Acceptance"means the time the offer or fnal counter oRer is accep�ed in writing by a parly and ihat acceptance is deliveretl to and personally received by[he other party or that paAy's authorized agent in accordance with the terms of lhis offer or a final counter offer. B. "AgreemenC'means the terms and conditions of this accepted Vacant Land Purchase Agreement and any accepled counler offers and addenda. C. "C.A.R.Form"means the speciFlc form referenced,or ano[her comparable form agreed to by the parties. D. "Close Of Escrow"means the date�he gran�deed, or other evidence o(transfer of IiUe,is recorded. If lhe schetluled close o(escrow Nalls on a Saturday,Suntlay or legal holiday,then close of escrow shall be�he next business tlay after Ihe schetluled close of escrow date. E. "Copy"means copy by any means including photocopy,NCR,tacsimile and electronic. F. "Days" means calendar days, unless otherv+ise required by Law. G. "Days Aker"means the specifed number of calentlar days after the occurtence of[he event specifietl, no[coun[ing Ihe calendar date on which the specified event occurs,and entling at 11:59 PM on ihe final tlay. H. "Days Prior"means the specified number of calendar days betore ihe occurrence of the event specifed,not counting the calendar date on which the specifietl event is sc�eduled to occur. Buyer's Initials( )( ) ^ Sellefs Initials ( )( ) T 1 COpyright�1996-2006,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REA�TORS�,INC. �� VLPA REVISED 1/O6(PAGE 7 OF 9) Reviewed Oy Date opwwxwwx� VACANT LAND PURCHA5E AGREEMENT(VLPA PAGE 7 OF 9) Arroyo Grandc. Property' vacant land vest side of Cort2and Street Date� ' 1. "Electronic Copy" or"Electronic Signature"means, as applicable, an elec[ronic copy or signature complying with California Law. Buyer and Seller agree that elec[ronic means will not be used by either one to modify or alter Ihe wntent or integrity of this Agreement without the knowledge and consent of the other. J. "Law" means any law, cotle, statute, ortlinance, regulation, mle or order, which is adopted by a contmlling city, counry, state or tetleral legislative,judicial or executive body or agency. K. "NOtice lo Buyer to Pertorm" means a document(C.A.R. Form NBP),which shall be in writing antl signed by Seller antl shall give Buyer at least 24 hours(or as otherwise specified In paregreph 18C�4))fo remove a contingency or peAorm as applicable. L. "Repairs"means any repairs,alteretions,replacements,modifications or retrofitting of the Property provitled for untler[hisAgreement. M. "Signed"means edher a handwritten or electronic signature on an original document,Copy or any counterpart. N. Singular and Plurel terms each include the other,when appropriate. 32. AGENCY: A. POTENTIALLY COMPETING BUYERS AND SELLERS: Buyer and Seller each acknowledge receipt of a disclosure of the possibility of multiple representation by the Broker representing ihat principal.7his disGosure may be part oi a listing agreement,buyer-6roker agreement or separate document(C.A.R. Porm DA). Buyer understands that Broker representing Buyer may also represent other potential buyers,who may consider, make offers on or ultimatety acquire the Property. Seller understands that Broker representing Seller may alw represent other sellers with competing properties of interest to this Buyer. B. CONFIRMATION:The following agency relationships are hereby conhrmed for this Iransaction: Lis[ing Agent (Print Firm Name) is[he agent of(check one): ❑ the Seller exclusively;or � both the Buyer antl Seller. Selling Agen[ (Print Firm Name) (i(not same as Lis4ng Agen[)is ihe agent of(check one): �the Buyer excNsively; �(he Seller excWsively;or � both Ihe Buyer and Seller. Real Estate Brokers are not parties to the Agreement belween Buyer and Seller. 33. JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS TO ESCROW HOLDER: A. The following paragraphs,ar applica6le portions thereof,of this Agreement constl[ute the Joint escrow instructions of Buyer and Seller to Escrow Holder,which Escrow Holder is to use along with any related wunter oHers antl adtlentla, and any adtlilional mu[ual instmctions to close the escrow: 1,2,4, 14, 158, i6, 17, 18E,23, 24,29,30, 31, 33,35,38A, 39 and paragraph D of t�e sec[ion tilletl Real Estate Brokers on page 9. If a�COpy of the separate compensation agreement(s) pmvided for in paragreph 35 or 38A, or paragraDh D of the section titled Real Estate Brokers on page 9 is tlepositetl wi[h Escrow Holder by Broker,Escrow Holder shall accept such agreement(s)antl pay oui from Buyer's or Seller's funtls,or bo[h,as applicable, the Broker's compensation provided for in such agreement(s).The terms and conditions of the Agreement not set forth in the sDec�ed paragrephs are additional matlers for the iniormation of Escrow Holder,but ahout which Escrow Holder need not be concernetl. Buyer and Seller will receive Escrow Holder's general provisions directly from Escrow Holder and will execu�e such provisions upon Escrow Holder's requesG To[he extent the general piovisions are inconsistent or conflid with this Agreement,Ihe general provisions will control as[o the duties and obligations of Escrow Holder only, Buyer antl Seller will execute atltli[ional instrudions,tlocumen[s and forms providetl by Escrow Holder that are reasonably necessary to close the escrow. B. A Copy of[his Agreemen[shal�be deliveretl to Escrow Holtler within 3 husiness tlays after Acceptance(or❑ . ). Buyer antl Seller authorize Escrow Holder to accept antl rely on Copies and Signatures as defined in lhis Agreement as originals,to open escrow and for other purposes of escrow.The validity of this Agreemen[as between Buyer antl Seller is not affected 6y whether or when Escrow Holder Signs this Agreement. C. Brokers are a party to the Escrow for the sole purpose ot compensation pursuant to paragraphs 35, 3BA and paragraph D of the section titled Real Estate Brokers on page 9.Buyer and Seller irrevocably assign to Brokers compensation speciFed in paragraphs 35 antl 36A,respectively, and irrevocably ins[rud Escrow Holder [o disburse those funds to Brokers a� Close Of Escrow, or pursuant to any other mutually exeCUted cancellation agreement. Compensation instructions can be amended or revoketl only with the wntten consent of Brokers. Escrow Holtler shall immediately notify 8rokers(i)i(Buyer's initial or any addkional deposit is not made pursuant to this Agreement or is not good at time oF tleposit with Escrow Holtler,or(ii)if Buyer and Seller instruot Escrow Holder to cancel escrow. D. A Copy of any amentlment tha[affecls any paragraph of this Agreemen[for which Esuow Holder is responsible s�all 6e tlelivered to Escrow Holtler within 2 business days after mu[ual execution of the amentlment. 34. SCOPE OF BROKER DUTY:Buyer and Seller acknowledge and agree ihat: Brokers:(i)do not decide what price Buyer should pay or Seller should accept;(ii)do not guarantee lhe condition of the Property;(ili)do nol guarantee the performance,adequacy or completeness o/inspections,services, protlucts or repairs pmvided or made by Seller or others, (iv)shall nol be responsible(or idenlifying defects tha[are not known to Broker(s); (v)shall not be responsible for inspeIXing public records or permi[s concerning the title or use of the Property, �vi) shall not be responsible tor identifying locetion of boundary lines or other i[ems aHeding title; �vii) shall not be responsible for verifying square footage, representations of others or information contained in inspection reports, MLS or PDS, advertisements, flyers or other promotional material, unless otherv+ise agreetl in writing; (viii) shall nol be responsible for providing legal or tax advice regartling any aspect of a transaction entered into by Buyer or Seller in the couroe of this representation, and(ix)shall not be responsible for provitling other advice or information that exceeds Ne knowletlge,education and expenence requiretl [o pertorm real esta[e licensed acfivity. Buyer antl Seller agree lo seek legal, tax, insurance, titie and other tlesiretl assistance from appropria[e professionals. 