Loading...
Agenda Packet 2007-11-27 CITY OF ~ • City .Council ~ " " Agenda Tony Ferrara Mayor Steven Adams City Manager Ed Arnold Mayor Pro Tem ~ - Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Joe Costello Council Member Kelly Wetmore City Clerk CALIFORNIA Jim Guthrie Council Member ~ ~ 9', ~y - Chuck Fellows Council Member ~ ~ I i i AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 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 3. FLAG SALUTE: AMERICAN LEGION POST N0: 136 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR' GEORGE LEPPER PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH i 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW: i 6a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. ' ~ AGENDA SUMMARY -NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present , issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction. of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: ? Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. ? A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. ? It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: ? Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. ? Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. ? Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period November 1, 2007 through November 15, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits (KRAETSCH) ,.Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of October 31, 2007. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of October 23, 2007, as submitted. 8.d. Consideration to Purchase a 3/4-Ton Pick Up Truck (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize the purchase of a 3/4-ton pick up truck and the Extra Care Extended Care Warranty from Mullahey Ford at a cost of $18, 976.71. I AGENDA SUMMARY -NOVEMBER 27, 2007 i PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd): 8.e. Consideration of Award of Contract for Construction of the Farroll Avenue Rehabilitation Project, PW 2007-04 (SPAGNOLO) i Recommended Action: 1) Award a construction contract for the rehabilitation of Farroll Avenue and waterline upgrades to Union Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $512,831.00; 2) Award Bid Alternate A as part of the contract, various concrete improvements, in the amount of $48,818.50; 3) Authorize transfers in the amount of $13,100.00 from the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project, $13,900.00 from the East Grand Avenue Resurfacing Project and $29,540.00 from the Miscellaneous Striping, Crosswalks, Sidewalks and Handicap Ramp Project toward the roadway improvements, concrete improvements and to provide for the project contingency; 4) Authorize the transfer of Water Fund funds in the amount of $10,000.00 and Water Facility funds in the amount of $10,000..00 towards the water line replacement; and 5) Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the 10% contingency of $ 56,165.00 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project. 8.f. Consideration of Acceptance of the Picnic Shelter Structure at Elm Street Park Project, PW 2006-05 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Accept the project improvements, as constructed by JPG Construction, Inc. in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Picnic Shelter Structure at Elm Street'Park Project; 2) ,Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorize release of the retention as allowed per the Public Contract Code and after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been filed. 8.g. Consideration to Adopt A Resolution Approving an Application by Scott Trees to Drill and Install a Replacement Irrigation Well on a Property Zoned Agriculture Preserve; APN 007-711-007; ' 871 East Cherry Avenue (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the application by Scott Trees to drill and install a replacement irrigation well on a property zoned Agriculture Preserve; APN 007-711-007; 871 East Cherry Avenue. 8.h. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Approving Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-005 to Change the Zoning for Five properties at the Northwest .corner of S. Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue from Multi Family~Residential Very High Density to Office Mixed Use; and Change the Zoning for the Properties in the Vicinity of S. Elm Street Near Poplar Street from Single Family Residential to Condominium/Townhouse-Multi-Family (McCLISH) Recommended Action: Adopt an Ordinance to change the Zoning for five properties at the northwest corner ofiS. Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue from Multi Family Residential Very High Density to Office Mixed Use; and change the zoning for the properties in the vicinity of S. Elm Street near Poplar Street from Single Family Residential to Multi-family; adopt the attached Negative Declaration and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination. AGENDA SUMMARY -NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 4 ` 8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd): 8.i. Consideration of Approval of Employment Agreement (City Manager) (CARMEL) Recommended Action: Approve the revised Employment Agreement between the City of Arroyo Grande and Steven D. Adams and authorize an appropriation of $6,468 from the General Fund. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of General Plan Amendment Case No. 07-002, Development Code Amendment Case No. 07-005, and Approval to Issue a Request for Proposals for an Affordable Housing In-Lieu', Fee Nexus Study; Applicant: City of Arroyo Grande; Location: Citywide (McCLISH) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 07-002 to update the 2003 Housing Element regarding affordable housing requirements for consistency with State law; 2) Introduce an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 16.80 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements; 3) Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 16.82 to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the City's density bonus and affordable housing incentives in accordance with State density bonus law; and 4) Authorize staff to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for an affordable housing in-lieu fee nexus study. 9.b. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code as it relates to Building and Construction Codes (HUBERT) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt an Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.04.010 related to the adoption of the California Fire Code and International Fire Code, adding Section 8.04.020 related to automatic fire sprinklers, amending Section 1.5.04.010 related to the adoption of the California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Existing Building Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code and repealing and amending provisions within Titles 8, 12, 15 and 16 for internal consistency and clarification; and 2) Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption. 9.c. Consideration of 2005, 2006, and 2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Reallocation and Clarification of Facade Enhancement Program Grant Allowances (McCLISH) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution to amend the 2005-2007 CDBG Program to reallocate $33,192.36 from unused facade enhancement program grant funds to a Courtland/East Grand Avenue Recycle Center and ADA Improvement Project to enhance these facilities within the Arroyo Grande Town and Country (Spencer's/Applebee's) Shopping Center; and 2) Authorize staff to administer the facade enhancement program. matching grant allowance to increase the maximum from $5,000: to $10,000 per project or property, and expand the area to all properties within the Redevelopment Project Area. AGENDA SUMMARY -NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 5 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Consideration of Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange Proiect Approval and Environmental Determination Analysis and Alternatives (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Approve the phased strategy for funding and implementation of proposed improvements to the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange; and 2) Select closing the Brisco Road on-ramp and relocation of the off-ramp to Rodeo Drive as the preferred alternative for Phase II improvements. 11. NEW BUSINESS: None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA) (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (3) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Other (c) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory- Board (2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (3) Fire Oversight Committee (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee (5) Other (d) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) . (2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) (3) Other (e) COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS: (1) South County Youth Coalition (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (3) Other AGENDA SUMMARY -NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 6 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No i formal action can be taken. a. None. 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. a. None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. 18. ADJOURNMENT 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, 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation; contact the Administrative Services , Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.org City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.orq. ~ pRROtrO ~~A¦ o ~ INCORPORATED ~.y V O m ~ JULY 10, 1911 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 RATIF ATION DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period November 1 through November 15, 2007. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is a $675,993.80 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 133872-134029 $ 204,316.97 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 471,676.83 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 staff's 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 ~ • ~ _ t CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES: • Finance Department monitors payment of invoices for accountability, accuracy and completeness using standards approved by the Council. • Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants. • Discounts are taken where applicable. DISADVANTAGES: • Rejection of the recommendation could result in additional cost incurred by the City for late payment fees and bank charges. • Additional staff time would be required to recoup the funds already disbursed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. November 1 -November 15, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register 2. November 9, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\CASH DISBURSEMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Disbursements.doc ~a~~ ATTACHMENT 1 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133872 11/02/2007 000016 JOHN ALLEN 110207 11/02/2007 98.00 98.00 133873 11/02/2007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 3938 10/11/2007 571.98 571.98 133874 11/02/2007 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 00048421 10/22/2007 644.28 644.28 ' 133875 11/02/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA V 11/02/2007 0.00 0.00 133876 11/02/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 100807 10/08/2007 2,762.00 001$4272 09/10/2007 1,561.75 1008078 10/08/2007 1,498.73 2405523 09/14/2007 1,266.54 101807 10/18/2007 864.52 101607 10/16/2007 814.28 25081193 09/09/2007 693.87 2443565 09/27/2007 621.00 100807A 10/08/2007 509.56 4024-4280. 10/08/2007 .415.21 45549593 09/30/2007 366.24 2469216 09/26/2007 309.95 77010042 10/08/2007 169.69 2407105 09/07/2007 68.49 10875282 09/27/2007 66.13 02767889 09/28/2007 47.02 2422638 09/19/2007 37.27 2469216 09/24/2007 24.21 05133569 10/03/2007 18.00 10102416 09/29/2007 16.79 2442733 09/18/2007 14.97 34891830 09/30/2007 13.55 2471705 09/25/2007 5.60 7471705 09/13/2007 -650.00 11,515.37 133877 11/02/2007 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS V 11/08/2007 1813 10/30/2007 161.63 161.63 133878 11/02/2007 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH AUGlSEPT 2007 10/31/2007 552.00 552.00 133879 11/02/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 135152 10/22/2007 124.73 W Page: 1 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 2 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 135275 10/31 /2007 102.70 ' 135137 10/19/2007 6.99 234.42 133880 11/02/2007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA} 7405 10/15/2007 73.84 73.84 133881 11/02/2007 006447 CAPCA 103007 10/30/2007 80.00 80.00 133882 11/02/2007 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-203455 10/25/2007 61.09 203551 10/26/2007 19.69 7314-200161 10/12/2007 17.82 98.60 133883 11/02/2007 001314 CDF/STATE FIRE TRAINING 102207A 10/22/2007 131.00 131.00 133884 11/02/2007 006446 CHEROKEE PRODUCTIONS, 110207 11/02/2007 295.00 295.00 133$85 11/02/2007 006445 CLEMENT 109765-26 10/01/2007 230.55 230.55 .133886 11/02/2007 001694 SHAWN COSGROVE , 110207 11/02/2007 268.00 268.00 133887 11/02/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 13224826 10/18/2007 195.65 195.65 133888 11/02/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP V 11/08/2007 XC7448MJ5 10/07/2007 8,129.27 V 11/08/2007 XC7D4MR41 10/16/2007 1,154.39 9,283.66 133$89 11/02/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 946326 10/28/2007 68.89 68.89 133890 11/02/2007 006296 DYER'S DIESELRO 23768 10/25/2007 501.44 501.44 133891 11/02/2007 006444E & J AUTO PARTS 217225 09/24/2007 21.55 21.55 133892 11/02/2007 000225 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 225485 08/22/2007 3,856.25 225486 08/22/2007 1,607.50 225786 08/20/2007 110.00 5, 573.75 133893 11/02/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1389208 10/22/2007 678.83 1389451 10/16/2007 139.43 1390469 10/25/2007 15.77 834.03 133894 11/02/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 26271 10/24/2007 5.39 26277 10/26/2007 2.16 7.55 ,-./1 133895 11/02/2007 003025 GSI SOILS, INC 19080 02/20/2007 405.00 405.00 A Page: 2 i t apckHist Check History Listing Page: 3 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE j Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133896 11/02/2007 001386 HOPKINS TECHNICAL 004822 10/24/2007 200.62 200.62 133897 11/02/2007 002297 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 38696-10792-P 10/25/2007 19.26 19.26 133898 11/02/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 080145 10/22/2007 600.00 080153 10/22/2007 142.50 080154 10/22/2007 142.50 885.00 133899 11/02/2007.000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 227286 10/26/2007 86.18 227770 10/30/2007 67.27 225890 10/15/2007 61.91 227220 10/25/2007 45.72 227591 10/29/2007 43.09 K28854 10/29/2007 40.14 ~ 227219 10/25/2007 25.84 227173 10/25/2007 11.28 226108 10/16/2007 11.08 928676 10/26/2007 10.01 225595 10/12/2007 6.49 K27171 10/25/2007 3.40 I 223702 09/27/2007 2.68 227574 10/29/2007 2.14 417.23 133900 11/02/2007 006442 MONTEREY PENINSULA 102207 10/22/2007 45.00 45.00 ~ 133901 11/02/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 182719 10/15/2007 252.24 252.24 133902 11/02/2007 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE 423 10/18/2007 600.00 600.00 133903 11/02/2007 001162 NICKSON'S MACHINE SHOP, 74982 10/24/2007 25.00 25.00 133904 11/02/2007 004087 NIPOMO OPTOMETRY 103007 10/30/2007 184.00 184.00 133905 11/02/2007 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 178410 10/29/2007 221.07 221.07 133906 11/02/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 404570969001 10/12/2007 132.19 132.19 133907 11/02/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 10/18-194097 10/18/2007 14,668.44 14,668.44 133908 11/02/2007 000492 PETTY CASH 687 10/12/2007 71.02 `Q 692 10/18/2007 49.70 n Page: 3 I I i i apclcHist Check History Listing Page: 4 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE I Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 684 10/12/2007 28.35 683 10/08/2007 25.62 ' 682 10/11/2007 21.60 686 10/12/2007 17.41 695 10/18/2007 16.46 688 10/16/2007 14.32 685 10/12/2007 13.32 , 694 10/18/2007 12.70 ~ 696 10/25/2007 12.50 698 10/31 /2007 11.31 691 10/18/2007 9.06 ~ 697 10/29/2007 7.00 ~ 693 10/18/2007 4.31 689 10/16/2007 3.20 317.88 133909 11/02/2007 000520 QUINN COMPANY 030153161 10/24/2007 116.73 116.73 133910 11/02/2007 006441 R & B POWER EQUIPMENT 2273 09/28/2007 50.80 i 2274 09/28/2007 39.60 90.40 ~ 133911 11/02/2007 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 6979 10/26/2007 96.50 6978 10/26/2007 91.59 188.09 j 133912 11/02/2007 001876 KAREN SISKO 091207 09/12/2007 719.27 719.27 133913 11/02/2007 006443 SLO COUNCIL OF 091907 09/19/2007 5,000.00 5,000.00 133914 11/02!2007 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 102907 10/29/2007 25.00 25.00 133915 11/02/2007 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 57933 10/29/2007 38.61 38.61 133916 11/02/2007 000616 STERLING 23401 10/07/2007 28,050.00 23388 10/07/2007 235.98 23391 10/07/2007 218.58 28,504.56 133917 11/02/2007 006440 CYNTHIA THOMPSON 122452 10/17/2007 446.87 446.87 j 133918 11/02/2007 000642 TOSTE GRADING & PAVING 0003944-IN 10/08/2007 12,500.00 12,500.00 133919 11/02/2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 289859 09/26/2007 10,697.99 10,697.99 P Page:4 ~ f apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 5 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE i Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total J 133920 11/02/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 69361278-001 10/24/2007 36.00 36.00 133921 11/02/2007 000678 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 17426 10/25/2007 212.87 017425 10/24/2007 20.00 232.87 i 133922 11/02/2007 000685 WALLACE GROUP ACALIF -23920 10/11/2007 5,858.80 23921 10/11 /2007 28.25 5,887.05 133923 11/02/2007 003211 DEBBIE WEICHINGER 102607 10/26/2007 54.18 102507 10/25/2007 6.44 60.62 133924 11/02/2007 006059 YOUNG & ASSOC INC, 10290702 10/29/2007 305.24 305.24 133925 11/02/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA BOFA110207 11/02/2007. 40.98 40.98 133937 11/09/2007 002627 STEVEN ADAMS 101307 10/13/2007 102.82 102.82 133938 11/09/2007 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 48532 - 11/05/2007 949.16 ! 00048533 11 /05/2007 920.40 00048470 10/22/2007 920.40 00048423 10/22/2007 920.40 48469 10/26/2007 874.38 00048509 10/30/2007 621.27 00048471 10/29/2007 531.00 5,737.01 133939 11/09/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 7AP00027 10/25/2007 528.16 528.16 133940 11/09/2007 005615AT&T/MCI T7185693 10/11/2007 1,710.84 I T7123196 10/22/2007 287.86 10/11-1935 10/11 /2007 30.00 T7185681 10/11 /2007 16.68 10/11-2041 10/11/2007 14.34 2,059.72 ~ 133941 11/09/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 110607 11/06/2007 158.77 158.77 v 133942 11/09/2007 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL S15381027 10/29/2007 439.54 439.54 133943 11/09/2007 000768 MARY BASSETT 102607 10/26/2007 273.64 273.64 133944 11/09/2007 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS 101007 10/10/2007 680.50 680.50 ~ i I -1 ~ Page: S apCkHist Check History Listing Page: s 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133945 11/09/2007 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS- 1599 10/25/2007 188.56 1813 10/30/2007 161.63 1682 10/19/2007 33.59 383.78 133946 11/09/2007 005005 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 103107 10/31/2007 146.00 146.00 133947 11/09/2007 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 79619 11/01/2007 109.00. 109.00 133948 11/09/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 135310 11/01/2007 42.26 42.26 ' 133949 11/09/2007 000114 CA PEACE OFFICERS ASSN MEM59422 10/24/2007 450.00 450.00 133950 11/09/2007 006449 TRENA CADWELL 102407 10/24/2007 30.00 30.00 133951 11/09/2007 006452 CALIFORNIA BUILDING 5488 10/17/2007 150.00 150.00 j 133952 11/09/2007 004548 CARMEL &NACCASHA, LLP 11086A 11/05/2007 4,158.00 4,158.00 133953 11/09/2007 004548 CARMEL &NACCASHA, LLP 11086 11/05/2007 15,226.89 15,226.89 133954 11/09/2007 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314202538 10/22/2007 30.28 30.28 ' 133955 11/09/2007 006453 CENTRAL COAST CLEAN 110707 11/07/2007 35.00 35.00 133956 11/09/2007 005070 CENTRAL COAST FIRE 111507 11/15/2007 90.00 90.00 133957 11/09/2007 000160 CHAPARRAL 258721 10/25/2007 145.00 145.00 133958 11/09/2007 006039 CHEVRON & TEXACO CARD 7898072884710 10/05/2007 545.83 545.83 133959 11/09/2007 004169 COAST ELECTRONICS 7100506 10/30/2007 4,868.15 4,868.15 133960 11/09/2007 002868 MICHELLE COTA 101807 10/18/2007 75.74 75.74 133961 11/09/2007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 48517 10/31/2007 23.00 23.00 133962 11/09/2007 000199 CUTTERS EDGE 10170716-16 10/17/2007 141.50 141.50 133963 11/09/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP XC7448MJ5-1 10/07/2007 3,487.45 ~ XC7D4MR41-1 10/16/2007 1,154.39 O~ XC7F68K4 10/17/2007 261.77 4,903.61 p 133964 11/09/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 946329 10/16/2007 43.51 43.51 Page: s I' apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133965 1.1/09/2007,006296 DYER'S DIESELRO 23698. 10/22/2007 264.71 23718 10/23/2007 262.45 527.16 133966 11/09/2007 004771 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 101907 10/19/2007 683.00 1019078 10/19/2007 454.00 101907A 10/19/2007 375.00 1,512.00 133967 11/09/2007 004164 FEDEX 2-338-79190 10/26/2007 20.86 20.86 133968 11/09/2007 001058 TONY M FERRARA 093007 09/30/2007 74.89 74.89 133969 11/09/2007 006333 FIA CARD SERVICES V 11/09/2007 0.00 0.00 133970 11/09/2007 006333 FIA CARD SERVICES 10/20-0918 10/20/2007 1,521.31 10/20-6321 10/20/2007 1,495.97 10/20-6313 10/20/2007 773.42 10/20-4015 10/20/2007 486.48 10120-4383 10/20/2007 450.00 10/20-6347 10/20/2007 396.87 10/20-9702 10/20/2007 187.17 10/20-7615 10/20/2007 136.26 10/20-7583 10/20/2007 92.70 10/20-6269 10/20/2007 78.29 10!20/-6263 10/20/2007 64.00 10/20-6305 10/20/2007 59.23 10!20-5029 10/20/2007 25.81 5,767.51 133971 11/09/2007 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 110707 11/07/2007 16.00 16.00 133972 11/09/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 110707 11/07/2007 24.00 24.00 133973 11/09/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 10/29-140 TRAFFIC 10/29/2007 141.00 10/30-200 E BRANCH 10/30/2007 48.94 10/29-211 VERNON ST 10/29/2007 46.02 10/30-208 E BRANCH 10/30/2007 11.04 11/2-1500 W BRANCH 11/02/2007 10.30 10/30-214 E BRANCH 10/30/2007 9.97 ~ o~ 11/2-910 RANCHO 11/02/2007 2.17 269.44 '4 133974 11/09/2007 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 0710000-13101 11/01/2007 28.00 Page: 7 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 8 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 0710007-13101 11/01/2007 25.00 53.00 133975 11/09/2007 002405 CHUCK HARE 110707 11/07/2007 120.00 120.00 133976 11/09/2007 000311 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 0013399-IN 10/23/2007 975.00 975.00 133977 11/09/2007 005455 HSM ELECTRONIC 5256829 10/08/2007 147.00 147.00 133978 11/09/2007 005456 JOHNATHAN HURST 103107 10/31/2007 75.54 75.54 133979 11/09/2007 005201 JAS PACIFIC INC BI 9600 11/05/2007 6,240.00 6,240.00 133980 11/09/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 110707 11/07/2007 80.00 80.00 133981 11/09/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 110707 11/07/2007 160.00 160.00 133982 11/09/2007 003818 LITERACY COUNCIL 10300.7 10/30/2007 680.50 680.50 .133983 11/09/2007 002297 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 21809-07-M 11/08/2007 75.00 75.00 133984 11/09/2007 006088 MATCO TOOLS 14160 11/06/2007 344.32 14161 11 /06/2007 84.80 429.12- 133985 11/09/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL 110707 11/07/2007 24.00 24.00 133986 11/09/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 228269 11/03/2007 52.15 227378 10/26/2007 27.38 228619 11 /06/2007 17.23 228753 11/07/2007 9.69 228189 11 /02/2007 1.72 108.17 133987 11/09/2007 006451 MITY-CITE, INC. IN-464650 08/09/2007 987.70 987.70 133988 11/09/2007 000439 MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM 2762 10/31/2007 3,000.00 3,000.00 133989 11/09/2007 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 933066312072 10/29/2007 98.85 98.85 133990 11/09/2007 005987 NORMAN & VASQUEZ 102707C 10/27/2007 1,396.71 102707A 10/27/2007 517.00 102707 10/27/2007 150.00 2,063.71 133991 11/09/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 10/16-704689 10/16/2007 48.90 48.90 p 133992 11/09/2007 005938 PITNEY BOWES 5500435559 10/16/2007 478.06 478.06 Page: 8 i apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 9 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~ I Bank code: boa I Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 133993 11/09/2007 00 975 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE 1 7 0 0170 10/17/2007 7.98. 7.98 133994 11/09/2007 000513 BEAU PRYOR 102807 10/28/2007 450.00 450.00 I 133995 11/09/2007 005378 BILL RAETZ 102407 10/24/2007 131.67 131.67 i 133996 11/09/2007 002670 RICOH LEASING 07114931920 10/20/2007 155.28 155.28 133997 11/09/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 110707 11/07/2007 16.00 16.00 133998 11/09/2007 002932 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 513618 10/12/2007 6,935.00 ~ 513618A 10/12/2007 2,591.11 513561 10/12/2007 1,072.50 I 513560 10/12/2007 819.00 510791 09/11/2007 702.00 513812 10/17/2007 136.50 510790 09/11 /2007 19.50 12,275.61 133999 11/09/2007 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SERVICE 32363 10/31/2007 1,325.85 1,325.85 134000 11/09/2007 000579 JOYCE SARUWATARI 110707 11/07/2007 50.14 50.14 i 134001 11/09/2007 000947 SHIFT CALENDARS, INC 110707 11/07/2007 255.45 255.45 134002 11/09/2007 006450 AMBER SHRODE 110307 11/03/2007 30.00 30.00 ~ 134003 11/09/2007 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 223618 10/30/2007 3,593.39 3,593.39 ~ 134004 11/09/2007 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 110507 11/07/2007 25.00 25.00 134005 11/09/2007 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 1988919 11/01/2007 207.72 ~ 1981760 11 /01 /2007 106.76 1983106 11 /01 /2007 106.76 1986661 11 /01 /2007 5.62 426.86 134006 11/09/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 110707 11/07/2007 80.00 80.00 134007 11/09/2007 002837 ROB STRONG 052307 05/23/2007 680.25 GARN-STRONG 11/09/2007 400.00 1,080.25 P 134008 11/09/2007 004544 TRADER JOE'S 102007 10/20/2007 70.00 70.00 Page: 9 i I apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10 11/15/2007 12:37PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 134009 11/09/2007 002606 TRAINING INNOVATIONS, INC 07-312 09/20/2007 800.00 800.00 134010 11/09%2007006364 UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES 110507 11/05/2007 102.55 102.55 134011 11/09/2007 000677 PEGGY VALKO PEGGY 11/02/2007 188.80 188.80 134012 11/09/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 0593856641 10/07/2007 323.24 0598888354 10/22/2007 64.07 387.31 134013 11/09!2007 006448 NATHAN VILLIEANA 102707 10/27/2007 30.00 30.00 ~ 134014 11/09/2007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 110707 11/07/2007 24.00 24.00 134015 11/09/2007 005960 WILSHIRE FOUNDATION INC 081107 08/11/2007 1,814.00 1,814.00 134019 11/14/2007 006463 DALLAS CAMPBELL Ref000081626 11/07/2007 132.71 132.71 i 134020 11/14/2007 006462 VEGI FREEMANTLE Ref000081625 11/07/2007 34.22 34.22 134021 11/14/2007 006464 LINDA INSALACO Ref000081627 11/07/2007 18.49 18.49 ~ I 134022 11/14/2007 006456 ROBERT MACDONALD Ref000081619 11/07/2007 102.58 102.58 134023 11/14/2007 006455 RICHERD MARQUEZ Ref000081618 11/07/2007 117.81 117.81 ~ 134024 11/14/2007 006458 KENNETH MARTIN Ref000081621 11/07/2007 28.25 28.25 134025 1.1/14/2007 006460 KIMBERLY MCGARTH Ref000081623 11/07/2007 3.87 3.87 ~ 134026 11/14/2007 006459 ARTURO C RENTERIA Ref000081622 11/07/2007 0.27 0.27 ~ 134027 11/14/2007 006454 VIRGINIA STAGG Ref000081617 11/07/2007 90.66 90.66 134028 11/14/2007 006461 DOUGLAS WISE Ref000081624 11/07/2007 46.67 46.67 134029 11/14/2007 006457 LIZ WOODS Ref000081620 11/07/2007 82.78 82.78 boa Total: 204,316.97 144 checks in this report Total Checks: 204,316.97 ~ ~ t ~ ~ Page: 10 i i ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 10/19/07 -11/1107 11 /09/07 FUND 010 426,298.42 5101 Salaries Full time _ 231,116.44 FUND 220 15,364.87 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 22,215.44 FUND 284 777.26 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 9,995.58 FUND 285 777.31 5105 Salaries OverTime 21,554.87 FUND 612 6,367.49 5107 Salaries Standby 378.26 FUND 640 22,091.48 5108 Holiday Pay 8,140.68 471,676.83 5109 Sick Pay 6,093; 22 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback - - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback - 5113 Vacation Pay 8,219.98 5114 Comp Pay 8,038.30 5115 Annual Leave Pay 1,875.87 5121 PERS Retirement 77,179.75 -5122 Social Security 21,277.06 5123 PARS Retirement 377.34 5126 State Disability Ins. 616.58 5127- Deferred Compensation 750.00 -`5131 Health Insurance 45,731.73 5132 Dental Insurance 4,695.66 5133 Vision Insurance 1,049.86 "5134 Life Insurance 605.81 ..5135 Long Term Disability .86.90 5143 Uniform Allowance - .5144 Car Allowance 975.00 5146 .Council Expense .5147 Employee Assistance - :5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 427.50 ~ 471, 676.83 ~~-~3 8.b. o~ PRROroc ~ INCORPORATED 92 ~ m MEMORANDUM * JULY 10, 1911 ~ c~~~FORN~P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUSPERVISOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT D POSITS DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council receive and file the attached report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of October 31, 2007, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b). FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no funding impact to the City related to this report. However, the City does receive interest revenue based on the interest rate of the investment(s). BACKGROUND: -This report represents the City's investments as of October 31, 2007. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of October 31, 2007, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Recommended Alternative -Approve staff's recommendation to receive and file the attached report listing the current investment deposits. - Do not approve staff's recommendation - Provide direction to staff ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Government Code Section 53646 requires the Director of Financial Services to submit to the City Council a monthly report, providing the following information: 1. Type of investment. 2. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc). 3. Date of maturity. 4. Principal amount. U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\INVESTMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Investments.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 5. Rate of interest. 6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months. 7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy. ADVANTAGES: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments are undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. DISADVANTAGES: Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due to market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non- negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the default of an issuer. To minimize such risks, diversifications of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment instruments are being used as much as is practical and prudent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received Attachments: 1. Portfolio Summary U:\MSWORD\CITY COUNCIL FORMS\INVESTMENT FORMS\CC Standard Staff Report-Investments.doc ~ ' ~ ..Z„ CITY OF City of Arroyo Grande ~ ~ _ ~ 214 E. Branch St. • Arroyo Grande, CA 93430 Phone: (805)473-5400 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~ CALIFORNIA W Portfolio Management i - Portfolio Summary j October 31, 2007 Interest Investments Book Value Interest Rate Rate PY Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date % of Portfolio Local Agency Investment Funds $ 16,480,560.13 5.14% 5.10% 93.78% Certicates of Deposif -Banks First Standard Bank 99,000.00. 5.46% December 2, 2006 365 December 2, 2007 0.56% Bank of Santa Clarita 99,000.00 5.50% March 10, 2007 365 March 10, 2008 0.56% Redding Bank of Commerce 500,000.00 5.48% February 19, 2007 12 Mos. February 19, 2008 2.85% Redding Bank of Commerce 99,000.00 5.00% April 9, 2007 366 April 9, 2008 0.56% Mission NB 99,000.00 5.65% July 11, 2007 365 July 11, 2008 0.56% Metro United Bank 99,000.00 5.85% September 12, 2006 730 September 12, 2008 0.56% Countrywide Bank 99,000.00 5.59% September 16, 2007 12 Mos. September 19, 2008 0.56% Total Certificates of Deposit $ 1,094,000.00 6.22% o i Total Investments $ 17,574,560.13 100.00 /o t 8.c. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET- ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER ~ Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL CC/RDA: Council/Board Members Chuck Fellows, Jim Guthrie, Joe Costello and Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Ed Arnold were present. Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara was absent. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of ' Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director of Community .Development Rob Strong, and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon. 3. FLAG SALUTE Members of Boy Scouts of America Troop 26 led the- Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Richard Scharn delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 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 of the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS- Connie Dunbar, Launa Lane, expressed concern about the lack of bike lanes on E. Branch Street between Crown Hill and Huasna Road. She displayed photos of E. Branch Street showing bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the street and expressed concern for students traveling to Paulding Middle School. She urged the Council to observe the traffic at Crown Hill and make the area safer for the students. At Mayor Pro Tem Arnold's request, City Manager Adams responded by stating the Council had recently adopted a Bike and Pedestrian Plan for the City and that the area in question has been identified as a high priority: improvement project. He offered to meet with Ms. Dunbar at her convenience to review the Plan. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Arnold invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda `Item to do so at this time. No public comments were received. 4 OG'~ Minutes: City Council/RedevelopmentAgency.Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Action: Council Member Fellows moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.i., with the recommended courses of action. Council Member Guthrie seconded. City Attorney Carmel . read the title of the Ordinance in Item 8.i. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold NOES: None ABSENT: Ferrara 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the ,listing of cash disbursements for the period October 1, 2007 through October 15, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of September 30, 2007. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings of September 25, 2007, as submitted. 8.d. Consideration to Approve the Draft Sewer System Management Plan. Action: 1) Approved the draft Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ; and 2) Directed staff to continue with the implementation of the SSMP. 8.e. Consideration to Approve Additional Funding for an Amendment to the Agreement with Todd Engineers to Prepare a Monitoring and Reporting Program. Action: 1) Approved allocation of funds for an Amendment to the Agreement with Todd Engineers to prepare a monitoring and reporting program in accordance with the Santa Maria Groundwater Adjudication; and 2) Appropriated $17,866 from the Water. Fund. 8.f. Consideration to Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for the Farroll Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project, PW 2007-04. Action: 1) Approved the construction plans and specifications for the Farroll Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project; 2) Found that the Farroll Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(d); and 3) Directed the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption. 8.g. Consideration of Award of Contract for the East Grand Avenue Resurfacing Project, PW 2007-09. Action: 1) Awarded a construction contract for the micro-surfacing of East Grand Avenue to Bond Blacktop in the amount of $60,184.25; 2) Awarded Alternate AA as part of the contract, micro-surfacing the Fire Station parking lot, in the amount of $6,700; 3) Authorized staff to negotiate a change order to incorporate Bid Alternate BC as micro-surfacing instead of Rubberized Emulsion Aggregate. Slurry into the project, with a value not to exceed $35,000; and 4) Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed 10% of the contingency of $10,200 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project. 8.h. Consideration of an Agreement for Consultant Services with EnerPower for Electric Rate Analysis. Action: Approved the Agreement for Consultant Services with EnerPower for preparation of an electric rate analysis. ~c - ~ Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8.i. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance 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. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 592 as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO j 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)' 9. PUBLIC HEARING 9.a. Consideration of Mid-Term Review of Redevelopment Agency's 2005-2009 Five-Year Implementation Plan Including an Amendment to the Implementation Plan to Update the Implementation Plan's Projects List. [RDA] Executive Director Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution approving the Mid-Term Review of the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency's 2005- 2009 Five-Year Implementation Plan, including an amendment to update the Implementation Plan's projects list. Executive Director Adams responded to questions from Council regarding the status of the Fair Oaks Theatre Parking project, the status of the Highway 277 relinquishment proposal, and efforts to pursue lodging in the Village. Vice Chair Arnold opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public hearing. Action: Board Member Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE AGENCY'S 2005-2009 FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INCLUDING AN AMENDMENT THERETO TO UPDATE THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN'S PROJECTS LIST". Board Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Arnold NOES: None ABSENT: Ferrara 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS 11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Case No. 07-004 to Subdivide a 0.58 Acre Property into Six (6) Affordable Housing Residential Lots and Two (2) Open Space Lots; Location -Southwest Corner of Cedar and Aspen Streets; Applicant - Pragna Patel. Associate Planner Heffernon presented. the staff report and recommended Council review the project plans and provide suggestions and comments to the applicant. She responded to questions from Council concerning workforce housing; on and off-site parking requirements; and clarification, concerning the proposed zone change. ~C"'J Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Mayor Pro Tem Arnold opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. Pragna Patel, applicant, stated that she works in the hotel industry and explained that the vacant piece of property had been purchased to provide affordable housing for her employees. She spoke of the difficulty of retaining employees and the need for affordable housing in the Five Cities area. She described the project's design concept and amenities and reiterated that the proposed project would provide housing for lower, moderate, and workforce income families. Upon hearing no further comments, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold closed the public comment period. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: - Stated the development proposal is an innovative idea; - Supports affordable housing in this area; - Can support an increase in the density; - Can support the parking space concession; - Noted that there is sufficient on-street parking; - Expressed concern about the proposed secondary units in a Multi-Family zoning district; especially as it relates to costs for an affordable unit with a secondary unit. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Supports project concept; - Supports affordable housing in this area; - Can support the parking space concession; - Concerned about conceptual parking configuration as it relates to internal traffic circulation and flow; - Noted that there will be significant off-site parking available; - Expressed concern about the way the affordable housing qualifications and provisions are structured. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: - Supports the concept plan, .including the barbeque area, benches, and trees; - Likes that the project is planned around the Oak trees; noted that the larger Oak tree on Cedar is in good shape, stated that the others are not so good; however it is good to try to preserve them; - Supports the transitional zoning; - Expressed concern that the parking issues have not been worked out; - Stated it was hard to evaluate the project at this time due to its conceptual nature; - Asked about the clearance behind a certain Oak tree as it relates to the potential for the placement of a driveway off of Aspen Street or perhaps a driveway for lot 5; - Supports in-fill, high density development in this area to take advantage of the infrastructure that currently exists. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: - Likes the design of this project rather than a standard Planned Unit Development design with one straight driveway entrance; - Agreed that the parking needs to be resolved; - Did not like the flat roofs over the garages; ~Cy~ Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, October 23, 2007 . - Expressed concern that this project may not be built after the zone change has been processed and the potential for submittal of a very different, higher density project in the future; - Acknowledged that it was difficult to provide feedback without any conceptual elevations to review; however, he stated the size of the units are appropriate; - Encouraged the applicant to continue discussions with the City and affordable housing agencies regarding the exact formula and how the affordable units will be structured and valued. Council Member Fellows referred to the street trees on the plan and stated he hoped there would be landscaped parkways along the curb that are ..big enough around the base of the tree(s) to allow rainwater to percolate down into the ground. He also suggested meandering sidewalks around the trees into the yard area. In response to the concerns expressed about the proposed zone change, Associate Planner Heffernon explained that the Multi-Family zoning only allows five units per acre and density bonuses are allowed only when a proposed project includes affordable units. She also clarified that the proposed parking concession referred only to the proposed project and that parking requirements for other projects that may come forward would be reevaluated based on their own merits. Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project. There was no formal action on this item. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (ABSENT) (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). No report. (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). No report. (3) Other. None. b. MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report; meets next week. (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Gave report on status of Tourism Study and opportunity for the City to participate. (3) Other. None. c. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. Met on September 20th; reported that the filter system on the new plant is working better; the Habitat Conservation Plan is still on hold. (2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Met on September 26th; reported on presentation of Pollution Prevention Recognition Awards; Board has organized a subcommittee to look at various fiscal issues relatin~ to the power plant in Morro Bay. (3) Fire Oversight Committee. Last met on August 24t ;next meeting is later in the week. (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report. (5) Other. None. ~C~~ Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, October 23, 2007 d. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). No report. (2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report. (3) Other. None. e. COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS: \ (1) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). Received presentation on City of San Luis Obispo 2007 Water Resources Status Report (copy distributed to Council and staff); also distributed information from the California Urban Water Conservation Council website concerning the drought. (3) Other. None. 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: None. 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Pro Tem Arnold announced that SLO Green Build is having a meeting tomorrow night in Paso Robles. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Fellows about the status of fluorescent tube disposal, City Manager Adams stated he has been in contact with the Integrated ,Waste Management Authority on disposal of fluorescent tubes and electronic devices to work out a detailed proposal to bring to the Council for future consideration. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: None. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Arnold adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair / ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary (Approved at CC Mtg ) ~C' 8.d. ~ p,RRO~~ O C,p ~ INCORPORnTED 92 V D rn * JULY 10, 1811 ~ ~ c~~~FaRN~P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER BY: GLENDA BONER, OFFICE ASSISTANT I SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO PURCHASE A 3/4-TON PICK UP TRUCK DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the purchase of a 3/4-ton pick up truck and the Extra Care Extended Care Warranty from . Mullahey Ford at a cost of $18,976.71. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this vehicle was included in the approved FY 2007/08 budget. A total of $27,000 was budgeted in the General Fund fora 3/4-ton standard cab pick up truck for the Fleet Maintenance Coordinator. BACKGROUND: On October 16, 2007, bids were solicited for two 3/4-ton pick up trucks, one for the Fleet Maintenance Coordinator and one for the Leadperson in the Streets Division. However, due to budget constraints, only one vehicle will be purchased at this time. The Fleet Maintenance Coordinator is currently using a 1994 Ford F-150 (PW-40), originally purchased for use by the Water Department, which was transferred for use by the Fleet Maintenance Coordinator- in 1997. The vehicle currently has over 140,000 miles, is 13-years old, and meets the criteria for replacement per Administrative Policy and Procedures C-006 of five years of age or 80,000 miles. The replacement vehicle will be a 3/4-ton regular cab. Th.e cost of the replacement vehicle is $18,976.71 (including a 7-year or 100,000 mile powertrain warranty). Bids were also solicited for an Alternative Fuel Vehicle. The City test drove a liquid propane powered vehicle earlier this year. These vehicles are being produced for use in light truck fleets. However no bids were received because this type of vehicle will not be certified in the State of California until mid 2008. ~d_ ~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO PURCHASE A 3/4-TON PICK UP TRUCK FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 The City sent out eight bid packages. Responses were received from four dealerships. The apparent low bidder for both the extended cab and standard cab trucks was Mullahey Ford. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation to purchase a new 3/4 -ton pick up truck from Mullahey Ford; - Delay the purchase of both vehicles; - Direct staff to solicit new bids; or - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Both vehicles are older than the rest of the fleet and are beginning to show signs of wear and tear and were approved for replacement in the FY 2007/08 budget. It seems more prudent to replace PW-40 at this time as it is 13-years old, has high mileage and may be subject to higher repair costs. This vehicle was used in the Water/Sewer Division and then transferred over to the auto shop in 1997. ADVANTAGES: The vehicle being purchased is more fuel-efficient than those purchased in the past. The vehicle will also have a longer warranty period (7-year or 100,000 miles), thus reducing the costs of repairs and maintenance. DISADVANTAGES: As stated above, only one vehicle of the two requested is able to be purchased due to budget constraints. The delay may result in an increase in the cost of the second vehicle if the price is increased next year. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachment: 1. -Bid Opening Log Sheet ~d- 1 ~ pRROyO o c,~ ~ INCORPORATED 92 ~ ° BID OPENING LOG SHEET * JULY /0, ,s„ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE c4~~FOR~~P DEADLINE: October 30, 2007, 2:00 p.m. Public Works Vehicles SUBMITTED BY: TOTAL Mullahey Ford Vehicle #1 -2008 3/4 ton Standard Cab Truck Arroyo Grande, CA $17,786.71 $ 1,190.00 (warranty) Vehicle #2 -2008 3/4 ton Extended Cab Truck $19,962.18 $ 1,190.00 (warranty) Vehicle #3 - 3/4 ton Alternative Fuel Truck No bid submitted Toyota of Santa Maria Vehicle #1 -2008 3/4 ton Standard Cab Truck Santa Maria, CA $28,117.49 $ Included (warranty) Vehicle #2 -2008 3/ ton Extended Cab Truck $29,858.73 $ Included (warranty) Vehicle #3 - 3/ ton Alternative Fuel Truck No bid submitted Stowasser GMC Vehicle #1 -2007 3/4 ton Standard Cab Truck Santa Maria, CA $19,839.00 $ Included (warranty) Vehicle #2 -2007 3/4 ton Extended Cab Truck $25,231.00 $ Included (warranty) Vehicle #3 - 3/4 ton Alternative Fuel Truck No bid submitted ~~-3 Bid Opening Log Sheet (cont'd) Home Motors Vehicle #1 -2008 3/4 ton Standard Cab Truck Santa Maria, CA $19,570.53 $ Included (warranty) Vehicle #2 -2008 3/ ton Extended Cab Truck $21,713.78 $ Included (warranty) Vehicle #3 - 3/ ton Alternative Fuel Truck No bid submitted Kelly We mor Director of A ministrative Services/City Clerk c: Director of Public Works Public Works Supervisor City Manager ~ d _ 8.e. ~ PRROVO o ~ INCORPORATED 9Z ~ _ - ~o MEMORANDUM JULY 10, 1911 7~ cQ~~FORN~P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLiC WORKS /CITY ENGINEERG~ BY: EVAN. CARSON, ASSISTANT ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARROLL AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2007- 04 DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. -award a construction contract for the rehabilitation of Farroll Avenue and waterline upgrades to Union Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $512,831.00, B. award Bid Alternate A as .part of the contract, various concrete improvements, in the amount of $48,818.50, C. authorize transfers in the amount of $13,100.00 from the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project, $13,900.00 from the East Grand Avenue Resurfacing Project and $29;540.00 from the Miscellaneous Striping, Crosswalks, Sidewalks and Handicap Ramp Project towards the roadway improvements, concrete improvements and to provide for the project contingency. D. authorize the transfer of Water Fund funds in the amount of $10,000.00 and Water Facility funds in the amount of $10,000.00 towards the water line replacement. E. authorize the City .Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the 10% contingency of $56,1.65.00 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project (total construction costs = $512,831.00 + $48,818.50 + $56,165.00 _ $617,814.50). FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of the entire project is $632,350.00, which includes monies for design, construction expenditures, administrative costs and a separate contract for material testing. The FY 2007/2008 Capital Improvement Program .includes $557,000.00 for the total cost of the project, which is funded with $143,000.00 from the ~~,-1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARROLL AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2007-04 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE - 2 - USHA .Fund, $125,000.,QO from the Water Fund, $125,000.00 from Water Facility and $1.64,000.00 from. Sales Tax revenue. The difference in the budgeted amount and amount required to fund the project "is $75,350.00. It is requested that an additional $10,000.00 be transferred from the Water Fund, $10,000.00 from the Water Facilities Fund, and $55,350.00 from Sales Tax revenue. The Sales Tax revenue can be funded from savings realized from two projects; $13,100.00 from the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project .and $13,900.00 from the East Grand Avenue Resurfacing Project; and a transfer, of $29,540.00 from the Miscellaneous Striping, Crosswalks, Sidewalks and Handicap Ramp Project. BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2007, eight bids were opened for the Farroll Avenue Rehabilitation Project: -The .lowest, responsive bid, from Union Asphalt, -Inc., was in the amount of $561,649.50. This project includes one bid alternate to install an ADA ramp at Farroll & Alder and for installation of sidewalk on the north side of Farroll Avenue. Consistent with the City's Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan, the project includes installation of bike lanes. The contract time for this project is specified at 70 .calendar days. Work is expected to begin in early January 2008 and be completed by mid March 2008. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Award a contract to Union Asphalt, Inc. for the entire contract for the Farroll .Avenue Rehabilitation Project- (including .Bid Alternate A: various concrete improvements); • Award the contract, but direct staff to exclude the bike lanes in the striping plan; • Award the base bid contract for only the waterline replacement and roadway rehabilitation only; • Do not award the contract until the bike lane and parking issues are resolved, which will likely result in the need to re-bid the project; • Provide direction to staff ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: • The base bid. includes. the replacement of a water line and the rehabilitation of the roadway. Alternate A will provide a continuous pedestrian path through the installation of missing sidewalk segments and also install a concrete cross gutter to route storm water. In order to incorporate Alternate A in the contract award, funds from other projects will need to be transferred to this project. • Sufficient right-of-way does not exist between Halcyon Road and Victorian Court to add bike lanes without implementing parking modifications. As a result, in order to install bike lanes, it will be necessary to exclude on-street parking on the north side of the street in this segment of the street. While the majority of S:IPublic WorkslEngineeringlCapital Projects120071PW 2007-04 (5657) Farroll Ave. RehabilitationlCouncillStaff ReportslCouncil MemoslCouncil Memo - Award. doc BQ-~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARROLL AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2007-04 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE - 3 - properties impacted have direct access to other on-street parking from side streets, there are two homes that front Farroll Avenue and would be limited to on- street parking on the south side of the street or parking on their property. • In addition,. parking on the south side of Harloe Elementary School would be eliminated. This area is .currently used by parents to drop off their children. However, there are two other drop off locations. The School Principal and Lucia Mar Unified. School District Interim Superintendent were contacted. In response, the school supports the installation. of the bike lanes to increase safety for the school. children, but also indicated that there will likely be opposition from some of the parents. The Principal will be seeking input from parents in December at a regular monthly meeting he conducts. • The parking and bike lane issues will be considered by the Traffic Commission in December. Property owners on the impacted segments of Farroll Avenue will be .notified of that meeting. The bids are only valid fora 30-day. period, but the striping is not projected to take place until March and can be deleted after the contract is awarded. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding with the contract award, seeking. public and Traffic Commission input in December, and requesting City Council direction on the bike lane installation in January 2008. ADVANTAGES: • Award of the base bid contract will improve the deteriorating roadway and replace aging water lines, and • The inclusion of Alternate A will provide an ADA ramp where one doesn't currently exist, providing ADA access to the sidewalk. • Alternate A will improve the storm drainage along the north side of the roadway through the installation of a concrete gutter where it does not currently exist. This will help to preserve the roadway and minimize water damage /intrusion. • The inclusion of Alternate A will fill in the missing segments of sidewalk on the north side of Farroll Avenue, including an additional ADA ramp, to provide a continuous walking path for pedestrians. • Award of the contract at this time will enable the project to proceed, while resolving issues related to the installation of bike lanes; • The addition of bike lanes will enable implementation of key segments of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan, increasing safety for the public, particularly school children; • Addition of bike lanes will encourage more school children to bike to school, thus reducing traffic and providing more exercise opportunities. DISADVANTAGES: • The inclusion of Alternate A (concrete improvements) in the contract award will exceed the allocated budget and will require transferring monies from other projects. S:IPublic WorkslEngineeringlCapital Projects120071PW 2007-04 (5657) Farroll Ave. RehabilitationlCouncillStaff ReportslCouncil MemoslCouncil Memo -Award.doc g~.-3 CITY COUNCIL . .CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARROLL AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2007-04 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE - 4 - • A disadvantage of including, the bike lanes is a reduction of parking on four blocks of the north side of Farroll Avenue, which. includes a drop off area for Harloe Elementary School parents. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(d). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The agenda and staff reports were also posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received as of the time of preparation of this report. All property owners in the segments impacted by the bike lane recommendations will be notified regarding the December Traffic Commission discussion. Attachment: 1. Bid Opening Log Sheet S:IPublic WorkslEngineeringlCapital Projects120071PW 2007-04 (5657) Farroll Ave. RehabilitationlCouncillStaff ReportslCouncil MemoslCouncil Memo -Award.doc ~ pRROyO o ~ INCORPORwTEO 9Z v ° BID OPENING LOG SHEET ~ * CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE c~~~fORN~P DEADLINE: November 14, 2007, 2:00 p.m. Farroll Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project Engineer's Estimate: $652,000 SUBMITTED BY: BASE BID ALTERNATE A TOTAL BID V. Lopez Jr. & Sons $630,889.00 $48,828.00 $679,717.00 Santa Maria, CA R Burke Construction $548,339.40 $49,385.40 $597,724.80 San Luis Obispo, CA Hollister General $561,035.04 $44,652.75 $605,687.79 .Paso Robles TLC Underground $600,184.44. $47,511.48 $647,691.92 Santa Maria, CA Granite Construction Co. $691,463.50 $54,643.50 $746,107.00 Santa Barbara, CA Union Ashalt, Inc. $512,831.00 $48,818.50 $561,649.50 Santa Maria, CA Papich Construction Inc. $609,617.40. $61,767.00 $671,384.40 Pismo Beach Whitaker Contractors, Inc. $647,403.00 $47,580.00 $694,983.00 Paso Robles, CA Kelly tmor Director of A ministrative Services/City Clerk c: Director of Public Works City Manager V ~ 8.f. p,RRO ~0 o~ INCORPORATED 9 h Z t~ D m ~ JULY 10, ,s„ MEMORANDUM c~~~FORN~P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS /CITY ENGINEER BY: EVAN CARSON, ASSISTANT ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE PICNIC SHELTER STRUCTURE AT ELM STREET PARK PROJECT,' PW 2006-05 DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council 1. accept the project improvements, as constructed by JPG Construction, Inc. in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Picnic Shelter Structure at EIm Street Park Project; 2. direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3. authorize release of the retention as allowed per the Public Contract Code and after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been filed. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project budget is $121,498 (total construction costs = $104,847..08 base bid + $5,720 for new -fencing, electrical design and special structural inspection costs + $10,485 contingency. _ $121,052.08). The final adjusted project cost is $119,760.13, resulting in a savings of $1,737.87. BACKGROUND: On February 13, 2007 Council awarded a construction contract for the Picnic Shelter Structure at Elm Street Park Project to JPG Construction, Inc. for $104,847.08. The project work included demolition of the existing structure, park tables, concrete slab and barbeque. They were then replaced with apre-fabricated structure, a new concrete slab with footings and grade beams, ADA compliant park tables and utility services. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's. consideration:. - Approve staff's recommendations; - Do not accept the project; - Accept the project, but. do not authorize release of retention; or - Provide direction to staff. ` CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT THE PICNIC SHELTER STRUCTURE AT ELM STREET PARK PROJECT, PW 2006-05 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Work has been completed according to the contract documents. There are no outstanding issues to address. ADVANTAGES: By accepting the improvements the City can provide a new covered gazebo facility, ADA compliant access and furniture and a new covered barbegtae for residents and group activity. Accepting the improvements will also allow staff to close the project out and redesignate remaining funds to other project needs. DISADVANTAGES: The disadvantages. of accepting the improvements would be if subsequent deficiencies in the work are identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On November 28, 2006, City Council found that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(d) and directed the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Exemption. . PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda describing -this item was posted in front of City Hall on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The Agenda and report -were posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachment: 1. Notice of Completion S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2006\PW 2006-05 (5526) Elm Street Park Shelter\Council\Council Memo -Project Acceptance.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: ATTACHMENT 1 CITY CLERK CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P.O. BOX 550 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is owner or agent of owner of the interest or estate stated below the property hereinafter describe. 2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is: The Cit~ofArroyo Grande 3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California 93420 4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee 5. THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, if any, who hold such interest or estate with the undersigned as JOINT TENANTS or as TENANTS IN COMMON are: NAMES ADDRESSES None 6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvements herein referred to: NAMES ADDRESSES None 7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED August 6. 2007 8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is: JPG Construction, Inc. 9. The street address of said property is: 1221 Ash Street (Elm Street Park Gazebo 10. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, and is described as follows: Picnic Shelter Structure at Elm Street Park Proiect. PW 2006-OS Verification ofNON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that I am the Public Works Director of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and the facts stated therein are true and correct. Don Spagnolo, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 27, 2007, Arroyo Grande, California END OF DOCUMENT r _ _ ' ~ p,RROyO 8~g~ o INCORPORATED 9Z U - - O m JULY 10, 1911 c~°~~FORN`P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT TREES TO DRILL AND INSTALL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; :APN 007-711-007; 871 EAST CHERRY AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT~CASE NO. 07-010) DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council' adopt a Resolution approving the application by Scott Trees to drill and install a replacement irrigation well on a property zoned Agriculture Preserve; APN 007-711-007; 871'East Cherry Avenue. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no funding impacts associated with this project. BACKGROUND: The applicant has entered escrow to purchase an approximately 3 acre property zoned Agricultural Preserve. The property includes a residence and is currently farmed as part of a larger agricultural operation. The applicant intends to establish a new separate agricultural use involving plant propagation. Currently, there are- two wells on the property that have fallen into disrepair and cannot be salvaged. Part of the escrow agreement requires the applicant to establish a new well prior to sale in order to ensure . adequate irrigation for future agricultural production. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08 requires Council approval for new or replacement wells or abandonment of existing wells. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached Resolution to; allow the drilling and installation of the replacement well; - Modify and adopt the attached Resolution to allow the drilling and installation of the replacement well; - Do not adopt the Resolution; - Provide direction to staff ' ~9 r J CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT TREES TO DRILL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN'007-711-007; 871 EAST CHERRY AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT CASE'!,NO. 07-010) NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE2OF3 . ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Approval to drill a well may be granted if the Council determines 1) the welt will not deplete nor contaminate the City water supply and 2) service from the City's water system is neither practical nor feasible. Depletion or Contamination It is staff's opinion that the proposed replacement well will not deplete or contaminate the City water supply based upon the proposed size, depth and location. Conditions of approval for this project also protect the water supply by requiring the applicant to install a backflow protection device and properly abandon existing on-site wells. Practicality of Supply from the City's Water'.System The City currently does not serve agricultural lands with potable water for irrigation purposes. The property is .connected to the City's 4" water main for domestic use; however, a separate connection to the City water system would be required to irrigate the 2 acres of farmland. A properly sized meter would be a substantial cost to the applicant. ADVANTAGES: Water for applied irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the groundwater basin and is not included in the City's groundwater entitlement. In addition, allowing the drilling of a well for agricultural purposes is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Ag2-1 Maintain water resources for production agriculture, both in quality and in quantity, so as to prevent the loss of agriculture due to competition for water with urban development. Ag2-1.2 Support efforts to provide needed surface and/or ground water resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very Low Density and Low Density. Lastly, the property is part of the Dixon' Ranch. Agricultural Preserve Conservation Easement. The installation of the replacement well is consistent with the provisions of this easement. Most importantly, provision for a new well assists the property in remaining in active agricultural production. DISADVANTAGES: Even though irrigation is a separate component of the safe yield of the groundwater basin and does not count against the amount of water for the urban users, a new well ~q w_ J I CITY COUNCIL .CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT TREES TO DRILL REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN 007-711-007; 871 EAST CHERRY AVENUE (STAFF PROJECT CASE'NO. 07-010) NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE3OF3 would allow for additional groundwater use. However, as explained above, additional groundwater use for the purposes of. agricultural irrigation is clearly consistent with the City's General -Plan. Alternatively, supplying agricultural irrigation with domestic water would count against the City's supply for urban users. The City's current water supply analysis also does not account for this connection, which could use a substantial amount of water per year depending on the specific crop and irrigation method. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The agenda and staff reports were also posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received as ofthe time of preparation of this report. Attachments: 1. Aerial photograph of the property showing the approximate location of the proposed well. 2. Well drilling agreement g ~3 9 ~ k RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SCOTT TREES TO DRILL A REPLACEMENT IRRIGATION WELL ON A PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE PRESERVE; APN 007-711- - 007; 871 .EAST CHERRY ~AVEN~UE (STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 07-010) WHEREAS, Scott Trees has submitted an application to drill a replacement well to irrigate crops at 871 East Cherry Avenue; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requires City Council review and approval of all new wells; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the .well will not deplete nor contaminate the City water . supply based upon the use, design, depth and placement; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that service from the City's water system is neither practical nor feasible to irrigate agricultural crops due to associated costs, established General Plan policies and existing water supply agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED'that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Staff Project Case No. 07-010 authorizing the drilling and installation of an agricultural irrigation well at 871 East Cherry Avenue subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 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 27th day of November 2007. ~q J I I~ 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 V r _ _ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 07-010 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 Public Works Department. 3. The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Staff Project Case No. 07-010. 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 alternative, to relinquish such ,approval: The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees .may be ,required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion; participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 5. The applicant shall install a backflow prevention device to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. The applicant shall abandon all existing wells on site and supply the Public Works Department with a letter stating said abandonment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department. Attachment 1 ~ ~ ~ ~-R ~;`r k ay d~ fait" pt.~~ ~ .fit > ~ "f~ tl ~ Y* Srk",&i~`j i+ ~ +~'~m'~ti" i{~~ I~~X~~ A'q~',~a' F 'i ~ v~' f 5,~rt / ~ r u+~ y , ~ ~ *R. a ~ .1 ` r v.~', , ~ ~ ~ ,.'a~"~ t.~ ` `w,\ o ~ y ~ ~ . ~ ~r ~ , a ~ k3~ r ~ ~ d' ~ ~ Proposed well ~ ~ a .-0 ax. ~ ~ yam.. x~. a c ~ ~ ,m ~ r t.,,:. F.. _ u,a ra;~~. g:.. ~ r ~ r ''may" r'~'r~'~ ~ ~ R h s e n . %s x' ~ _ R~ k °~.r,*~ s"w~a,~ xr " 3~' g r,~$y~, a'~`.a °'.y t}r,, yr, "S"~"'~ ' ~ ~i ~ 871 East Cherry Avenue Feet N Q~ - ii 11/16/2007 0:46 80577326$4 KELLER WILLIAMS PA~aE 01 _ Attachment 2 . ~ililapani 8c ~hampson `'Grilling Inc. 3tATE L1CEN9E MO. C6~ 432980 PAs 8ox816 • ~,'CA90~d9 ~ PHON~~1~71 November 8, 2007 Scott Trees ~P:O. Box 68 Guadalupe CA 93434 Dear Scott: . ~ i'~ , ~ ..~w ~ I k We appreciate the opportunity to provide you~with a proposal to dr t[ a well on your property located on l:. Cherry Avenue in Arroyo Grande. 1 haver enclosed an agreement along with this letter, which outlines the charges involved. , Listed below is a breakdown fora 100' minimum well. ~ . . San Luis tJbispoLLCounty Permit , . • Test Hate • Ream and Case w/5" SDR ~1 F-480 PVC 5" .040 Weli perforation lapis #3 Sand Pack • San Luis Obispo County Sanitary Seal Air Jetting:ao Develop Welt ,~9:.:: Total: $ 6,$OD.00 If the above figure meets with your approval, plea$e sign.,the white copy and send alongiwith your $2,OOO.aO deposit to our office. The yellow copy is for . . your.,,records._ Upon receipt we will complete the permit~prc~~ess~~Onte~the site has been ~;pproved;~~wexcan schedule'~the work to ~be~in. Feel free to contact i nie at our office with any questions..l hope to hear from you soon a id look forvvard to working with you on this project. Thank you,: f Ned M. Thompson ~ - _ NMTlscs f r n ~ F>. ~ r a v~ ~ -8 r ~ 8 .~r 4•~sst. ?dV.. r.w~ vl St r '4' y.F lk - . C ,~~in. -._.-J ~r "QNov. lb. 2007 12; 21 PNM Bob Davis Realtor $0~-528-4527 eos ass ~No_4530 P. 1 '~YltiP~o>~ai $ D>e~liag Ypsc. • ette atone rrt). ov+elew P.0.13mi a45 Atlscadoro, ~Pt77f9 93+429 ~ [SOS} 466.1271 at3R~EMENT AORBEMENTWII'i1:8coC ~ J • 'f1'aas _ _ Pho~le i3~9-1802 CaiB Msoir+gAddrses P.O.8o/1 t8$ Ouadelupp CA fY3454 34 9•E588 FaY WELL LOCA'fpD; 871 E t'.hehyAvenua - Atroye tfroiide Acr:EAGE: 8.4 APN ll ~ oo~aTt-9oT 7F8.9 AQ~EMENT, madr arw enterod etbD this 8fn dror of Nnvantber ~6 C' _ 8atwaen Scott Trees harslnatiereRYpe t7WNER,epeL~j~Qlyf 8 THG1rIPSON,~IINO CQ.. fwrain. allercall¦dOPEIiATt7R. W1"t'NESSETH W?1EREAS: Owner desired to on0eps pperatorte EflB a watYrwep et a bcepon destflnated by Owner on the fotlax np eesCrr'bec Isnd tdcaoed In Bert Lula,Obiapo: Oourriy, 9tats ofCefHornta, to wR: WNER£lti5: t]peretardeefree to drltl avid enterw0lk NOW, tt~REPORE, In cMlaidereUa? of the rnunrau oovenenta Ord aynsmsnty to be palfonrred 4Y the paltlee b W ~graed a telbwe: I . t]wnsr hereby yhrss Operator, h's ampwywe, snq equlprnant. esa Irtgteee ea+d egress upon that auwa dsBCribsd Irrlde for the par. pass of anllnq acid wall or weus. i. Owner Mnoy deslgnetea to Operator that a well approxlmalaly 7OtY feet h. depth eh. U be drltlao by Oper- etor, aatdng 5' ~ ryefnp t0 that depth, 7. Tha operator syreee agar Castag ro plee0p In sard wen to Na0 or blavr we I I rtrs o} aaceaelYO mod and send. The gwrrr apreae to psY Operator 316.00 ! per ltyot from ql+ surfan of lM Around to tlta Tu11 dopM of the 1 let Kok dd0ed by Operalvr. ' b, ff feat hob >a ro>ttrrad and e;esed with b"PVC 8bR zt r•a80 en eddltlonel 316.00 per root v III be charged. e. t~pe+atar eriroes le drill sate wdH or wpEls fi wozScmrnAke minrptaa k u9ual end proelJceble Inwpls• vae4 dAtm+g. T- That Owner e~greve to pay Opsne?ar far use drilllnq of sold wag and t'eelnq p4ad to ssld wall a• ?Nroin before provided rpon eeMplo- ' den of sold aroll. 8: It Is ap~eed between Owwlwr arW Cpsrator that sell t]peraldr dtks not lprereulies tin capedpl of fia~d weB, nor Ifw pualU r Ot Water aontalnad Mleweln. U soy, g. t~ryrrer egreea fc pay Operoter li3,1m0.00 on alpnlnp Ihle r>orArecl end baterwa In full when teeing Is sat and vedl walhW, 10, if Ipnooee rocft or deddad mstertei er ibee e1 Wroufetlen;. b etlGOUMerod, drI11Mg will cases er gv ~ en hourly nu edlar p ~ylnp fat fooi• eigs drifted, Koury teU wl0 not tiegM wilhtwt Owners e:eneept 1i.~lf tgneaw rash b encavntared use of s button bll for rMt weR dnling wi11 ha,¦vagable at a ~1'ot,' " ,Ho ~ ne!.fov4 with an addiibntll charge Gf', ~ > :a` " ' psi teat Eb ww wflh easing. _ 12. Drlwnq aY lrla hour S~•00 Owner pay 1hr mudrinatart~ls and b8e, nAlr~ttfnp INns lnoiwded • fin ir:-- X Alf nfi . F SS, A pdnlnWm prior for oorrlpletsd vra0 .w.:. Se~~Bllotlo ...f:.,:, Mbi9num price riff net hale _ i9.snoAO ? f a, County eurl.4 eenllery seal end met ro bs eo171p1etad by Owlrtef a pperekr X Coat i~.ti00.0( 16. It le understood that should lhp eaeAred Esmme past due Uls Owner agrar b0 pay Ntlerwel In ins nM of 1 ~6 per hten~ until paid M fug and eg copegton erglanwe Ytratdlrrp ateemeye teas arts cetrrl owls. fe. A San Luis t]bbpo County Ws0 parn+lt vugl Ees etdquhad by the Droner .aeon X . test 8300.00 1 f 7. opareAor k net roepepaibls for oamsgeto urlderoround ugll0ee In rife am of the drslgrlD ltr~elian, ~ 19. When well screen to fp Hs used en WA ?ereen vdgl aiet slrb ehe0 be Inelutlsd el ~halge oT. • Per foot. ~ 16. The oast of pe tbrtawgl be" ' leokrdpd rper feet f 90.1'he enrgdar sllees rheg he idled wl~ 1.eWeIS st a east or Included mn, - , , ; r,:, Z1, When feet pompfiq K requltrtd U1as k m etkltldnsl charge Oi ; hYA for Inamllpgan and removal, (el : pumWn9 noure st per hour _ ; . Y2. It en E-tog is required fh! otwrys for lopping Ndp bs WA ' ZS. A0 thkd party eatVias wlq be hllped tD owner al Best pWs 1896. u, All }Ipurae reptergnl adequate ICGbse. YS, Add NIA per fool for drtltrtg esyond feet. 28. N bondvGtvr Pipe b needed add WA per. foottar - _ Terrrporery mnduc .o: wilt be pi¦wd and rarnotrad tpr Time A Ma~edel 4T. Mud ewlleh war fdfA 2t;, YES Water On sIk t0 b0 auD Owner. Ze. Ftlipponl end Thempsen Orllenp, Ina is nq neponePols for eanwpe td roads, ddvCwaye Or eRn aapge 30: fiedcflll dry holB i1,E0__0..0_O per Kris. . 7 v rt "qty; ;p•« 97. AddHlonai conr+lsnls: e+Fe work ie owwr'a reapotlebi4Yy.;f~leaee mete fhv,tlgaes lleied en Kern 413. YVir vrpuld be hapA'Y fo Prorlde You with a pump s sadmets upon csmpktbe etwe0 drillbr0. --t- ~sr.~laa~sv, bw»« NOTJGE ' ' s.cernrote,a.d,...aPr.rare~rr~ mdwaaroarrrvuMr?tlnvpa•rArawaraenanaW ~er.rrmm~.ct~• wwra6v¦lliiriiu~e'f+"wa~alba edl'eeie:era¦hm..mernrr..ri...s.n VrWereuMrpreNra llwrlrw(GWNN¦Carl sea., e.gwn 7oe~Nra4)ry;.ca/iao~w. afar peanttleMtdo~ewew eta ..dr.0. fn deoonr~rry aq~pnrrr a. WeWnmalr, Ileenr, Wpplx w alrrperwNMtro Ie0r1s Inprori Ya~r Prcerrp eA n petManer W ar.oNren, e. arMINMd ~x Mlgmir~lr i rY1 War drke er r. norwarerrv..~ahwacvr~wu~h..~+a«nac..eme.e.t..rrewwrose•• nr• eee~d+dd+wiwn,.«tifor,~qt+wnaN«mmrrawurwaeae.a,o.a.,..a ..~aenl. eer¦m~rl.xYre f¦w Prrorb muM b..~e bYemul oR ~a•.d Yr oo• ~rsl' d.dr der.W ~aeaa rNYhd,..µreadneea 744 ea.r,.Pp..getfyeY lie.. rb rawweeeeraea6egeerrboereeareh4Vrrw,wrWpeBrra.r.ya.q,' Srrem70ea,hdr*pePrtlurreneemt - e.tlen rota, eureru ii,Mwta~lGatle "W~'dort r. regi,.d ~ Ier m be lleerd..a nwl~ ry NCavratde e1Re ' Lkweeeera l~Mpraedee.a~anNpMree/eti~~~arrande~Mawr- v..rrar Matlreel. lr.n t~r6 ararernrae0ee,•uerrr+.eaw,lmerer, r.r.-urwnw etlrr rnrea ellhrRglrlnrWaraelwl.rlaflepaarr r: Doran rarr tltye arena V1ie.Y,lrlflp. benyrWe7'a+r'p,aw.V~,srnW preaM Ab l.h"r. ~rRl~.ted.l, eKe,leeD 7r ebM4 awrrn«r.. G.em,/.rr0e.•." . hMeMerR4ltrpwi.Y tltle eesFetrewN~Ma'-tAt4er all swyw pr!'eettl!Nlya?' IPeyWeletlr eYlM brarre broaesel~aMne suehwarrweeprew.ewR anar~W arrWea for eu w.t W /npre.+rere ar,.eeflWtoe atr^aC Mere lrlke ot9r easy ~ ~ / 8.h. ~ pRROyO o ~ INCORPORATED '~Z ~ _ V ~T * JULY ,o, ,s„ MEMORANDUM c4~~FORN~P TO: CITY COUNCIL ~ FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-005 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR FIVE PROPERTIES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S. HALCYON ROAD ''SAND .FAIR OAKS- AVENUE FROM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VERY ; HIGH DENSITY TO OFFICE MIXED USE; AND ,CHANGE THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OF S. ELM STREET NEAR POPLAR STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) TO CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE- MULTI-FAMILY (MF) DATE: .NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance to change the zoning for five properties at the northwest corner of S. Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue from Multi- . Family Residential Very High Density (MVH) to Office Mixed Use (OMU); and change the zoning for the properties in the vicinity of S. Elm Street near Poplar Street from Single Family Residential (SF) to Multi-family (MF); adopt the attached Negative Declaration and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of!Determination. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no impact on the current fiscal year budget. BACKGROUND: In the Fall of 2006, staff began to study the possibility of initiating a zoning change for several properties located at 362; 370; 378; & 382 S. Halcyon Road and~906 Fair Oaks Avenue to accommodate redevelopment of a mix of appropriate uses for properties in close proximity to Arroyo Grande Community Hospital. This was in part prompted by a request from Dr. Jonathan Fow, an orthopedic surgeon, seeking a medical facility on S. Halcyon Road and supported by Rick Castro,! President of the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital to facilitate expanded medical services next to the Hospital (Attachment 1). The property's current zoning, very high density residential, precludes medical office uses. On November 8, 2006, David Robasciotti filed an application for a Development Code Amendment and General Plan Amendment requesting a change in zoning and General Plan land use designation for several properties on the west side of South Elm Street. According to Mr. Robasciotti, these changes would allow for more infill housing and "bring the area in line with the surrounding area," which includes multi-family housing and condominiums. This is an area that! is considered an appropriate area to "upzone" in the 0 ~ 1 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-005; 1) APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: LOCATION IN THE VICINITY OF FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND SOUTH HALCYON ROAD AND, 2) APPLICANT -DAVID ROBASCIOTTI: LOCATION - IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH ELM STREET AND POPLAR STREET. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE20F6 2003 Housing Element of the General Plan due to it's larger lots, surrounding multi-family zoning and development, as well as it's proximity the. mixed use corridor on E. Grand Avenue. The Planning Commission considered this item at its August 7, 2007 public hearing. The three members of the Commission who were present voted 2-1 to recommend approval of the project. However, the City's Development Code requires an affirmative vote from the total membership of the Commission in order to proceed with a recommendation of approval to City Council. The Planning Commission re-considered the item on September 18, 2007 and recommended approval of the project by a 4-0 vote. The City Council 'approved the General Plan Amendment and introduced the proposed Ordinance on November 13, 2007. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - adopt the proposed Ordinance to change the zoning; - amend and re-introduce the proposed Ordinance. - do not adopt the proposed Ordinance; - provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Vicinity of South Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue The first portion of the project includes amending the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to allow for a mix of residential and medical office uses near the Arroyo Grande Community- Hospital for properties currently zoned for residential use only and current) underutilized. For five (5) properties along " South Halcyon Road (362, ~ ~o 370, 378, & 382, South a.. Y'~--~,~ t, ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ Halcyon Road and 906 Fair ~`~~r,,;~ ~ Oaks Avenue): ~ ~ r ? change the General Plan t land use designation from~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~N~~l ~ Est' i Multiple Family Residential =_,x~ ~ ! I' Very High Density Mixed ~ ~ Use Office Professional; and n ; , ? change the zoning from ~ , ~ i~ Multi-Family Very High ~ ~ Density Residential (MFVH) ~ - ~ ~ ' Office Mixed Use (OMU). ; r-=="~~1,..?~ _r~--~i S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSIGPA106-003 S.EIm St. & S.Halcyon-Robasciottilgpadca CC 112707. doc ~ ~ _ w CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-005; 1) APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: LOCATION IN THE VICINITY OF FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND SOUTH HALCYON ROAD AND, 2)''APPLICANT -DAVID ROBASCIOTTI: LOCATION - IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH ELM STREET AND POPLAR STREET. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE30F6 The properties are currently designated Multi-Family Residential Very High Density and zoned Very High Density Residential (MFV), which allows for a maximum density of 25 du/acre to support multi-family and senior housing attached developments. This is an area recently rezoned #rom Senior Residential to MFV during the Development Code update when all SR was rezoned due to State law requirements. They are currently developed with four single-family residences, the overall density of which is approximately 2.2 du/acre. In addition, the property at 378 S. Halcyon Road contains a small building previously used as office space. The City Council approved the General Plan .land use designation to Office Professional (O) and introduced an ordinance changing the zoning to Office Mixed-Use (OMU) with a maximum density of 20 du/acre for mixed use developments or 15 du/acre for residential- only projects (a decrease of potential'; density of approximately 9 units for the 1.8-acre site). This would make the area more compatible with the zoning and land use designations of properties immediately to the north and. to: the east across S. Halcyon Road. Since the MFV is a residential district there are; no opportunities for office professional uses or mixed use development that would better! facilitate the development of medical support and auxiliary office uses in a location directly adjacent to Arroyo Grande Community Hospital. - - _ _ ; _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ Frer I~, nerrsi 7~atE~ - ~ f Fr..n A1F ,c JMU j ~ ~ " - ~ ~ ~ Conn unfly Hospital -I y Arroya Grande . ~ ~ i Conununity Hospital . » ~ ~ ~ FAIR CJiI($: l- .~IH ~5 In order to compensate for the loss: of available housing density associated with the S. Halcyon Road project, Mr. Robasciotti's proposal to increase the maximum housing density of several properties on the west side of .South Elm Street is being brought forward for consideration in the same application. This action will preserve consistency with the certified General Plan Housing Element by maintaining roughly the same citywide .housing densities, consistent with State law requirements that the City accommodate its share of the region's housing needs. S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSIGPA106-003 S.EIm St. & S.Halcyon-Robasciottilgpadca CC112707.doc gh-3 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-005; 1) APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: LOCATION I~N THE VICINITY OF FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND SOUTH HALCYON ROAD AND, 2) APPLICANT -DAVID ROBASCIOTTI: LOCATION - IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH ELM STREET AND POPLAR STREET. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE40F6 Vicinity of South Elm Street The second portion of the proposed project is a re-designation of the properties in the vicinity of South Elm Street and 12'05 Poplar Street in order to allow for application of limited infill development on large lots abutting or near mixed use and across from or near to multi-family districts. For thirteen (13) properties on South Elm Street _w - d i~ 7 (160, 162, 166, 168, 170, 174, 178, 180, x,186, 190, ~ - 194, & 198 South Elm Street) and 1205 Poplar Street: ' ~Y o ? change the General Plan land use designation l~ k~---~~ from Medium Density Single-family Residential ~ j- z~ Medium-High Density Multi-family Residential; ~T~ d r and - ll~ .a3 L r ~ ~ 5 ? change the zoning district from ~ ~ =-~d~ , ~ ~ ~ ae,v_~.f1R~ar ~.,.t~. Single Family (SF) `lam ~ Multi-Family (MF) ; °t' ' ~~g,~~l'„;® , The properties currently have the General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Medium Density and are zoned Single Family (SF), which allows for a maximum density of 4.5 du/acre. Each property in the designated area is currently developed with one (1) single-family residence (13 total), for an overall density of approximately 5.2 du/acre. The City Council approved the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the properties on South Elm Street to Multi-Family Medium-High Density and introduced an Ordinance to change the zoning to Multi-Family (MF), which allows a maximum density of 9.0 du/acre. This neighborhood is identified in the Housing Element Update and the residential update for the Development Code as appropriate for limited higher density over time. These designations would match those of the area on the east side `of South Elm Street, directly facing the above properties. Because of this, the change would be consistent with the general';:,density and scale of the neighborhood. It would also accommodate infill housing by allowing for parcel map and/or lot line adjustment applications that would enable limited subdivision or additional units. It is estimated that six (6) of the thirteen (13) properties may have sufficient gross area to enable application for 2- unit Planned Unit Developments for smaller lot (approximately 5-6,000 sq. ft.) single family. S:ICommunify DevelopmentlPROJECTSIGPA106-003 S.EIm St. & S.Halcyon-Robasciotfilgpadca CC112707.doc CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE. NO. 06-005; 1) APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: LOCATION IN THE VICINITY OF FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND' SOUTH HALCYON ROAD AND, 2)APPLICANT -DAVID ROBASCIOTTI: LOCATION - IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH ELM STREET AND POPLAR STREET. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 6 A conservative potential of nine additional units may be accommodated by joint application for PUD development in conjunction with lot mergers (worksheet Attachment 3). ~ 1 _I , ._.r, ,t . _ - _ - ~ ~ - I I ~ ~ I ] ~ ~ - _ . ~ , ~ L . ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~,ou - i_ ~ ~ , w ~ ~ I ° - - ~ ~ _ ~ I~ - _ _ - - - z f ~ ~ .l ~ ~ ~ i _ i ~ , ~ , I _-„r: _ ~ _ . - - ~ E ~ ' i~ _ _ ~ ~ a ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The proposed Zoning amendments for both neighborhoods are being addressed concurrently because State law (Government Code Section 65863) precludes the City from ; reducing the residential density for any parcel that is below the density identified in the City's certified Housing Element unless it can be determined that sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites can offset the loss of density. The proposed General Plan amendment reduces the allowable density for. the vicinity of S. Halcyon and increases sufficient density for the vicinity of S. Elm Street. ADVANTAGES: The advantages of the proposed project for both neighborhoods include planning for infill development in areas identified as appropriate, in consideration of the surrounding areas. Regarding the proposed change in the vicinity. of S. Halcyon and Fair Oaks street, the proposal is consistent with General Plan Objective LU4 "Provide for a diversity of medical facilities and professional office uses to compliment the character and serve the population of Arroyo Grande by designating as Office (O) appropriately located areas of the City", and related policies LU4-1 and LU4-2. It will also help tofacilitate the Redevelopment Agency's goal of encouraging the transition of this segment of S. Halcyon Road to a professional office district. Mixed use will also-provide an opportunity to achieve affordable housing near the elementary school. The proposed change in the vicinity.. of S. Elm Street meets General Plan ,Land Use and Housing Element policies for the provision of a broad range of medium high density detached or attached housing types and densities within the City. Additionally, City staff will research further zoning alternatives (higher density or mixed use for a larger project S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSIGPA106-003 S.EIm St. & S.Halcyon-Robasciottilgpadca CC112707.doc ~h-5 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-005; 1) APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE: LOCATION' IN THE VICINITY OF FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND SOUTH HALCYON ROAD AND, 2) (,APPLICANT -DAVID ROBASCIOTTI: LOCATION - IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH ELM STREET AND POPLAR STREET. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE60F6 area in the vicinity of So. Elm Street j;concurrent with the required Housing Element update next year. The proposal would not preclude future modifications to the code and, since research and alternatives for the Housing Element are forthcoming in the near future, it is unlikely that foreseeable development applications would interfere with a logical land use pattern associated with potential higher intensity alternatives. DISADVANTAGES: The potential disadvantages of the,. proposed project include that future development applications may be perceived- as :;changing the nature and character of existing and established neighborhoods. However, the'pi-oposal for each neighborhood considered the benefits of .allowing for potential redevelopment and infill in areas where there are existing appropriate City services, infrastructure and adjacent similar density and uses. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with CEQA, Staff has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental impact. An Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and is included as Attachment 4. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public notice regarding the project!~;was published in The Tribune- on November 2, 2007, July 27, 2007 and September 7, 2007. Notices were sent to 111 property owners within 300' of the project areas on November 2, 2007, July 27, 2007 and September 7, 2007. Additional informational letters and notices of availability were sent to property owners, within 300' of the project areas in June 2007. S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSIGPA106-003 S.EIm St. & S.Halcyon-Robasciottilgpadca CC112707.doc ~ Q f,, U /1"~~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO: 06- 005 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 362; 370; 378; & 382 S. HALCYON ROAD & 906 FAIR OAKS AVENUE FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VERY HIGH DENSITY TO OFFICE MIXED USE; AND CHANGE THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 160; 162; 166; 168; 170; 174 178; 180; 186; 190; 194; & 198 S. ELM STREET & 1205 POPLAR STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) TO CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE MULTI-FAMILY (MF) WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan which became effective on October 9, 2001 and which includes the Housing Element adopted in 2003 and updated on March 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City has a -.responsibility to assure adherence to the General Plan in meeting the needs and desires of the residents and the community; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has conducted current initial studies and concluded that environmental impacts associated with the project will be mitigated to less than significant as:outlined in a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after public hearing, consideration of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, all testimony and evidence presented, finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate and adequate pursuant to State and local CEQA laws and guidelines including requirements per SB 18; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after. public hearing, consideration of staff report, all testimony and evidence presented, recommended certain amendments to the Development Code concerning the Medium-High Density and Office Professional land use designation for the purposes of implementation of General Plan goals and policies; and WHEREAS, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the City Council finds that the following circumstances exist: A. The proposed change in zone. and revisions to Title 16 will satisfy Objective LU3 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which requires the City to "Accommodate a broad range of Multi-Family Residential and special needs housing types and densities within the City"; and including LU11-1.4 to "restrict new urban single family, multiple family and mobile home uses to infill areas adjacent to existing developments of similar density"; and objective LU4 which states "Provide for a diversity of medical facilities and professional office uses to ~h-~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE complement the character and service the population of Arroyo Grande by designating as Office(O) appropriately located areas of the City"; and other policies under objectives LU3 and LU4, and consistent with LU11 and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. B. The proposed change in zone and revisions to Title 16 reflect that both the existing zones and proposed zones are predominantly commercial and contain historical residential use, and the promotion of mixed use will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 satisfy Section 16.36.010 of the Development Code, which states "It is the purpose of this chapter to provide regulations that implement those goals, objectives and policies, and that are aimed toward the provision of adequate and appropriate commercial areas within the City". D. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 are within the scope of the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in Accordance with CEQA. 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 the Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination. 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 gh~ S ORDINANCE NO. PAGE Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. 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 adoptedlthis day of 2007. ~h- 1 - - - ORDINANCE NO. PAGE , 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 ~D fl 'f ORDI'NANGE EXHIBIT "A" -r------ 3 i ~ ,,i U j ' Arroyo Grande i - - ~ Comrr~nityHospital { j _ _ i i ~ Faro onxs _ _ v g Area re-zoned from Multi-family Very High Density (MVH) to Office Mixed Use (OMU) - _ ~ ~ ~ - _ ~ ~-`T-- ~ I _ ~ 1 ~ r 1+ ~ ~ / i s -,I ~ f i ~ r-1 ~ ~ J - ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ~ , ~ - ~ , ~ ~ - ~ + + 1 -i i - ~ ` ` r + Area re-zoned from Single Family;Residential (SF) to Condominium/Townhouse Multi-family (MF) ~'h-tI NOTICE ;OF DETERMINATION To: ? Office of Planning and Research From: City Of Arroyo Grande 1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 550 Sacramento, CA 95814 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 or ® County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo 1144 Monterey Street, Suite'C San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 PROJECT TITLE AND NUMBER: General Plan Amendment Case No. 06-003 and Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-005 PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Teresa McClish, Actin Communit Develo ment Director 805 473-5420 PROJECT LOCATION: 1) Vicinity of NW intersection of So. Halcyon and Fair Oaks Ave.: 362; 370; 378; 8~ 382 S. Halcyon Road and 906 Fair Oaks Avenue; and 2) Vicinity of So. Elm Street near Poplar Street: 160, 162, 166, 168, 170, 174, 178, 180, 186,190, 194, & 198 South Elm Street and 1205 Poplar Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Resolution to change the General Plan land use designation for five properties at the northwest corner of S.' Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue from Multiple Family Residential ;Very .High Density to Mixed Use Office Professional; and change the General .Plan land use designation for thirteen properties in the vicinity of S. ;;Elm Street near Poplar Street from Medium Density Single-family Residential to Medium-High Density Multi-family Residential; and 2. Ordinance to change the zoning for five properties at the northwest corner of S. Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks; Avenue from Multiple Family Residential Very High Density (MVH) to Office Mixed `Use (OMU); and change the zoning for the properties in the vicinity ofS. Elm Street near Poplar Street from Single Family residential (SF) to Multi-family Apartment (MFA). STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER'~(if applicable): N/a This is to advise that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande approved the above- described project on August 22, 2006 and made the following determinations: ® C NOegative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions for ? An Environmental Impact Report ,was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions for CEQA. ? A Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines Mitigation measures XX were _ were not made a condition of project approval. The project, in -its approved form, will XX will not have a significant effect on the environment. A statement of overriding considerations _ was XX was not adopted for this project. A copy of the project approval may be examined at the City of Arroyo Grande, 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. SIGNATURE: " DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: TITLE: ACTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: November 16, 2007 ~ ~ ~~h~r3 P.KKUy° - ' - o~ I ~ INCORPORATED YZ Attachment 1 ~ n~~ ,D. ,o„ „ c~`'FORN`P CITY,., OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY'-ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title & No. General Plan Amendment 06-003 & Development Code Amendment 06-005 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The proposed project could have a "Potentially Significant Impact" for at least one of the environmental factors checked below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels or require further study. Aesthetics Geology and Soils ? Recreation i j ? Agricultural Resources ? Hazards/Hazardous Materials ?Transportation/Circulation. ? Air Quality ? Noise ? Wastewater ? Biological Resources ? Population/Housing ? Water ®Cultural Resources ®Public~Services/Utilities ? Land Use DETERMINATION: (To be completed by' the Lead Agency)On the basis of this initial evaluation. the Environmental Coordinator finds that: ? The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bel,prepared. ® Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. i ? The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ? The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless .mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed- by mitigation measures based on the earlier. analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i5 required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ? Although the proposed project could have a signittcant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Tyler Montgomery, Planning Intern Teresa McClish, Associate Planner ~'r ~ 5/30/07 Prepared by (Print) Sign ~ ~ ate Rob Strong, Community Development Director 06/28/07 Reviewed by (Print) Signature Date City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8' DCA 06-005 Page 1 ~h - I`~ Project Environmental Analysis The City's environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements. for completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study includes staffs on-site inspection of the project site and surroundings and a detailed review of the information in the file for the project. In addition, available background information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding' soil types and characteristics, geologic information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water availability, wastewater disposal services, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other information relevant to the environmental. review process are evaluated for each project. Persons, agencies or organizations, interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental review process for a project should contact the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 or call (805) 473-5420. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment 06-003 and Development Code Amendment 06-005; proposal for a change in General Plan Land Use designation for five (5) properties, totaling approximately 1.8 acres (Site 1), from Very High Density Multi-Family Residential to Office Professional/Medical and zoning from Multi-Family Very High Density (MFVH) to Office Mixed Use (OMU). Also, proposal for a change in General Plan Land Use designation for thirteen (13) properties, totaling approximately 4.0 acres (Site 2), from Medium Density Single-Family Residential to Medium-High Density Multi-Family` Residential and zoning from Single Family (SF) to Multi- Family (MF). The first set of properties-S?te 1=is located at 362; 378; & 382 South Halcyon Road and 906 Fair Oaks Avenue in the Multi-Family Very High Density (MFVH) zoning district. The second set of properties-Site 2-is located at 160; 162; 166; 168; 170; 174; 178; 180; 186; 190; 194; & 198 South Elm Street and 1205 Poplar Street in the Single Family (SF) zoning district. The property at 378 South Halcyon Road contains a building that has previously been used as office space. All affected other affected properties are currently developed with single-family houses. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 2 ~0~..i5 4 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S): Site 1: 077-204-014; 077-204-026; 077-204-031; 077-204-036; 077-204-037 r Site 2: 077-153-033; 077-153-043; 077-153-040; 077-153-044; 077'-153-036; 077-153-039; 077-153-038; 077-153-047; 077- 153~~'041; 077-153-035; 077-135-034; 077-153-048; 077-153-049 i I I B. EXISTING SETTING i LAND USE CATEGORY: Site 1: Very; High Density (VHD) Multi-Family Residential and Site 2: Medium-Density (MD) Single-Family Residential ZONING: Site 1: Multi-Family Very High Density Residential (MFVH) and Site 2: Single-Family Residential (SF) EXISTING USES: Property atj 378 S. Halcyon Rd. contains a building formerly used as office space. All other affected properties contain single-family houses. TOPOGRAPHY: All properties are relatively flat. VEGETATION: Native grasses, shrubs, trees PARCEL SIZE: Site1: 1.8 acres (78,408 square feet) and j Site 2: 4.0 acres (174,240 square feet) SURROUNDING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND USES: No?th: East: Sife 1: Professional/medical offices Site 1: Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Site 2: Mixed-use commercial Site 2: Multi-family residential South: West: Site 1: Elementary school Site 1: Multi-family residential Site 2: Multi-family residential Site 2: Single-family residential C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS During the Initial Study process, several issues were identified as having potentially. significant environmental effects (see following Initial Study). Those potentially significant items associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the mitigation City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 3 ~~-1~ measures listed below. All mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study shall be included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. , i CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL~STUDY CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS -will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant ~ will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Create an aesthetically incompatible sife open to public view? b) Introduce a use within a scenic view open to public view? c) Change the visual character of an area? d) Create glare or night lighting that may affect surrounding areas? e) Impact unique geological or physical features? f) Other Explanation. The project may encourage further development at two sites, totaling 1.8 and 4.0 acres, respectively, that are currently developed with single-family houses. While any construction on these sites may change the visual character of the areas, the sites are not considered to be scenic resources. In addition, any future project must conduct its own initial environmental study and will be subject to a determination of aesthetic impact. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not - Will fhe project: Significant & will . be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use? b) Impair agricultural use of other property or result in conversion to other uses? c) Conflict with existing zoning, or Williamson Acf program? d) Other ~h-~? City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 4 Explanation. The project is located within the City's urban core. There are no agriculture resources present on the site, nor would the project ,impact any off-site agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY -Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not , Significant & will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate any state or federal ambient air quality standard, or exceed air quality emission thresholds, as established by County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)? b) Expose any sensitive receptor to substantial air pollutant concentrations? c) Create or subject individuals #o objectionable odors? d) Be inconsistent with the District's Clean Air Plan? ~ e) Other Setting. The San Luis Obispo County Air' Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook to evaluate project specific impacts and determine if air quality mitigation measures are needed, or if potentially';] significant impacts could result. The City refers to this Handbook for all discretionary projects subject to CEQA. Impact. As proposed, the project will not result in the creation of dust through grading or construction, nor is it expected to generate significant emissions or objectionable odors. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8 will be Impact Applicable mitigated Will the project: a) Result in a loss of unique or special status species or their habitats? b) Reduce the extent, diversity or quality of native or other important vegetation? c) Impact wetland or riparian habitat? ~~-18` City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 & DCA 06-005 Page 5 i 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8~ will be Impact Applicable mitigated Will the project: d) Introduce barriers to movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or factors that could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? e) Other Explanation. The project is located on developed property within the City's urban core. There are no unique or special status species, nor suitable habitat for such species on the site. Due to existing development surrounding the site, it does not have any value as a wildlife corridor. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant & will be Impact Applicable mitigated Will the project: a) Disturb pre-historic resources? b) Disturb historic resources? c) Disturb paleontological resources? d) Other Explanation. The project is within the City's urban core with existing development. However there may be known archeological sites in the vicinity. of Site 1 (So. Halcyon Rd.) according to the State Office of Historic Preservation. Impact. The project site (Site 1) may extend into the vicinity of an archaeological site. Mitigation/Conclusion. Implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed below will ensure that no impacts will occur. MM 1.1: A Phase I Cultural Resource Study must be conducted for the project area at the time of discretionary project review or,,grading for any development or redevelopment approvals for Site 1 and such approvals must only b'e considered after implementation of mitigation measures based on the recommendations in the phase I report and the following: In the event that previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, an archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources in consultation with Northern Chumash Tribal Council. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the, consulting archaeologist and approved by the City, then .carried out using professional archaeological methods. If ~h-~~ City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA'06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 6 If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the City may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of thoes resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include but are not limited to, any of the following: (1) Planning construction to avoid cultural resources; (2) Deeding cultural resources into permanent conservation easements. (3) Capping or covering cultural resources with a layer of soil before building on the sites. (4) Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archeological sites; (5) Excavation as mitigation shall be'~,restricted to those parts of the unique cultural resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. Excavation as mitigation shall not be required for a unique archaeological resource if the City determines the testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, if this determination is documented in the environmental document. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During .environmental review for any projects involving development or redevelopment and prior to any grading and construction activities ~ 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-- Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant & will be Impact Applicable mitigated ~ Will the project: I a) Result in exposure fo or production ~ of unstable earth conditions, ~ such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, ground failure, ' land subsidence or other similar hazards? b) Be within a CA Dept. of Mines & Geology Earthquake Fault Zone? 8h-~~ i j City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 & DCA 06-005 Page 7 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8~ will be Impact Applicable mitigated Will the project: c) Result in soil erosion, topographic ? ~ ® ? changes, and loss of .topsoil or unstable soil conditions from project-related improvements, such as vegetation removal, grading, excavation, or fill? d) Change rates of soil absorption, or ? ? ? amount or direction of surface runoff? e) Include structures located on ? ? ® ? expansive soils? t) Change the drainage patterns where ? ? substantial on- or off-site sedimentation/ erosion or flooding may occur? g) Involve activities within the 100-year _ ? ? ® ? flood zone? h) Be inconsistent with the goals ',;and ? ? ® ? policies of the County's Safety Element relating to Geologic ;and Seismic Hazards? i) Preclude the future extraction of ? ? ~ ? valuable mineral resources? 1) Other _ ? ? ? ? Setting. The topographies of the project''sites are relatively flat, and are located outside of the 100- year flood zone. No active faulting is known to exist on or close to the subject property. The project is not within a known area containing serpentine or ultramafic rock or soils (i.e. low risk for naturally occurring asbestos). 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8~ will be Impact Applicable MATERIALS -will the project: ~ mitigated a) Result in a risk of explosion or ? ? ® ? release of hazardous substances (e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation) or exposure of people to hazardous substances? ~h,~i City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 & DCA 06-005 Page 8 I~ i 7. HAZARDS ' & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant & will be Impact Applicable MATERIALS -Will the project: mitigated b) Interfere, with an emergency response or evacuation plan? j c) Expose people to safety ;risk associated with airport .flight pattern? i j d) Increase fire hazard risk or expose - people or structures to high fire hazard conditions? e) Create any other health hazard or potential hazard? t) Other Explanation. The project is not located in an area of known hazardous material contamination, nor is the project within a high severity risk area for fire, nor is the project within an Airport Review area. No impacts as a result of hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. 8. NOISE -Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not. Significant 8 will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Expose people fo noise levels that exceed the City's Noise Element thresholds? b) Generate increases in the ambient ~ ~ ® ~ ~ noise levels for adjoining areas? c) Expose people to severe noise or vibration? i d) Other Impact The project is not expected to generate loud noise, as it includes no construction. I f /Yn, i V , h ~ I City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 9 9. POPULATION/HOUSING - ~wiu Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing or people, requiring construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Create the need for substantial new housing in the area? d) Use substantial amount of fuel or energy? e) Other Explanation. The project would have the potential to add six (6) additional dwelling units to Site 2 through Planned Unit Developments on','existing properties, or-if lot mergers were to occur-a maximum of 10.5 additional dwelling units to the City's housing stock. The project would decrease the density potential by a total of 10 dwelling units on Site 1. The project would potentially increase the potential building intensity for on site ~9 for mixed use capability although the potential density is decreased. Because such growth is consistent with anticipated growth based on the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR, and will occur in the existing urban core, this impact is considered to be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Will the project have an effect upon, Significant ~ will be Impact Applicable or result in the need for new or mitigated altered public services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Roads? Q e) Solid Wastes? g) Other Underground utilities a3 City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 & DCA 06-005 Page 10 Setting: The project is located within the City's urban core and is not anticipated to change the City's population. It is consistent with anticipated growth based on the City's General Plan. Above-ground utility poles exist along the opposite side'of South EIm Street, with existing connections to all Site 2 properties. Fire hydrant access is adequate for properties at Site 1; For Site 2; (haven't gotten info from B&F yet) Impact: The redesignation and rezoning of properties at Site 1 will likely increase demand for utilities. Per City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.72.090, the applicant shall pay the project's proportionate share for the undergrounding of utilities along South Elm Street. MitigationlConclusion. MM 10.1: Through fees, the developer shall pay the project's proportionate share for the undergrounding of utilities along the east side of South Elm Street. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior, to the issuance of any building permit within the project area. Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8~ will be Impact Applicable 11. RECREATION -Will the projecf: mitigated a) Increase the use or demand for parks or other recreation opportunities? b) Affect the access to trails, parks or ofher .recreation opportunities? c) Other Explanation. The project will not signifcantly increase the City's population and therefore will not significantly impact the use or demand for parks or other recreational activities. 12. TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant ~ will - be Impact Applicable CIRCULATION. -will the project: mitigated i a) Increase vehicle trips to local or i areawide circulation system? i I ~h-a~ i City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 11 r 12. TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Impact can Insignificant .Not Significant 8~ will be Impact Applicable CIRCULATION -Will the project: mitigated b) Reduce existing "Levels of Service" on public roadway(s)? c) Create unsafe conditions on public roadways (e.g., limited access, design features, sight distance)? d) Provide for adequate emergency 0 access? e) Result in inadequate parking capacify? t) Resulf in inadequate internal traffic circulation? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian access, bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? h) Result in a change in air frainc~ patterns that may result in substantial safety risks? i) Other Explanation. The project involves no construction and is not expected to generate any additional trips. This is below the threshold of twenty (20) peak-hour trips established by the- City's General Plan; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. 13. WASTEWATER -will the project: Potentially . Impact can Insignificant Not Significant & will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate waste discharge requirements for wastewater systems? b) .Change fhe quality of .surface or ground water (e.g., nitrogen-loading, daylighting)? c) Adversely affect community wastewater service provider? d) Other ~h-as City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA'; 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 12 ~i Explaination. Wastewater disposal for the project will be managed by extendin the City's I 9 wastewater collection system to the service the project: The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) provides wastewater^; collection and treatment services for the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and the unincorporated community of Oceano, and owns and maintains all of the main sewer trunk lines. All new developments are required to obtain approval from the SSLOCSD for the development's impact to District facilities. 14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant & will be Impact Applicable QUALITY -Will-the project: mitigated " a) Violate any water quality standards? . b) Discharge into surface wafers or otherwise alter surface water quality (e.g., turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.)? " c) Change the quality of groundwater (e.g., .saltwater intrusion, nitrogen- loading, etc.)? d) Change the quantity or movement of available surface or ground water? e) Adversely affect water supply? ~ 0 ~ Other Setting. The City currently receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources. Ground water extractions are derived from seven (7) wells and two (2) separate basin formulations. Surface water is obtained from the Lopez Reservoir Project, which was constructed in the late 1960's. Reclaimed storm water collected by the,; Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is also used as an irrigation supply source. The City adopted a Water System Master Plan in 1999, which identified water resources as being a significant issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water supply to increase long-term reliability of the City's water service to its residents. The report assessed potential methods to address the water supply issue and prioritized alternatives. The project is not anticipated to increase water demand for the City. 15. LAND USE - .will the project:' Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not Inconsistent Applicable a) Be potentially inconsistent with land use, policy/regulation (e.g., General Plan, Development Code), adopted to avoid or mitigate for ~ environmental effects? ~h-~~ , City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 13 ii 15. LAND USE - will the project: Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not _ Inconsistent Applicable b) Be potentially inconsistent with luny habitat or community conservation plan? c) Be potentially inconsisfent ;with adopted agency environmental plans or policies with jurisdiction over the project? d) Be potentially incompatible with surrounding land uses? _ e) Other Explanation. Surrounding uses are identified on Page 3 of the Initial Study. The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with policy and/or regulatory documents relating to the environment and appropriate land use (e.g., City's Land Use Element, Development Code, Zoning Map, etc.). Because the project involves revision to these codes, after adoption it will be consistent with them; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. - ~h-a'~ City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 & DCA 06-005 Page 14 ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I r 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not SIGNIFICANCE. - will the Significant 8 will be Impact Applicable mitigated project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major.'periods of California history or prehistory? ? ® ? i b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) r f ? D ® ? c) Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ? a ® a d) Have environmental effects ;that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a o ® o City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 06-003 8 DCA 06-005 Page 15 ~h-a~ i ~ p.RROyO 8~1¦ o j ~ INCORPOgATED 92 ' ~ MEMORANDUM * JULY 70, 1911 c4~~FOR~~P TO: CITY COUNCIL ~ FROM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ,APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (CITY MANAGER) DATE: .NOVEMBER 27,.2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the attached revised .Employment Agreement between the City'. of Arroyo Grande and Steven D. Adams and authorize an appropriation of $6,468 from'the General Fund. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approval of the Agreement will result in an -additional expenditure to the General Fund of .$6,468 in FY 2007-08. However, approximately 70°/D of this is reimbursed from other funds, largely from'the Redevelopment Agency fund. BACKGROUND: The City Council conducts an evaluation of the City Manager's performance on an annual basis. The City Manager's Employment Agreement and compensation issues are normally reviewed'. at that time in order to determine appropriate adjustments. Based on the mutual agreement of the Council and City Manager, the terms and conditions of the City, Manager's Employment Agreement have been revised to reflect a salaryadjustment of approximately 5%. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve Employment Agreement; - Do not approve Employment Agreement; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: It has been approximately 20 months since the City Manager last received a salary adjustment. As a result, .existing salary has dropped well below the median when compared to other jurisdictions countywide and compaction issues exist with Department Director salaries. To address these issues, the revised. Employment Agreement includes a salary increase and the ten percent (10%) OI-~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (CITY MANAGER) NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 separation provision between .the City Manager's salary and the next highest department director's salary has been deleted. ADVANTAGES: The proposed revisions to the, Employment Agreement assist in maintaining competitive salaries and benefits for City staff. Approval will enable continued provision of appropriate administrative and management services for the City. DISADVANTAGES: - The recommended revisions will result in a cost impact to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda describing this item was posted in front of City Hall on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received. Attachment: 1. Employment Agreement $i-~ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 27th day of November, 2007, by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a municipal corporation of the State of California (the "City"), and STEVEN DUANE ADAMS, an individual (the "Employee"), both of whom understand as follows: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City desires to continue to employ the services of Employee as the City Manager as provided by State law and the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of City to establish certain conditions of employment and to set working conditions of Employee; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of City to (a) secure and retain Employee and to provide inducement for him to remain in such employment; (b) to make possible full work productivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to future security; (c) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personal gain on the part of Employee; (d) to provide a :just means for terminating Employee's services at such time as he may, be unable to fully discharge his duties or when City may desire to otherwise terminate his employment; and WHEREAS, Employee desires to continue employment as City Manager of City; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall supersede and replace the previous Employment Agreement between the parties dated February 14, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1: Term. A. City hereby agrees to continue to employ Employee as City Manager for an indefinite term. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of Employee to resign at any time from his position with City, subject only to the provision set forth in Section 5, Paragraph A., of this Agreement. ~'i -3_ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -STEVEN D. ADAMS PAGE 2 C. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise intertere with the right of the City Council to terminate the services of Employee at any time, with ' or without good cause, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 5, Paragraphs B. and C., of this Agreement. D. Except as otherwise specified herein, Employee agrees to remain in the i exclusive employment of City and not become employed by any other employer until a termination date is effected as .hereinafter provided: Section 2: Duties. City hereby agrees to employ Employee as .City Manager to perform the functions -and duties specified in the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and as provided by State and Federal law and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as ' the City Council shall from time to time assign. Section. 3: Salary. City agrees to pay Employee for his services rendered pursuant hereto an annual base salary of $136,594, payable in equal installments at the same time as other employees i of City are paid. Section 4: Performance Evaluation. ~ City agrees to increase the base salary and/or other benefits of Employee in such j amounts and to such extent as the City Council may determine that it is desirable to do so on the basis of annual pertormance evaluation which shall occur no later than the end of October of each year. ' ~ The pertormance evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed jointly by the City Council and Employee.. Such criteria may be added to or deleted as - the City Council may from time to time determine in consultation with Employee. i V ~ r - ~ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -STEVEN D. ADAMS PAGE 3 Section 5. Resignation and Termination. A. In the event Employee voluntarily resigns his position with City, Employee shall give City forty-five (45) days written notice in advance, unless the parties otherwise agree. Should Employee fail to give such period of notice, then Employee shall pay to City as liquidated damages the sum of $40 per working day for the difference between the number of actual days of prior notice and forty-five (45) days. B. In the event Employee is terminated by the City Council during such time that ,Employee is willing and able to perform his duties under this Agreement, then, in that event, City agrees to .pay Employee a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6) months salary and benefits (limited to the following: PERS, Medical, Dental, and Vision). In the event Employee is terminated for good cause, then City shall have no obligation to pay the sum designated in this paragraph. For the purpose of this Agreement, "good cause" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, any of the following: (1) A material breach of the terms of this Agreement; (2) Misfeasance; (3) Malfeasance; (4) A failure to perform his duties in a professional and responsible manner consistent with generally accepted standards of the profession; (5) Conduct unbecoming the position of City Manager or likely to bring discredit or embarrassment to City. "Good cause" shall not mean a mere loss of support or confidence by a majority of the Council ` r EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -STEVEN D. ADAMS PAGE 4 C. In the event City at any time during this Agreement reduces the salary or other financial benefits of Employee in a ...greater percentage than an applicable across-the-board reduction for all employees of City, or in the event City ~ refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provision benefiting Employee herein, or Employee resigns following a formal suggestion by the City Council that he resign, then, in that event, Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" at the date of such reduction or such refusal to comply, within the meaning and context of Paragraph B. above. Section 6: Outside Professional Activities. Employee, with prior written approval of the City Council, may undertake outside professional activities for compensation, including consulting, teaching, speaking, and writing provided such activities do not interfere with Employee's .normal duties and are not done with-. any existing vendors or contractors of .City. Under no circumstances shall such outside activities create a conflict of interest with the duties of Employee and the interests of City. Section 7: Suspension. City may suspend Employee with full pay and benefits at any time during the term of this Agreement. Section 8: Fringe Benefits. City shall pay the Employee's cost for fringe benefits, including cost for dependents where applicable. Fringe benefits shall include, but not be limited to, medical, dental, vision, life insurance, long-term disability, and participation in the Public Employees' Retirement System. Section 9: Annual Leave. Employee shall be subject to the "Annual Leave" provisions of the City Personnel Regulations (Section XII.A.1.) with the following modifications: Employee shall accumulate .Annual Leave at a rate as designated in Section XII.A.1.a.3. of the City Personnel Regulations. U EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -STEVEN D. ADAMS PAGE 5 ` Section 10: Automobile. Employee shall provide his own automobile. City shall provide Employee a $400 monthly automobile allowance. Employee shall receive no reimbursement for travel mileage within a fifty (50) mile radius. of City; for any required City travel mileage outside the fifty (50) mile radius, Employee shall be reimbursed for mileage at the rate as set forth by the City Council Section 11: Physical Examination. Employee may receive an annual physical examination at City's expense. Section 12: Other Terms and Conditions of Employment. City, in consultation with Employee, shall fix, in writing, any such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the performance of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, or any applicable State or Federal law. Section 13: Notices. Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by deposit in the custody of, the United States Postal Services, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: EMPLOYER: City of Arroyo Grande Attn: City Clerk P. O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0550 EMPLOYEE: Steven D. Adams 1597 Chilton Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this.. Agreement may be personally served in the same manner as is applicable to civil judicial practice. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date of deposit of such written notice in the course of transmission in the United States Postal Service. ~i ~ ' EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -STEVEN D. ADAMS PAGE 6 Section 14: General Provisions. The text herein shall constitute the entire ,agreement between the parties. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties. This Agreement shall be binding. upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of Employee. This Agreement shall become effective commencing November 27, 2007. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Arroyo Grande has- caused this Agreement to be signed and executed in its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk, and Employee has signed and executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, theday and year first above written. D~~~ I ~ PRROyo 9¦~¦ ' o ~p ~ INCORPOAATEO ~Z v ° CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~ .,u~• ~o; iei~ CITY COUNCIL c~~~FORN~P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS at 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07-002, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07-005, AND APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR A HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY; APPLICANT: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION: CITYWIDE. The City Council will consider a resolution amending the Housing Element for consistency with State law and City policy, and two (2) ordinances amending the Municipal Code to revise Chapter 16.80, Affordable Housing Requirements, to establish new inclusionary housing standards and adding new Chapter 16.82, Density Bonuses, for consistency and compliance with State law. The City Council will also consider authorization to request proposals for a housing in-lieu fee nexus study. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those ' .issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to the proposal is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5450. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Wet ore, ity Clerk Publish 1T, 1/8 page ad, The Tribune, Friday, November 16, 2007 q l F PRROY~ o ~ INCORPORATED ~Z v~m * JULY f0. 1911 cQ~~FORN~P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ~c_ FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07-002, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07-005, AND .APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE NEXUS STUDY; APPLICANT: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION: CITYWIDE. DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment Case No. 07-002 to update the 2003 Housing Element regarding affordable housing requirements for consistency with State law; 2. .Introduce an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 16.80 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal.' Code regarding the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements; 3. Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 16.82 to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the City's density bonus and affordable housing incentives in accordance with State density bonus law; and 4. Authorize staff to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for an affordable housing in-lieu fee nexus study. FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is unknown what the cost of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Nexus Study ("Nexus Study") will be until after the City receives responses from the request for .proposals (RFP). It is anticipated that the Nexus Study will be funded through the City's RDA set- ; aside fund, which currently has a balance of $1,049,299. Once the Nexus Study is ' completed and an in-lieu fee is established, the City will gain revenue from pending and future residential and mixed-use projects with an affordable housing in-lieu fee requirement. Municipal Code Section 16.80.050 redefines how the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee is calculated, to be confirmed by the City Council periodically. No other financial impacts are projected from these recommendations. ~a~~ . CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: Chapter 16.80 of the Municipal _ Code (also known as the "Development Code"), Affordable Housing Requirements, was adopted by Ordinance No. 514 C.S. on .March 28, 2000, in part to implement policies of the 1993 Housing Element and State law. It provided for in-lieu fees or dedication of land for projects not including affordable housing units, and created the affordable housing trust fund. It also required that all residential development or land subdivision projects must provide for affordable housing units rented or sold to lower income or very low-income households or pay in-lieu fees. However, it has not been subsequently amended to be consistent with the 2003 Amended Housing Element policies and programs. Therefore the inclusionary housing policies and programs have not been integrated into the Municipal Code. Despite these inconsistencies, the City has required compliance with the adopted policies and programs of the General Plan on a case-by-case basis. Several pending projects in the pre-application stage may utilize these mandatory density bonus provisions, including required incentives and/or concessions to obtain additional units or to reduce City specific development standards, in addition to conforming to City inclusionary standards. In addition, in 2005, State legislation was adopted that .mandates cities to provide density bonuses and development concessions for the inclusion of affordable housing in new projects. Therefore, the proposed Ordinances and Resolution are designed to make the City's regulations consistent with State law. The City's redevelopment special legal counsel has prepared the recommended Ordinances and General Plan changes, in conjunction with City staff and the City Attorney. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Development Code and General Plan amendments on October 16, 2007 and recommended approval to City Council with the following suggestions: • Clean up the phrase "meeting with the City" on Page 6 of the Ordinance, ,Section 16.82.050. , • Make sure the information regarding the income levels and information defining the units is consistent. The Commission further recommended that the City should encourage the League of California Cities to seek legislation to refine items that remain unclear in the State law provisions. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are offered for Council's consideration: - Adopt a Resolution amending the 2003 Amended Housing Element for consistency with State law and City policy, two (2) ordinances amending the Municipal Code to revise Chapter 16.80 to establish new inclusionary housing standards and adding new Chapter 16.82 for consistency and compliance with ~'a-3 - 1 CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 3 ' State law, and authorize request for proposals for an affordable housing, in-lieu fee nexus study. - Continue deliberations on the item to a date certain; - Modify the Resolution and Ordinances to increase or reduce the inclusionary housing requirements. While, the City's requirements must be consistent with \ State law, the City Council does have discretion with regard to inclusionary requirements. - Provide other direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Summary of new requirements under Government Code Section 65915 SB 1818 (chaptered as Government Code Section 65915-65918) requires cities and counties to overhaul their codes to bring them into conformance with new State mandates (the previous law allowed fora 25% density bonus when housing projects provided between 10% to 20% of the units affordable, depending upon the level of affordability; in addition, cities and. counties needed to provide at least one "concession" such as financial assistance or a reduction in development standards). The new law significantly reduces the amount of units that a developer must provide in order to receive a density bonus and requires cities and counties to provide between one (1) to three (3) concessions, depending upon the percentage of affordable units that the developer provides (the basic qualifying definitions for very-low, lower and moderate income households are the same as those found in the California Health and Safety Code). It also imposes a new land donation rule, mandatory density bonuses for a qualified senior housing project, mandatory density bonuses for affordable residential projects with a qualifying childcare facility, and statewide parking standards. In short, the new law imposes an abundance of far-reaching State mandates for projects qualifying for a density bonus. Primary Density Bonus Provisions The number of affordable units that a developer must provide in order to receive a density bonus is significantly reduced from prior law, as follows: • If at least 5% of the units are affordable to very-low income households, the project is eligible fora 20% density bonus. • If at least 10% of the units are affordable to low income households, then the project is eligible fora 20% density bonus. • If 10% of condominium or planned development ("PD") units are affordable to moderate income households, then the project is eligible to receive a 5% density bonus. , \ In addition to these minimum thresholds, the new law enacts a "sliding scale" for additional affordable units: • An additional 2.5% density bonus for each additional increase of 1 very-low income units above the initial 5% threshold. l r CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 4 • A density increase of 1.5% for each additional 1 % increase in low income units above the initial 10% threshold. • A 1 % density increase for each 1 % increase in qualifying moderate income units above the initial 10% threshold. These bonuses reach a maximum density bonus of 35% when a project provides either 11 % very-low income units, 20% low income units, or 40% qualifying moderate income units (Section 65915 sets forth numbered charts that demonstrate the density bonus "Sliding scale" on anumber-for-number basis). Importantly, the applicant for one of these density bonuses must elect which one income category under which he is seeking a bonus. Section 65915 no longer provides. bonuses based upon the provision of combined affordability levels. Additionally, Section 65915 generally requires that all density bonus calculations resulting in fractional numbers must be rounded up for the purpose of providing a density bonus. Continued Affordability The continued affordability requirements for very-low and low income units have not changed. However, the requirements for moderate income condominium units have changed significantly. The new law specifies that the city or county must ensure that the initial occupants of moderate income units meet the income qualifications. Upon resale of the units, the seller retains the down-payment, the value of any improvements, and the seller's proportionate .share of appreciation. The Cry recaptures its proportionate share of appreciation and those funds must be used within three years to promote lower or moderate income home ownership. It is unclear whether these units must be sold at market rate, or if a local agency can limit appreciation. The City has traditionally avoided equity sharing agreements and instead have emphasized requirements that have the most likelihood to maintain affordable housing deed restrictions in place. Staff recommends addressing this inconsistency by directing inclusionary requirements at low, very-low and moderate-income affordable units that are not shared ownership. As a result, projects will not be eligible for this portion of density bonus provisions unless they provide affordable units in addition to those that meet the City's inclusionary requirements. Concessions or Incentives Local agencies must grant more "concessions or incentives" reducing development standards, ,depending on the percentage of affordable units provided. "Concessions and incentives" include reductions in zoning standards, other development standards, design requirements, mixed use zoning, and any other incentive that would reduce costs for the developer. Any project that meets the minimum criteria for a density bonus is entitled to one concession from the local government agency, increasing up to a maximum of three concessions depending upon the amount of affordable housing provided. Again, the number of concessions or incentives granted takes the form of a sliding scale: • For projects that provide either 5% of the units affordable to very-low income households, 10% of the units affordable to low income "1~"~ CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 , NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 5 households, or 10% moderate income common interest development households, then the developer is entitled to one concession. • When the number of affordable units is increased to 10% very-low income units, 20% low income units, or 20% qualifying moderate income units, then the developer is entitled to two concessions. • When the number of affordable units is increased to 15% very-low income, 30% low income, or 30% qualifying moderate income units, then the number of concessions is increased to three. There are some limits on concessions to be granted under Section 65915. The city shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city makes a written finding,. based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following: • The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted units (i.e., the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible); or • The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in the Government Code. Waivers and Modifications of "Development Standards" A local agency may not impose a "development standard" that makes it infeasible to construct the housing development with the proposed density bonus ("Development Standards" are defined as "site or construction conditions"). In addition to requesting "incentives and concessions," applicants may request the waiver of an unlimited- number of "development standards"; however, the applicant must show that the waivers are needed to make the project economically feasible. A waiver of development standards may be denied if: • The .waiver/modification is not required to make the proposed affordable housing units feasible; or • The waiver/modification will have a specific adverse impact. CP CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 6 J Senior Citizen Projects Senior citizen projects qualified under Section 65915 shall receive a 20% density bonus. Qualified senior developments include "senior citizen housing developments" with a minimum of 35 dwelling units as defined in section 51.3 of the California Civil Code or a mobile-home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to section 798.76 or 799.5 of the California Civil Code. Land Donation Additional density is available to projects that donate land for residential use. To qualify for this additional density, the land. must satisfy all of the following requirements: • The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential \ development application. • The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very-low income households in an amount not less than 10% of the number of residential units of the proposed development. • The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and , infrastructure. The land shall have appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible. No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or development application for the housing development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the .development of very-low income housing units on the transferred land, except that the City may subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local. government prior to the time of transfer. • The transferred land and the very-low income units constructed on the land will be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Section 65915, which restriction will be recorded on the property at the time of dedication. • The land is transferred to the City or to a housing developer approved by the City. The City may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to such City-approved developer. • The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the City agrees in writing, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. t~ ~ q, - 1 i CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 7 If these conditions are met, the applicant shall be entitled to a 15% increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinanc® and land use element of the general plan for the entire housing development, as follows: Percentage Very Low Income Percentage Density Units Bonus 10 15 11 16 12 17 13 18 14 19 15 20 16 ' 21 17 22 18 23 19 24 20 25 21 26 22 27 23 28 24 29 25 30 26 31 27 32 28 33 29 34 30 35 maximum This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated pursuant to other provisions of Section 65915, up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of 35%. q0~`" CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 8 Bonuses for Childcare Facilities A developer may qualify for a density bonus by providing a childcare center (not a family daycare home) within or adjacent to the development.. Where the development otherwise qualifies for a density bonus under Section 65915, and the developer agrees to include a childcare facility onsite or adjacent to the site, the developer is entitled to a density bonus in the amount of the square footage of the childcare or an additional concession or incentive if that concession or incentive contributes to the economic feasibility of construction of the childcare facility. Where a childcare facility is provided in conjunction with the granting of a density bonus, the following provisions apply: • The childcare facility shall be operable at least as long as the .affordable units are required to remain affordable; • The children attending the childcare center are required to qualify based on household income in ,the same percentage as the percentage of affordable housing in the development in accordance with the proportional affordability level; • The number of children at each affordability level must be the same or greater than the percentage required. If a finding can be made that there is sufficient childcare facilities in the community, no concession or density bonus is required to be given. Notably, the statute provides no guidance as to how these findings and requirements (some of which are inherently impractical, if not impossible, to enforce) are to be made or enforced. Parking Standards If a project qualifies for a density bonus, the developer may request (and the City must grant) new parking standards for the entire development project (i.e., not just for the affordable units or the density bonus units). The new standards are: • zero to one bedroom -one onsite parking space; • two to three bedrooms -two onsite parking spaces; and • four'or more bedrooms -two and one-half onsite parking spaces. These numbers are inclusive of guest parking and handicapped parking and may be tandem or uncovered (but cannot be on-street). Relationship Between New Density Bonus Law and Local Inclusionary Requirements Legislative history underlying the new density bonus law makes clear that .Section 65915 is not intended to preclude local agencies from enforcing their own inclusionary housing .requirements. "Inclusionary housing" is technically a separate issue from density bonuses. However, if a locality imposes the construction of affordable units through a local inclusionary ordinance, will those inclusionary units count "towards achieving a density bonus under Section 65915? The prevailing view is that ~a-9 CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 9 inclusionary units do count towards a density bonus, although both the statute and its legislative history are unclear. This is contrary to the City's prior opinion. As a result, it is necessary to also amend the City's inclusionary requirements of this time. Inclusionary Housing Requirements Inclusionary affordable housing requirements ensure that a given share of residential construction is affordable to people with low to moderate incomes. These requirements are intended to combat housing shortages and provide for a wider range of housing options in any given neighborhood. The City's inclusionary requirements (as proposed to be amended in Chapter 16.80) apply to residential projects consisting of: • new construction of two (2) or more housing units; or - • the substantial rehabilitation of two (2) or more housing units; or • the development #hat results from the conversion of two (2) or more existing rental housing- units to ownership units or-from such conversion of two (2) or more existing housing units. Such projects are required to construct on-site units, or where applicable, pay an in-lieu fee or dedicate land to provide for the following number of affordable housing units: • Provision of affordable housing units of at least 5% very-low income units, or • Provision of at least 10% lower income units, or • Provision of at least 15% moderate income units where the proposed project is planned for for-rent units or units that are not developed as a common interest development pursuant to Civil Code section 1351, or 1 • An equivalent combination as determined by the community development director. Affordable Housing In Lieu Fees Inclusionary affordable housing requirements may be met by payment of an in-lieu fee paid into the affordable housing trust fund for housing projects up to five units. Fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of the first ministerial permit and may be made for each phase of a phased project. The City currently requires compliance on a case-by- case basis and has based fees on State affordable housing and cost of construction standards. Calculating fees has been challenging due to changing standards and costs of construction and applicability to;diverse projects. The City is proposing an In-lieu Fee Nexus Study in order. to ensure the in-lieu fee is consistent and that the fee will help establish the difference between market rate and affordable units. ~a-ro CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 10 ADVANTAGES: The following are positive aspects of the proposed Development Code, General Plan amendments and establishment of an accurate housing in-lieu fee with respect to the goals and policies of the City: • The amendments will help provide more affordable housing units within the City. • The City's Municipal Code and General Plan will be in compliance with State law. • The City will have an established affordable housing in-lieu fee that will help make up the difference between market rate and affordable units. • The location and density of compact development allows for a more economical extension of public services and utilities than is possible under more dispersed development. • The location of compact development near existing developed areas enables natural features and agricultural. areas to be preserved and protected from development. • The changes make inclusionary requirements, consistent with density bonus requirement, which will simplify the process and help limit density bonuses beyond those originally intended by the City Council. • Increasing allowable densities has the potential to reduce the cost per unit, making more units affordable to more people. • Compact development generally results in lower infrastructure costs. DISADVANTAGES: • State density bonus law has the potential to increase densities beyond what the 2001 General Plan anticipated, ,which will impact public services within the City. • State density bonus law allows for exceptions from normally applicable zoning and other development standards for qualifying affordable housing projects, which could have an impact on the City's parking, setbacks, building height and other development standards. • There is potential for lower quality design with higher density projects. • The City will be paying for an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Nexus Study at a time when the City's budget is restrained. 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 finds that adoption of the Ordinances and Resolution are exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15061, subsection (b)(3), in that the proposed Ordinances and Resolution involve a proactive measure to implement recent changes in State law and does not have the .potential to significantly effect the environment. Staff further finds and has determined that the proposed Ordinances and Resolution are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan, in that the Ordinances and Resolution implement certain. programs and policies contained in the ga-ll CITY COUNCIL GPA 07-002; DCA 07-005 NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 11 General Plan Housing Element that expressly require compliance with State density bonus law. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was published in the Tribune on Friday, November 16, 2007. Staff has not received any written or verbal comments to date. Attachments: 1. Government Code Section 65915 2. Proposed Amendments to 2003 Housing Element S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\DCA\07-005 Affordable Housing update\11-27-07 CC Staff Report.doc ~a _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 07-002 TO UPDATE THE 2003 HOUSING ELEMENT REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3727 on November25, 2003 to adopt the 2003 Housing Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 3823 on March 8, 2005 to amend the 2003 Housing Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the City's Amended 2003 Housing Element (the "Amended 2003 Housing Element") on June 22, 2005; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65915 has been revised to include new State- mandated density bonuses and development concessions for qualified affordable housing projects; and WHEREAS, the Amended 2003 Housing Element is inconsistent with Government Code Section 65915, and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 07-002 will bring the Amended 2003 Housing Element into compliance with State law; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on November 27, 2007, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the. proposed amendments to the Amended 2003 Housing Element in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and finds that such amendments ar-e exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations. section 15061, subsection (b)(3) and further finds that this Resolution is simply a proactive measure to implement recent changes in State law and does not have the potential to significantly effect the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: The amendments to the Amended 2003 Housing Element set forth in the General Plan _ Amendment No. 07-002, a true and correct copy of which is on file in the Administrative Services Department and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, are hereby adopted. ~a.,~3 i RESOLUTION NO. - PAGE 2 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. q~. ~ty RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY I I r~~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 16.80 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE The City Council finds and declares: A. Rental and owner-occupied housing in the City has become steadily more expensive. Housing costs have gone up faster than incomes for, many groups in the community. B. Many persons who work in the City, who have grown up or have family ties in the City, who already live in the City but must move, or who wish to live in the City for other reasons, cannot afford housing in the City. C. Federal and State government programs do not provide nearly enough affordable housing or subsidies to satisfy the housing needs of moderate, low or very low income households. D. Rising land prices have been a key factor in preventing development of new affordable housing. New housing construction in the City that does not include affordable units aggravates the existing shortage of affordable housing by absorbing the supply of available residential land. This reduces the supply of land for affordable housing and increases the price of remaining residential land. At the same time, new housing contributes to the demand for goods and services in the City, increasing local service employment at wage levels which often do not permit employees to afford housing in the City. Providing the affordable units required by this chapter will help to insure that part of the City's remaining developable land is used to provide affordable housing. E. The City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with housing available to very low income, low income and moderate income households. The City's General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. ~a "/(o ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 F. An economically balanced community is only possible if part of the new housing built in the City is affordable to households with limited incomes. Requiring builders of new housing to include some housing affordable to households at a range of incomes is fair, not only because new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of affordable housing but also because zoning and other ordinances concerning new housing in the City should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. SECTION 2. CHAPTER 16.80 "Affordable Housing Requirements" Chapter 16.80 of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, entitled "Affordable Housing Requirements", is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety as follows: Chapter 16.80 Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements 16.80.010 Purpose 16.80.020 Definitions 16.80.030 Applicability 16.80.040 Provision of Housing, In-lieu Fee, or Dedication of Land 16.80.050 Calculation of Housing or In-lieu Fee 16.80.060 Implementation- 16.80.070 Affordable Housing Trust Fund -Deposit 16.80.080 Affordable Housing Trust Fund -Administration 16.80.090 Project Approvals 16.80.100 Regulations 16.80.120 Application To Density Bonus Calculations 16.80.130 Adjustment to Avoid Unlawful Exaction or Taking 16.80.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a continuing supply of affordable housing units to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in .all income categories pursuant to the requirements of California state law, and as outlined in the city's adopted housing element. 16.80.020 Definitions. The definitions of this section and of Section 16.04.070 shall govern this chapter. "Affordable housing cost" has the same meaning as defined in Section 50052.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, the City Council may adjust the definition of "affordable housing costs" as it applies to owner-occupied housing in the regulations, provided that such adjustments are consistent with the optional provisions of Sections 50052.5(b)(3) and/or 50052.5(b)(4) of the California Health and Safety ~GL--~ - I ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 Code. Those expenses listed in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6920, shall be deducted from the ;affordable housing costs for owner-occupied housing. For tenant-occupied rental housing, "affordable housing cost" shall ,have the same meaning as the term "affordable rent" as that term is used for each income level in Section 50053(b) of the California Health and. Safety Code. Affordable housing costs for rental housing shall include a reasonable utility allowance, as. such utility allowance may be adopted by the City Council from time to time in the regulations. In addition, the City Council, in the regulations, may adjust the definition of "affordable housing costs" as it applies to rental housing, provided that such adjustments are consistent with the optional provisions of Sections 50053(b)(3) and/or 50053(b)(4) of the California Health and Safety Code. "Affordable,.housing units" means units governed by a legal covenant or other restriction enforceable by the city restricting the availability of the units to lower income and very low income residents, which units are rented or sold to lower income or very low income households, as defined in this subsection. "Developer" means an applicant for an approval or a permit required for a residential subdivision or to construct a residential development project. "Housing unit" means one - or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with full cooking, sleeping and bathroom facilities for the exclusive use of a single household. "In-lieu fee" means a fee paid to the city by a developer subject to this chapter in-lieu of providing the required affordable housing units. "Lower income households" means those households defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Moderate Income" or "persons and families of moderate income" means those middle- income families as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Project" means a residential development or land subdivision proposal for which city permits and approvals are required. "Redevelopment Agency" means the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). "Regulations" means the adopted regulations implementing this Chapter as provided in Section 16.80.100. "Substantial rehabilitation" or "substantially rehabilitated" means the substantial rehabilitation of a dwelling unit(s) as defined in section 33413(b)(2)(iv) of the California Health and Safety Code. ~ ~0 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 "Very low income household" means those households defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. 16.80.030 Applicability of Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements. f This chapter shall apply to the construction of any new residential project of two (2) or more housing units, or the substantial rehabilitation of two (2) or more housing units, and shall also apply to any development that results from the conversion of two (2) or more existing rental housing units to ownership units or from such conversion of two (2) or more existing housing units from an exempt use to a nonexempt use. A project consisting of one (1) single family residence and/or a secondary dwelling on the same existing parcel shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in this chapter. 16.80.040 Provision of Affordable Housing, In-lieu Fee, or Dedication of Land. The developer shall meet affordable housing requirements by providing on-site affordable housing units meeting the standards set forth in this chapter, or paying a fee in-lieu of providing such housing, or dedicating land to the city to be used for development of affordable housing. Payment of an in-lieu fee or the dedication of land shall be allowed pursuant to this chapter if the city council finds that any of the following circumstances apply: A. The provision of the required affordable housing ,units on the site is impractical for physical reasons including, but not limited to, the following: utility infrastructure .limitations, traffic safety or traffic capacity limitations, site design constraints which preclude the development of the property to city standards at the density permitted pursuant to the general plan or zoning district in which the property is located; or B. The city council determines that the payment of in-lieu fees or the dedication of land will provide a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the general plan; or C. The payment of in-lieu fees or the dedication of land to the city will provide an equivalent level of mitigation to that of on-site production of the required affordable housing units; or D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a project consisting of two (2) to four (4) residential units may satisfy the inclusionary requirements by payment of an in-lieu fee as established by city council 16.80.050 Calculation of Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirement or In-lieu Fee Or Dedication. A. Housing unit projects to which this chapter applies must provide for the following number of affordable housing units: ~ q~ -~g ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 1. Provision of affordable housing units of at least 5% very-low income units; or 2. Provision of at least 10% lower income units; or 3. Provision of at least 15% moderate income units where the proposed project is planned for rental units or units that are not developed as a common interest development pursuant. to Civil Code section 1351; or 4. An equivalent combination as determined by the community development director. B. In-lieu of including the affordable housing units in-the project pursuant to para"graph A of this Section 16.80.050, an applicant for a housing unit project may meet the requirements of this chapter by payment of an in-lieu fee in accordance with fee amounts and standards adopted by the city council in the regulations implementing this chapter. Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made as follows: 1. The amount of the fee shall be calculated using the fee schedule established by resolution of the city council. 2. .The in-lieu fee required by this section shall be paid prior to issuance of the first ministerial permit, including but not limited to a grading, demolition, or building permit, for all or any part of the project. Payment may be made for each phase of a phased project before the issuance of the grading or building permit for such phase, as applicable. 3. The in-lieu fee collected shall be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund pursuant to Section 16.80.070. C. In-lieu of including the affordable housing units in the project pursuant to paragraph A of this Section 16.80:050, an applicant for a housing unit project may meet the requirements of this chapter by dedicating. land to the city when land dedication is deemed suitable by the city council, pursuant to Section 16.80.040. Such land shall be offered in fee to the city or to another public or non-profit agency approved in writing by the city. 16.80.060 I"mplementation. A. A written housing development agreement, in a form approved by the city, shall be entered into between the city and 'the developer prior to final approval of a subdivision map, or issuance of a building permit, as applicable. This agreement will set forth the developer's plan to meet the requirements of this chapter, and the city's approval of that plan. Any housing development agreement, deed restriction, or other instrument used to implement this chapter shall be signed by the applicant and by the city as parties. If the housing unit project is located within any redevelopment project area within the city,. such housing development agreement, deed restriction, or other -02.0 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 6 instrument shall be signed by the Redevelopment Agency as a party or, at the Redevelopment Agency's election, the housing development agreement, deed restriction, or other instrument shall identify the Redevelopment Agency as an express third-party beneficiary with the right to enforce the terms of such housing development agreement, deed restriction, or other instrument. B. Affordable housing units shall be reserved for very-low, low, and moderate income households at the ratios established pursuant to section 16.80.050, and shall be provided at the applicable affordable housing cost. 1. An affordable housing unit that is for rent shall remain reserved for, and occupied by, the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years. 2. An affordable housing unit that is an owner-occupied unit shall remain reserved for, and occupied by, the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for a period of at least forty-five (45) years. C. All affordable housing units (whether required by this chapter or provided on a voluntary basis) shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project; shall be proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market-rate units; and shall be comparable with the market-rate units in terms of the base design, architectural appearance, building materials and finished quality. All affordable housing units in a .project shall be constructed concurrently with or prior to the construction of the market- rate units. In the event the city approves a phased project, the affordable housing units required by this chapter shall be provided within each phase of the residential development project unless otherwise approved by the community .development director. D. If the number of affordable housing units required for a project includes a fraction of a unit, the developer shall round to the closest whole number unit for purposes of both providing affordable housing units or paying an in-lieu fee. 16.80.070 Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund -Deposit. Affordable housing in-lieu fees paid pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund and used solely to increase the supply of affordable housing units. Funds in the affordable housing trust fund may be used to better facilitate the improvement of the city's affordable housing stock as well as the provision of new affordable units. 16.80.080 Inclusionary Affordable Housing Trust Fund -Administration. Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 16.80.070, the affordable housing trust fund shall be administered under the general supervision of the community development director, and pursuant to the regulations as the city council shall adopt qa-~I ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 7 and/or amend from time to time. The community development director shall make annual reports to the city council regarding the administration and status of the affordable housing trust fund. The city council may include in the regulations provisions governing the administration of the affordable housing trust fund consistent with the provisions of this chapter. 16.80.090 Project Approvals And Enforcement. A. No new housing unit project, residential subdivision, general plan amendment and/or rezoning of land for residential purposes, or other land use authorization related thereto, may be approved unless the requirements of this chapter have been met. B. The city may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter, including but not limited to: (i) actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval, and (ii) actions for injunctive relief or damages. In any action to enforce this chapter or a housing' development agreement entered hereunder, the city shall be entitled to recover its costs, including but not limited to attorney's fees and litigation costs. 16.80.100 Regulations. The city council shall adopt regulations for the implementation of this chapter. The city council may also include in the regulations provisions allowing for the city's recovery of reasonable fees and deposits for the administration of this chapter. 16.80.120 Application To Density Bonus Calculations. In the case of a housing unit project for which a density bonus is sought pursuant to California Government Code section 65915 and Chapter 16.82 of this Code, the construction and reservation of inclusionary affordable housing pursuant to this chapter shall apply to the base number of units proposed, exclusive of the units that would be added by the density bonus. inclusionary housing units provided pursuant to this chapter, however, will only count towards the qualification of a density bonus under Government Code section 65915 if such inclusionary units otherwise qualify under the terms of that Government Code section. 16.80.130 Adjustment to Avoid Unlawful Exaction or Taking. A. A developer of any project subject to the requirements of this chapter may appeal to the -City Council for a reduction, adjustment, or waiver of the requirements of this chapter based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impact of the development and either the amount of the fee charged or the inclusionary requirement. The purpose of this section is to ensure that no unlawful exactions or takings occur as a result of implementing the terms of this chapter. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 8 B. `Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the city clerk not later than ten (10) days after imposition of the fees or imposition of the inclusionary affordable housing requirements objected to. The appeal shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim of waiver, reduction, or adjustment. The City Council shall consider the appeal at the ;public hearing within sixty (60) days -after the filing of the appeal. The appellant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support the appeal including comparable technical information to support appellant's position for reduction, adjustment or waiver. The decision of the City Council shall be final. SECTION 3: 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 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 City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. On motion of Council Member seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2007. ~a - a3 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 9 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 ~a-a~ i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 16.82 TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY'S DENSITY BONUS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE The City Council finds and declares: A. In September 2004, the Governor signed SB 1818 which significantly changed the State's density bonus law. B. SB 1818 imposes new state housing mandates on California cities in the form of required density bonuses and incentives for housing developers. The law changes both the set-aside requirements for affordable units and the density bonus. As additional affordable. units are set aside, it gradually increases the density bonus to a maximum of 35 percent. This law also provides housing developers with additional incentives or `concessions as the percentage of'affordable units is increased. It also permits housing developers to request a waiver of development standards if necessary to make a development feasible. Cities must grant the requested concessions unless certain findings. are made. SB 1818 also includes density bonus provisions for senior housing development and for housing developers that donate land to the city for affordable housing. This legislation also continued previous density bonus provisions to encourage the inclusion of child care facilities in affordable housing developments. C. In September 2005, the Governor also signed into law SB ,435. .This law expanded the scope of developments entitled to obtain density bonuses to include senior mobilehome parks, community apartment .developments, and stock cooperatives and made additional, non-substantive clarifications to the law. D. SB 1818 and SB 435 require cities to adopt implementing ordinances. Notwithstanding the city's constitutional right to control land use, this Ordinance incorporates the new density bonus provisions and establishes an implementation process addressing the incentives and concessions. required by State law. E. In accordance `with State law, this Ordinance would modify the city's existing density bonus regulations to alter the number of units that developers must agree to set aside as affordable to qualify for a density bonus and the corresponding density bonus percentages; to permit density bonuses for common interest developments, senior citizen developments, qualifying mobilehome parks, and donations of land; to authorize ~a ~ a5 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 density bonuses for affordable housing developments that include a child care facility on site; and to provide required incentives, concessions, and development waivers. F. The City Council finds and declares that the public health, safety and general welfare requires adoption of this Ordinance since these revisions are mandated by State law. G. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Arroyo Grande General Plan because it implements the General Plan Housing Element to assist in the fulfillment of Regional Housing Needs, Affordability and Special Housing Needs. SECTION 2. ADDITION OF CHAPTER 16.82. Title 16, "Development Code," of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 16.82 entitled "Density Bonuses," as follows: Chapter 16.82 Density Bonuses 16.82.010 Purpose and Application 16.82.020 Definitions 16.82.030 Qualifications for Density Bonus and Incentives and Concessions 16.82.040 ~ Continued Affordability and Density Bonus Housing Standards 16.82.050 Incentives and Concessions 16.82.060 Waiver/Modification of Development Standards 16.82.070- Specified Density Bonus Percentages 16.82.080 Land Donation 16.82.090 Child Care Facilities 16.82.1.00 Condominium Conversions 16.82.110 Parking Incentives 16.82.120 Application and Review Procedures 16.82.130 State Law Amendments 16.82.010 Purpose and Application. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish procedures for implementing State density i bonus requirements, as set forth in California Government Code Section 65915, as amended, and to increase the production of affordable housing, consistent with the city's goals, objectives, and policies. 16.82.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Chapter: "Affordable housing cost" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Affordable housing unit" means a dwelling unit within a housing development which will be rented or sold to and reserved for very low income households, lower income ~q-a~ I ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 households, moderate income households and/or senior citizens at an affordable housing cost for the respective .,group(s) in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code and this Chapter. "Affordable rent" means that level of rent defined in Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Applicant" means a developer or applicant for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, subdivision (b), of the California Government Code and Section 16.82.030 of this Chapter. "Child care facility" means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. "Common interest development" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code. "Density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the applicant to the city. "Development standard" means site or construction conditions that apply to a housing development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. "Housing development," means one or more groups of projects for residential units in the planned development of the city. "Housing development" also includes a subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code, approved by the city and consisting of residential- units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. "Lower income households" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density allowed under applicable zoning ordinances, or if a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range applicable to the subject project. "Moderate Income" or "persons and families of moderate income" means those middle- income families as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Qualified mobilehome park" means a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the California Civil Code. 7 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 , "Redevelopment Agency" means the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). "Senior citizen housing development" means senior citizen housing as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the California Civil Code. "Specific adverse impact" means any adverse impact as defined in paragraph (2), subdivision (d), of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. "Very low income households" bears the same meaning as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. 16.82.030 Qualifications for Density Bonus and Incentives and Concessions. A. The city shall, grant one density bonus as specified in Section 16.82.070, and incentives or concessions as described in Section 16.82.050, when an applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units, permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this Chapter, that will contain at least any one of the following: 1. Ten percent (10%) of the total units of the housing development as affordable housing units affordable to lower income households; or 2. Five percent (5%) of the total units of the housing development as affordable housing units affordable to very low income households; or 3. A senior citizen housing development; or 4. A qualified mobilehome park; or 5. Ten percent (10%) of the total units of a common interest development as affordable housing .units affordable to moderate income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase subject to the restrictions specified in this Chapter. B. As used in paragraph A of this Section 16.82.030, the term "total units" does not include units permitted by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any other local law granting a greater density bonus. C. Each applicant who requests a density bonus pursuant to this Chapter, shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the basis of subparagraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of this Section 16.82.030, paragraph A. Each housing development is entitled to only one density bonus, which may be selected based on the percentage of either very low Gja.~B ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 affordable housing units, lower income affordable housing units or moderate income affordable housing units, or the development's status as a senior citizen housing development or qualified mobilehome park. Density bonuses from more than orie category may not be combined. 16.82.040 Continued Affordability And Density Bonus Housing Standards. ' A. Subject to paragraph C of this Section; an applicant shall agree to, and the .city shall ensure, continued affordability of all low-and very low income units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for a period of 30 years or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Rents for affordable housing units for lower income households shall be set at an affordable rent. Owner-occupied affordable housing units shall be available at an affordable housing cost. B. An applicant shall agree to, and the city shall ensure, that the initial occupant of moderate-income units that are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus in a common interest development, are persons and families of moderate income and that the units are offered at an affordable housing cost. The local government shall enforce an equity-sharing agreement, unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. The following shall apply to the equity-sharing agreement: 1. Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the downpayment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The city shall recapture any initial- subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within three years for any of the purposes that promote homeownership as described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the California Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership. 2. For purposes of this subdivision, the city's initial subsidy shall be equal. to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, plus the amount of any downpayment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value. 3. For purposes of this subdivision, the city's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, very low-, low-, and moderate-income units in housing developments qualified for a density bonus that are located in any redevelopment project area within the City, shall remain at an affordable level for a period of not less than 45 years for owner-occupied units, and not less than 55 years for rental units, in accordance with applicable provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety,Code Section 33000 et seq.).- ' a~ ORDINANCE- NO. PAGE 6 D. Any contract, deed restriction, or other instrument used to implement paragraphs A and/or B and/or C of this Section 16.82.040, shall be signed by the applicant and by the City as parties. If the housing development is located within any redevelopment project area within the City, such contract, deed restriction, or other instrument shall be signed by the Redevelopment Agency as a party or, at the Redevelopment Agency's election, the contract, deed restriction, or other instrument shall identify the ~ Redevelopment Agency as an express third-party beneficiary with the right to enforce the terms of such contract, deed restriction, or other instrument. E. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the housing development; shall be proportional, in size, bedroom. number and location to the market rate units; and shall be comparable with the market-rate units in terms of the base design, architectural appearance, building materials and finished quality. All affordable units in a housing development shall be constructed concurrently with or prior to the construction of the market-rate units. In the event the city approves a phased project, the affordable units required by this Chapter shall be provided within each phase of the residential development unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. F. Applicants receiving density bonuses shall use best efforts to provide a substantial proportion of any affordable housing units in the housing development to citizens residing or employed within the city. 16.82.050 Incentives and Concessions. A. An applicant for a density bonus may also submit to the city a proposal for specific incentives or concessions in exchange for the provision of affordable housing units in accordance with this Chapter. The applicant may also request a meeting with the city's Director of Community Development to discuss such proposal. The city shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following: 1. The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in Section 16.82:040 (i.e., the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units , economically feasible); or 2. The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact. B. If the conditions of Section 16.82.030 and paragraph A of this Section 16.82.050 are met by an applicant, the city may grant an applicant applying for incentives or concessions the following number of incentives or concessions: 1. One incentive, or concession for housing developments that include: At least ten percent (10%) of the, total units affordable to lower income households; or at least five percent (5%) of the total units affordable to very low income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 7 units affordable to persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. 2. Two incentives or concessions for housing developments that include: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total units affordable to lower income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total units affordable to very low income households; or at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units affordable to persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. 3. Three incentives or concessions for housing developments that include: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total units for lower income households; or at least fifteen percent (15%) for very low income households; or at least thirty percent (30%) for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. C. For the purposes of this Chapter, available concessions or incentives may include any of the following: 1. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the California Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. 2. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing development if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located. 3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the city that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. 4. For purposes of this Chapter, the parking ratios set forth in Government Code section 65915 (and Section 16.82.110 of this Chapter) for qualified affordable housing projects shall be deemed a concession or incentive available to the applicant.- D. This Section 16.82.050 does not limit. or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development, including the provision of publicly-owned land, by the city or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. Nor does any provision of r~ 1 t ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 8 this section require the city to grant an incentive or concession found to have a specific adverse impact. E. The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan .amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. F. Applicants seeking a condominium conversion may apply for either a density bonus or an incentive of equivalent financial value (as that term is defined in Government Code section 65915.5) in accordance with Section 16.82.100 of this Chapter and Government Code section 65915.5. G. The application and review process for a proposal of incentives and concessions is set forth in Section 16.82.120. 16.82.060 Waiver/Modification of Development Standards. A. Applicants may, by application, seek a waiver, modification or reduction of development standards that will otherwise preclude or inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on specific sites in a housing development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this Chapter. The applicant may also request a , meeting with the city to discuss such request for waiver/modification. In order to obtain a waiver/modification of development standards, the applicant shall show that (i) the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible, and (ii) that the development standards will have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development meeting the criteria of Section 16.82.030, paragraph A, at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this Chapter. B. Nothing in this Section 16.82.060 shall be interpreted to require the city to waive, modify or reduce development standards if the wavier, modification or reduction would have a specific adverse impact. - C. .The application and review process for awaiver/modification of development standards is set forth in Section 16.82.120. 16.82.070 Specified Density Bonus Percentages. A. Only housing developments consisting of five (5) or more dwelling units are eligible for the density bonus percentages provided by this Section 16.82.070. The amount of density bonus to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in Section 16.82.030, paragraph A. B. For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (1) of paragraph (A) of Section 16.82.030, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: ~1a-3~. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 9 Percentage Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 20 11 21.5 12 23 13 24.5 14 26 15 27.5 17 30.5 18 32 19 ~ 33.5 20 35 maximum C. For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (2) of paragraph (A) of Section 16.82.030, the densit bonus shall be calculated as follows: Percentage Very Low Income Percentage Density Bonus Units 5 20 6 22.5 7 25 8 27.5 9 30 10 32.5 11 35 maximum D. For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph (A) of Section 16.82.030, the density bonus shall be twenty percent (20%). E. For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (5) of paragraph (A) of Section'~.16.82.030, the density bonus shall be calculated as follows: ~1a -33 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 10 Percentage Moderate Income Percentage Density Bonus Units 10 5 11 6 12 7 13 8 14 9 15 ~ 10 16 11 17 12 18 13 19 14 20 15 21 16 22 17 23 18 24 19 25 20 26 21 ' 27 ~ 22 28 23 29 24 30 25 31 26 32 27 9a ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 11 33 28 34 29 35 30 36 31 37 32 38 33 39 34 40 35 maximum F. An applicant may elect to accept a lesser percentage of density-bonus than that to which the applicant is entitled under this Chapter. All density bonus calculations resulting in a fractional number shall be rounded upwards to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning. change, or other discretionary approval. G. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are located. H. The application and review process for a density bonus as provided by this section is set forth in Section 16.82.120. 16.82.080 Land Donation. A. When an applicant for a tentative map, subdivision map, parcel map,. or other residential development approval donates land to the city as provided for in this Section 16.82.080, the applicant shall be entitled to a fifteen percent (15%) increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire housing development, as follows: Percentage Very Low Income Percentage Density Bonus Units ~ (Based upon maximum density allowed on .donated land) 10 15 ~Q'35. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 12 11 16 12 17 13 18 14 19 15 20 16 21 17 22 18 23 19 24 20 25 - 21 26 22 27 23 28 24 29 ~ 25 30 26 31 27 32 28 33 29 34 30 35 maximum This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by Section 16.82.030, up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of thirty-five percent (35%), if an applicant seeks both the increase required pursuant to this section and Section 16.82.030. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Nothing in this section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the city's authority to require an .applicant to donate land as a condition of development. ~a -3~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 13 B. An applicant shall be eligible for the increased density bonus described in this section if the city is able to make all the following conditions and findings: 1. The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or date of approval of the residential development application. 2. The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the number of residential units of the proposed development. 3. The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least forty (40) units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The .land shall have appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible. No later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or date of approval of the development application for the housing development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of very low income housing units on the transferred land, except that the city may subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of Government Code Section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local government prior to the time of transfer. 4. The transferred land and the very low income units constructed on the land will be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with this Chapter, which restriction will be recorded on. the property at the time of dedication. 5. The land is transferred to the city or to a housing developer approved by the city. The city may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to such city-approved developer, including but not limited to the Redevelopment Agency. 6. The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the city agrees in writing, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. C. The application and review process for a donation of land and related density bonus is set forth in Section 16.82.120. g~,-37 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 14 16.82.090 Child Care Facilities. A. When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that includes affordable units as specified in Section 16.82.030 and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to such housing development, the city shall grant either of the following if requested by the applicant. 1. An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to `or greater than- the amount of square feet in the child care facility. 2. An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. B. A housing development shall be eligible for the density bonus or concession described in this section if the city, as a condition of approving the housing development, requires all of the following to occur: 1. The child care facility will remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the affordable housing units are required to remain affordable pursuant to Section 16.82.040. 2. Of the children who attend the child care facility, the percentage of children of .very low income households, lower income households, or moderate income households shall be equal to or greater than the percentage of affordable housing units that are proposed to be affordable to very low, income households, lower income households, or moderate income households. 3. Notwithstanding any requirement of this Section 16:82.090, the city shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession fora .child care facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the community already has adequate child care facilities. C. The application and review process fore. the provision of child care facilities and related density bonus or concessions or incentives is set forth in Section 16.82.120. 16.82.100 Condominium Conversions. Any applicant seeking to convert apartments into condominiums may receive a density bonus or incentives of equivalent financial value (as that term is defined in Government Code section 65915.5) upon an application made in conjunction with its map application pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, this code and consistent with Government Code section 65915.5. Any appeal of any density bonus or incentive of equivalent financial value or review by the Planning. Commission to the City Council shall automatically require an appeal of the underlying map to that body. An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives. under this Section 16.82.100 if the apartments qa -3~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 15 proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives or concessions were provided under Government Code section 65915. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. 16.82.110 Parking Incentives. A. Housing developments meeting any of the criteria of Section 16.82.030, paragraph A, shall be granted the following maximum parking ratios, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, which shall apply to the entire development, not just the restricted affordable units, when requested in writing. by an applicant: 1. Zero to one bedroom dwelling unit: one onsite parking space; 2. Two to three bedrooms dwelling unit: two onsite parking spaces; 3. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. B. If the total number of spaces required results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. 16.82.120 Application and Review Procedures. A. A written application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or modification pursuant to this Chapter shall be submitted with the first application for approval of a housing development and processed concurrently with ,all other applications required for the housing development. The application shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the city and shall include at least the following information: ~ 1. Site plan showing total number of units, number and location of affordable housing units, and number and location of proposed density bonus units. 2. Level of affordability of affordable housing units and proposals for. ensuring affordability. 3. Description of any requested incentives, concessions, waivers or modifications of development standards, or modified parking standards. The application shall include evidence that the requested incentives and concessions are required for the provision of affordable housing. costs and/or affordable rents, as well as evidence relating to any other factual findings required under Section 16.82.050. 4. If a density bonus or concession is requested in connection with a land donation, the application shall show the location of the land to be dedicated and provide evidence that each of the findings included in Section 16.82.080 can be made. ~Q'~~~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 16 5. If a density bonus or concession/incentive is requested fora .childcare facility, the application shall show the location and square footage of the child care facilities and provide evidence that each of the findings included Section 16.82.090 can be made. B. An application for a density bonus, incentive or concession pursuant to this Chapter shall be considered by and acted upon by the approval body with authority to approve the housing development and subject to the same administrative appeal procedure, if any. In accordance... with state law, neither the granting of a concession, incentive, waiver, or modification nor -the granting of a density bonus shall be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning- change, variance, or other discretionary approval. C. For housing developments requesting a waiver, modification or reduction of a development standard, an application pursuant to this subdivision shall be heard by the city planning commission. A public hearing shall be held by the planning commission and the commission shall issue a determination. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the planning commission shall approve the requested waiver/modification or reduction of development standards, unless one of the following conditions applies: 1. The waiver/modification is not required to make the proposed affordable housing units feasible; or 2. The waiver/modification will have a specific adverse impact. The decision of the city planning commission may be appealed to the city council within fourteen consecutive calendar days of the date the decision is made in the manner provided in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. D. Notice of any city determination pursuant to this section shall be provided to the same extent as required for the underlying development approval. 16.82.130 State Law Amendments. This Chapter implements the laws for density bonuses and other incentive and concessions available to qualified applicants under Government Code Sections 65915- 65918. In the event these Government Code sections are amended, those amended provisions shall be incorporated into this Chapter as if fully set forth herein. Should any inconsistencies exist between the ..amended State law and the provisions set forth in this Chapter, the amended State law shall prevail SECTION 3. Any provision of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. 9a_~a ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 17 SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court .of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be .published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. On motion of Council Member seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2007. -/~-"7~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 18 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 ~~a R - ~ - - ' ATTACHMENT 1 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 65915. (a) When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city; county, or city and county, that local government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of housing units and child care facilities as prescribed in this section. All cities, counties, or cities and counties shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented. (b) (1) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall !be as specified in subdivision (g), and incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), when an applicant for a. housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units. permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following: (A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) Five percent of the total units of a housingdevelopment for very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (C) A senior citizen housing development as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code, or mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older. persons.. : pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the CiviF Code. (D) Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Section .1351 of the Civil Code for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in'Section 50093 of the. Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase..- (2) For purposes of calculating the. amount of the density bonus pursuant to subdivision (f), the applicant who requests a density bonus pursuant to this subdivision shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the basis of subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1). (c) (1) An applicant shall agree to, and, the. city, county, or city - and county shall ensure, continued affordability of all low-and-very low income units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 30 years or a longer'period of time if required by . the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Rents for the lower ; income density bonus units shall'be set at an affordable rent as defined in Section 50053 of the Health. and Safety. Code. Owner-occupied units shall be available at an affordable housing. cost as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health, and Safety,Code. (2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure that, the initial occupant of the moderate-income units that are directly related to the. receipt of the density bonus in the common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, are persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety_Code, and that the units are offered at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is defined in Section 50052:5 of the Health and Safety Code. ~a - y3 r (C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development., (3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses #o grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily. mitigate or' avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse. impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, that shall' include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall also establish procedures for: waiving or modifying development and zoning standards that would otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on specific sites. These procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such items as minimum lot size, side yard setbacks, and placement of public works improvements. (e) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. An applicant may submit to a city, county; or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court fnds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attomey's fees and , costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have. a specific, adverse. impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall. be .interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed. in the California Register of Historical Resources. (f) The applicant shall show that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. (g) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by. the applicant to -~ly - 16 11 17 12 18 13 19 14 20 15 21 16 22 17 23 18 24 19 25 20 26 21 27 22 28 23 29 24 30 25 31 26 32 - 27 33 28 34 29 35 30 36 31 37 32 38 33 39 34 40 35 (5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall. not be interpreted, in'and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. As used in subdivision (b), "total units" or "total dwelling units" does not include units permitted by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law. granting a greater density bonus: The density bonus provided by this section shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. (h) (1) When an applicant fora entative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential development approval donates.land. to a city, county, or city and county a§ provided for in this subdivision, the applicant shall be entitled to a 15-percent increase above the , otherwise maximum allowable. residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire development, as follows: Percentage Very Low Percentage Density Bonus ; Income 10 15' 11 16 12 17 13 ;,18 14 19 15 20 16 21 ~;~5. 9~ the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the developer. (F) The transferred land shall be within the boundary. of the proposed development or, if the local agency agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. (i) (1) When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of subdivision (b) and includes a child care facility that will be located,on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to,-the project, the city, county, or city and county shall grant either of the following: (A) An additional density bonus! that is an amount of square feet- - of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility. (B) An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. (2) The city, county, or city and'county shall require, as a condition of approving the housing development, that the following occur: (A) The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable. pursuant to subdivision (c). (B) Of the children who attend the child- care facility, the children of very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that. are required for very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income pursuant to subdivision (b). - (3) Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, a city, county, or a city and county shall:not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds, : , based uponsubstantial.evidence that the community has adequate child care facilities.. ~ ` ~ _ , - (4) "Child care facility," as used in this section, means a child . - day care facility other than a family day, care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools; extended day care . facilities, and schoolage child care centers.: _ (j) "Housing development," as used in this section, means one, or' , more groups ofprojects for residential units constructed in ,the: ; planned development of a city, county, or city and county. For the purposes of this section, "housing development" also includes a . subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, approved. by a city, county, or city and county and consists of residential units or unimproved residential .lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and. convert . , an existing commercial building to residential use or the. substantial.,. ; rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result of the . rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the , residential units do not have to be based. upon individual subdivision, maps. or parcels. The density bonus shall: be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households! are located. g a ''~~0 j (2) If the total number of parking' spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite'parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through onstreet parking. (3) This subdivision shall apply to a development that meets the requirements of subdivision (b) but only at the request of the applicant. An applicant may request additional parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this section, subject to subdivision (d). 