35. BROKER COMPENSATION FROM BUYER: If applicable, upon Close Of Escrow, Buyer agrees to pay compensation to Broker as specified in a separate written aqreement between Buyer and Broker. S6. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFER:This is an offer to purchase the Property on the above terms antl conditions.All paragraphs with spaces for initials by 8uyer and Seller are incorporated in this Agreement only if initialed by all paAies. If at least one but not all parties iniSial, a counter oHer is required until agreement is reachetl. Seller has[he right to con[inue to offer the Property!or sale and[o accept any o[her oHer at any time prior to notification of Accep[ance. Buyer has reatl and acknowledges receipf of a Copy of the offer antl agrees ro the above confirma[ion of aqency relationships. If this offer is accepted and Buyer subsequently tlefaWts, Buyer may be responsible for payment of Bmkers' compensation. This Agreement and any supplement, atldentlum or modification, including any Copy, may be Signetl in two or more counterpaAs, all of which shall constitute one antl lhe same writing. Buyer's Initials ( )( Seller's Initials ( )( Copyrigh��1996-2006,CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION OF REALTORSW,INC. VLPA REVISED 1106(PAGE 8 OF 9) Reviewed Oy Date L°1A4M°°'"x OPPOPIUN��Y VACANT LAN�PURCHASE AGREEMENT(VLPA PAGE 8 OF 9) Arroyo Grande. PropeRy' Vacant land rest side oP Cortland Street Da�e: 37. EXPIRATION OF OFFER: This offer shall be deemed revoked and tha deposil shall be returned, unless the offer is Signed by Seller, antl a Copy of the Signed offer is personalty received by Buyer, or by , who is authorized to receive il by 5:00 PM on the third Day after this offer is signed by Buyer(or,if checked, � by October 12, 2007 (date),at 5:00 ❑AM� PM). Date Dafe BUYER Arrovo Grande Redevelopment Aoency BUYER By By Print Name Steven Rdams Print Name Ti[le Executive Director Tille Address 219 East Branch Streat Address Arro�ro Grande, CA 93920 38. BROKER COMPENSATION FROM SELLER: A. Upon Close Of Escrow,Seller agrees to pay compensation to Broker as specified in a separate written agreement behveen Seller and Broker. B. If escrow daes not Gose,compensation is payable as specified in that separete written agreement. 39. ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER:Seller warrants that Seller is the owner of lhe Property,or has the authonty to execute this Agreement.Seller accepts the above oHer, agrees[o sell the Pmperty on the above terms and contlitions, and agrees to the above confirmation of agency relationships. Seller has read and acknowledges receipt of a Copy of this Agreement, and authorizes Bmker to deliver a Siqned Copy to Buyer. ❑ (If checked)SUBJECT TO ATTACHED COUNTER OFFER,DATED Date Date SELLER NKT Coffiercial, LLC SELLER By By Print Name Print Name Title Title Address Address ( / ) ConFlrmation of Acceptance: A Copy of Signed Acceptance was personally received by Buyer or Buyer's au[horized agent (Inilials) on(date) at ❑AM ❑PM.A binding Agreement is created when a Copy of Signetl Acceptance is personally received by Buyer or Buyer's authorizetl agen[whether or no[confirmed in this tlocumant.Completion of this con£rmation is not legally required in order to create a hinding Agreement;it is solely intended to avidence the date that Confirmatlon of AccepWnce has occurtetl. REAL ESTATE BROKERS: A. Real Estate 8rokers are not parties to lhe Agreement 6elween Buyer and Seller. B. Agency relationships are confirmed as stated in paragraph 32. C. If specified in paragraph 2A,Agent