65915.5. (a) When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to persons and families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code; or 15 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to lower income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health- and Safety Code; and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by a city, caur3ty, or city and county pursuant to this section, the city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. A city, county, or city and county may place such- reasonable conditions on the granting of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value as it finds appropriate, including, but not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income households. (b) For purposes of this section; "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion. (c) For purposes of'this section, "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require a city, county, or , city and county to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements which the city, county, or city and county might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval (d) An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal pursuant to this section prior to the , submittal of any formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section. (e) Nothing in this section shall, be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to approve a proposal to convert j apartments tocondominiums. (f) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other , incentives under this section if the apartments'proposed for conversion constitute a housing :development for which a density bonus or other incentives were provided under Section 65915. ~a-y7 i ii ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF i4RROY0 GRANDE HOUSING ELEMENT ~ ~ ,r, ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ i ~'s ti 1 4 ~ - 7 9 ~~.1 Adopted No vemb er 25, 2003 Amended by Resolution No. 3823 on March 8, 2005] Prepared by the Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ` (805) 473-5420 www. arro yogrande. orq i 9a-48 i CITY OF ARROYO ~ RANDE City Council Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold Jim Dickens I' Jim Guthrie Planning Commission Tim Brown, Chair Chuck Fellows John Keen Nanci Parker Doug Tait Department of Community Development. Rob Strong, Community Development Director Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner Teresa McClish, Contract Associate Planner Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman, Contract Assistant Planner Local Housing Task Force Larry Anderson Fred Baur Roy Berger i I Jerry Bunin Michael Byrd Carol Hatley Lenny Jones Michael Leon Mark London ~ Wayne Philips j Sid Richardson Hal Rosen Steve Sanders Gene Stephens ii 9a-49 i ' TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION PAGE NO. 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Relationship to City General Plan 1 1.3 Organization of Housing Element 2 1.4 Public Participation 2 1.5 Summary of Key Housing Issues 3 CHAPTER 2 - GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2.1 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 5 2.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives 27 CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Introduction 29 3.2 Demographic Overview 29 Population Growth 29 Household Data 32 Incomes 34 Employment 35 3.3 Housing Characteristics 36 Types of Housing 36 Rental and Owner-occupied Units 37 .Vacancy Rates 37 Overcrowded Units........... 37 i Age of Housing Units 38 Condition of Units 39 Housing Prices..... 39 ' Rental Unit Rates 40 CHAPTER 4 - REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS, AFFORDABILITY AND SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS 4.1 Regional Housing Needs'Determinations 42 4.2 Housing Affordability 45 4.3 Special Housing Needs Groups 49 Elderly/Senior Households 49 Female Heads of Households 50 Large Families 50 ' Farmworker Households 50 ' Disabled Persons/Households........... 51 Homeless 51 Workforce Housing 52 4.4 At Risk Housing Units 53 iii 9a-50 CHAPTER 5 - LAND AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Land Availability 54 5.2 Public Services & Utilities to Serve Residential Development... 65 5.3 Constraints to Housing Development 66 Government Constraints 66 Environmental Constraints 80 Non-Governmental Constraints 81 5.4 Local Housing Funds 83 i; 5.5 Energy Conservation Opportunities and Programs 83 84 ' S.6 Current and Past Housing' Efforts........... 5.7 General Plan Consistency 92 APPENDIX A -PERSONS CONSULTED 93 APPENDIX B -BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 I i I f I I i iv 9a-51 _ List of Tables Table 1 Population Growth 1990-2000 29 Table 2 Tenure by Household Size 32 Table 3 Tenure by Age of Householder 33 Table 4 Households by Type 34 Table 5 Employed Civilian Population 16 Years and Older........... 35 ~ Table 6 Industry 36 Table 7 Total Housing Units 37 Table 8 Year Structure Built 39 Table 9 Home Prices 40 Table 10 Income Group 43 ~ Table 11 Income Distribution by Households 43 Table 12 Units By Income Category....... 44 Table 13 Income Limits....... 45 Table 14 Affordable Housing Standards-Rents and Sales Prices..... 46 Table 15 Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory 55 Table 16 Village Core Downtown. District. (VCD) 62 Table 17 Village Mixed Use District 64 Table 18 Urban Land Use Element 70 Table 19 City Community Development Department Fee Schedule... 72 Table 20 Residential Site Development Standards 75 Table 21 Permit Processing Timeline 80 List of Maps Map 1 -Regional Map 30 Map 2 -Local Map 31 Map 3 -Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory 60 v 9a-52 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and provide: a) An analysis of existing and projected housing needs; b) a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives and financial resources and c scheduled ro rams for the reservation im rovement p 9 p P and development of housing. The State Legislature, in its adoption of planning law, has set forth the following policies toward the provision of housing: • The availability of housing is of vital importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm workers, is a priority of the highest; order. • The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the needs of Californians of all economic levels. • The provision of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. • Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. • The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs. The purpose of this document is to comply with Article 10.6 (as amended) of the State Planning Law and to meet the guidelines set forth for the implementation of Article 10.6. This document, upon adoption, will replace the Housing Element adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande on June 22, 1993. This Housing. Element includes all of the following information as required by State law: • Specific goals, measurable objectives, policies and implementation measures. • Information about the existing. housing stock, covering such items as the amount, type, cost, tenure, and structural conditions of the units. Other areas of concern include overcrowding and the needs of special subgroups of the population. • An .analysis of potential barriers to housing production, including both governmental and non-governmental constraints. • Information about energy conservation opportunities in housing. • A summary of the past housing efforts and an analysis of their success or failure. 1.2 Relationship to City General Plan Housing elements are one of seven elements of the General Plan that every California city and county is required by State law to prepare. Under State law, a General Plan must function as an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of 1 9a-53 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) values. The housing, land use and- circulation elements form the heart of a community strategy to promote orderly growth and provide housing for all economic segments. State law is more specific about the content of housing elements than any other portion of the general plan. The housing element is also the only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates. It is the only element that is legally subject to review and "certification" by the State. 1.3 Organization of Housing Element , As noted above, the intent of this Housing Element update is to meet the statutory requirements of State housing law. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the laws and its relationship to the General Plan..Chapter 2 is the heart of the document, setting forth all the goals, policies, programs and objectives for housing in Arroyo Grande. Chapter 3 describes relevant demographics concerning housing needs and issues in the City, while Chapter 4 discusses the regional housing needs. Finally, Chapter 5 provides an overview of the City's land availability, public services, constraints to housing development, as well as a review of past housing efforts as provided in the 1993 Housing Element. 1.4 Public Participation Housing issues affect the entire community, including residents, employers, and the public and private sectors. The public participation requirement of the housing element law presents an opportunity to engage constituents in a discussion, defining overall housing needs and constraints, as well as problems and the creation of solutions. The inclusion of community stakeholders in the housing element public participation process helps ensure appropriate housing strategies are more efficiently and effectively developed, implemented and evaluated. To address the public participation requirement, the City Council appointed a Local Housing Task Force (LHTF) to address housing issues in the City. The LHTF comprised a number of stakeholders. in the community, including a representative of the building industry, two small builders, two representatives of the realty industry, a representative of the financial industry, a representative of the housing authority, two major employers (a school district representative and a hospital administrator), as well as several citizens at large, including a resident with special experience with developing affordable housing. The overall purpose of the LHTF was to formulate strategies and provide preliminary recommendations for the Housing Element to the Planning Commission and City Council, and fo help build consensus on policy direction. ~ Beginning in November of 2002, the :LHTF conducted roughly twelve (12) public workshops to address housing issues in the City. Each of these workshops was publicly noticed and was open to the. public. The LHTF selected several sub-committees to address specific issues related to housing needs, which included work force housing, special needs housing, constraints to housing, and well as a review of financial resources. The sub-committees prepared reports that were presented to the LHTF as a whole. The main work product from the LHTF was the preparation of recommendations regarding goals and polices addressing housing needs that could result in the II preparation of programs. The LHTF, in May of 2003, presented its recommendations in a report to the Planning Commission. In addition to the LHTF meetings, were several 2 9a-54 I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) joint hearings and workshops with the LHTF and the Planning Commission to review information and reports that had been. generated by staff and consultant during the review process. Once the LHTF had completed and submitted its report, the Planning Commission held a number of workshops to consider the LHTF recommendations and to provide direction to City staff in the preparation of the draft Housing Element. This process resulted in the preparation of the draft Housing Element. Subsequent hearings were conducted that resulted in the refinement and adoption of a final Housing Element. After a series of public workshops with the LHTF and numerous public hearings by the Planning Commission, the Commission by Resolution No. 03-1907, recommended City Council adoption of the 2003 Housing Element. On November 25, 2003, the City Council considered and adopted the 2003 Housing Element. This Housing Element was submitted to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and certification prior to the December 30, 2003 statutory deadline. HCD review comments were received March 18, 2004, and City draft responses resubmitted to HCD on May 19, 2004. Additional HCD review and comments were addressed b the Cit in su lemental Y Y Pp information submitted on August 17, September 7 and 28, October 14, and November j 11, 2004. By letter dated December 30, 2004, HCD indicated that the 2004 "revisions i to Arroyo Grande Housing Element, along with the supplemental information, adequately addressed the statutory requirements described in the March 18, 2004 review. As stated in the HCD review letter of December 30, 2004: "Once the revisions have been adopted and submitted to the Department for review, Arroyo Grande will be in full compliance with housing element law". This amended Housing Element, considered at public hearing by the Planning Commission on February 1, 2005 and adopted by the City Council after public hearing on February 22, 2005 is an official component of the 2001 General Plan Update. 1.5 Summary of Key Housing Issues Arroyo Grande is one of several cities in San Luis Obispo County that is being affected by housing pressures and is in need of housing to address the needs of the region. Some of the key housing issues affecting the county and the City of Arroyo Grande are highlighted below. i • The key housing issue that has been identified in the preparation of the housing element is that of affordability of housing. In the late 1990's, housing costs started to increase dramatically, as represented by the 1990 and 2000 Census data. Since 2000, the issue of affordability has become a significant regional economic and social issue for the viability of the City and the County. Currently, less than 20 percent of those residents seeking housing can afford a median priced housing unit. Rents have also significantly increased. The increase in sales prices and rents has increased at a rate that is significantly higher than that 3 9a-55 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) of incomes. Expectations are that this issue will continue into the near future. There is and will be a need to provide substantially more affordable housing in the City and the County. • There has been a lack of affordable housing constructed in the City. Almost all housing constructed has been market rate housing. Most of the housing constructed has been single-family detached dwelling units. Very few new condominium or multifamily projects have been proposed by private builders during the last ten (10) years.. • The stock of affordable multi-family housing in the City needs to be increased to address housing needs, especially for low and very-low income households. • One. of the key issues affecting affordable housing construction is the price of land, both unimproved and improved. In many cases, the price of land itself is at a level that significantly affects the cost of housing, including multi-family housing units. This is especially important when.dealing with the provision of low and very-low housing units. • In addition to the cost of land, there are a number of issues that affect the production of affordable housing. Many of these involve limited City resources, including financing, insurance and liability, adequate local services, and an already strained infrastructure.. These are more specifically described in the constraints analysis in Chapter 5. • In addition to local financial resources, th. a level of State and federal grants and funds to support the construction of affordable housing is decreasing. Those j funds that are .available seem to be oriented to larger metropolitan areas of the State. In addition, insurance needed to allow for multi-family rental and condominium housing has become very expensive. • The dominant housing choice for the development community is the construction of market rate single-family housing. There is a need to re-orient housing to that affordable to all income levels. • According to recent reports and studies, the senior population will increase in the ~ future, both for existing residents and those re-locating from other areas of the ~ State. It is predicted that there will be a decrease in families staying or locating in the area. The latter is likely a result of the increasing cost of housing and the lack of affordable units. i 4 9a-56 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) CHAPTER 2 -GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ~ 2.1 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs State law requires that the Housing Element contain a "statement of the community's goals, policies, programs and quantified objectives relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing". This Chapter describes the proposed goals, policies, objectives and implementation programs of the Housing element for the City of Arroyo Grande. Goals refer to general statements of purpose, and indicate a direction the City will take with respect to the identified housing problems. Policies are statements of the City's intent regarding the various housing issues identified, and provide a link between the goals and the quantified objectives. Programs are steps to be taken to implement the policies and achieve the quantified objectives. Some of the programs contain Quantified Objectives, which refer to the number of units that are expected or estimated ~ to be constructed, conserved or rehabilitated during the time frame of the Housing Element, January 2001 to July 2008. Goal A: To provide a continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in all income categories. Policies: A.1. The City shall adopt policies, programs and procedures to attempt to meet the present and future needs of residents of the City, and to aim at providing the fair share regional housing need allocated for each income classification, within identified governmental, market, economic and natural constraints. ~ A.2. The City shall.continue to utilize the following incentives for the production of affordable housing: a) allowing secondary dwelling units under specified cntena; b) allowing manufactured housing on legal parcels m all residential zones; c).allowing density bonuses for very low, low, and moderate-income housing, workforce housing, and senior housing projects. A.3. The City shall give priority to processing housing projects that provide for affordable housing, and lower development impact fees shall be charged as an incentive for low and very low-income housing. A.4. The City shall establish minimum residential densities that are no lower than 75 percent of the maximum densities allowed in each residential zone, with exceptions made for properties with significant environmental constraints. 5 9a-57 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) A.5. The City shall encourage housing compatible with commercial and office uses and promote "mixed use" and "village core" zoning districts to facilitate residential uses to be integrated into such areas. A.6. The City should consider assumption of regulatory control from the State for manufactured housing, manufactured home parks and mobile home parks. A.7. The City has established and applied a zoning district for mobile home and manufactured home park uses: a) Existing mobile home and manufactured home parks shall be reviewed and appropriate Development Code Amendments will be part of the update process in 2004-05; b) The City may identify additional opportunities to create more mobile home and manufactured home parks, or expand and/or redevelop older existing parks. A.8. .The City may annex land on the urban edge to promote orderly growth and .the preservation of open space. A.9. The City shall continue to enable and encourage multiple-family, rental apartments, senior, mobile home and special needs housing, in appropriate locations and densities. These multiple family residential alternative housing types tend to be more affordable than prevailing single-family residential low and medium density developments. A.10. The City shall review and revise its development regulations, standards and procedures to encourage increased housing supply. Specifically, during 2005, 2006 and 2007 the City will monitor the effect of the Conditional Use' Permit .requirements on multi-family and mixed-use development projects, and if necessary, consider alternatives to remove or mitigate these CUP requirements to facilitate such development. This policy issue will be addressed in the 2008 Housing Element Update. A.11. The City shall continue to utilize and expand the Density Bonus program to encourage affordable housing supply. A.12. The City shall establish a system to inventory vacant and underutilized land. A.13. The City shall pursue adequate water sources and conservation programs to accommodate projected residential development in accordance with the General Plan: Programs: ~ A.1-1. In addition to implementing the Water Conservation Program adopted ~ May 2003, the City shall investigate other programmatic approaches the City will undertake to address the availability of water. The City 6 9a-58 I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) shall also inform Arroyo Grande's water and sewer providers about prioritizing housing development projects for lower-income households for public services, per Government Code Section 65589.7. Responsible agency/department: Community Development/Public Works Departments Timeframe: July 2004 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Reduce water constraints through implementation of the City's "Water Conservation Program", and developing a "Water Supply Matrix". A.1-2. The City shall establish afive-year schedule of actions to implement the goals and policies of the Housing Element. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Department Timeframe: October 2004 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Timeline for implementing the programs outlined in the Housing Element A.2-1. The City shall encourage and ,publicize the secondary dwelling program to increase public awareness. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: March 2005 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Develop information brochure to include with the City's "Stagecoach Express" newsletter (distributed quarterly) and to have available at the Community Development front counter. Expected outcome is increased production of secondary units as an affordable housing alternative. i A.2-2. The City shall reduce impact fees for the construction of second dwellings. Responsible agency/departments: City Manager/ Finance/ Community Development Timeframe: January -July 2004 Funding: General Fund 7 9a-59 _ J City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Expected Outcome: Reduction in impact fees for second dwellings adopted as part of the Fee Schedule review and update. A.4-1. The City shall initiate a Development Code Amendment to establish a minimum residential density of 75 percent of the maximum densities allowed in each residential zone, with exceptions made for properties with significant environmental constraints as determined through the CEQA process. Responsible agency/departments: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: More residential properties will be ~ developed to their full development potential. A.5-1. The Development Code Update shall include minimum residential densities for properties zoned Office and Mixed Use. Exceptions shall be allowed for properties with significant environmental constraints as determined through the CEQA process. ~ Res onsible a enc /de artments: Communit Develo ment P g Y P Y P ~ Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund ~ Expected Outcome: Residential uses will be integrated into mixed-use developments. A.9-1. The Development Code shall be updated to encourage the use of alternative housing types, such as pre-fabricated homes, for special needs housing Responsible agencyldepartments: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased affordable housing options. A.10-1. In order to provide financial incentives for all affordable housing, the j City shall evaluate its development standards such as setbacks, landscaping, community tree ordinance requirements, parking requirements, road widths, lot coverage, floor-area ratio, open space and height requirements that prevent builders from achieving any density bonuses. Upon an application to Te facilitate greater density through a waiver of development standards, where applicable, the Development Code shall be amended to allow exceptions to g 9a-60 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) development standards for ' projects that provide affordable units in accordance with Government Code section 65915. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Process City-initiated Development Code Amendments to increase allowance for affordability. A.10-2. The Development Code shall be amended to conditionally allow residential development in the Community Facilities land use district. i Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: July -October 2004 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Process City-initiated Development Code Amendment to allow residential development in the Community Facilities land use district. A.10-3 Site Development Standards shall be established for the Mixed Use, Office, Planned Development, Specific Plan and Community Facilities districts that specify density designations. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: July -October 2004 Funding: General- Fund Expected Outcome: Process City-initiated ~ Development Code Amendments to establish density requirements. A.11-1. The City shall modify the Affordable Housing and Density Bonus provisions of the Municipal Code to implement the adopted Housing Element Amendments and State laws SB 1818 and SB 435, subject to environmental constraints per CEQA. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2005 Funding: General Fund (City initiated Development Code Amendment) Expected Outcome: Increased densities and incentives to enable more affordability and comply with State law. 9 9a-61 -City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) A.12-1. The City shall expand its Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping and planning database to create and maintain a basic inventory of vacant and underutilized "opportunity sites". Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On going Funding: ~ General Fund Expected Outcome: Creation and maintenance of a land availability inventory. Goal B: Ensure that housing that is constructed in the City is affordable to all income levels. Policies: B.1. All residential projects that receive additional densities or other City incentives to include affordable housing subject to Government Code section 65915 shall be placed into acity-approved program to maintain the affordability for at least 30 years (in the RDA~roiect area, at least 55 years for rental units: and 45 vears ford owner-occupied units)._ Any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 30 (or 55 or 45) year restriction shall be "rolled over" for another 30-years to ~ ' protect "at risk" units. For rental, housing, affordability shall be maintained through recorded agreements between a property owner and the City, its Housing Authority, or another housing provider approved by the City. For owner-occupied units, long-term affordability can be maintained by two methods: a) the property owner agrees to maintain the designated unit as affordable for the specified period,, utilizing a promissory note and deed of trust, recorded on the property, or b) utilizing an equity-sharing program, whereby, the equity share returns to the City for use in other affordable housing projects, if such a program is established by the City or RDA. Residential projects that provide affordable housing but that are not otherwise subject to!Go~ernment Code section 65915 shall be placed into a city-approved program to maintain the affordability of units for at least 55 vears for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. B.2. The City shall require the monitoring of affordable units to ensure ongoing compliance with the sales limits or rental rates established by agreement between the City and the developer. The City shall take the necessary steps to assure compliance with the regulatory agreement, including consideration of contracting with a housing authority or joining a regional monitoring agency if one is developed. B.3. The City shall establish lower fees and/or defer collection of impact fees for very low and low=income units. l I B.4. In order to allow for increased density and thus increased affordability, as well as allowing for more functional mixed-use projects, the City shall 10 9a-62 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) modify the height limit to accommodate three stories. The City shall also develop fire suppression policies to accommodate the new height standard. B.5. The City shall look for innovative ways to provide functional open space such as using courtyard design, under-structure parking or multi-purpose features. B.6. The City may establish parking districts and use of in-lieu fees where appropriate to enable additional density and in accordance with State density bonus laws at Government Code section 65915 where applicable. 8.7. Affordable housing shall not be concentrated into a condensed, identifiable portion of a development or subdivision but rather dispersed i throughout and integrated into the development as determined acceptable considering site constraints, size and design. Programs: B.1-1. The City shall establish a program for tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at;least 30 years, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 30-year restriction shall be "rolled over" for another 30-years to protect "at-risk" units. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration and Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome:. Program to monitor affordable units. B.2-1. The City shall contract with a housing authority, or similar entity, for the monitoring of affordable units to ensure compliance. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration and Community Development Timeframe: Spring 2004 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Contract agreement approved. Expected outcome is consistent monitoring of affordable units. B.3-1. The City shall modify its development impact fee schedule to charge no impact fees, excluding water and sewer fees, for very low-income housing units, and 75 percent lower fees for low-income housing units. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Administration & 11 9a-63 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Reduction in costs for affordable housing by amending the City's Fee Schedule to reduce impact fee requirements for very low and . low-income housing. B.4-1. The City shall update the Development Code to increase the mixed ~I use and multiple-family residential height limit to three stories or at least 30 feet, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet would be allowable through the Minor Use Permit (MUP) process. Responsible agency/departments: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Facilitate increased densities. 6.6-1. onohlo in_lie~ ~ foeo nnrJ 4horr+h~i onnhlo Upon proper application to the City, additional density will be enabled through the reduced on-site parking requirements prescribed by Government Code section 65915 i where applicable. Responsible agency/departments: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Facilitate increased densities. Goal C: The City shall research and identify various additional financial and other resources to provide very low and low-income housing for current and future residents of the City. Policies: C.1. The City shall establish criterion for allocating financial resources from its In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Low and Moderate Housing Fund to augment very low and low-income housing development. C.2. The City shall consider issuance of bonds to finance very low and low- income housing. C.3. The City shall aggressively pursue State and federal funds to finance very low and low-income,'housing. 12 9a-64 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) C.4. The City shall consider cooperation with non-profit organizations and other developers for loan and/or grant applications to provide very-low and low- income housing. C.5. The City shall create a list of public and private sources to help find creative funding solutions for the provision of very low and low-income housing. Programs: ~ C.1-1. The City shall allocate financial .resources to augment very low and low- income housing development based on the financial projection from the RDA housing set-aside fund and In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund for this planning period (through June 2008), as shown in the table below. FY 03-04 FY 04-OS FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total Redevelo went $80 000 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $260,000 In-Lieu Fees $800,000 $100,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $1,125,000 Grants/Other $0 $100,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $725,000 Total $880,000 $240,000 $190,000 $75,000 $200,000 $2,110,000 Funding will be used for financial incentives to developers for the inclusion of affordable units above the inclusionary housing requirements and for potential purchase of land for affordable housing development. Currently, the City has committed $800,000 to a 108-unit affordable housing project and an additional $40,000 to a second project. The City is also investigating potential properties for purchase and redevelopment. This table identifies funding projected:based upon known sources. However, this funding level is not estimated to be sufficient to address direct and associated costs of providing this level of housing without increased State financial assistance. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fund/Redevelopment Agency Expected Outcome: Funding to finance affordable housing. C.4-1. The City shall meet with local non-profit and private developers semi- annually, or more frequently if opportunities arise, to promote the very low and low-income housing programs outlined in the Housing Element. The City shall direct private housing developers to funding sources (such as federal and State housing grant fund programs and local housing trust funds) to promote affordable housing as outlined in the policies of Goal C. I Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: Semiannually starting in 2004 Funding: General Fund 13 9a-65 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of the City's desire to provide affordable housing and to accommodate affordable housing. C.4-2. The City shall participate in financial incentive programs established by the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (newly established local non-profit agency), such as a revolving.. loan program. Responsible agency/department: City Manager/Community Development ~ Timeframe: 2004-2008 Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment Agency Expected Outcome: Leverage of financial resources j to augment development of affordable housing. i Goal D: In order to provide affordable housing, especially for very-low and low- income households, a~a#~e~t multiple family and/or mixed-use development construction shall be encouraged.. Policies: i D.1. The City shall consider creating a specific land use zone restricted to apartments. D.2. The City shall relax parking standards for apartments containing qualified very low, low, moderate and/or senior housing..Upon proper application to the City. reduced parking standards for qualified affordable and senior housing may include those parking standards -set forth in Government Code section 65915 where applicable. D.3. For the purposes of calculating density, fees and other development standards in multi le famil and mixed use districts afl unit ~ is p v L^~,~ni-L I. defined as felie~s shown in the table below: ~ ii ~ r i ~ ess;~i i . ~ ' i Residential Dwelling Unit Type Density Equivalent Live/Work Unit 5 _ __e..___._..~ Studio_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _..._----_5 -__..3 14 9a-66 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 1-bedroom ~ . . _ _ _ - _ 75 _ 2-bedroom ~ 1 ! ~ ~ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ m__-._._.. 3 bedroom ~ 1 5 f 4-bedroom 2 Programs: D.1-1. The City shall encourage specific plans for land within its Sphere of Influence that include increased residential capacity for multiple-family development. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004/2005 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Possible increased land inventory to support affordable housing. ~ D.2-1. Parking requirements for apartments shall be as follows: • Studio units require one parking space; • One bedroom units require one and a half spaces; • Two bedroom, units and above require two spaces plus'/2 space for each additional bedroom; • On-site guest parking requirements can be waived or reduced subject to approval of the Community Development Director through the Minor Use Permit (MUP) process, or provided by payment of an in-lieu fee for public parking in the vicinity. • For those affordable housing projects qualifying for a density bonus and development concessions or incentives under Government Code section 65915, and upon proper application to the City-for a parking reduction, the maximum parking ratios required pursuant to t#a#-Seection 65915 shall be utilized. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Possible reduction in development standards to increase the affordability of housing. ' Goal E: Residential condominium conversions shall be regulated both to protect the City's supply of apartments and to allow more moderately priced for-sale homes. Policies: 15 9a-67 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) E.1. Apartments can only be converted and sold as residential condominiums to families earning State-defined very low, low or moderate-income levels, to the extent allowed by law. E.2. The City shall set a limit on how many rental units can be converted annually not to exceed the annual average of new rental apartments constructed. E.3. To the extent provided by law, the property owner shall .give the current residents the first right of refusal to buy the units being converted, ` providing they meet the income guidelines. E.4. Residential condo conversion units shall remain affordable through at ( i least a thirty (30.) year deed restriction, or the property owner may participate in a ``shared equity program" with the City, if such a program is enabled by the City Council. E.5 Upon proper application, the City will grant a density bonus to qualified condominium conversions pursuant to Government Code section 65915.5, where applicable. Programs: E.1-1. Prior to approving any residential condominium conversions, the City shall establish a monitoring program to ensure ongoing compliance with the affordable price controls established in the agreement between and City and the developer. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome:. Ensure the affordability of ~ conversions. ' E.2-1. The City shall not approve condominium conversion projects in any one calendar year resulting inmore units being converted than the number of multi-family rental dwellings added to the City's housing stock during the preceding year. The number of multi-family rental units added in one year shall be determined as follows: From January 1St through December 31St, the total number of multi-family rental units given a final building inspection and occupancy permit minus the number of such units demolished, removed from the City, or converted to nonresidential use. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On-going upon adoption of regulations Funding: General Fund 16 9a-68 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Expected Outcome: Control of possible affordable apartment conversions to market rate condominiums. E.4-1. When necessary, the City should establish a "shared equity program" I whereby the owner may sell the affordably restricted property within thirty (30) years of initial sale by sharing the difference in the market value to the restricted value with the City upon resale of the affordable ~ unit. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing within the City. i Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Maintaining affordability of residential condominium conversions. Goal F: The City's inclusionary housing ordinance shall be strengthened to require more affordable units in housing and commercial development projects. Policies: F.1. The City shall require housing projects greater than fives+x (56) units to ~ ' contain inclusionary .housing. The City may require payment of an in-lieu fee for housing projects containing up to fivesix {56) units. An inclusionary unit is defined as one that will meet the State's standards for affordable housing. ~ F.2. The Cit shall offer multi le o tions for rovidin the inclusiona units Y p p P g rY ~ ,~be~s. . ~ ~i i ,p ' F.34. An "affordable housing agreement" shall be required for projects subject to the affordable housing ordinance. ~ Programs: The City's affordable housing ordinance shall be amended as follows: F.1-1. A project consisting of one (1) single family residence and/or a secondary dwelling on the same existing parcel shall be exempt from inclusionary requirements. F.1-2 A project consisting of two (2)to fours (46) residential units may satisfy the inclusionary requirements by payment of an in-lieu fee as established by City Council. 17 9a-69 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) F.1-3 A project of five (5) or more residential units ° shall include at least: -1595% moderate-income units in projects for ownership units in a common interest development, or • 10% low income, or • 5a-0% very-low income1 or An equivalent combination as determined by the Community Development Director ° ° ° ° i ° ° ° F.1-46 The City shall assure that at least 15% of all units constructed within the RDA project area shall be affordable units and at least 40% of those are restricted for very low income. In order to meet this requirement, the City may require, on a case-by-case basis, projects j within the RDA to include a specific number of very-low income units. F.1-5~ For any project involving RDA--created units at least 30% of the total (including inclusionary units) shall be affordable, of which at least 50% should be very low income (on a cumulative basis or consistent with State laws. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased provision for affordable housing units. l F.2-1. The City shall consider alternatives to construction of inclusionary units on-site, such as land dedication, off-site development, or payment of in-lieu fees, subject to the City's determination that the alternative meets the need for affordable housing at least as well as on-site i inclusionary units. The (affordable housing) in-lieu fee per dwelling unit of any non- exempt project not providing for an on-site affordable unit shall be as 18 9a-70 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) established by City Council Resolution, adjusted at least annually or periodically to be fifteen percent (15%) of the estimated land, improvements and construction cost differential between market rate units in the area of the community being developed and an affordable unit restricted value of the average unit in the vicinity (or within the City as determined by the Council). Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased provision for affordable housing units. I r-urr~airr~ . AA~`~o rn I C ~ ~ ri rl / D ~c-v'civp~r°r. r'~'ri c~r,~~o~ rl~ ~4n~mo D~~~uut~tt~-ivT ' F.34-1. As a condition of development approval for applicable discretionary projects, applicants shall submit an "affordable housing agreement" for City approval. The final agreement shall be recorded and relevant terms and conditions shall be recorded as a deed restriction on those lots or affordable;unts subject to affordability requirements. The City shall develop a standard agreement form. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment ~ Agency Expected Outcome: Maintaining affordability of units. Goal G: Create clearer regulations and streamline the approval process for affordable housing projects. Policies: G.1. The City shall allow staff to grant exceptions or Minor Use Permits (MUP) for proposing minor deviations from Development Code standards. The appeal process shall be amended to discourage superfluous appeals. G.2. The City shall encourage public participation and public agency review with pre-application submittals. 1 g 9a-71 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) G.3. The City shall review and periodically amend its Development Code and design review regulations and procedures to streamline permit processing for affordable housing projects and minimize application and development review costs. Programs: G.1-1. A Minor Use Permit (MUP) application shall be processed for projects including affordable- housing to allow for reductions within ten percent (10%) of Development Code standards. Any appeal for such approvals shall equal the cost of processing the appeal and holding the hearing. The City Council may refund the appeal fee if it determines the appeal is in the public interest. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On-going upon adoption of regulation. Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Streamlining review process to reduce development costs of housing. i G.2-1. The City shall maintain a mailing list of persons interested in development projects containing affordable housing. Agendas for all City meetings related. to these projects shall be mailed to persons on the mailing list. The City shall. also post the agendas on the City's website. i Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased public awareness of affordable housing projects. ~ Goal H: Conserve and rehabilitate the City's older stock, particularly to provide affordable housing. Policies: H.1. The City shall encourage private and public financing of affordable housing rehabilitation. H.2. The City shall ensure zoning compatibility when integrating public affordable housing projects into existing residential. neighborhoods to the extent permitted by State law. Specific aAdverse impacts relating to neighborhood stability and quality of life issues shall also be considered. 20 9a-72 i City of Arroyo Grande - 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Programs: H.1-1. The City shall continue to contract and coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to maintain and expand Section 8 rental housing assistance #o qualified households. Responsible agency/department: Community Development/Redevelopment Agency Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment Agency Expected Outcome: Continued affordable housing. H.1-2. The City shall continue to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for rehabilitation of very low, low and moderate- income housing for both owner-occupied and rental units. Rehabilitation of second story: residential units in the Village Core and/or mixed use housing within the East Grand Avenue corridor shall be considered for such programs. I Responsible agency/department: Community Development/City ~ Manager/Redevelopment Agency Timeframe: On-going ~ Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment Agency. Expected Outcome: Conservation of existing affordable housing units. H.2-1. The City shall consider abatement of unsafe or unsanitary structures, including buildings or rooms inappropriately used for housing, contrary to adopted health and safety codes. Where feasible, the City will encourage rehabilitation and allow reasonable notice and time to correct deficiencies. Where necessary and feasible, very low and low income residents displaced by abatement action shall be eligible for relocation assistance, subject to Council or Redevelopment Agency approval. Responsible agency/department: Building Department/Community Development/Redevelopment Agency Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment Agency Expected Outcome:. Conservation of existing housing stock. 21 9a-73 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Preservation of At-Risk Units: City. records indicate that there are not any at-risk units in the City at this time. However, if a City affordable housing program is successful, this ' may be an issue in the future. The policies below are designed to protect any future at risk units. Goal I: Preservation of at-risk units in Arroyo Grande Policies: 1.1. The City shall establish a notification procedure to occupants of affordable housing units of conversion to market rate units. Programs: 1.1-1. At least one-year, prior written notice shall be required prior to the conversion of any units for low-income households to market rate units in any of the following circumstances: • The units were constructed with the aid of government funding • The units were required by an inclusionary zoning ordinance ' • The project was granted a density bonus • The project received other incentives ~ Such notice shall at a minimum be given to the following: • The City of Arroyo Grande • State Department of Housing and Community Development • San Luis Obispo Housing Authority ' • Residents of at-risk units Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2005 Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment Agency ~ Expected Outcome: Preservation of existing affordable units. Special Needs Goal J: To meet the housing needs of special groups of Arroyo Grande residents, including seniors, single parents, large families, and farmworkers. ~ i Policies: ~ J.1. The City shall encourage and shall seek funding to assist in the development of low and moderate-income senior rentals. J.2. The City shall permit larger group housing for seniors in appropriate multiple-family or mixed-use locations, subject to discretionary review. J.3. The City shall continue to allow small-scale group housing in multiple- family residential districts, in accordance with applicable State laws. 22 9a-74 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) J.4. The City shall encourage multiple-family housing projects that include a portion of the units with 3 or more bedrooms to accommodate larger families. J.5. The development of housing for farmworkers shall be encouraged. Farmworker housing may be authorized in non-prime lands zoned Agriculture as well as mixed-use or multiple-family residential zones. J.6. Co-housing and similar unconventional housing arrangements shall be considered in appropriate locations subject to review and approval on a case-by-case basis. Programs: J.1-1. The City shall promote housing opportunities for seniors by identifying sites suitable for senior housing and if necessary, initiating zone changes for those sites as part of the Development Code Update. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund/Redevelopment Agency I Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities for seniors. J.3-1. The City shall continue to allow for group housing. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Increased housing opportunities. J.4-1. The City shall consider residential Development Code Amendments (such as greater lot coverage and floor area ratios for residences with more than four bedrooms) to encourage development of housing to support large families. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Additional housing for large families. J.5-1. The City shall update the Development Code to include provisions for development of Farmworker housing on properties zoned Agriculture, Mixed-Use, and Apartments. 23 9a-75 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004/05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Additional housing for farmworkers. l The Homeless Goal K: To reduce or minimize the incidence of homeless in the community. Policies: K.1. The City shall consider joint powers development and cooperation agreements to develop homeless. shelters and related services, or participate in the operations and maintenance. of countywide or south county regional homeless shelter facilities. K.2. The City may enable homeless shelter for overnight lodging in appropriate zoning districts as part of the Development Code Update. i Programs: K.1=1. The City shall cooperate with other cities, the county and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services. I Responsible agency/department: Community Development/City Manager Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Continued cooperation in providing homeless shelter and j services. K.2-1. The City shall consider Development Code update to allow homeless I shelters for overnight housing; in appropriate locations. Emergency and Homeless shelters are currently allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process in all Commercial districts (GC, VC, O, HC), the Public Facilities (PF) district, and the Condominium/Townhouse (MF), Apartments (MFA) and Senior Housing (SR) residential districts. The Development Code shall be updated, to require administrative approval only for emergency and homeless shelters in all commercial districts. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome:... Regulations that allow overnight homeless housing. ' Disabled Persons 24 9a-76 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Goal L: To ensure that those residents with handicaps or disabilities have adequate access to housing. Policies: L.1. The City shall encourage housing development that meets the special ' needs of disabled persons and ensure that all new multiple family developments comply with the handicapped provisions of the California Building Code and ADA. L.2. The City shall ensure, through the design review process for multiple housing projects, that the design of the development, from parking locations, pedestrian walkways, and direct access to the housing units accommodates handicapped or disabled access. Programs: L.1-1. The Cit shall enforce uil in y b d g code disabled access and design provisions. Responsible agency/department: Building Department/Community ' Development Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome:. Provide access and design provisions for disabled persons in new housing developments. L-1.2. The City shall identify sites suitable for tenant-owned mobile-home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing or other types of housing that meet special needs. Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: 2004 - 2005 Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Inventory of suitable sites. L.2-1. The City shall amend the Development Code to provide persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing an opportunity to request ~ reasonable accommodation in the application of City building and zoning laws. Responsible agency/department: Building Department/Community Development ' Timeframe: 2004 - 2005 Funding: General Fund 25 9a-77 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Expected Outcome: Greater accessibility for disabled persons accommodated through the design review process for discretionary residential projects. Energy Conservation Goal M: To increase the efficiency. of energy use in new and existing homes, with a concurrent reduction in housing costs to Arroyo Grande residents. Policies: M.1. All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current State and local requirements for energy efficiency. The retrofitting of existing units shall . be encouraged. M.2. New land use patterns shall encourage energy efficiency. Programs: M.1-1. The City shall implement a water and electrical retrofit program for existing housing units. Responsible agency/department: Building Department , Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: General Fund/PG&E Expected Outcome: Reduce usage of water and electrical resources. M.2-1. Housing units of proposed development projects shall be designed for ' optimal solar access. The applicant shall show on the project plans how this is achieved. Responsible agency/department:. Building Department Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: More energy efficient housing ' development. i Equal Opportunity Goal N: To assure access to sound, affordable housing for all persons, regardless of race, creed, age or sex. Policies: N.1. The City declares that all persons, regardless of race, creed, age, or sex, shall have equal access to sound and affordable housing. Programs: 26 9a-78 - - i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) N.1-1. The City will promote the enforcement of policies of the State Fair Employment and; Housing Commission, and shall resolve housing discrimination complaints through assistance from HUD, and/or local, regional private fair housing organizations. The City will prepare a brochure that promotes equal housing opportunities and addresses discrimination. Responsible agency/department: All City Departments Timeframe: On-going, starting spring 2004 Brochure available June 2005 Funding: General Fund ~ Expected Outcome: Dissemination of information at the front counter of all City Departments. Housing Element Implementation Goal O: To ensure artici ation of all economic se ments of the communit in I, P P 9 Y the development of housing policy. for Arroyo Grande. Policies: 0.1. The City shall encourage the participation of all residents of Arroyo Grande in the development of housing policies for the City. 0.2. The City shall provide a brief summary of key information about housing- , related issues in English and Spanish to help ensure widespread notice to all residents. Programs: ~i 0.1-1. Prior to any public hearing where the City is considering amending or updating its Housing Element or housing policies, the City will notify all local housing organizations,- as well as social service agencies, and ~ post notices at significant locations in both English and Spanish. i Responsible agency/department: Community Development Timeframe: On-going Funding: General Fund Expected Outcome: Provide information about housing programs. Goal P: To utilize Redevelopment Agency funding to support affordable housing. Policies: P.1. The City Redevelopment Agency shall encourage affordable housing. Programs: 27 9a-79 I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) P.1-1. The City Redevelopment Agency shall develop a program whereby their housing set-a-side funds are utilized primarily to support low and very-low income housing. Responsible agency/department: Redevelopment Agency Timeframe: 2004-05 Funding: Redevelopment Agency ' Expected Outcome:.. Additional funding to support low and very-low income housing. 2.2 Summary of Quantified Objectives The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City's 2001 General Plan Update identified impacts to water resources, air quality and transportation/circulation as being potentially significant despite mitigation, necessitating adoption of a Statement j of Overriding Considerations for approval of the General Plan. The water resources currently available to the City are 3,590 acre feet per year, which is considered the minimum supply during drought conditions capable of supporting a City of 20,000 residents (based on an average per capita rate of consumption of 160 gallons per day). This 20,000 population is considered build out for the City of Arroyo Grande, and is expected to be reached in the year 2021 given the recent trend of 1 % average annual population growth experienced during the last ten years. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,192 units would have the City ,reach build out during the next five years, or by 2008, rather than over a twenty year period as intended by the adopted 2001 General Plan. Amore recent accounting of the City's water resources and current rate of water consumption show that the City is utilizing approximately 94% of its total water supply. Although the 2003 Water Conservation Plan for the City is expected to reduce the average annual per capita consumption, the current water supply is not able to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Given a 6% available water supply, the City is only able to accommodate an additional 429 housing units based on current consumption of 190; gallons per day per capita. If the Water Conservation Plan is successful and consumption is reduced to 160 gallons per person per day, a total of 509 additional units could be built. Based on the Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory (see Table 15 under Section 5.1) and excluding the specific "potential" projects accommodated by the 2001 General Plan not yet submitted or evaluated, the inventory indicates approximately 667 "approved or pending" projected units (note that since January 2001, 331 of the 667 residential units have already been issued building permits). It is projected that the prior decade and recent annual average construction rate of approximately 120 units per year will drop to less than 100 units per year, in part due to limited remaining sites, but mostly as a consequence of critical water resource constraints. Even if all the approved and pending projects are accomplished by July 2008, the community would achieve only two thirds of the Regional Housing Needs Allocated to the City. In addition, current funding sources are not sufFcient to provide the water and other infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the number of housing units 28 9a-80 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) required. To pursue implementation of the programs provided in the Housing Element, the City will seek State financial assistance. In summary, the City has the land and densities available to accommodate the RHNA numbers, but not the available water supply. The City's rough quantified objective is therefore 509 dwelling units. i 29 9a-81 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) CHAPTER 3 -BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Introduction The City of Arroyo Grande occupies 5.45 square miles (3,388 acres) of land along Highway 101 in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, as shown on Map 1. It is immediately adjacent to the west, °southwest and south to urban development within the cities of Pismo Beach and Grover'Beach, and the unincorporated community of Oceano, as shown on Map 2. Unincorporated lands adjoin the City to the north, east and south. Residential rural and suburban developments characterize unincorporated areas to the north and southeast of the City, while agricultural uses dominate the Arroyo Grande Valley that extends northeast and the Cienega Valley south of the City. Arroyo Grande Creek runs in a generally north-south direction through the eastern portion of the City. 3.2 Demographic Overview Population Growth The City of Arroyo Grande's population has grown from 3,291 in 1960 to 15,851, based on the 2000 Census. Population growth during the 1960's occurred rapidly, some years exceeding 12 percent. In the 1970's, growth slowed to an average of 7 percent, falling still further in the 1980's to less than 2 percent from 1980 to 1990. Annual population increases of less than one percent have been experienced during and since the 1990's. j According to the 2000 Census, Arroyo .Grande grew 10.2 percent since 1990 to a 2000 population of 15,851. Table 1 depicts the growth that has occurred in Arroyo Grande from 1990 to 2000 as compared to the adjoining cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the State of California. This table indicates that the growth that occurred in Arroyo Grande in the 1990's was less than the surrounding communities and below the State average. Table 1 Po ulation Growth-:199.0=2000 1990 2000 Increase 1990-2000 % Increase 1990-2000 Arro o Grande 14,378 15,851 1,473 10.2. Grover Beach 11,656 13,067 1,411 12.1 Pismo Beach 7,669 8,551 882 11.5 SLO Count 217,162 ..246,681 29,519 13.6 j California 29,760,021 33;871,648 4,111,627 13.8 Since 2000, Arroyo Grande has continued growth at a similar rate as in the 1990's. The State Department of Finance (DOF), as of January 1, 2002, estimated the population of Arroyo Grande to be 16,924. DOF has estimated the population growth through 2008, which corresponds to the Housing Element planning period, will average approximately 1 percent annually, with a population of 17,787 in 2008. Current estimates by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments;project the City's General Plan build-out population of approximately 20,000 residents by 2023, based upon an annual growth ~ rate of 1 percent. 30 9a-82 Ci of Arro o Grande 2003 Housin Element tY Y 9 (Amended March 8, 2005) MAP 1 -REGIONAL LOCATION MAP _ _ _ _ w._ _ _ . ~ ~ m _ _ _ _ , _ _ , San Benito - ~ i Fresno Monterey Kings - Tulare i i i i i ~ Kern ,E r . ' '.g San Luis Obispo :f i~ ~ ~ i I ` ~i Map2 ' ~ 'i a Santa`Barbara ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ` Mentura `i I rj '14 „ q 31 9a-83 City of Arroyo Grande - 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) MAP 2 -SOUTH COUNTY LOCATION MAP _ _ _ _ _ _ Pismo Beach r ~i _ ~i r - ~ ; ~ i'~~,~~~,„~~',~ Arroyo Grande ~ ~I a f ~ _ f . , e ~ a + e f~atl ® i Groper i3each ` i o® a- ! ~ i~ ~ ~ iii ':~I a1 Oceano 1~ - W _ - _ . _ 32 9a-84 y - City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Household Data Household Size. The overall average household size in Arroyo Grande is 2.41, with owner-occupied units averaging 2.45 persons per household and renter-occupied units b averaging 2.33 persons per household. For comparison purposes, the City's average household size in 1990 was 2.48. The State of California has a larger household size of 2.87 persons per household, as well.as the San Luis Obispo County unincorporated area, which has an average household size of 2.49 persons per household. Tenure by Household Size. Table 2 provides specific information on household sizes based upon persons per unit for both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units. For owner-occupied units, the highest percentage is that of atwo-person household, followed by cone-person household. This suggests that more than 60 percent of owner-occupied units are either studios, one ortwo-bedroom units; more than 25 percent are three-bedroom units; and less than 10 percent are four bedrooms or greater. For renter-occupied units, the highest percentage is aone-person household, followed by atwo-person household. The implication about the types of rental housing units is roughly same as for the owner-occupied housing units, with the majority of renters occupying studio, one and two-bedroom units. `Clearly, afour-person household, which is commonly utilized for establishing median incomes, is generally a much smaller percentage than the one and two person household. These figures are generally lower than the statewide or unincorporated San Luis Obispo County-wide averages. Table 2 Tenure b Household Size Number Percent Owner-occu ied housin units. 4,528 100.0 1- erson household . 1,032 22.8 2- erson household 1,876 41.4 3- erson household 652 14.4 4- erson household 624 13.8 5- erson household. 248 5.5 6- erson household 62 1.4 7-or-more erson household 34 0.8 Renter-occu ied housin units 1,950 100.0 1- erson household ; 734 37.6 2- erson household 512 26.3 3- erson household 300 15.4 4- erson household 238 12.2 5- erson household 104 5.3 6- erson household 41 2.1 7-or-more erson household 21 1.1 33 9a-85 City of Arroyo Grande. 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Tenure b~Age of Householder. Table 3 indicates the occupancy of housing units by age of the householder. The largest percentage by age of householder is that of the 65 and older range for owner-occupied units, followed by the 45 to 54 age range. For renter-occupied housing units, there is not as much of a dominant age group, with the 25-34 and 35-44 age range having the higher percentages. Table 3 Tenure B ` A e of Household®r- Number Percent Owner-occu ied housin units 4,528 100.0 15 to 24 16 0.4 j 5 to 34 260 5.7 35 to 44 820 18.1 5 to 54 1,014 22.4 55 to 64 720 .15.9 65 ears and over 1,698 37.5 65 to 74 782 17.3 75 to 84 679 15 85 ears and over 237 5.2 Number Percent Renter-occu ied housin units 1,950 100.0 15 to 24 ~ 173 8.9 5 to 34 432 22.2 35 to 44 467 23.9 5 to 54 342 17.5 55 to 64 151 7.7 65 ears and over 385 19.7 65 to 74 150 7.7 75 to 84 166 8.5 5 ears and over 69 3.5 Households by Type. According to the 2000 Census, 67.2 percent of Arroyo Grande's population was family households, and 32.8 percent were in non-family households. Table 4 provides the complete information on households by type. 34 9a-86 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) l .Table 4 Households B T e Number Percent otal households 6,478 100.0 Famil households families 4,350 67.2 With own children under 18 ears 1,881 29.0 Married-cou le famil 3,561 55.0 With own children under 18 ears 1,423 22.0 Female householder, no husband resent 612 9.4 With own children under 18 ears 365 5.6 Non-famil households 2,128 32.8 Householder livin alone 1,766 27.3 Householder 65 ears and over 933 14.4 Households with individuals under 18 ears 2,025 31.3 Households with individuals 65 ears,and over 2,219 34.3 vera a household size 2.41 n/a vera a famil size 2.94 n/a Ethnic Composition. According to the 2000 .Census, Arroyo Grande's population is 11.2 percent Hispanic and 88.8 percent not Hispanic. Of the not Hispanic, white alone makes up 82.7 percent of the population, with the remaining population being African American, American Indian, Asian, or Pacific Islander. Age and Sex Distribution. Based upon the 2000 Census, it is noted that 25.6 percent of the population of Arroyo Grande is 19 years and under, 44.3 percent of the population is between 20 and 54 years, and 30.1 percent is 55 years or older. The highest percentage (15.6%) is in the 35 to 44 age range, followed by the 45 to 54 age range (15%). The median age in years is 41.9. These statistics generally reflect an older age range than the State as a whole, with a higher percentage of those considered in a senior range (55 or over). The ratio of male to female in the total population for Arroyo Grande is male (47.1 to female (52.9%). Comparing the above to the 1990 Census, 25.7% of the population was 19 years and under, 45.5% were between 20 and 54 years, and 28.7% were 55 years and older. This is generally similar to the 2000 statistics, with'the exception of a small increase in the senior population. The ratio of male to female in 1990 was generally the same as the 2000 figures. Incomes According to 2000 Census data,. the median income for Arroyo Grande households as of 1999 was $48,236. This compares to a 1989 median household income (1990 ~ Census) of $34,796. The median income for the households for the State as a whole in 35 9a-87 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 1999 was $47,493. The State 1999 median family income was $55,494, compared to a 1989 figure of $40,504. The median income for families for the State as a whole in 1999 was $53,025. The per capita income for 1999 was $24,311, compared to $16,583 in 1989. The per capita income for 1999 for the State as a whole was $22,711. The largest percentage income category for household income in 1999 was in the $50,000 to $74,999 range (25.3%). This compares to the largest percentage income ~ category for household income in 1989 of $35,000 to $49,999 (21.2%). Another method to evaluate income is to determine levels of poverty status in a community. According to the 2000 Census and based upon 1999 incomes, 191 families or 4.3 percent in Arroyo Grande were considered below the poverty level. This compares to 1990 Census data (1989 incomes), for 262 families or 6.4% that were considered to be below the poverty level. Employment The 2000 Census provides data on employment for Arroyo Grande residents. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the employed population 16 years and older by occupation. ~ The largest percentage category'is that of management, professional, and. related occupations (37.5%). The second largest category (29.7%) is that of sales and office i occupations. Table 6 provides a breakdown of employed residents by industry. The largest industry category is that of educational, health and social services (20.4%), followed by retail trade (14.5%). If -Table 5: - Em to ed Civilian Po ulat~on 16 Years and Over: Occu afion Number Percent ' Mana ement, rofessional, and related occu ations 2,691 37.5 Service Occu ations 1,115 15.5 Sales and office occu ations 2,130 29.7 Farmin , fishin ,and forest occu ations 34 0.5 Construction, extraction, and maintenance'occu ations 612 8.5 i Production, trans ortation, and material movin occu ations 599 8.3 otal 7,181 100.0 The State Economic Development Department (EDD) provides statistics on job growth. EDD has reported that job growth in Arroyo'Grand in the period of 1991 to 2000 increased by 1,230, or 15.95 percent (1.595 percent annually). EDD has forecasted that Arroyo Grande will increase jobs by 1,320 in the period of 2001 through 2008 (current housing planning period), for an increase of 14.35 percent over the 8-year period, or 1.79 percent annually: It is assumed that, based upon recent employment trends, the majority of the job growth in Arroyo Grande will be in the retail trade and government sectors (e.g. education, health, etc.). i 36 9a-88 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Table 6. Indust ' riculture, forest , fishin and huntin ,and minin 156 2.2 Construction 518 7.2 Manufacturin 471 6.6 holesale trade 255 3.6 ~ Retail trade 1,042 14.5 rans ortation and warehousin and utilities 551 7.7 Information 196 2.7 Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasin 363 5.1 Professional, scientific, mana ement, administrative & waste mana ement services 680 9.5 Educational, health and social services 1,468 20.4 rts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 621 8.6 Other services exce t ublic administration 416 5.8 Public administration 444 6.2 Another issue related to employment and residency is the matter of commuting to work. Census data indicates that of the 7,095 area workers 16 years and over 5,696 or 80.3 percent drove to work. Only 16 or 0:2 percent utilized public transportation. The mean travel time to work was 21.6 minutes. This would apparently indicate that a majority of i the City's working residents are commuting to jobs outside of Arroyo Grande. To illustrate this point, the Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities category includes ~ ! Cal Trans and Diablo Canyon/PG&E, both major employers in the San Luis Obispo County area with corporate offices located outside the City. Another example of this is the Educational, Health and Social Services category, which for this area includes Cal Poly State University,. the Men's. Colony, County Government, Cuesta College, Sierra Vista Hospital and French Hospital. Finally, Public Administration would include State or County general employment. Clearly, the City cannot replicate a job for an individual whose employment is established with one of these large organizations. 3.3 Housing Characteristics ~ Types of Housing j As of the 2000 census, there were 6,806 housing units in the City of Arroyo Grande, a 747 unit increase from 1990. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the total housing units by type of structure. As indicated, the vast majority of the units (75%) in Arroyo Grande are single-family units. Since January 2001, according to the City's Building Department records, an additional 331 dwelling units have been permitted. i 37 9a-89 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Table 7 , Total Housin ..Units Number Percent otal Housin Units 6,806 100.0 Units in Structure 1-unit, detached 4,516 66. 1-unit, attached 590 8. units 111- 1.6 3 or 4 units 382 5. 5 to 9 units 181 2. 10 to 19 units 136 2.0 0 or more units 337 5.0 Mobile home 544 8.0 Boat, RV, van, etc. 9 0.1 ' Rental and owner-occupied Units Of the 6,478 occupied housing units: in the City based upon the 2000 Census, 4,528 or 69.9 percent were owner-occupied in 2000, while 1,950 or 30.1 percent were renter- occupied. In addition to the occupied units, the Census reported 272 vacant units, 116 units for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. No migratory or transitional units I were reported. ~ Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates are commonly used as an indicator of housing market activity in a given area. The individual vacancy rate for a community theoretically measures the health of the local housing market. The vacancy rate is a percentage of the total housing stock that is vacant and/or available for sale or rent at any one time. Generally, a 2 percent vacancy rate in units available for owner-occupancy and a 6 percent rate for rental units are considered desirable to keep prices down and to ensure that units are available to new and relocating residents. i The 2000 Census provides data on housing units and their vacancy rates. For Arroyo Grande, it was reported that there was a 0.8 vacancy rate for. owner-occupied units and a 2.9 percent vacancy rate for rental units. This is below the optimal rates described above and indicates a shortage of housing units in the City. However, this is not an uncommon statistic in the south San Luis Obispo County area. Grover Beach has an overall total unit vacancy rate of 2.9 percent, Pismo Beach as a rate of 5.1 percent, while the City of San Luis Obispo has an overall rate of 2.8 percent. Overcrowded .Units A common method of measuring overcrowding is to compare the number of persons to the number of rooms in the unit. According`to State guidelines, overcrowding is defined as a household that has more than 1.01 persons per room (not including kitchens and bathrooms). In Arroyo Grande, the data collected from the 2000 Census show that 4 percent of all occupied units were overcrowded, based upon the 1.01 persons per room 38 9a-90 - City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) guideline. Census data further indicates that 114 units or 1.7 percent of the total occupied housing units had between 1.01 and 1.50 occupants per room, and 149 or 2.3 percent of all units had over 1.51 occupants per room. The 4 percent overcrowded rate is compared to San Luis Obispo County as a whole, which has a 5.6 percent overcrowded rate, and the State of California, which has an ~ overall rate of 15.2 percent. It is noted that the lower rate for Arroyo Grande may be explained by the fact that the City has a lower rate of persons per household than many communities, which possibly .lowers the incidence of overcrowding. While the rate may in comparison be lower than many other communities, the incidence of overcrowding is still an issue. The problem of overcrowding for large families can be addressed by the construction of larger units. ~ However, the overcrowding issue goes beyond family size to affordability issues. Even single individual and small families may suffer: from overcrowding. Due to limited incomes and high housing costs and rents, they may be forced to double up with extended family members or non-relatives in similar circumstances. There is a need to ' ensure that larger housing unit sizes, especially for rental units, be constructed in the City to address the overcrowding issue. i' Age of Housing Units The age of housing is an important characteristic of its relative condition as older units tend to be in greater need of repair.: Many federal and State programs use age of housing to determine potential housing rehabilitation needs. Typically, the useful life of ~ , major com onents of an averse ualit housin structure ran es from 20 to 30 ears J p 9 q Y 9 9 Y i for items such as roofing, plumbing, andscaping, paving and electrical. When a housing unit is over 30 years old, the replacement or refurbishing of major components is an important factor in the ability of a community to provide safe, decent and sanitary housing: Table 8 provides a breakdown of the age of housing units in Arroyo Grande as of the i year 2000. In reviewing this table, the largest percentage of the housing units was constructed between 1970 and 1.979 (28.4%); followed by units built 1980 and 1989 (20.1 The table indicates that 292 units were build prior to 1940. ' 39 9a-91 i; I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Table 8 ~Y~ear StructuteBuilt Year Structure Built Number Percent 1999 to March 2000 211 3.1 ~ 1995 to 1998 500 7.3 1990 to 19,94 508 7.5 1980 to 1989: 1,371 20.1 1970 to 1979 1,931 28.4 1960 to 1969 958 14.1 1940 to 1959 1,035 15.2 1939 or earlier 292 4.3 Condition of Units One of the issues required by State housing element law for discussion and analysis is ~ ~ the condition of the community's housing stock. The purpose for this is to provide a basis for determining which units. are in need of rehabilitation and which units may be beyond feasible repair and determined to be in need of demolition and replacement. One of the guidelines set by the State is that units that were constructed before 1960 may be eligible for repair and/or rehabilitation o maintain those units in the existing housing stock. This is a general criterion, in that many older communities like Arroyo Grande have many older units that have already been repaired and/or rehabilitated to maintain the historical nature of the community. Based upon the review of Table 8, 1`,327 or 19.5 percent of the total housing units in the , City were built prior to 1960. While these numbers could represent an estimate of the number of housing units that could be analyzed for rehabilitation need, the 1993 Housing Element survey was conducted to determine the structural conditions of housing in Arroyo Grande. The structural condition of housing units reported as "sound", in need of "minor rehabilitation", "moderate rehabilitation", "substantial rehabilitation", or "dilapidated". The survey utilized a point system to evaluate the housing units in the City. The results of this survey was that 99.3 percent of the 1993 housing units were in "sound" condition, 0.4 percent or 26 units were in need of "minor ' ' rehabilitation", 0.3 percent or 13 units were in need of "moderate rehabilitation" and 1 unit was in need of "substantial rehabilitation": No units were determined to be dilapidated. The conclusion of the survey was that virtually all housing units were in sound condition and the overall appearance of the City is of well maintained homes. To update the findings of the 1993 housing survey, City staff conducted a windshield survey of housing units in the older neighborhoods where housing conditions may be an issue. The survey located less than' ten units`that appear in need of substantial ~ rehabilitation or removal i ' Housing Prices One of the key issues affecting the ability to purchase a housing unit in Arroyo Grande and San Luis Obispo County as a whole is the price of housing units. This is an issue of importance to the whole Central Coast, including Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis 40 9a-92 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) I Obispo, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.. According to the 2000 Census, the median value of a home in San Luis Obispo County was $230,000.00. For Arroyo Grande, the Census reported the median value of a home at $233,200.00. Median means a point where 50 percent of housing prices (or rental rates), are below the listed number and 50 ercent are above. While these statistics reflect housing prices in 2000, p housing prices in San Luis Obispo and Arroyo. Grande have significantly increased since 2000. I A review of current housing prices was conducted. In many counties in the State, data on median housing prices are reported on a monthly basis for the county as a whole. Generally, local realtor associations provide this information. In January of 2003, the San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper reported the median home prices for all the individual cities in San Luis Obispo County as.well as for the County as a whole. Table ' 9 provides the median home values as of December 2001 and December 2002, as well as the percentage change. This table indicates that the median home price for the County of San Luis Obispo increased 23 percent from 2001 to 2002. For Arroyo Grande, the median home price in the same period increased 20.51 percent, with a ~ December 2002 median home price of $473,888.00. The most recent county median home price was reported by the California Association of Realtors at $357,380.00 for March of 2003,.: which is drop from the reported figure in ~ February, 2003 of $361,610.00. i I Table 9 Home Prices December 2001 December 2002 Percent Location Median rice Median rice chan e Count ide $286,540 $352,320 23.0 Grover Beach $267,500 $356,550 33.3 rro o Grande $393,250 $473,888 20.5 -Pismo Beach $500,000 $481,500 -3.7 Oceano $268,000 $249,000 -7.1 San Luis Obis o $419,500 $475,000 13.2 Ni omo $320,750 $377,250 17.6 Rental Unit Rates As with housing prices, rental rates in the Central Coast, San Luis Obispo County, and the City of Arroyo Grande have become a major issue for those desiring to rent a unit ' for occupancy. Again, according to';the 2000 Census, median contract rents in San Luis Obispo County was reported at $654.00 per unit, with median gross rent reported at $719.00 per unit. For Arroyo Grande, median contract rent was reported at $683.00, ~ with a median gross rent reported at $725.00. Like housing prices, rents charged for housing units has significantly increased since those reported in 2000. I~ 41 9a-93 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ~ In order to provide a more current reporting of'monthly rental rates, a survey of rents listed in the Tribune Newspaper were tabulated for the City of Arroyo Grande (February, I 2003) i ! Apartments -Rents Home rentals -Rents ~ 1 bedroom - $775.00 2 bedroom - $1,200.00 1 bedroom - $775.00 2 bedroom - $1,295.00 2 bedroom - $795.00 2 bedroom - $1,400.00 2 bedroom - $825.00 2 bedroom - $1,400.00 2 bedroom - $850.00 3 bedroom - $1,200.00 2 bedroom - $900.00 3 bedroom - $1,300.00 i 2 bedroom - $900.00 3 bedroom - $1,500.00 i 2 bedroom - $950.00 3 bedroom - $1,500.00 3 bedroom - $1,050.00 3 bedroom - $1,595.00 3 bedroom - $1,750.00 3 bedroom - $1,795.00 3 bedroom - $2,050.00 3 bedroom - $2,485.00 4 bedroom - $1,700.00 ~ 4 bedroom - $1,700.00 4 bedroom - $1,800.00 4 bedroom - $2,395.00 While the above rental analysis involves a limited number of housing units that are available for rent, the data does give a prospective on rents being asked in Arroyo Grande. For one-bedroom apartments, the average asking rent was $775.00. Fortwo- bedroom apartments, the average asking rent was $867.00. Only one three-bedroom i unit was listed at $1,050.00. For homes being rented, the average asking rent for a two-bedroom unit was $1,324.00. For athree-bedroom unit, the average was $1,686.00. For afour-bedroom unit, the average was $1,899.00. i~ l 42 9a-94 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) i ~ CHAPTER 4 -REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS, AFFORDABILITY ' AND SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS j 4.1 Regional Housing Needs Determinations State law requires councils of government to prepare Regional Housing Needs Plans ~ (RHNP) for all cities and counties within their jurisdiction. The intent of the housing allocation plans is to ensure adequate housing opportunities for persons of varying incomes and to support housing efforts for the' local communities. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides guidelines for preparing such plans, and ultimately certifies the plans as adequate. Once the plan is certified, it provides the basis for local jurisdictions to prepare their housing element updates as specified by State law. The entity commissioned to prepare the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) for San Luis Obispo County, including the City of Arroyo Grande, is the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG): During 2002, SLOCOG conducted an analysis of housing needs in the county as well as housing needs set by HCD. To develop estimates of future housing needs by jurisdiction, SLOCOG evaluated past construction trends, the relationship between job-and housing opportunities, public service availability, as well as housing needs provided by the State. SLOCOG, in its preparation of the Plan, considered the following factors in its distribution of the housing needs to the individual jurisdictions: • The jurisdiction's employment base and population growth in relation to regional- wide share of employment and anticipated growth; and • The extent to which a jurisdiction's current income distribution differs from that of the regional average: and • The HCD determined regional housing needs: and • The capacity of the presently zoned .land in the unincorporated county area for residential development in the above moderate-income category. The RHNP was adopted by SLOCOG in early 2003 and was subsequently accepted by HCD. The RHNP is intended to assure that adequate sites and zoning exist to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period (January 1, 2001 through June i 30, 2008). This Plan sets targets to ensure ahe availability of sites to accommodate the housing needs of a range of socioeconomic segments of a community. This Plan is incorporated by reference into this document and is available from SLOCOG. Within the total number of housing units that need to be accommodated, specified housing units within specific income levels are designated. State law requires that RHNP's divide the specified housing allocation into four income groups. The groups are defined as percentages of county median income. Table 10 displays the criteria for the four income groups for the City of Arroyo Grande. 43 9a-95 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Table 10 r Income Grou e Low Household income is less. than 50% of the count median income. i Household income is between 50% and 80% of the county Low median income. Household income is between 80% and 120% of the county Moderate median income. ~ bove Household income is greater than 120% of the county median Moderate income. Source: HCD Income Definitions I The breakdown of existing households by income categories within Arroyo Grande is ~ presented in Table 11. Table 11~ ~ Income.iDistribution b s~Households-Census 2000 II ! Above ~ Ve Low Low Moderate Moderate Totals rro o Grande 20% 15% 18% 47% 100% tascadero 19% 15% 19% 47% 100% Grover.Beach 22% 19% 23% 36% 100% Morro Ba 30% 19% 19% 32% 100% Paso Robles 24% 19% 21 % 36% 100% Pismo Beach 24% 16% 15% 45% 100% San Luis Obis o 35% 17% 16% 32% 100% Count Unincor orated 18% 15% 19% 48% 100% Re Tonal Total 23% 16% 18% 43% 100% ~ Source: San Luis Obis o Council of Governments Table 11 indicates that Arroyo Grande has a higher percentage of housing affordable to households in the above moderate income category and a lower percentage of housing available to low and very-low income households. To determine regional housing allocations by income group, SLOCOG set goals that suggest that jurisdictions move toward parity in the percentages of housing; available for each income group. Thus, to meet the objective of the RHNP, Arroyo Grande should aim to provide a higher .percentage of low and very-low income housing and a lower percentage of above ~ moderate housing than currently exist. The Regional Housing Needs Plan or RHNP, as adopted, set forth housing goals for the City of Arroyo Grande. The total number of dwelling units that needs to be 44 9a-96 I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) !I accommodated during the planning period for Arroyo Grande is 1,192 housing units, as outlined in Table 12. The allocation for the very low and low income categories is roughly 45 percent. j ~ Table 12 Units 13 Income Cate o ! Ve Low Low; Moderate bove Moderate Totals rro o Grande 310 .223 259 400 1,192 tascadero 345 254 304 456 1,359 Grover Beach 178 1.42 166 200 686 Morro Ba .185 122 129 162 599 Paso Robles 627 467 520 651 2,266 ~ ~ Pismo Beach 150 102 105 173 531 ~ San Luis Obis o 1,484 644 870 1,185 4,383 Count Unincor orated 1,029 778 929 4,284 7,020 Re Tonal Total 4,308 2,933 3,283 7,511 18,03 Source: San Luis Obis o Council of Governments According to the 1990 Census, there were 6,059 housing units in Arroyo Grande. In 2000, that figure increased to 6,806. Thus during the years between 1990 and 2000, ' based upon Census figures, an average of 75 housing units have been constructed annually in Arroyo Grande. This number has been verified by City building records. Applying this trend to the next housing planning period (January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2008), 563 housing units would be constructed. However, with the RHNP allocation, ~ an average annual construction goal of 158 housing units would have to be accommodated. Thus to meet the goals of the RHNP, additional units per year would have to be accommodated, particularly for very low and low income households. i Since the beginning of the housing planning period, January 1, 2001, and through June 30, 2003, 331 housing units have been permitted according to the City Building Department records. It has been estimated that all of these units are in the above moderate category. This would reduce the total number of units in the RHNP from 1,192 to 861. However, considering that these units are all in the above moderate range, it would reduce this income category only, from 400 to 87 remaining. None of the very-low, low or moderate-income housing units allocated by the RHNP have been constructed since January 2001. According to San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department, based upon federal income standards, in March 2003 the median household income for a family of four in San Luis Obispo County was $57,700.00. Based on the income categories provided in Table 10, Table 13 indicates the income levels for the four income ' ' categories for 2003. i 45 9a-97 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Table 13 Income Limits Persons in Famil Ve Low Income Lower Income Median Income Moderate Income 1 $20,200 $32,300 $40,400 $48,500 2 $23,100 $36,950 $46,150 $55,400 3 $25,950 $41,550 $51,950 $62,350 4 $28,850 $46,150 $57,700 $69,250 5 $31,150 $49,850 $62,300 $74,800 6 $33,450 $53,550 $66,950 $80,350 7 $35,750 $57,250 $71,550 $85,850 8 $38,100 $60,950 $76,150 $91,400 Source: San Luis Obis o De artment of Plannin and Buildin ,March 2003 4.2 Housing Affordability i One of the key issues facing the provision of housing in the State of California, as outlined in Chapter 1, is the affordability of housing. The ability to acquire safe and . sound housing is becoming a major social and economic issue. It is affecting decisions regarding the location of employment opportunities, community members having to commute longer distances between their employment and their residences, as well as the overall quality of life. This is a major issue especially in the central coast of this State, where San Luis Obispo County and the City of Arroyo Grande are located. This ~ ~ issue not only affects people with special housing needs, but the population in general. This housing affordability issue is further complicated by the lack of financial and other resources available to mitigate the current housing situation. The issue of housing affordability is a relationship between household income and the price of housing. There are a number of factors and statistics to measure the issue of housing affordability. These factors and statistics are discussed below. Factors and statistics Table 13 provides the income limits .set forth by the Federal Government to define the income groups listed in Tale 1 These are the income limits as ~f March, 2~~3. The County of San Luis Obispo outlines the rents and sales prices for housing in accordance with the income levels, which are summarized in Table 14. i I i 46 9a-98 I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Table 14 Affordable Housing Standards Rents and, Sales Prices..,:. Month) Rents Ve Low Income Lower Income Moderate Income ~ Studio $505 $606 $619 1 bedroom $577 $692 $699 2 bedroom $649 $779 $886 3 bedroom $779 $935 $1,232 4 bedroom $837 $1,004 $1,454 Initial Sale Prices Ve Low Income Lower Income Moderate Income Studio $80,396 $123,220 $191,092 j 1 bedroom $91,839 $140,758 $218,290 2 bedroom $103,381 $158,448 $245,724 j'; 3 bedroom $123,977 $190,015 $294,679 4 bedroom $133,231 $204,198 $316,674 The rents and sales prices provided in Table 14 are based upon generally accepted standards and assumptions. The maximum monthly rents include the average estimated costs of utilities. Following are the formulas for rent limits: • For very-low income households, affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 50% of the annual County median household income for the number of persons expected to reside in the unit„ divided by 12. • For lower-income households, affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 60% of the annual County median household income divided by 12. • For moderate-income households,. affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 35% of 110% of the annual County median income divided by 12. The maximum sales prices for affordable housing are based on a formula that accounts for what a typical very-low income, low-income or moderate household can afford to pay for housing, following HUD guidelines. Sales prices are determined by multiplying the annual income limit of the income group, adjusted for household size, by 2.5 for very- low and lower income households, and by 3 for moderate-income households. These i calculations include assumptions for utilities and taxes, the mortgage interest rate, as well as a typical down payment. In order to place the income limits in context with the number of persons per unit, the City of San Luis Obispo has developed standards for the varying unit sizes as follows: ' 47 9a-99 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) • Sfudio unit -assume the income limit for aone-person household • One-bedroom unit -assume the income limit for atwo-person household • Two-bedroom unit -assume the income unit for athree-person household • Three-bedroom unit -assume average of limits for four and five-person ~ household • Four-bedroom unit -Assume he income limit for asix-person household Based upon median housing prices and rent levels provided in this document, it is safe to assume that housing prices and rent levels are above the median incomes, and only above moderate income levels can afford current housing prices and rental levels. Another measure of the affordability of housing is statistics generated by local realtor associations. According to an article published in the San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper, the median-priced home in San Luis Obispo County in May of 2003 was $388,360. Based upon a traditional loan, a homebuyer would need to purchase a median priced home with an annual income of $90,000, assuming a 5.72% mortgage rate and 20% down. According to the California Association of Realtors, the authors of the data, only 17 percent of county residents could afford the median priced home. The ~ median home price is the statistical point where half of the homes sell for more and half for less. For Arroyo Grande, the median income reported for December 2002 was ~ , higher than the county median as a whole, which would imply that the affordability rate in Arroyo Grande might be less than:. that of the county. This overall affordability rate compares to 28 percent of Californians that can afford the State median priced home ($352,780). The Tribune article noted that the San Luis Obispo county median income was $57,914 in 2002, which is compared to the statewide median for 2002, which was $62,849. This documents that one of the issues of housing affordability in San Luis Obispo County (and assuming Arroyo Grande), is that median incomes are lower and median home prices are higher than.. the State average. ~ Overpayment Another measure of housing affordability is the percentage of income paid for housing. ~ State housing guidelines utilize a 30' percent of gross income paid for housing as the standard affordable level, with those households paying 30 percent or more as ~ overpayment. According to the 2000 Census, 1,102 households or 28.3 percent of the owner-occupied units were paying monthly housing costs at 30 percent or above. For renter-occupied housing units, 902 households or 45.8 percent paid 30 percent or more for rent compared to household income. Long-Term Affordabilify i ~ One of the issues of the housing programs proposed by this Housing Element Update is a policy that all affordable housing provided. by City incentives be maintained as affordable for at least a period of 30 years. This issue of long-term affordability is a subject of a number of existing programs that ensure that affordable units maintain their status. The issue of long-tern affordability is different for rental and owner-occupied units. i 48 9a-100 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) i Rental housing affordability is generally maintained through recorded agreements ' between a property owner and an entity authorized by a City to monitor maintenance of affordability requirements. These agreements typically specify the following: a) the maximum rents based on the same formula that established initial rents as a condition of City approval; b) the term for which rental units must remain affordable; and c) terms which affordability is maintained after sale or transfer of property. Under the policies of this Element, all projects that receive a City incentive, the units must be affordable for a period of at least 30 years. Many of these projects have State or federal funding, which provide very specific requirements for maintaining affordability. ~ ~ Based upon the Housing Affordable Standards set forth by the City of San Luis Obispo, ~ there are two different approaches to maintaining long-term affordability for owner- occupied units: 1) the property owner agrees to maintain the designated dwelling unit as affordable for at least 30 years; or 2) the property owner agrees to participate in a "shared equity purchase program. Under the long-term affordability program, the housing must remain affordable for at least 30 years from the,original date of sale, which is a policy of this Element. Affordability terms are secured by a promissory note and deed of trust, recorded on the property prior to or concurrent with the initial occupancy (for rental units) or sale of property. The promissory note is based on the monetary difference between the:. initial purchase and the initial appraised vale as an "affordability loan" or "silent second" payable to the City. The loan accrues interest at a rate set by the City when the note is executed, amortized over 30 years. Monthly payments (principal plus interest) on the affordability loan are typically waived as long as eligible residents continue to own and reside in the property. Upon sale, transfer, gift ~ ' or inheritance of the property, the City, its Housing Authority, or anon-profit agency approved by the City, shall have the`first right`of refusal to purchase the property at its current appraised value. The consideration`forthe City's first right of refusal shall consist of 1 percent of the remaining affordable loan balance. The balance of the City's loan, after deduction the 1 percent first right of refusal cost, shall be credited toward the purchase price if the City, its Housing Authority or non-profit agency chooses to exercise its purchase option. Under the equity-sharing program, the buyer of an affordable dwelling enters into an agreement with the city guaranteeing affordability for a specified period of time after the ~ initial date of sale. Upon resale of the property, the agreement ensures that the City's ' share returns to the City for use in other affordable housing developments. The City's equity share is based on the difference between the property's market value and the actual price paid by the homeowner, divided by the market value, or the amount of subsidy provided by the city, divided. by the property's market share. Affordable units sold before the specified period are subject to an additional "Equity Recapture Fee" ranging from 25 to 100 percent of the property's equity. It is apparent, based on this data regarding -the supply of housing units, including the lack of supply of rental units, and with the projected needs, that the households that appear to be in the greatest need of housing assistance are of low and very-low income. 49 9a-101 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 4.3 Special Housing Needs Groups This section reviews the characteristics of households with special housing needs, including elderly or senior households, female heads of households with minor children, large family households, overcrowded units, farmworker households, and disabled persons/households. Homeless people who cannot afford any housing are also i discussed in this section. Elderly/Senior Households An analysis of the needs of elderly or senior households or persons is important for four reasons: 1) many elderly have fixed, limited incomes; 2) many elderly persons are "over-housed" (living alone or with 2.people in a three or four bedroom house); 3) some elderly have mobility and health problems that can create special housing needs; and 4) recent projections indicate an increase in the elderly population in the planning period, either those currently living in the. area or those that will be relocating to the area. There are, according to the 2000 Census, 3,222 residents age 65 years and older in Arroyo Grande, which is 20.3 percent of the total population. This number is compared to San Luis Obispo County, where 14.5 percent of the residents are 65 and over. Owner occupied households with householders 65 years and over totaled 1,732, which is 82.4 percent of the total elderly households. According to the 2000 Census, there are a total of 4,528 owner occupied housing units and 1,950 renter-occupied housing units. In respect to elderly households, the following represents householders by tenure and age in the City of Arroyo Grande: I • Of the total owner-occupied family housing units, 1,012 are occupied by a householder 65 years and over. • Of the total non-family owner=occupied.: units, 686 households are occupied by a householder 65 years and over. • Of the total non-family owner-occupied- units, 125 are occupied by a male householder 65 years and over and 516 are occupied by a female householder 65 years and over. • Of the total renter-occupied family households, 85 are occupied by a householder 65 years and over. • Of the total non-family renter-occupied housing units, 300 are occupied by a householder 65 years and over. • Of the total non-family renter-occupied housing units, 64 are occupied by a male householder 65 years and over and 228 are occupied by a female householder 65 years and over. Income levels for a householder 65 years and over below the poverty level are reported by the 2000 Census as follows: • Of the total 105 owner-occupied housing units, 48 are occupied by a householder 65 years and over. • Of the total 338 renter-occupied housing units, 66 are occupied by a householder 65 years and over. 50 9a-102 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Several studies predict the age of future residents in the Central Coast area. A recent study (April, 2003) commissioned by: the Tribune newspaper and conducted by the ' Solimar Research Group evaluated the future'increase in population predicted in San i Luis Obispo County. The study assumed that the county would gain 100,000 persons within the next 15 years. Of the age categories evaluated, the age groups of 40-59 and 60-plus showed the largest increases. For the 40-59 age group, the study estimates this group to increase 68 percent and with a median income above the current county median income. The study further predicted that retirees in the 60-plus age group would increase 49 percent, with a median income 9 percent below the county median income. The study indicated that this increase is not only a result of current residents aging, but that of many Californians relocating from the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles area and the Central valley. Female Heads of Families wifh Minor Children The 2000 Census reported that of the total 6,478 households, there were 612 female- ~ headed households in Arroyo Grande. This represents 9.4 percent of the total households. Of these households, 365 of the 612 or 60 percent had children less than 18 years of age. Based upon the Census data for incomes in 1999 for families below the poverty level, 61 families with a female householder, no husband present and with related children under 18 years were reported, with 18.3 percent under poverty level. ~ Large Families/Households Large families can present special housing needs if they cannot find affordable, large housing units, then living conditions may become overcrowded. Table 2 shows the total occupied housing units by the number of persons living within each unit. This information is shown for owner-occupied and rental housing. For owner-occupied units, the highest percentage is fora 2-person unit (41.4%). Less than 8 percent of the owner-occupied households are occupied by five or more persons. For renter-occupied units, the highest percentage is aone-person household (37.6%). Less than 9 percent of the renter-occupied units are occupied by five or more persons. These numbers are generally low compared to the State as a whole, as well as many I, cities and counties. The existence of large families does not .necessarily indicate an overcrowding problem if there area sufficient number of larger housing units for these types of families. ~ Farmworker Households According to the 2000 Census, there are 156 residents of Arroyo Grande that are employed in farming, forestry or fishing operations. Given the location and environment of Arroyo Grande, it is assumed that a majority of those employed in these professions are in the agricultural community. Several studies that have been completed over the past 10 years found that most of farmworkers live in seriously substandard conditions. A majority of current farmworkers have families and thus are residents versus migrant workers who reside or work for a period of time in the County but live elsewhere. The actual percent of resident versus migrant in this area is unknown. The major issue for resident farmworkers is that they are generally low income and thus have to compete for housing with other lower income 9a-103 51 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) residents. The greatest need is affordable housing. The issue for many migrant workers is that farm employers are not required to provide housing, so the migrants may have to find their own housing, which sometimes is living in their car or in illegal units. The greatest need for migrant workers is temporary seasonal housing. This could be in the form of bunk houses on the property' where the workers are employed: In summary, farmworkers generally earn low incomes, live in overcrowded units, and ' pay a disproportionate share of income for housing. ~ Disabled Persons/Households i The 2000 Census recorded the disability status of the civilian non-institutional population of residents of Arroyo'Grande. From a general point of review, for the population of 5 to 20 years, 260 or 7.4 percent of the population had a disability. For the population of 21 to 64 years,. 1,393 or 16.3 percent of this population had a disability, of which 55.8 percent were employed. For the population of 65 years and older, 1,223 persons or 40.5 percent of this population had a disability. The most i significant issue of persons with disability is hat of the senior population. For those persons with a disability, there are two major problems facing this portion of the community: the need for housing that meets particular physical needs (wheelchair accessible, etc.) and monetary needs. Because of limited job opportunities for the ( handicapped and disabled (at least those whose disability may limit their employment opportunities), their incomes are often below the median incomes. The disabled or handicapped residents of Arroyo Grande have varying housing needs depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Physically disabled persons generally require modifications to the housing, units such as wheelchair ramps, elevators, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, modified fixtures and appliances. If the disability prevents the person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are important. If the physical disability preventsthe person from working or limits their income, then the cost of housing and needed modification can be significant. Because physical handicaps vary, this group rarely congregates toward a single service organization. This makes estimating the number of persons and specific needs difficult. The physical modification of housing is not necessary to accommodate mentally disabled persons, but they will generally require special services and monetary support. Since jobs and income are often limited, affordable housing is important. Issues related to those with a mental disability would suggest that there is a need for apartment or other housing complexes that are reserved or designed to accommodate persons requiring extra assistance. Many mentally handicapped persons are unable to drive, so access to public transportation is very important. Homeless There is no specific information about the number of homeless persons in Arroyo Grande. A recent report indicated that there were between 2,500 and 4,000 people in San Luis Obispo County that we're looking for a place to sleep. Past studies have indicated that the majority of homeless persons are found within the City of San Luis 52 9a-104 Ciry of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Obispo, probably as a result of the fact that most services for the homeless are centered in the City. A past study indicated that the majority of homeless are in North County (31 percent) and the City of San Luis Obispo (50 percent). Only 15 percent of the homeless are estimated to come from South County, which includes the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and the unincorporated areas of Nipomo and Oceano. Observations from service providers and law enforcement indicate that a large share of the homeless in South County reside in the beach towns. It is very unlikely that the City of Arroyo Grande does not have homeless persons "residing" in the City. Since 1989; the Economic Opportunity Commission's (EOC) Homeless Services program has been working to meet the needs of the homeless in the County, offering emergency housing, on-site information, referral services and assistance in finding permanent housing. This organization operates an emergency shelter in San Luis Obispo, which provides 49 beds nightly year-round. An additional 15 to 25 beds are added through the Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless, bringing the overflow total to 25,000 shelter nights provided per year. There are several organizations in the County that provide services and housing for the homeless, including several churches. ( Workforce Housing Housing has become out of reach for most workers in San Luis Obispo County and the City of Arroyo Grande. This has made it very'difficult for the employers of many industries to recruit and retain employees. It has also caused the situation that many employees must commute from varying locations, causing traffic congestion and related air quality impacts. At this point, housing is hard to find for many of the local workers in or in close proximity to the place of employment, and given the continuing escalation of the local real estate market there will be fewer and fewer workers able to live in the local community. The issue of inadequate workforce housing is threatening the economic vitality of many communities nationwide. This is especially true in the central coast area, which includes the City of Arroyo Grande. The City of Arroyo Grande, through its review: of the Housing. Element Update, has identified work force housing as a priority. The question that is raised is, "What is workforce housing and how does it .relate to housing availability and affordability in general?" A recent national workforce housing forum, hosted by the Urban Land Institute, generally applied the term "workforce housing" to households earning more than 60 percent, but less than 120 percent, of the area's median income (essentially j moderate income affordable housing). In the San Francisco Bay area, workforce ' housing has been defined as housing affordable to private and public sector workers with incomes at or below those of teachers and public safety workers. ~ Many communities are currently;addressing the issue of workforce housing. A preliminary step is to determine each community's definition of workforce housing based upon the average incomes of the critical workers that employers are having a difficult j time recruiting and retaining. Once identified, programs need to be established within the public and private sectors to encourage; and retain housing for the local workforce. ~ , 53 9a-105 ii City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 4.4 At Risk Housing Units Throughout California many affordable housing units, including those available to low and very-low income families that were created through government subsidies, may be - eligible to convert to market rate units. Such conversions may jeopardize a significant amount of the existing affordable housing stock. Housing elements are required to: j 1) identify those low income units, that may convert to market rate units within 10 years; j 2) analyze the costs of preservation of these "at-risk" units versus replacing them; 3) identify resources for preservation; 4) set objectives for preserving at risk-risk units; and 5) incorporate programs to try to preserve the units as affordable housing. No at-risk units were identified in the City of Arroyo Grande. To the extent that subsidized housing units are established in the City in the future, policies and programs shall be identified to ensure that these affordable units may remain available for lower income families. i .I i i ~ 54 9a-106 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ~ CHAPTER 5 -LAND AND SERVICES': FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT This chapter provides and evaluates. the availability of land and public services in Arroyo Grande to support future residential development. 5.1 Land Availability State housing law requires that the housing element provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for intensification and/or redevelopment. The purpose of this requirement is to identify sites that could accommodate residential development as set ~ forth by the Regional Housing Needs, as set forth by the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments and as approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. This analysis is not a construction quota or an anticipated list of projects that will be constructed, given that the law recognizes that there may be limitations that would affect residential development, as well as the fact that private development and market forces in place that affect the level of housing construction. I Following is a partial and preliminary table (Table 15) that provides a listing of those sites available for housing construction in the Housing Element Planning period followed by a housing opportunity inventory map (Map 3). Other properties will be identified and programmed into the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) to maintain an inventory from General Plan and zoning dafa for future Housing Elements and other planning purposes. it It should be noted that the City's :Land Use Element was updated in November 2001 to include a new "Mixed Use" land .use category that encompasses approximately 85% (254 acres) of all the commercially zoned land within the City.. Consequently, most all of the land (the exception is the Regional Commercial zoning district) within the City is j zoned for some level, or density, of residential development. This is a significant change from what was allowed and analyzed in the City's 1993 Housing Element. It should be further noted that Table 15 includes a fairly realistic estimate of available in-fill developable area in the higher density residential land use areas. As a further update, the City adopted Resolution No. 3711 on September 23, 2003 which re-designated four (4) separate properties from residential to agriculture, modified certain policies of the Land Use Element to establish agricultural conservation easements with support programs, and revised an implementation policy for mitigation of converted Agricultural lands. None of the properties that are subject to Resolution No. 3711 are included in the land inventory listed .below in Table 15. 55 9a-107 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) TABLE 15 PRELIMINARY HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES INVENTORY i ~ ID` Land ;Use/ APN Parcel Existing Additional ' Notes/@. Density # Zoning/ Size (no. (no. Address (acres), dwelling dwelling units) units) (*Citywide) n/a Parcels 60 60 Based on an estimated 15 Secondary .greater second units per year from ' dwellings than 2004 to 2008. 6,750 sq. ft. in size 1 LD-PD 1.2 007-781-024, 79 0 42 01-001 and Pre-Application Rancho Grande 055, 056 2 LD 007-070-001, 12.5 1 31 LD Infill @ 2.5/ac i 451 Hidden Oak 002 Rd. 3 PF 007-011-048, 2.9 0 13 Church, MU @ 4.5/ac. 100 Rodeo Dr./ 047 Grace Church 4 LD-PD 1.3 007-011-040 6:9 0 17 County Gov. Ctr., MU @ Rodeo/ Coun 2.5/ac. ~ I 5 MU-PD/PD 1.2 007-771-072 4.0 0 60 (15) Approved CUP & Tract - 579 Camino Senior @15/ac ' Mercado 6 MU-PD 1.1 007-771-053, 1.2 0 22 Sheppel 3Pre-Application @ James Wa 062 15/ac 7 VC/VMU 007-491-057, 0.3 1 5 Pre-Application @ 15/ac 125 Nelson St. 058 8 VC/VMU 007-204-001, 2.5 2 24 FEIR -Pre-Application 415 E. Branch St. 003 Pendin Tract 8~ CUP 9/ac 9 AG/AG 007-531-002, 3;0 2 15 Possible PSHH Farm Worker 980 & 1010 003, 005 Housing @ 9/ac Huasna Rd. - 10 OMU/ SR 077 204-014, 1.8 5 40 Possible Spec. Needs 370 - 382 South 026, 031, Housing @ 25/ac Halc on Rd. 036, 037 11 OMU 077-201-012 0.7 3 12 Pre-Application pending 910 Dodson, @ 15/ac 224~230Ha1c on - 12 MU/FOMU 077-223-064, 0.8 1 9 MU or MF @ 15/ac Halcyon & East 068 Grand Avenue i i Page; 56 9a-108 j City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ID Land Use/' APN Parcel.: Existing Additional Notes/@ Density # Zoning/ Size (no. (no. ; Address (acres) dwelling dwelling I units). units) , ' , 13 MU/FOMU 077-111-009, 5.5 6'ack Lot 82 MU back lot portion (about 26 1070-1150 East 011, 012, ~eveiopment lots) @ 25/ac: Commercial Grand Ave., 014, 057; frontage 1013-1167 East 077-112-001 Grand Ave. to 006; 077-113-015, 016 077-211-010, ~ 015, 018, 022 to 024, 035 to 037, i 077-221-002, 003, 026, 027, 028, 031, 036, 037 14 MU/GMU 077-111-049 6:2 0 99 Pre-Application 143 Brisco Rd. MU & MF 25/ac 15 MU/GMU 077-141-018, 7:6 0 95 Tri-W/ RDA MU & MF @ 1203-1243 .East 027, 028 25/ac Grand Ave. 16 MH/ PD 1.5 077-251-005 10.0 0 73 (17) Approved Tract @ 9/ac Farroll Ave. Parkside 17 MH/MF-SP 077-121-006 5:2 0 47 (17) Under Construction @ 9/ac ~ Ash Street ' Jasmine Place i ~ 18 MU/MF 077-051-059 4.6 0 26 (Fees) Stonecrest, Under 1189 EI Camino Construction @ 9/ac Real 19 HD/MFA 077-051-042, 1.0 2 10 (Fees) Approved Tract @ 9/ac 185-187 Brisco 045 Rd. 20 HD/MFA 077-181-021 0.6 1 8 Approved Tract and PUD @ 1180 Ash St. 14/ac 2 Moderate 21 MH/MF 077-204-003 0.8 1 7 Approved Tract and PUD @ 325 Alder St. 9/ac fee 21 VH/SF 077-023-009, 0.4 2 26 Special Needs. Expansion of i A 265 ~ 279 Alder 019 Alder House 25/ac 22 MU/SR 077-071-029 3.2 0 109 (108) Courtland and Grand.Senior E. Grand Ave./ Housing, Under construction Courtland 32/ac 23 MU/MU SP 077-131-002 3.0 0 28 BGSP Pending MU-CUP 1595 E. Grand S8S Homes Part Ave. MF 25/ac 24 MU/MU-SP & 077-131-004 4.5 0 37 BGSP Pending Dea Part SF-SP MF @ 25/ac E. Grand Ave. 9 SF under construction 25 MU/OMU 077-011-010, 0.8 0 16 Oak Park -Chilton MU EI.Camino Real 011 & 012 MF 15/ac 26 MU/MF 077-051-052, 1.2 0 15 MF @ 15/ac Hillcrest Dr. 053 Page` 57 9a-109 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ' ` ID Land Use/ APN Parcel Existing Additional' Notes/@'Density ' # Zoning/ i Size (no. (no. Address (acres) dwelling dwelling ' - units) units) 27 PF8O/PF8OMU 077-241-013, 9.5 Church & 100` Special needs or High density 1220 Farroll Ave. 035, 062 .:care @ 15-25/ac facilit 28 MU/OMU 077-332-025, 1.3 0 40 (8) Approved tract Senior The Pike and 026, 027 @ 25/ac Elm St. ~ , 29 MD-NP/RR 007-565-004, 9.0 3 31 Pending Tract Cherry Creek M rtle 8~ Che 005 4.5/ac 29 MD-NP/RR - 007-571- all 11.7 12 35 Future NP Cherry 8 Lierly A Lierl & Cher exce t 606 3.0/ac 30 LD/RS 007-301-004 4.4 1 5 Tract Under Construction 801 Huasna Rd. 31 LD/RS 007-861-018, 6.9 3 17 3 hillside @ 2.5/ac 1051 Huasna Rd. 070 8~ 007- 1075 Huasna Rd. 075-004 32 LM/RS 007-031-041 2 1 3 PUD & Tract @ 2.5/ac 231 Corbett ~ Can on Rd. 33 LM/RS 007-031-038, 4.7 0 12 Pre-Application @ 2.5/ac Corbett Can on 039 34 LD/PD1.3 007-011-041, 33.6 0 24 Grace Lane Tract 8 7.5 ac Rodeo Dr. 042 PD 2.5/ac 35 MD/SF (change 077-153-003, 5.0 26 30 Fractured Infill MF @ 25/ac zoning to MF) 004, 005, 008, 009, 1205 Poplar St. 011, 014, 1211 Poplar St. 015, 019, ' 1215 Aspen St. 020, 021, 160 S. Elm St. 025, 033, 161 Aspen St. 034, 035, 162 S. Elm St. 036, 038, 163 Aspen St. 039, 040, 165 Aspen St. 041, 043, 167 Aspen St. 047 to 051 168 S. Elm St. ~ 169 Aspen St. 170 S. Elm St. 171 Aspen St. 174 S. Elm St. 178 S. Elm St. 180 S. Elm St. ~ 181 Aspen St. j 183 Aspen St. 185 Aspen St. 186 S. Elm St. 190 S. Elm St. 193 Aspen St. 194 S. Elm St. 195 Aspen St. 198 S. Elm St. 201 As en St. ~ 36 MD/SF 077-192-026, 1.3 2 4 SF Infill @ 4.5/ac 1029 Ash Street 031 Page 58 9a-710 i 'I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ID Land Use? APN Parcel: Existing Additional Notes/@ Density # Zoning/ - Size (no. (no. Address (acres) dwelling dwelling units) units) _ ` 37 OMU / DMU 077-204-028 0.8 1 19 MF Infill @ 15/ac I, 280 Halcyon Road 38 MH/MF 077-163-013 0.4 1 3 MF Infill @ 15/ac 263 Spruce Street 39 MD/SF 077-163-001 0.3 0 3 SF Infill @ 4.5/ac Cedar & Aspen Streets 40 HD/MFA 077-051-044 10 1 16 MFA Infill @ 25/ac i 184 and 189 077-051-050 Brisco Road 41 VCNR 007-501-012 1:5 1 6 VR Infill @ 4.5/ac 523 Ide Street 42 OMU /OMU 006-391-044, 8,9 0 49 OMU -Hospital Area Fair Oaks 048, 049 MF @ 15/ac i Total 1,429 Invento RHNA 1 192 Difference 211 NOTES RE: TABLE 15 ' Property/Project Discussion Breakd'own` Status of unit types i Second Units Explanation of Housing Opportunity sites for Affordable Housing Citywide. The second dwelling potential is estimated at 15 du/yr. = 60 60 L affordable from 2004 #0 2008. Approved Projects Sites 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 28' are recently approved projects providing a total of (60+73+47+26+10+108+40=) 364 units, including 200 AM (15+17+17+fees+fees+107+8=) 164 units affordable housing. 51 M 37 L 76 VL Pending Projects Sites 1, 2, 29, 29A, 30,31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 39 are pending and potential single family residential low density to medium density 199 AM developments involving approximately 170 acres with a capacity for 38 M (42+31+31+35+5+17+3+12+24+30+4+3=) 237 homes. Assuming 16% as affordable (composed of 10% inclusionary to 25% when GPA or other discretionary approvals are involved), 38 of those are projected to be moderate-income restricted units`. Page 59 9a-111 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Community Facilities Sites 3, 4, 6 and 27 are church or public facility zoned sites where ~ (CF) property; special needs, mixed use or other City incentives could enable 25% 76 M Special needs affordable, including very low, and low income units. Of the 152 total 38 L housing units on these four sites, approximately 50% are proposed as moderate 38 VL income and 25% each for Ve Low and Low Income units. Potential Mixed Use Sites 7,8,10,11,1213,14,15,20,21,23,24,25,26,37,38,40,41,and 42 are (MU) sites all potential mixed-use`relatively high-density residential development 203 AM opportunity sites. Approximately (5+24+40 96 M +12+g+82+gg+95+11+g+28+37+16+15+19+3+16+6+50=) 576 units, 92 L 64% need to be ro'ected as affordable. 184 VL Farmworker Housing Site 9 is a unique agricultural zoned property, but non-prime site adjoining an existing mobile home park where 15 du possible farm 15 VL worker housing may be considered, subject to City Housing Authority or Peo le's Self Hel Housin coo eration Special Needs Site 21A is a proposed expansiorrof Alder House involving I ~ Housin a roximatel 26 additional s ecial needs housin units. 26 Summary Very Low (VL) 313 vs. 310 RHNA Low (L) 227 vs. 223 RHNA Moderate (M) 261 vs. 259 RHNA Above Moderate {AM) 602' vs. 400 RHNA Special Needs (SN) 26 vs. NA RHNA 1 403 ° Total vs. 1 192 RHNA I~ I I i ~ Page 60 9a-112 City of Arroyo Grande ~ 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) MAP 3 -HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES INVENTORY P'r~l i i ~ H iris ~rt~ nits itl~ Ir~~~nt~r~ ~~p i k I II I i ~ i 1 ! I 'e a]m Page 61 9a-113 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) The City is in the process of a comprehensive review and update of its Development Code for consistency with the 2001 General Plan, focusing on rezoning existing commercial properties to Mixed Use and developing new Mixed Use standards. To date, the City has rezoned properties within the Village Area to Village Core Downtown, Village Mixed Use, Village Residential and Single-family Residential. New development standards for the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed Use (VMU) districts have been established (see Tables 1.6 and 17 below), and the City will conduct a similar Development Code update for other commercial areas along East Grand Avenue, EI Camino Real and Traffic Way during the next year. i I' I I~ Page 62 9a-114 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) TABLE 16 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (VCD) Village Core Downtown (VCD) The primary purpose of the VCD .district is to provide for. a combination of commercial, ~ office, upper-story residential :uses .and compatible related :development to promote pedestrian use and enjoyment of the. downtown Village area. Regulations for he VCD .district combined with the ;Historic Character Overlay district, promote and- preserve older .architectural styles compatible with the historical, small-town nature of Arroyo Grande. Typical uses may include, but are not limited to, .second-story residential and office, specialty retail and studios such as art. galleries, bookstores, antique stores, flower I shops, personal services, small markets. and restaurants (without drive-through windows). ~ ' The VCD district implements and is consistent with the Village Core land use ' ~ designation of the General Plan..: I 1. Maximum Densi Mixed Use Pro'ects 15 dwellin units er ross acre i 2. Minimum Lot Size 2,500 s uare feet 3. Minimum Lot Width 25 feet 4. Front Yard Setback 0 -15 feet. Structures typically built at back of sidewalk. Exceptions include entrance courtyards and areas for outdoor dining determined through discretionary review. 5. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet 6. Side Yard Setback 0 feet ~ 7. Street Side Yard Setback 0 -15 feet 8. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process. _ ~~a~-' ~ Maximum Building Size is 20,000 square o o ~ o ~ feet. o 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ • ! ~ ~ 8 ! /overage lot Elevation Page 63 9a-115 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ~ 9. Site Coverage Maximum coverage of site that may be covered by structures and pavement is 100%. ~ I Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 2. Floor Area Ratio of 2 10. Site Design See Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic. Districts ~ 11.Off-Street Parking and Loading See Parking and Business Improvement District Plan in Section 16.56.020 12. Signs See Section 16.60 and Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts i ~f l i ~I Page. 64 9a-116 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) I TABLE 17 VILLAGE MIXED USE (VMU) Village Mixed Use (VMU) Village Mixed Use (VMU); District. The primary purpose of the-VMU district is to ~ provide for a mixture of commercial, office and residential uses compatible with j ~ ' surrounding residential districts, in small-scale pedestrian-oriented developments. Regulations for the VMU district combined with the Historic Character Overlay district promote and preserve older.. architectural .styles, and encourage a harmonious intermingling of other structures. This district encourages use of existing residential ~ ( buildings for non-residential) uses. Typical uses may include single and multiple: family residential, specialty retail sales; professional offices, personal services and neighborhood ~ ; markets.. See Table 16.36:030''-A-1 for 'allowable uses and. Table 16.36.020-B for ~ minimum site development standards. 1. Maximum Densi Mixed Use Pro'ects 15 dwellin units er ross acre . 2. Minimum Lot Size 5,000 s uare feet 3. Minimum Lot Width 40 feet 4. Front Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet 5. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. If project is mixed use and/or abuts a residential district then 10 feet rtesrrte.umr required. Gnr.ter w'ti' i Wf06 .s~ ~ h 6. Side Yard Setback 0 feet unless a project is mixed use and/or abuts a residential district, then 5 feet is required for single story structures and 110 feet is required, on one side, for a multiple stories. 7. Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. 8. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process. ~ Maximum Building Size is 10,000 square feet. Page, 65 9a-117 City of Arroyo Grande ~ 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 9. Site Coverage Maximum coverage of site that may be covered by structures and pavement is 100%. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1. Floor Area Ratio of 1 • , it- a a ~i z sTOR~Es 9. Site Design See Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts. ~ I 10. Off-Street Parking and Loading See Parking VMU and HCO combining i district in Section 16.56.020.C. I 11. Signs See Section 16.60 and Design Guidelines ~ and Standards for Historic Districts. ~I 5.2 Public Services and Utilities to Serve Residential Development Water The City receives water from both groundwater and surface water. Groundwater is extracted primarily from the Arroyo Grande Plain of Tri-Cities Mesa sub-basin of the Santa Maria Groundwater basin,: with an estimate total of 1,200 acre feet of supply. The City also receives about 100 acre feet of groundwater supply from the Pismo formation. The significant supply is the 2,290 acre-feet entitlement from Lopez Lake. This brings the total available water supply to 3,590 acre-feet. Based upon per capita consumption of 190 gallons per day, the maximum average considered at that time, the 1990 population of 14,057 was consuming 2,990 acre feet ~ of water per year. If the same rate of consumption were to continue to the projected 20,000 City population at General Plan build-out, it was estimate that approximately 4,149 acre feet per year of water resources would be required, 556 acre feet more than currently available. Without additional water supplies or a substantial reduction in current usage, it is unlikely that an adequate water supply is available to accommodate the assigned regional housing allocation. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes that average per capita consumption be ~ reduced by conservation measures to a maximum of 160 gallons per person per day. ~ I This Water Conservation Plan was adopted in May 2003. This program will be closely monitored and the results will be evaluated in'terms of water supply impact. ' Sewer The South San Luis Obispo Sanitation District provides wastewater treatment and disposal. The treatment plant is located in the unincorporated community of Oceano and treats wastewater from various sources in the vicinity, including the Oceano area and the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. The District has completed ~ expansion of treatment facilities in the early 1990's, and the plant can now process 5 million gallons of effluent per day with existing effluent quality guidelines. It has been estimated this will provide ample service to at least 2010. Page 66 9a-118 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Public Services The City of Arroyo Grande police department is responsible for law enforcement, investigations and crime prevention programs with the City limits. The fire department, composed largely of volunteers, is responsible for providing fire protection and medical response. The City has historically has low levels of major crime or fire loss despite below average police and fire department staffing. There are no uniform standards regarding appropriate or adequate numbers of ofFcers per number of residents. One issue however regarding the fire department is that with the one downtown station, average response time with the City limits is 11.2 minutes, which for some of the areas of the City is well above a recognized standard of 5 minutes. This may affect the development of lands in the City that may be beyond the desired response time. It is generally expected that police and fire resources improve with additional ~ development that generates increased tax revenues. However, with the recent shifts of ~ ~ local tax revenues to the State, and decreasing State revenues being provided to local I governments, additional development may cause a decrease in public safety for the community. j Schools School facilities for Arroyo Grande are provide by the Lucia Mar Unified School District, which provides educational services. in the South County Area, which includes Grover beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano, Nipomo and'the remaining unincorporated county. The District operates and maintains 1.0 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools, with the addition of Nipomo High School that opened in the fall of 2002. j Recent studies have indicated that most of the schools, with the exception of Nipomo High, were built in the 1950's and 1960's and thus may be subject to needed. renovation. Information provided in .the Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR adopted in I 1991 indicated that many of the schools were operating at an over capacity level. With the opening of Nipomo High, the high school level capacity seems to be resolved. Residential development is of a concern to schools because of increased enrollment. However recent newspaper reports have indicated that enrollment seems to be decreasing. Recent studies report in the Sane Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper indicate that the population in the area will be shifting from families to a more senior population, mainly because of the cost of housing. Recent State budget cuts are also affecting the operation ability of the school district to provide education services. 5.3 Constraints to Housing Development There are a number of constraints that affect the construction of housing in a community. State law recognizes this and requires an analysis of these constraints. Following is an analysis of governmental constraints, environmental or public service constraints, as well as nongovernmental constraints. Government Constraints The intent of this sub-section is to identify governmental constraints that affect housing development, as well as to analyze #hose that may be modified so as to not create a barrier to the maintenance, improvement or development of housing to all income levels. Page' 67 9a-119 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) The price of a home is based upon several basic costs: land, materials, labor, financing rates and insurance, government requirements and fees, as well as environmental ~ constraints. The cost of the first three items are determined by the market economy, while the fourth items, lending rate, is largely set by the federal government, while insurance is controlled by insurance carriers. These items are discussed under nongovernmental requirements and fees. This sub-section focuses on the forth items, governmental constraints. In addition, there.. are a number of environmental constraints that affect housing construction. 1 The California. Legislature has delegated to local governments specific responsibilities and a certain amount of discretionary control over the development and use of land. Through land use controls, building codes and development review procedures, these and other requirements and fees, cities may influence the location, density, type, size, quality and appearance of housing units within their jurisdiction. These requirements and fees, while not completely under full control of the city, affect the cost and availability of housing. , Governmental requirements may generally be divided into land use and development controls, such as general plan requirements, zoning, subdivision, environmental review, and annexation requirements. Other governmental regulations include the California Building Code, development processing and development impact fees, as well as permit processing requirements. Many.of these controls are regulatory, required by local government in response to State. and federal mandates to protect public health and ~ safety, and others are adopted to implement State mandates or to achieve the welfare ~ and desired quality of life, values. and objectives of the local community. It should be noted that the City has adopted the State Uniform Building Code (minimum requirements), and has not amended this Code to include stricter regulations that would add costs to housing development. Specifically, the City adopted Ordinance No. 533 C.S. in September 2002 entitled: Adopting By Reference the 2000 Editions of the "Uniform Administrative Code," Uniform Building Code" (Volumes 1, 2 and 3) and its Appendix, "Uniform Mechanical Code," "Uniform Code for Building Conservation," "Uniform Plumbing Code," and the 1999 Edition of the "National Electric Code". The degree and type of enforcement is described in this Ordinance. Constraints on Housing for Disabled Persons' A priority need for disabled households is housing near transit and jobs. Persons with physical disabilities may need housing that is connected to the provision of individualized services including training, counseling, information and referral services, and rent subsidy services that allow, the physically disabled to live in the community. For individuals with a disability that affects their ability to work or who live on a fixed income, affordable housing is a high priority. Agencies that provide supportive services to the disabled population have been discouraged by the limited supply and consequent high cost of rental housing in Arroyo Grande. Page.68 9a-120 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Governmental constraints related to group housing for persons with disabilities are generally handled through the Discretionary review process. Conditions of approval would be imposed through the Conditional Use Permit process to require compliance with current disabled access standards for that use. Land Use and Development Controls Land use and development controls.determine the amount, type, and location of housing. The primary policy tool #or'promoting a balanced use of land and resources is through the City's General Plan. The General Plan establishes an overall framework for development and conservation of land in the City, primarily through the Land Use ~ Element. State law divides the required content of a general plan into distant elements, ~ and requires that the General Plan be designed as a balanced,, integrated document that is internally consistent. Residential land use is one consideration of the plan, and Housing is one of seven Elements and has a number of issues the City must address. The City in its required General Plan elements must address traffic and circulation, ' safety and noise, conservation. and open space, as well as other statutory matters. The ' ~ Housing Element has a direct relationship to most other General Plan elements. The primary means to implement the General Plan is the Zoning Ordinance or Development Code, which establishes development standards, intensity of development, and minimum site standards. Various residential zones are established ' ~ along with a minimum set of requirements for densities, which are intended to implement the densities set by the General Plan. Other requirements are setbacks, lot ' coverage, parking, open space and other related property development standards. Table 18, inserted here from the 2001 General Plan land Use Element, provides the densities for the various land use zones asset by the recently adopted General Plan. The City is in the process of Development Code Amendments intended to implement the General Plan and make revisions for consistency. It is the intent of the City to include within the Development Code changes to the development standards included as policies of the adopted Housing Element. Some of these standards by their nature may increase the cost of housing, however,, those proposed standards included as policies in this element, are not considered excessive and are deemed to be the minimum required to protect the general welfare and regulate the quality of development in the City. Moreover, the City will not impose development standards that will preclude the economic feasibility of a project qualifying for the density bonuses, incentives or concessions to which adeveloper/applicant is entitled under Government Code section 65915, absent a finding of specific adverse impact associated with such waiver of a development standard. State law requires that any subdivision of land must conform to the standards and ' procedures set forth by the State Subdivision Map Act. The City's Development Code implements these State requirements and procedures in a manner considered necessary and reasonable means despite affecting residential development i improvement costs. Development applications for housing as well as other development applications are subject, in most cases, to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA i Page 69 9a-121 i ~I ~ City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ' requires that development applications be subject to an environmental review of the impacts that would result from implementation~of a project. The City, as part of its 2001 Generale Plan, prepared a program environmental impact report (EIR) to address the impacts of development proposed by the Plan. The anticipated residential development evaluated in the Plan is similar to that required by the Regional Housing Needs established for the City. The Program EIR concluded that there were several significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. Required findings and statements of overriding considerations also involve mitigation measures that will influence future residential and also require possible project EIR's that will increase the cost of the development. These costs are i t unavoidable given the State mandated requirements of CEQA. Several areas designated for future residential development in the City's 2001 General i i Plan are located within the City's Sphere of Influence or proposed Urban Reserve not currently in the City. Changes tothe Sphere and annexation to the City are under the jurisdiction of the county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), as well as the City. Recent changes to State annexation laws now require service plans that demonstrate the ability of the city to 'serve the annexation area as well as a financial analysis of the service ability. These requirements may have a significant affect on whether lands may be annexed to the City as;well as time required to effect the annexation. Additionally, the General Plan requires that these potential annexations be subject to Specific Plan and pre-zoning approval prior to annexation. These processes and related EIRs will take several years to complete, thus precluding these areas from this Housing Element. Building CodeBuilding Code Requirements The Arroyo Grande building requirements ar•e based upon the latest version of the California Building Code, which is a version of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the State. This Code is mandated by the State, and a jurisdiction may not set standards that are less stringent than the State Code. The Code ensures safe housing and is not considered a significant constraint to housing production. i i Page 70 9a-122 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) TABLE 18 URBAN LAND USE ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. ZONING AND POPULATION DENSITY Residential land uses, ranging from large-lot single-family homes to multiple-family apartment buildings are the predominant uses within the City of Arroyo Grande. Most of the land within the City designated for residential use has been developed. The demand for additional residential development is evidenced by requests for conversion of non-residential classifications to residential designations as well as requests to increase the i ' density allowed within residential and non-residential classifications. Residential density, zoning categories and population density shown on the Urban Land Use Element, Map 2 are summarized on Table; LU-1. Residential Density, Table LU-1 Classification DU Densitv Consistent Zoning/Min Lot Size Persons/Household Approximate Population Densitv Persons/acre ~ ' Agriculture (Ag) 1 du/10ac. Gen or Exclusive Agriculture/ 2.4p/du 0.24 p/ac 20 ac. (currently 10 ac. In City) 1 du/20ac. 0.12 p/ac Conservation/ 1 du/10ac. OS & PF 2.4 " 0.24 p/ac Open Space(C/OS) 1 du/sac. Sac, 10ac, & 20 ac. 0.5 p/ac County Residential 1 du/sac County RR/5 - 10ac 2.4 " 0.5 p/ac Rural (RR) , County Residential 1 du/2'/z ac.* County RS (Proposed) 2.4 " 1.0 p/ac Suburban (RS) (County LUO currently allows1 -3 ac. Lots) Single Family Residential (SFR) Very Low Density (VLD) 1du/2'/z ac. RE/2'/i ac. 2.4 " 1.0 p/ac Low Density (LD) 1 du/1'/i ac. RH/1 %s ac. (cluster) 2.4 " 1.6 p/ac 1 du/1 ac. .City RR/1 ac. 2.4 " 2.4 p/ac Low Medium Density(LM) 2.5 du/1 ac. City RS 2.4 " 6.0 p/ac Medium Density (MD) 4.5 du/ac City SF 2.4 10.8 p/ac Multi-Family Residential (MFR) I Medium High Density (MHD) Townhouse/Condo 9.0 du/ac City MF 2.0 p/du 18.0 p/ac Mobile Home Park (MHP) 12.0 du/ac MWP-MHD 1.5 p/du 18.0 p/ac High Density (HD) 14 du/ac City MFA 2.0 p/du 28.0 p/ac Apartments *"*Very High Density (VHD) 25 du/ac *""Senior Residential 2.0 p/du 50.0 p/ac Mixed Use (MU) Village Core (VC) 25 du/ac See 2.0 p/du 50.0 p/ac Office (O) Devt. PD, SP and CF Code ~i Page 71 9a-123 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) *`*General Plan Land Use Element Policy, LU3-4: "Accommodate the development of apartment buildings and group housing in areas classified as Multiple Family Residential -Very High Density (MFR-VHD)" LU3-4.1 AIIow a maximum density of 25 du/acre within the MFR-VHD designation. ' LU3-4.2 Enable development of very high density multi-family residential uses in locations with good access to major transportation routesand in close proximity to Community Facilities, Offices, Regional Commercial and/or Mixed Use zones: LU304.3 Allow for apartment buildings that do not adversely affect surrounding residential uses. LU3-4.4 Encourage senior and other special needs housing facilities within the MFR-VHD designation. Development Processing and Development Impact Fees ~ Table 19 summarizes the development processing fees including fees charged by the Community Development Department for processing housing applications. These fees are established by the City Council to cover'the staff and other costs associated with processing a housing development application. These fees are comparable to other area jurisdictions and not considered excessive. The fees charged at the time of the issuance of a building permit for residential development include standard building permit plan check and inspection fees as well as impact fees set by the City. Building fees are set by the Building Code and represent the costs for plan review and inspection of the project construction. Given the nature of ' i these fees, they are not considered excessive in that they are essential to ensure the ~ ~ health and safety of the project construction. The City also charges impact fees to cover the costs of cumulative infrastructure and certain service requirements of the projects. Given the current tax structure the City must operate under, there are not adequate, general funds to provide the services and i infrastructure necessary for new residential development, thus development impact fees must be charged to cover the costs of the services or infrastructure requirements. Many of these fees are a result of environmental mitigation measures adopted and required by the project environmental review. Many of these fees are not unusual or high compared to other cities in the region and they are deemed necessary to cover costs. Similarly, school impact fees that have been imposed by the local school district to help cover their costs to provide additional building construction needed to support additional school population associated with additional residential development. These development impact fees increase the cost of housing, and proportionally affordable housing. This Housing Element proposes waiving or deferring all or part of certain development impact fees as a public incentive and means of assisting affordable housing. The total fees charged at building permit issuance for the average single family is approximately $20,000 per unit, which includes building fees and impact fees. For condominium projects, the estimated building and impact.fees are estimated at between ~ t r estimated at $13,000 and $14,000 per unit, while. the same fees for an apartmen a e $13,000 per unit. These fees are one of the substantial costs of housing, but as noted above, these fees are either required by the building code, are needed to finance infrastructure or services, or serve as mitigation for the project impacts. ~j Page 72 9a-124 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) ~ TABLE 19 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT j FEE SCHEDULE -JANUARY 1, 2003 APPLICATION;.TYPE BASE FEES OTHER FEES ' ! APPEALS • From Community Development Director to Planning Commission $ 195 N/A • From Planning Commission decision to City Council $ 195 N/A ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW • Within P.D. Zone or requires City Council approval • Architectural Review Only N/A N/A • Architectural Review with associated project $ 415 N/A • Outside P.D. Zone or requires Planning Commission approval N/A • Architectural Review Only N/A • Architectural review with associated project $ .220 N/A $ 67 N/A • Minor Project (ARC Referral/Community Development Dir. Approval) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AMENDMENT • Within P.D. Zone or requires City Council approval ' $ 415 N/A ~ • Outside P.D. Zone or requires Planning Commission approval. $ 220 N/A • Minor Project (ARC Referral/Community Development Dir. Approval) $ 220 N/A i I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE • Within P.D. Zone $ 650 Recording Fee • Outside P.D. Zone $ 450 Recording Fee CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) • Within P.D. Zone $ 1,205 N/A • Outside P.D. Zone $ 1,005 N/A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT • Within P.D. Zone $ 865 N/A • Outside P.D. Zone $ 665 N/A CONDOMINIUM, CONDOMINIUM OR MOBILEHOME PARK i CONVERSION (see CUP and Tentative Map) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT $2,03o N/A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (includes rezoning, $1,25o N/A prezoning, and P.D. rezoning) 15% of EIR or Environmental Doc. Contract EIR/ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES and cost of document preparation by consultant or staff (time and materials) Page, 73 9a-125 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) APPLICATION TYPE BASE-FEESOTHER FEES i . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT $1,37o N/A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT $ 5o N/A LARGE FAMILY DARE CARE PERMIT $ 2s5 N/A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT • Within P.D. Zone $ 800 • Outside P.D. Zone $ 605 i LOT MERGER $ soy MEETING CONTINUANCE REQUESTED BY APPLICANT $ 130 N/A >6 weeks MINOR EXCEPTION $ 2so N/A 'I PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING $ x,155 see Develo ment Code Amendment PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN, OR GENERAL $1,155 N/A i DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ' ' • Processed concurrently with Tentative Map and Architectural Review $ 1,155 N/A • Processed alone $ 1,155 N/A i PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATIONIWAIVERIREFERRAL $ a1o N/A PLOT PLAN REVIEW $ 230 N/A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE $ 315 N/A PREZONING (see Development Code Amendment) RESEARCH (per hour) $ 7o N/A I REVERSION TO ACREAGE • Within P.D. Zone $ 415 $21/lot to be merged • Outside P.D. Zone 220 $21/lot to be mer ed REZONING (see Development Code Amendment) $ 1,155 ~ Page 74 9a-126 I City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) APPLICATION TYPE: ` .BASE FEES OTHER FEES i I~ SECOND DWELLING UNIT (see CUP) SIGNS (Includes referral to ARC) • PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM • Within P.D. Zone $ 615 N/A • Outside P.D. Zone $ 415 N/A • ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT $ 7o N/A • ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PROGRAM $ 165 N/A • MURAL PERMIT $ 165 N/A SPECIFIC PLAN $ 3,550 N/A I SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT $1,155 N/A I( i SURFACE MINING PERMIT (see CUP) TEMPORARY USE PERMIT $ 105 N/A TENTATIVE PARCELITENTATIVE TRACT MAP • Within P.D. Zone $ 1,000 $ 21/lot • Outside P.D. Zone $ .805 $ 21/lot i TENTATIVE PARCELITENTATIVETRRCT MAP AMENDMENT • Within P.D. Zone $ 1,000 $ 21/lot ~ $ 805 $ 21 /lot • Outside P.D. Zone TIME EXTENSION (Tentative Parcel or Tract Map/CUP/PUD ext.) • Within P.D. Zone $ 510 N/A ~ • Outside P.D. Zone $ 310 N/A VARIANCE • Within P.D. Zone $ 1,000 ~ • Outside P.D. Zone $ 805 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL OR TRACT MAP • Within P.D. Zone $ 1,000 $ 21/lot ~ • Outside P.D. Zone $ 805 $ 21/lot •I ' VIEWSHED REVIEW PROCESS • Staff Review $ 350 N/A I • Planning Commission Review $ 350 N/A Updated 11/12/02 Page,75 9a-127 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Land-Use Controls Land use controls, broadly outlined in the General Plan Land Use Element and implemented through the City's Development Code, specify the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses. Specific development standards include parking requirements, ! lot coverage, lot sizes, unit sizes, floor area ratios, setbacks and open space requirements. The current standards are outlihed below in Table 20 for all residential districts. Standards for Mixed Use development are discussed above in Section 5.1 under Land Availability. As part of the Development Code Update for residential and mixed use districts, the City i will study how development standards can be modified to enable higher densities described in the Land Use and Housing Elements. Specifically, the City will focus on increasing the allowable height and reducing parking requirements (especially for all i affordable housing. and senior housing) to enable .higher densities. This issue is addressed under Policy A.10. j TABLE 20 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES RE RH RR RS SF VR 1. Maximum 0.4 0.67 1.0 2.5 4.5 4.5 density (DU's er ross acre 2. Minimum 92,500 49,000 40,000 12,000 7,200 6,750 building sites (Net area in sq. ft. 3. Minimum lot 200' 130' 120' 80' 70' S0' width° 4. Minimum lot 250' 200' 200' 100' 100' 100' de th S. Minimum front 50'* 35'* 35'* 25'* 20'* 15'* and 6. Minimum interior 30'* 10% of lot 10% of lot 5' one 5' one 5'* side yard width* width* side, 10' side, 10' i setback other side* other side* ~ 7. Minimum street 30'* 15% of lot 15% of lot 15'* 15'* 10'* ~ side yard width width* setback 8. Minimum rear 50'* 40'* 25'* 20'* 10' (1 1-' (1- yard setback story) story) 15' (2- 15' (2- sto * sto 9. Maximum lot 35% 35% 35% 30% 40% 40% covers ed ~ - Page 76 9a-128 i; City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 10. Maximum 30' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 2 30' or 2 ~ height for stories, stories, stories, stories, stories, stories, buildings and whichever whichever whichever whichever whichever whichever structures is less is less, 14' is less, 14' is less, 14' is less, 14' is less, 14' .for, for for for for accessory accessory accessory accessory accessory buildin s buildin s buildin s buildin s buildin s 11. Minimum 20' 20' ' 6' 10' 10' 10' ~ distance between building ' (including main dwellings and accessory ~ structures e RESIDENTIAL.-SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTIPLE FAMILY AND OTHER ZONES MF MFA SR MHP 1. Maximum density 9.0 11.0 25.0' 6.5 (DU's per gross acre 2. Minimum building 10,000 10,000 20,000 5 acresg site (Net area in sq. ft, 3. Minimum lot 80' . 80' 80' 60'g width° 4. Minimum lot 100' 100' 100' 100'g de th ~ 5. Minimum front 20'* 20'* 20' 20' and setback 6. Minimum interior 10'* 10'* 10' S' side and setback 7. Minimum street 10'* 10'* 10' 15' side and setback j_~Minimum Average 15' Average 15' Average 15' S' rear yard setback j_~Maximum lot 40% 45% 60%' S0% coverages Page77 9a-129 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 10. Maximum height 30' or 2 30' or 2 stories, 30' or 2 stories, 30' or 2 for buildings and stories, whichever is whichever is stories, structures whichever is less, 14' for less, 14' for whichever is less, 14' for accessory accessory less, 14' for accessory buildings buildings accessory buildin s buildin s 11. Minimum distance 10' 10' 10' S' between buildings (including main dwellings and accessory ~ StrUCtureS e Notes to Table 16.32.050-A and B: Residential'Site Development Standards i a See Table 16.32.050-A for minimum lot sizes for parcels with slope greater than seven percent. b Area shall be increased to five acres for slope conditions exceeding twenty (20) percent. Width measurements for cul-de-sac or otherwise odd-shaped lots shall be determined on the basis of the average horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the. front and rear lot lines. * If a lot is located within a residential zone and was created prior to June 13, 1991, i effective date of the Development Code, buildings may conform with the setback and lot coverage standards of the previous zone as°outlined in Appendix C.W.