who submitted offer for Buyer acknowledges reCeipt of deposit. D. COOPERA7ING BROKER COMPENSATION: Listing Broker agrees to pay Cooperating Broker(Selling Firm) and Coopereting Broker a9rees to accept, out o(Listing erokers proceeds in escrow: (i)The amount specifetl in the MLS or PDS, provided Cooperating Broker is a Participant of the MLS or P�S in which the Property is offered for sale or a reciprocal MLS or PDS,or❑ (if checked) (ii) the amount specifietl in a separate writlen agreement(C.A.R.Form CBC)between Listing Bmker and Cooperaling Broker. Real Estate Broker(Selling Firtn) DRE Lic# By DRE Lic.# Date Address City State Zip Telephone Fax E-mail Real Estate Broker(Listing Firm) DRE Lic.# By DRE Lic.# Date Address City State Zip Telephone Fax E-mail ESCROW HOLDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Escrow Holtler acknowledges receipt of a Copy of Ihis Agreement,(if checked,� a deposit in the amount of§ ), counter offer num6ers and ,and agrees to act as Escrow Holtler subjeIX to paregraph 33 of this Agreement, any supplemental escrow ins�ructions and the terms of Escrow Holtler's general provisions. Escrow Holder is advisetl that the date of Confirmation of Acceptance of ihe AgreemeM as between Buyer and Seller is EscfowHOlderFidelitv NationaZ Title-Arrovo Grande EsCrow# By Date Atldress Phone/Fax/E-mail // Escrow Holder is licensed by the California Depariment of� CorporaGons,❑ Insurance,� Real Estate. License# ( 1 ) REJECTION OF OFFER: No wunter offer is being made. This oHer was reviewed and rejected by Seller on (Seller's Initials) (Date) iHIS FORM HAS 9FEN APP0.0VED BV THE CAL�FORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS�(CA.R.). NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VPLI�ITY OH A�EpUFCV OP PNV PHUVISION IN ANV SPECIFIC TRANSACTION.A REAL ESTATE BftOKER IS THE PEHSON QUALIFlE�TO ADVISE ON RENL ESTATE THANSAC fI0N5.IF vOU DESIHE LEGAL OR TAX aDVICE. fONSroUmTisaavaP�e�foRl�e YROF�SSIe real eslalo ntlus�ry.II is nd Inientletl lo�Oen�M��e usor as a REA�TOR�.REPLTOR�is a�e8islaretl colleGrve membersM1�p mazk wM1eh may�c useo onty by momCa�s M I�e NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAlTORS�wpo suESCnEe lo ib Gotle al Ethrs PuMished and Disinbuled by� SUZE��' REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES,INC. � mesvsie„4m�su:cess• esubsidiaryolfheCalilaniaASSOCiafiono(ftEALTOR99 Reviewedoy oate a°�n;xu:iv 525 SouN Vi�gil Avenue,Los Angeles,Califomia 90020 VLPA REVISED 1/06(PAGE 9 OF 91 VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT(VLPA PAGE 9 OF 9) Anoyo Grnndc. � CALIFORNIA ! � ASSOCIAT[ON ADDENDUM _'� OF AEALTORS�R� ` (C.A.R. Form ADM, Revised 10/Ot) No. i The following terms and conditions are hereby incorporated in and made a part of the: ❑ Residential Purchase Agreement, ❑ Manufactured Home Purchase Agreement, ❑ Business Purchase Agreement, ❑ Residential Lease or Month-to-Monih Rental Agreement, � Vacant Land Purchase Agreement, ❑ Residential Income Property Purchase Agreemenl, ❑ Commercial Property Purchase Agreemenl, ❑ oiher dated ,on property known as approximate2y I04.286.56 s.f. oP vacant 2and that is a portion of APN 077-131-033 and a portion of APN 077-132-002 (see attached mao) in which Arrovo Grande xedevelopment Aqency or nomi.nee is referred�o as("Buyer(fenant") and NICT Commercia2. LLC is referred to as("SellerlLandlord"). The attached typewritten sheet titled "Addendum Terms" is incorporated herein as �aoe 2 of this Addendum No. 1. The foregoing terms and conditions are hereby agreed to,and the undersigned acknowledge receipt of a copy of this document. Date Date Buyer/Tenanl Seller/Landlord Arroyo Grande Redevelopment AgenCy NKT CommerciaS, LLC Buyer/Tenant Seller/Landlord The copyn9hl laws o!Ihe United Slales(Ti�le 17 LL5.Cotle)larbiC ihe unaut�orized reprotluction of this form,or any potlion inereof,by photocopy machine or arry other means, including facsimile orcomputerizetl formats.Copyrightm 1986-2001,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS�,INC.ALl RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BV THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSB(C.A.RJ. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LF.GAL VALIDITV OR A�E�UACV OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS THE PERSON QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.IF YOU OESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE,CONSULTAN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. This form is availabie for use by Ihe en�ire real es�ate in0uslry.Il is nol intentletl ro identiy the user as a REALTOR�.REALTOR�is a registered collective mem�ershio mark whic�may he used only by memUers o/the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS�who subscnbe to ils CoCe of Ethics. Published and Dis[ributed by� S`�� .�,'_� REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES, ING � me sysie �Imr s�ccess^ a subsitliary of the Califomia Association ol REALTORS� Reviewetl by 525 South Virgil Avenue,LosAngeles,California 90020 Brokeror Designee oa�e Emuxounxc ADM-11 REVISED 10/01 (PAGE 1 OF 1) ovraamarv ADDENDUM(ADM-17 PAGE 1 OF t) Rutan&Tucker,I.I.V 611 Amon,Suite 1404 Costa Mcsa CA 92626 Vhone'(7N)641-SIUO Fas: 1��4)546-9035 Deborahdme�n .4rroyoGrande. i - - RUTAN iUCKER LLP Fax:71d-5d6-9035 Oct d 2007 03:33pm P002/002 9.DAENDUM TER1aI5: [To be attached to Addendum No. 1 to the Vacant Land Purchase Agreatnent And Joint Escrow Instruaions by and benveen Ancoyo Grande Redevelopmenc Agency as"Buyer,"snd NKT Commarcial,LLC, as"Seller"] L �ra¢raphs 1B IC 2 F and 2 G -- Proaerry and Purchase Price DeSned. The Property is approximatety 104,186.56 s.f. of vacant land as described iu Pazagraph 1.B of the form ageement to which the Addendum No. 7 and rhese Addendum Terms.aze attached. -The Property is generally as shown on the Site Map attached hereto as "Exhibit No. 1" and by this reference incorporated herein. Tlte Purchase Price is Fourteen Dollars (•514.00)per squaze foot or pro rata ponion thereof. The exact square foouge of the Property, and thus the fmal Purchase Price,will be dete�nined based on the squaze footage shown on a parcel map to be processed 2. Pazaeraph 9 Amended: S�ler Representation and Warranrv and Indemnitv for Relocation Cosu. Paragraph 9 is amended to provide thac prior to Close of EscroK•Seller shali not rent or lease the Propertyo ur enter into any contracts of any kind retatine to the use,occupancy, or servicing of tho Property,without the prior; express; written consenc of Buyer which Buyer may give or withhold in iu sole and absolute discreuon. The Properry sha11 be free and cleaz of any tenarus, lessees, licensees, or any o[her occupants of any kind. Seller represents and warrants that there are no tenants; lessees, licensees, ur other occupants of the Property. Seller shall indemnify; dcfend, and hold Buyer hazmless from and against any costs or expenses incwred by Buyer for relocation beraefi[s or assistance fot any tenant; lassee, licensee, or othex occupane due to breach of Seller's representation and warranty. Buyer ackt�owledges that Seller map enter tBe Propem� prior ta Close of Escrow for the pwpose of grading and excavation, 3. �azasraph 22 Deleted. Pazagraph 22 is deleced in iu entuety. 4. Paragfaphs 32, 34. 35. 38 Deleted: Reuresentation and Wazranzv Resardine Broken. Pazagraphs 32, 34, 35, and 33 aze deleted. >Ieither Buyer nor Seller has engaged any broker wzth respect to the transaction. Buyex and Seller shall each indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other for any daims,including expert wimess fees and attomey's fees, brought by anc broker; asent: ox fmder for any fee or commission as a result of the transaction that arises from any act or omission of the indemnifying part}', 5. Nonliabilitv of Buyer Officers. No officer, offtcial, employez, agent; or representative of Buyer shall be personally liable ro Seller for any amounts due hereunder or for any Bu}er breach of this agteement. 6. Additional Buver Conditions to Close of Escxow. In addition to otber conditions to Buyer's obligation co Close Escrow under this ageement, Buyers obligation to Ciose Escrow shall be conditional and co�[ineent on the following additional conditions co Close of Esctoa(,rhich Buyet may waive, if at all, oniy in w�iting and in Buyer's sole snd absolute discretion): A. TiUe in the Properry shall be vested in Seller prior to Close of£scrow. B. Buyer sha11 have obtained an appzaisal from an appraiser of Buyez's choosing, ac�d ;uch appraisal shall have confir[ned chat the P�schaze Price is not more than the appraised value. C. Seller has applied for and obtained appro4al uf a parce[ map from ttte Ciry of Azroyo Grande that creates the parcel being purchased by Buyer pursuant co this a�eement. Nothing herein shall be deemed a guarantee tha[ (i) the Ciry shall approve any such pazcel map application; or (ii) if Cirv approves such pazcel map that City shall not attach wndirions of approval to t}te map. The expense of pazcel map prepara�ion and processing shall be shazed benveen Buyer and Seller on a pro-zata basis based on square footage. 7. nddirional Reeresen_tations and Warranties. The persons executing ttiis Ageement on behaLf of each of the parties hereto xcpiesent and .varrant rhat (i) such pazty� is du(y oreanized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver rhis.Sgreemrnt on behalf of said parry,(iii)by so executing this Agreement,such party i; formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and(iv) thac entering mto this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Ageemenc to which said parry is bound'. ' 8. Aonrovai by Buver's Board of Directors. She AgreemenVOffer sha11 noc be effective unless and until approvzd by the Boazd of Directors of the Anoyo Grande Redevelopmeni Agency pucsuant to an ageadized item at a public meering thereof. 391;02�EOG-UOJ7 Buytf's Ini[ials AR596D1 a70%Oa;O' $eJ�el'S I[li[ialS .� Y,y� •�-.` j4t,f°,I . _'�y„ �.=',x_'��-: � . � � � R 3 j%-- �.� ;. ya 13#�� [l.47� f.�h'L' �J„, rv:eux. r<.rx.�am�-r '`Tj'. � x x sr.' . °a'�-�-{ t= i j r � ze acs.1�- ---yP,g-- �.,_ � � .,�� u ,�� ,� Y z� tJ � ' � � � --xa_°�..:..:�"''�QU'*3 � rs^..v -.-sn�' �y"�� ; _.!: t } �� '�z.;�_...! '� .'�;iu� ��" �..�:c 5 t L�{ .� '�..�„� '.f W;`.! P � �`•..�� i. 86 � ,,� "`' — i s �ir.87. � .,�`� s ; y ` >Y?: 1 ' u � L.."V16`R�'.0'r.IV` � t ip v ' k slC _ .S ?) � . . .t Y-�.t':.... . . 1 �f _ . :� eMta � ie t �r�- � f � . ✓ . .. i:% '`� . ": �.'.:. a,—„t�K a �� s , g � , � ,. ___._._-- -.._ ;�` ,.. �F;:. . � ts� .ec. �, � `('"�_..�..,____��"".''� � � i �"' - �+ �; , R4�C+YRk'�t� .� ( � S � 3 » '.a�'a- __ __�.-. �: f i � 'qia, r E r� r 2 k ''-� r,k r .c . ' . . �...�-....---"+. �. w= ��'' . � 4 { ,e*"'^:- . _ �'- , � � `\ . �- � t3t x�"'}'` ; u„�' 6 � � Y` ji �l��t� f .. * �e � �. �+j .�.....��.��._'- t � � h � 4 Y �...__� � - 3 R4, f�� ' F°i'S��' - t' .� • i rx { 1 n° 1..�--•- ..��, �`� � * .�.:. � �� rr - t� � �:�:a j 's i .':�• e,.';`� . � 5 � , � �S - 1 �'! a:b N-5� �� . I .. -. ` �..ti� ,. � i�'; - � 4 � �-_�� ` i • ' ��µ. ��S a�`1T .�_.�- •aii- ' • __t � y Y'�....� A} ' � V Mx ` � s � �� • ��f�� • y � T<:J � 1 $ "e�,�. ,.� F. � �...J , ��`�.��} �}--v'#.--.-'..x„"�^'" i : e C� � AA'F •,v. ri�e+N:: s g_`7 t . 'v�' � "G.hC� dR'T,fi Rt 3k.�.t 2 F��":.5. ��`�Yx:n G" *'"n'R+��-A h '.°`� �y �., s . r -^."� �` d°t�i F i;v��rv hI $ � f'C. F -vGn..., � ._. . _. ._._..- � £� � .&�..f� ,..:Fy�.---�^-.. .^�4i�hYi Ce. F , �_. . �zrj� t m.a.v)s�'a—a -«R .�., ..",3�'.A rr G�� ,R'9` 7 _ �_ �bp-A�E1C..YS594L••h�_. �,,.:.�' &�'h..y` .'T'.c`F%F,Y ,a'X� ,_'"'°. f v xtJ'-i.�'.Ig- :F)t �f RLS � ...„ - "`°`..:C.L�Y'y i;�;�s°!RG1