-D-2.19 d The following floor area ratios shall be adhered to in all zoning districts in addition to lot coverage requirements: i Lot Size Floor Area Ratio FAR i I 0 = 4000 s uare feet net 0.35 4001 7199 s uare feet net 0.40 7200 - 11999 s uare feet net 0.50 12000 - 39999 s uare feet`net 0.45 40000 + s uare feet net The above FAR's shall not apply to condominium or PUD projects where the proposed lot consists of a building footprint. e Within a planned unit development, building separations may be reduced to zero feet, provided that fire walls are provided per UBC standards. ~ r Unless a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the units are reserved for low and moderate income residents, the maximum density of independent living developments ~ shall be eleven (11) units per gross acre (11 du/ac). Congregate and residential care facilities shall have a maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre (25 du/ac). s The minimum parcel size within the mobilehome district may be reduced to three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet with a minimum average width of forty (40) feet and a minimum frontage of not less: than thirty (30) feet if common open space areas and recreational facilities are provided as part of the subdivision and if the open space page 78 9a-130 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) areas and recreational facilities are reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the subdivision. Standards for the provision of common open space required to permit a reduction in lot size are as follows: ' (1) A minimum of five hundred (500) square feet of common open space and recreational area shall be provided for each residential lot in the subdivision. (2) The combined square footage of common open space, recreational area, and residential lot area, not including public and private streets and cannon parking areas shall average not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet per lot within the 'j subdivision. (3) Open space and recreational areas shall be designated on the subdivision map, and shall be located entirely within the subdivision. n For two-story buildings average rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet. Average includes all buildings along rear property line and is subject to city approval. ' The permitted sixty (60) percent lot coverage includes main and accessory buildings, ~ parking areas, driveways, and. covered patios. The remaining forty (40) percent of the total area shall be devoted to landscaping, lawn and outdoor recreation facilities incidental to the development, such as, but not limited to, outdoor recreation game areas, putting greens, patios, walkways and fences. RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS I 1. RESIDENTIAL USES , a. Sin le-famil homes ' j Conventional size lot 2 s aces er unit within an enclosed ara e Small lot (PUD) 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 s ace/unit for visitor arkin b. Duplexes 2 space per unit within an enclosed garage and 1 uncovered s ace er unit c. Second residential units 1 covered space per unit and 1 uncovered space er unit d. Townhouse and condominiums Attached ownershi units RESIDENT PARKING: Studio 1 s ace er unit within an enclosed ara e 1 bedroom 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage and 1 uncovered s ace er unit 2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 uncovered space per unit for each additional .bedroom over 2 VISITOR PARKING: 0.5 uncovered s ace er unit e. Apartments and multifamily dwellin s rental units RESIDENT PARKING: Studio 1 covered s ace er unit 1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit ~ Page 79 9a-131 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 2+ bedrooms 2 covered spaces per unit and 0.5 uncovered I space per unit for each additional bedroom over 2 VISITOR PARKING: 0.5 :uncovered s ace er unit f. Senior housin - inde endent livin RESIDENT PARKING: Studio 1 covered s ace er unit ~ 1 bedroom 1 covered s ace er unit 2+ bedrooms 1 covered space per unit and O.S uncovered s ace er unit VISITOR PARKING: O.S covered s ace er unit g. Senior housing -assisted living 1 uncovered space per 3 beds and 1 space per em to ee on the lar est work shift ~ h. Mobilehome arks 2.5 uncovered s aces er unit i. Large family day care facilities 1 uncovered space per staff person other than the homeowner in addition to the required ~ ~ arkin for the residential buildin Projects qualified for a density Maximum sparking ratios set forth in bonus via provision of affordable or Government Code section 65915(p). senior housingpursuant to Government Code section 65915, where a licable. On and Off-Site Improvement Requirements Typical on and off-site improvement requirements for residential subdivisions and/or mixed-use projects are imposed as part of the approval process for a subdivision and/or conditional use permit application. Current improvement standards include submittal of the following improvement plans: Grading and drainage; erosion control; street improvements; curb, gutter and sidewalk; public utilities; water and sewer; landscaping and irrigation. These improvement plan requirements are generally based on health, safety and to a lesser extent, aesthetic issues. Deviations from standards such as driveway width, street width and undergrounding of utilities occur on acase-by-case basis through the discretionary review process and will be formalized through implementation of Housing Element policies and programs to encourage affordable housing construction. As another incentive to produce more affordable housing, the City intends to update its Fee Schedule to reduce the amount of impact fees required for very low and low income housing (see Policy B.3-1 The City adopted a Level of Service and Traffic Impact Study Policy in March 2002. A Level of Service (LOS) `C' was established as the threshold, or peak hour design ~ objective for all movements, including cumulative traffic at build-out of the study area. I Permit Processing Requirements Permit processing times in Arroyo Grand are comparable to other cities in the county. Most of the processing times are a result of State mandated reviews and hearings, including the time required for preparation of the required environmental documents. Projects requiring an EIR can be processed in a year. Those not requiring an EIR may be processed in 6 months or less. While application and permit processing times may Page 80 9a-132 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element " (Amended March 8, 2005) seem excessive by some, they are generally. prescribed by law. The Housing Element includes a policy stating the City's intent to expedite the processing of development proposals that include affordable housing, to `the extent allowed by CEQA and State i planning, zoning and subdivision procedures. Estimated timelines for different permits are indicated in Table 21 below. It should be .noted that timelines can also change depending on if a proposed project is" in a Planned Development Area. Any project i within a Planned Development requires City Council approval. The 2001 General Plan Land Use Map eliminated reference to already developed Planned Development (PD) areas, but retained vacant areas. The Development Code Update will include this change and will result in shorter permit processing timelines for projects in developed PD areas. TABLE 21 PERMIT PROCESSING TIMELINE " Initial Comments - Permit T e Due: Tar et Issuance,Date: The goal of the City of Arroyo Grande,,Community Development Department is to ;issue a decision within the time ~ periods listed below. These time "periods :begin when ~a .complete application is submitted and are. extended-when additional information is requested :by the City. To assist applicants, we are providing with timefi•ames below for ''our"target issuance date"-when you`;can expect a decision.on your application,-and an "initial..comments-due" date-when you can expect,to receive initial review comments from us. _ ; ' , , : , Minor Use Permit (administrative) (Formerly Viewshed, Plot Plan, Architectural Review, and Minor Exce tion ermits 1:4 da s 21 da s Tem or Use Permit administrative = 7 da s 14 da s Administrative Sign Permit administrative 7 da s 14 da s Conditional Use Permit discretion 30 da s 120 da s Lot Line Ad'ustment discretion 30 da s 90 da s Tentative Parcel Ma discretion 30 da s 90 da s ~ Tentative Tract Ma discretion 30 da s 120 da s Development Code Amendment discretion 30 da s 120 da s General Plan Amendment discretion 30 da s 120 da s S ecific Plan discretion 30 da s 180 da s Variance discretion 30 da s 90 da s Environmental Constraints i The City adopted a General Plan Update in 2001. As part of the process of adopting ~ the update, a program EIR was prepared to address the environmental issues attributed to the growth proposed. It is important to note that the General Plan Update evaluated residential growth that is very similar to that included in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment adopted for the City of Arroyo Grande, except that the General Plan ~ assumes a longer planning period than the Needs Assessment. The General Plan Page 81 9a-133 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Update EIR concluded that there were three major environmental impacts that were significant and could not be feasibly mitigated to less than significant, thus findings and statements of over-riding consideration were adopted. These critical issues are considered constraints on residential development as discussed below. Water Availability As outlined in the public services section of the Program EIR, water resources are limited in the City. According to the City Public Works Department, the City is currently using more than 94% of its available average annual water resources. The current resources are not adequate to serve the increased population proposed by the General Plan, and thus, not adequate to serve the projected population proposed by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. To address the water supply issue, the City has adopted a water conservation plan. The intent of this plan is to reduce wasteful or excessive water consumption to provide a margin of safety for existing users and enable more efficient use of existing resources to accommodate growth anticipated by the adopted 2001 General Plan. However, due to the fact that the conservation plan was only recently adopted, its effectiveness is yet to be determined. In addition, the Local Housing Task Force (LHTF) recommends that other sources of supplemental water supply should be considered soon due to the lengthy time required for regional l water resource or project development. Other than pending conservation measures, these resources were determined to be beyond the time frame of the Housing Element planning period. It is therefore concluded that water availability is a critical constraint to continued residential development. Traffic/Circulation i The General Plan Program EIR evaluated traffic impacts, both from proposed City development as well as regional impacts of growth. The EIR concluded that many local streets and Highway 101 will be significantly. impacted. The 101 impacts are significant in that the improvements required to serve many of the undeveloped land in the southeast and south portions are not'yet planned and likely will not be implemented until after the Housing Element planning period. It is therefore concluded that additional development will cumulatively impact area roadways and thus is another constraint to i continued regional residential development, including within the City. Air ualit Like traffic/circulation, air quality has been determined in the General Plan Program EIR to be a significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant, and will require a Clean Air Plan amendment.: This is a cumulative impact attributed to additional growth, thus is considered a significant constraint to continued residential regional development, including within the City. Non-Governmental Constraints ~ This sub-section provides information related to constraints to producing housing, specifically affordable housing, that result not from governmental regulation, but from ~ other forces on the housing market. Primarily, this examines the economic factors that contribute to the price of housing in Arroyo Grande. Other factors that have an effect on housing costs that are not addressed.. are sales and marketing costs, property taxes, and developer profits. Page 82 9a-134 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Land Costs Land costs vary substantially based upon a number of factors. The main influences on land value are location and zoning, and to a degree available supply of land. Land that is conveniently located in a desirable: area that is zoned for residential uses will likely be more valuable,. and thus more expensive. I~, The LHTF developed several proformas that evaluated the costs of residential development, including land costs. It has been estimated that unimproved residential zoned land in the City ranges from $300,000' o $500,000 per acre. Improved lots can be even more costly. The range sometimes varies due to the site zoning, with higher density zoned land being more expensive per acre (but less per unit). Given the median cost of housing identified in this chapter and the median costs for affordable housing, then it is evident that land costs clearly present the most significant constraint to the production of affordable housing in the, City. Site Imarovement Costs Site improvement costs include the cost of providing access to the site, clearing and grading the site, and constructing required improvements. In the case of a subdivision, l such costs may also include major subdivision improvements such as building roads, installing sewer, water and other utilities.. As :with land costs, several variables affect the amount of such costs including site topography and proximity to established roads and utilities. Engineering and other design and technical assistance costs are usually included with site improvement as these services and City fees are required to ensure the development is constructed to established codes and standards. ~ The City requires that curbs, gutters and sidewalks be placed along the frontage of every lot on which new construction is done. Many of these improvements, especially sidewalks, generally are required to provide pedestrian access and access for the handicapped. These costs have been estimated in a range of from $40,000 to $60,000 per unit for a standard single-family housing subdivision. While these costs contribute j to the cost of a housing unit, the improvements. required by the City are typical of all cities in the State and do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in the City. City regulations are intended to generally encourage high-quality private development and new construction. Construction Costs Construction costs are those incurred in actually constructing a dwelling unit. These costs can vary depending on the location or style of development. Important determinants of construction costs include the amenities built into the unit, materials used, the prevailing labor rate (a significant issue with subsidized affordable housing given recent legislation), and the difficulty of building on the site. In Arroyo Grande, expansive soils may necessitate more extensive foundations for housing units. Residential construction costs per square foot vary, with an estimated $102.00 per square foot for single family, $95.00 for condominiums, and $93.00 for apartments Financial Costs Page 83 9a-135 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Because of the size of most housing developments, developers generally have to borrow money to cover the costs outlined above. As with all loans, interest must be paid to the lender. Interest rates for construction loans, as well as mortgage, tend to be tied to the prime rate (the prime rate is the interest rate at which banks loan money to their best corporate clients). Construction loans are generally two or more percentage points above the prime rate. Currently, interest rates are generally low, but recent reports indicate that they may be increasing over the Housing Element planning period. The prime rate is currently at 4 percent (July,. 2003). While this is not considered a significant constraint, the time it takes to process and construct a project can affect the amount of interest paid. This Housing Element includes a policy to streamline the processing of affordable housing that.-could reduce the financial costs of these projects. Insurance Availability One of the significant issues identified by thee. Housing LHTF as reported by local developers is the cost and/or availability of workers compensation and liability insurance. These types of insurance'::have become very costly or are not available at all. This is having a negative effect in the construction of multi-family units such as condominiums and apartments as well as a substantial cost per unit. This situation has escalated to a point that only single-family residential development appears profitable. This has and continues to be a constraint to multi-family and condominium i development, which are the types of housing: most feasible for affordable housing. This is a situation that needs to be addressed at the State level in that it is generally out of the control of the City. 5.4 Local Housing Funds The City of Arroyo Grande has a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in place that collects tax increments to finance public projects as well as affordable housing. Under State law, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. The Agency currently has $85,719 in its housing fund. While it is expected that this fund will increase over the years as the Agency was only recently established in 1996, the increased amount will not generate significant funds during this housing period. The City also adopted an inclusionary housing ,program in March 2000 that generates in-lieu housing funds. As of July 1, 2003 this program had funds in the amount of $631,882 devoted to affordable housing. To'date, the City has allocated funds from this source for two affordable senior housing projects. Like the RDA fund, this fund will increase during the housing period as additional projects are developed. The RDA fund and the inclusionary in-lieu fund can support affordable housing. These funds can be directly utilized to assist affordable housing projects in the City or can be i leveraged toward qualifying for State .and federal housing funds. It is the intent of the ! City to utilize available funds to support affordable housing projects and programs. 5.5 Energy Conservation Opportunities and Programs The California Building Code (specifically Title 24) requires that all new residential development comply with specific:.energy conservation standards. These require a multitude of measures to reduce energy usage in a housing unit, thus reducing the monthly costs for the housing unit occupants. Energy costs are an important factor Page 84 9a-136 i i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) when determining the affordability of a housing unit. All new construction in the City must comply with Title 24. These regulations are periodically modified to reduce energy usage as part of ongoing updates to Title 24 and the California Building Code, which are required to be adopted by the City. The major issue with energy conservation is with existing housing units, maintaining their level of affordability. Factors that affect energy use must be put in the context of identifying opportunities for conservation. Additional insulation, weather stripping, and energy efficient windows are three methods to reduce energy consumption. Several of 'I the local utility companies have programs to retrofit existing units to encourage reduced energy consumption. A policy is provided in this Housing Element to require compliance with energy regulations and codes in new development and to encourage and support retrofit programs for existing units.. 5.6 Current and Past Housing Efforts Evaluation of 1993 Programs Below are the programs identified in the 1993 Housing Element followed by a brief evaluation or status comment. 1. The City will establish an affordable housing fund to accept housing-related fees; Phis fund will be used to construct lower income housing, write-down land or financing costs, rehabilitate or preserve existing units, or pay for implementation programs within this housing element. At the same time that the City establishes said funds, it will also adopt guidelines for the utilization of the monies, including establishment of general priorities and procedures. Response: The City enacted an affordable housing fund in March 2000 in Ordinance No. 514 C.S. entitled "Affordable Housing Requirements". An affordable housing in-lieu fee was established for projects requiring General Plan amendments and/or changes to the zoning designation increasing residential density, and for all other residential development projects greater than four (4) units (projects producing less than 4 units are exempt from affordable housing requirements). The in-lieu fee associated with General Plan/Zoning Map amendments was established at 2.5% of the value of new construction for each required affordable unit, and 1 % of the value of new .construction for all other residential projects. During the 2001 General Pan Update, the program was amended to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee to 3%. 2. The City will establish a streamlined permif processing procedure for low- income housing projects. Response: The City has not formally :adopted a streamlined permit processing procedure for low-income housing projects nor received any applications proposing such use. Recent projects proposing affordable housing above what the Affordable Housing Ordinance requires have received priority and been processed expeditiously. Page° 85 9a-137 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 3. The City will review, and where necessary amend, its zoning ordinance to ensure that the following incentive programs are in compliance with the most current provisions of State law: ,second units in residential zones; mobile homes and manufactured housing in all residential zones; density bonuses for subdivisions that include an affordable housing component. In addition, the City will incorporate density bonus provisions to implement policy A.21. for the condominium/townhouse and multifamily districts. Response: The City's Second Residential° Dwelling Ordinance was amended June ~ 10, 2003 in compliance with State law (AB 1866). The ordinance provides a simpler, more expedient process, much broader opportunity, and incentives for property owners to establish second dwellings, while still maintaining oversight through basic criteria and uniform development standards. The incentives are through decrease in development fees and the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. City control is maintained through the :Minor Use Permit (MUP) process when deviations to the ordinance are sought. Mobile homes are allowed by State law in all residential districts, and the City :has a separate Mobile Home Park (MHP) zoning district as well. The City's Affordable. Housing Ordinance will be amended in compliance with State Law allowances. for density bonuses , and the proposed Housing Element Update includes programs to strengthen the City's inclusionary housing requirements, including greater and broader density bonuses. 4. At least biannually, the City will review development-related processes and procedures and report on ways to eliminate unnecessary delays or other costs That affect the production of housing. Said report shall be submitted to the Planning Commission who shall forward a recommendation to the City Council. Response: The City did not produce biannual reports that specifically relate to the processes and procedures for eliminating unnecessary delays associated with housing development projects, but this Housing Element Update serves this purpose. 5. The City will formally adopt an ordinance related to traffic impact mitigations. If said ordinance includes fees, they shall also include provisions for reducing those mitigation fees for lower income units as an incentive for affordable housing. Said reductions may be "scaled" so that greater reductions will be afforded projects meeting very low income housing needs and/or the needs of ~ other special groups in the .community. Response: The City adopted a Level of Service (LOS) Policy and Traffic Study Guidelines in February 2000 that established thresholds of significance for traffic impacts and standardized traffic. study requirements. Mitigation impact fees are required for projects that exceed the City's traffic impact threshold, but there is no specific provision for reducing these. impact fees for lower income units as an ~I incentive for affordable housing. The City Council has the authority to reduce these i Page 86 9a-138 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) fees on a case-by-case basis for any project believed to have justification. The proposed 2003 Housing Element addresses proposed .impact fee reductions for affordable housing projects. I 6. At least annually, the Planning and Public Works Departments will provide an update to the City Council on available water supplies, projected demand under the General Plan and the status of projects to ensure adequate supply to meet the needs of the community in accordance with the (1991) General Plan, including this (1993 Housing) Element. Response: Every five (5) years, the Public Works Department prepares an Urban Water Management Plan that is :submitted to the State, and a Water Master Plan that is prepared for the City Council. If this program is retained in the updated Housing Element, it should be revised to read "periodically" instead of annually to better reflect the reality of preparing these Plan updates. The City Council does, however, receive at least annual report of ;;water resource utilization and per capita consumption, including most recently the Water Conservation Program report. 7. The City will require the continued affordability of low-income units that are constructed as a result of government funds or regulations or that receive a density bonus or other incentive. The term of such condition shall be determined on a case-by-case .basis but shall comply with applicable requirements of State law. Response: Affordable housing projects constructed with financial assistance from non-.profit organizations or government subsidies are in compliance with applicable State law requirements applicable at the time of approval. Affordable housing projects approved since the adoption of the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance are required to ensure affordability for 30 years though deed restriction and/or development agreement. ' 8. The City will adopt an ordinance that requires that new housing projects and subdivisions of at least 50 units in size to rovide at least 10% of the units as II p affordable to low income households; and projects and subdivisions of 25-49 units or lots in size to provide atleast 5% of the units as affordable to low income households. Said ordinance may allow exceptions based on findings that provision of such units is infeasible on the site; however, in cases of exceptions, the City will require dedication of land or payment of fees in accordance with Policy A.12. The ordinance shall also allow-,a ~-9°~-density bonuses in cases where the project;applicant requests a bonus and satisfies ' all requirements of Government Code sections 65915 et seq. e~-le~~- in~„^-,tea ;Tt~~so„~~r~ed-~;-~it~Said ordinance will also require the payment of fees for projects with fewer than 25 units in accordance with Policy A.13. Page 87 9a-139 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Response: These provisions are included in the current Affordable Housing Ordinance, but the few projects of more than 25 units pursued since 1993 were also allowed to pay fees in lieu of providing 5 to 10% affordable housing without requesting use of a density bonus. 9. The City will study alternative methods for calculating allowable residential l densities to allow a greater number of smaller units instead of large units in appropriate arcumstances. For example, if senior housing is found to generate fewer public service and other impacts, it may be appropriate to allow more such housing instead of large single family dwellings. The results of this study shall be` incorporated into an ordinance that specifies the conditions necessary for modified density calculations to be used. Response: The 2001 General Plan added greater flexibility for higher densities by creating a Mixed Use (MU) district that allows up to twenty-five (25) dwelling units ~ per acre. Pending Development Code Amendments also provide dwelling unit ~ equivalents for smaller and larger than two bedroom units to calculate density. 10. The City shall continue to work with People's Self Help Housing Corporation, ! or other non profit agencies to `secure funds through State and federal programs for development of new low-income housing, and rehabilitation of existing low-income households. Response: Several projects were developed since 1993, and although there are no current projects, pending, the ..City has been in communication with both People's Self Help Housing and the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority regarding potential additional affordable rental housing, including farmworker and senior or special needs housing projects. 11. The City will amend ifs zoning ordinance to allow, (in addition to allowing residential uses in the Village area) the following: a) residential in conjunction with commercial in all commercial zones, subject to discretionary review. ~ Criteria for approving residential uses shall be included in the ordinance. Response: The 2001 General Plan includes Mixed Use (MU) zoning districts and pending Development Code Amendments will implement these provisions district by i district as required. 12. The City will maintain a land inventory of available vacant property zoned for residential uses and make the list available to the public and developers. ~ Response: The City has not developed nor maintained a vacant land inventory for public use. However the City is currently developing a .Geographic Information System (GIS) that will enable such an inventory to be generated The 2001 General Plan Update included the basic inventory of vacant and underutilized sites used for this Housing Element Update. Page.88 9a-140 i City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) 13. The City Building Department shall track all new construction and rehabilitation projects and provide information to the Planning Department on a monthly basis in order to keep the City's computer-based Land Use Inventory updated. ~ Response: The Building Department provides other City departments with a monthly list of building permit activity, but it is not yet integrated into a GIS. Monthly reports of the limited changes to the City's housing inventory are considered excessive but an annual summary would be realistic. ' 14. The City shall meet with representatives of the Cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach to discuss. the possibility of forming an inter-city housing authority, and/or other means for interagency coordination, fo address the potential of meeting categorical .housing needs as a region, as well as providing a reasonable approach to a `jobs-housing" balance. Response: Representatives from communities within the South County area have met to discuss Housing-related issues. The concept of forming a South County regional housing authority has-"not yet been specifically discussed, however. 15. The City will consider a citywide funding mechanism fo accumulate monies for the projection of lower income housing. Options may include a citywide special tax. If such a funding mechanism is approved, then Policies A.12 and A.13 requiring "inclusionary"housing or in-lieu fees maybe modified. ~ Response: Such a citywide funding mechanism has not yet been considered, but are again proposed as part of this: Housing Element Update. j 16. If grant application assistance is available from People's Self Help Housing Corporation, or other groups, the City will apply for CDBG rehabilitation funds fo enable rehabilitation for low-income households. Response: The City has- been working with the Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) using CDBG funding for its home repair program. ~ 17. The City will coordinate., its efforts with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to continue receiving Section 8 subsidy monies. Response: The City has continued to work with the local Housing Authority for Section 8 subsidy monies. ~i 18. The City will provide home .repair videos to the public at little or no cost. Response: This program has not been implemented, nor is the demand or need evident due to the few substandard units within the City. I 19. The City will conduct a biannual inventory of the housing stock condition and prepare a report for presentation to the City Council. Page 89 8a-141 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Response: This program has not been implemented: See response to number 13 above. 20. The City will develop and adopt a revised condominium conversion ordinance that requires tenant notice, opportunities for tenant purchase of units and mitigations for the loss of low-income rental units through the conversion. Such mitigations may include, but: are not necessarily limited to, provision of replacement housing, relocation assistance, and/or payment of fees into the housing fund. Response: The Development:Code standards for condominium conversions include ~ all of the above requirements, but the lack of vacancy factor prerequisite has prevented any condominium conversion despite requests. 21. The City will develop and- adopt an ordinance intended to encourage the retention of existing mobile home„ parks and to provide tenant protection in ' cases of approved conversions. Such protection shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, notice to tenants at /east one year in advance of any conversion, reasonable opportunities for park purchase by the tenants, and relocation assistance for low-income tenants. Response: This program has not been. implemented. The City would utilize the same criteria and procedures required for condominium conversion, however by interpretations until this issue is considered. 22. The City will adopt an ordinance .requiring tenant notice and relocation assistance in cases of demolition of multi-family housing. Such an ordinance shall provide for at least one year's notice to tenants except in cases of imminent risk to health or:safety. The ordinance will also specify minimum requirements for relocation assistance for displaced tenants. Such assistance may include providing `information about other available housing and providing a stipend to help offset moving expenses for low-income households. Response: This program has not been implemented. 23. The City will periodically .review its user charges for public services and ~ facilities to ensure that :the charges are consistent with the costs of improvements and maintenance. Response: The City reviews its user charges for public services and facilities on an I! annual basis. 24. The City will require new projects. to be reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee and by the Planning Commission and/or the Architectural Review Committee to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods., Page 90 9a-142 ~ City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Response: The Staff Advisory .Committee, Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission review all discretionary development projects to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. 25. The City will require housing developments for low and moderate-income households to be designed so that they do not stand out in the neighborhood, in order to enhance the sense of belonging to the community. Forms, materials, and proportions. should. be ufilized which are compatible with the character of The surroundings. Response: Design review of affordable housing projects is conducted on a case-by- case basis to ensure that the ...units blend architecturally with the surrounding neighborhood. 26. The City shall maintain a list of all dwellings within the Cify that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives. The list shall include, at a minimum, the number of units, the type of government program, and the date at which the units may convert to market-rate. dwellings. Response: This program has not been implemented, but the Housing Authority, People's Self Help Housing and City records enable potential annual inventory. 27. The City shall add to :existing incentive programs, and include in all new incentive or regulatory programs, ' requirements to give notice prior to conversion to market rate units as described in Policy C.2. Response: This is currently a requirement. 28. The City will review its zoning to allow group housing in residential zones in accordance wifh State law; co-housing and similar "unconventional" housing arrangements; farmworker housing''in the agricultural zone; "life care" and other combinations of residences with nursing care for seniors. Response: The .City intends to include group housing in the 2004-2005 Development Code Amendments for residential districts. 29. The City will institute an "operation` match-up" program to match owners of underutilized housing units with seniors, single parenfs, and other low-income persons needing housing. Response: This program has not been implemented, nor are many units "underutilized". 30. The City shall confinue fo provide _information about housing opportunities and services for homeless persons Through the Police Department, as well as City Hall. Page 91 9a-143 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Response: The City currently .provides this information. 31. The City shall cooperate with the other cities, the County and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing homeless shelters and related services. Response: The City continues to cooperate with other jurisdictions and agencies regarding homeless programs. 32. The City will revise its zoning ordinance to allow the establishment of homeless shelters for overnight lodging in religious or social organization buildings in those areas designated for high density residential, commercial or public facility uses, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Response: The City allows these facilities in all multi-family and some mixed use districts subject to CUP approval. 33. The Cify will implement Title 24 of the California Code on all new ' development. Response: The City requires Title 24 compliance on all new development. ~ 34. The Cify will work with PG&E and Southern California Gas Company to ~ encourage existing residents to participate in energy efficiency retrofit programs. The City will consider sponsoring an energy awareness program, ' in conjunction with PG&E and/or Southern California Gas Company to educate residents about the benefits; of various refro~t programs. Response: This is an on-going program. 35. The Cit will amend its subdivision ordinance to implement the subdivision Y map act related fo subdivision orientation for solar access. Response: The City's Development Code includes a provision for solar access easements. 36. The City will amend its zoning ordinance to allow for mixed residential and commercial development, where appropriate. Response: The City enables .Mixed Use (MU) developments in the 2001 Land Use Element of the General Plan and is currently updating its Development Code to be consistent with the General Plan. 37. The City will amend its subdivision ordinance to require that new subdivisions include Transit opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian routes, where feasible and appropriate. Page 92 9a-144 I i City of Arroyo Grande. 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) Response: The City's Development Code includes provisions for dedication of land for local transit facilities and other public amenities such as walking paths, bicycle paths and horse trails. The 2001 General Plan identifies other alternative circulation proposals that will be implemented by Bikeway Plan, Transit Plan and other Specific Plans. 38. The City will continue.. to .provide information from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Such .information will be posted at City Hall, the City/County Library, fhe Chamber' of Commerce and other frequented public places. Response: The City provides this. information at multiple locations. 39. The City will refer persons experiencing discrimination in housing to California Rural Legal Assistance, and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing district ofFce in Ventura. Response: The City will refer persons as stated above. j 5.7 General Plan Consistency The City's land use element of the 2001 General Plan currently designates the sites i noted in this Housing Element for residential purposes at densities consistent with the. goals of providing housing to households within the full range of incomes. The policies in this Housing Element will guide hat process, ensuring internal consistency among the General Plan elements. 1 Page 93 9a-145 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) APPENDIX A PERSONS CONTACTED Ted Bench, Dana Lilly. County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Peter Brown. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Jerry Bunin. Home Builders Association of the Central Coast Paul Dirksen, Jr. Housing Policy Analyst, California Department of Housing and Community Development ~ Carol Hatley. Housing Authority of San Luis ,Obispo Don Spagnolo. Arroyo Grande Public Works Director i i II Page 94 9a-146 City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Housing Element (Amended March 8, 2005) APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Element Questions and Answers, June 2001 City of Arroyo Grande, Housing Elemenf, June 1993 City of Arroyo Grande, 2001 General Plan Policy Document and Elements, October 2001 City of Arroyo Grande, 2001 General Plan Integrated Program Environmental Impact Report, May 2001 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Plan, January 2003 ~ San Luis Obispo County, Tribune Newspaper, Numerous Articles on Housing, 2002- 2003 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tapes 1 and 3, i i Page 95 9a-147 o~ PaROyoc 9¦b¦ INCORGORATE Z ~ m CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ~ .war ,o: ~e~ti ,F I CITY COUNCIL c4~~FORN~P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007,, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCILi CHAMBERS at 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: ~ . ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES. The City Council introduced, by title only, the proposed Ordinance at its November 13, 2007 regular meeting. The City Council will conduct a public hearing for the second reading, by title only, and consider adoption of the Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.04.010 related to the adoption of the ,California Fire Code and International Fire Code, addition of Section 8.04.020 related to automatic fire sprinklers, amending Section 15.04.010 related to the adoption of the California Building Code:, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Existing Building Code,' and the International Property Maintenance Code and repealing and amending provisions within Titles 8, 12, 15, and 16 for internal consistency and clarification. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice ;was given. Information relating to the proposal is: available by contacting the Building and Life Safety Division at 473-5450. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Wetmore ity Clerk Publish 2T, The Tribune, Friday, November 16, 200.7 and Friday, November 23, 2007 ~b-c j; - i,^ - - - ; - I'I O~ pRRgyOC ~ INCOgPOAA7E0 Z MEMORANDUM * JULY 10, 1811 c~~~FOR~~P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: MICHAEL E. HUBER ,I DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE BY: JOHNATHAN R. HURST, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF.' ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 .RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1) Adopt,;an Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.04.010 related to the adoption of the California Fire Code and International Fire Code, adding Section 8:04.020 related to automatic fire sprinklers, ' amending Section 15.04.010 related` to the adoption of the California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Existing Building Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code and repealing and. amending provisions within Titles 8,12,15, and 16 for internal consistency and clarification; and 2) Direct the City Clerk tofile a Notice of Exemption.. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2007 at a regular City Council meeting the Council introduced the ordinance and approved it as presented. The State's Health and Safety Code requires local governments to adopt the most recent editions of the model codes: related to construction. The construction codes include: the California Building, Fire,! Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Codes, and other related codes. If the City Council approves the proposed Ordinance, the most recent editions of the construction codes with the applicable amendments will be in effect within the City of Arroyo Grande as required by State law. The most significant change to tfie fire code is the introduction of a fire sprinkler ordinance. The cities of Grover Beach and San Luis Obispo currently require fire sprinkler system installations in structures greater than 1,000 square feet. The City of Atascadero requires all newly constructed occupancies to be fire I sprinklered. It is becoming more common for municipalities with limited fiscal resources to .adopt stricter fire codes and prevention practices that mitigate the community's fire risk: a ~ 1 6 ~ ~ i. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 it PAGE 2 Fire sprinklers have provided an outstanding safety record in industrial, commercial, and institutional applications for over 10;0 years. Residential fire sprinkler systems have been in place since the 1970's. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) statistics show that in a home equipped wifih a residential fire sprinkler system and smoke detectors, survivability of a fire is elevated to 95 percent. Statistics also indicate that a sprinkler system will extinguish or control a fire. at or near its point of origin 91 percent of the time. The activation of a fire sprinkler system greatly limits the production of carbon monoxide and keeps the fire temperature tolerable by extinguishing or keeping the fire- small. Heat from a fire will activate the sprinkler ~~system usually within two to three minutes. Only the heads directly above the fire will 'activate (usually limited to one or two heads) each discharging between 10 - 26 galloris of water per minute. Hose lines used by fire suppression personnel for interior firefighting will each discharge 125 to 200 gallons of water per minute. Without fire sprinklers, by the time the Fire Department arrives on the scene, the fire has potentially grown'; o a size requiring multiple hose lines. It is a fact that sprinkler systems can save lives,,: but they also limit fire and water damage. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached Ordinance; - Modify the Ordinance to amend or remove proposed new fire sprinkler requirements and then introduce; - Make other modifications as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The State's Health and Safety Code (Section 17958) mandates that the California Building Standards Commission adopt and publish the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 California Code of Regulations) every three (3) years. The 2007 Edition of the California Code of Regulations Title 24, which incorporates the below-listed model codes, becomes effective statewide on January 1, 2008. If approved, the proposed ordinance would amend Chapters 8.04 and 15.04 by repealing references to the prior editions of the Construction Codes. It will also repeal and amend provisions within Titles 8, 12, 15 and 16 for internal consistency and clarifications. qb-3 - . - CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 The list below identifies the model codes upon which the 2007 Title 24 is based: California Building Standards Code Reference Model Code 2007 California Building Code 2006 International Building Code (ICC) 2007 California Fire Code 2006 International Fire Code (ICC) 2007 California Plumbing Code 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code (IAPMO) 2007 California Mechanical Code 2006 Uniform Mechanical Code (IAPMO) 2007 California Electrical Code 2005 National Electrical Code (NFPA) 2007 California Existing Building Code 2006 International Existing Building (Found in CBC, Part 10, Vol. II) Code (ICC) The construction codes proposed for adoption by reference with amendments include the following: 2007 California Building Code 2007 California Fire Code 2007 California Plumbing Code 2007 California Mechanical Code 2007 California Electrical Code 2007 California Existing Building Code The 2006 International Property Maintenance Code is also proposed-for adoption by , reference with amendments. This code is based upon and is consistent with the provisions found in the California Building Code. The benefit of adopting this additional code is to provide building and fire inspectors/officials and plan examiners with further clarification of the intent and the applicability of the California Building Code when presented with a variety of construction issues. The Department of Building and Fire is recommending that these changes and modifications be made to the Codes and are advising that certain changes and modifications to the 2007 Editions of the California Building, Fire, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and Existing Building Code.. are reasonably necessary due to local conditions in the City of Arroyo Grande. Other modifications are of an administrative or procedural nature and concern themselves with subjects that are not covered by the Codes or are reasonably necessary to safeguard life and property within the City of Arroyo Grande. The proposed ordinance sets forth a number of findings that are necessary to enable the City to amend the new building and related codes to meet the City's local conditions. The proposed ordinance updates Sections of the Municipal Code by amending the 2007 editions of the California Building, Fire, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Code. r CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 In past years, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the Uniform Codes published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). These codes and other national codes have; been replaced nationwide by the new International Codes published by the International Code Council (ICC). The California Building Standards Commission has elected ~jto adopt these International codes, thus bringing the State of California in line with codes that are being adopted and utilized throughout the rest of the nation. As a result of this Ordinance, fire sprinklers would be required in the following locations: 1. All new buildings or structures where the total floor area exceeds 1,000 (one thousand) square feet. 2. Throughout structures where additions to existing buildings adds more than 50% of - the existing square footage to the structure and .results in a total square footage in _ excess of 1,000 (one-thousand) square feet. 3. Throughout existing structures where alterations encompass more than 50% of the existing square footage of the structure and is in excess of 1,000 (one-thousand) square feet or where there is a change of occupancy to a more hazardous use. These requirements will be applicable to the combined square footage of all building permits issued for the address or site within the last five years. Buildings or structures separated by less than ten (10) feet shall be considered as a single building or structure. ADVANTAGES: The adoption -of this ordinance will keep the City of Arroyo Grande current and compliant with State law in regards to construction and building codes. The adoption of afire sprinkler provision is intended to stop or retard fires, thus requiring less apparatus and personnel than would normally be required. The adoption of this ordinance will also lower our ISO rating, which has the potential of lowering insurance rates citywide. DISADVANTAGES: These codes become effective and are mandated by State law whether or not the local jurisdiction formally adopts them. An increase in construction costs to developers for the installation of the automatic sprinkler,; system will also be a factor. At the present time, cost of a home sprinkler system is targeted at .approximately $1.00 to $1.50 per square foot in new construction and up to 50p'ercent more to retrofit an existing home. ~b-5 j CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF 'AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section, 15061(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A meeting was held Monday November 5, 2007 at San Luis Obispo, Cal-Fire Station 21 (Airport). Included in this meeting were representatives from several local jurisdictions, members of the general public, and°, a representative from the local chapter of Home Builders Association (HBA). The topic of discussion was fire sprinkler ordinances that the various agencies are currently proposing in this code adoption cycle in order to coordinate provisions Countywide and identify concerns from the building industry. Additionally, the agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 8, 2007. The Agenda and report were 'posted on the City's website on Friday, November 9, 2007. Council introduced the ordinance on November 13, 2007 therefore; a public hearing is required prior to final adoption of the ordinance. In compliance with Government Code Section 6066, the !;required public hearing notice was published in the newspaper. on November 16, 2007 and November 23, 2007, prior to the next regular City Council meeting of November 27, 2007. q~-~ ORDINANCE NO. AN -ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.04.010 RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, ADDING SECTION 8.04.020 RELATED TO AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS, AMENDING ,SECTION: 15.04.010 RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND REPEALING AND AMENDING PROVISIONS WITHIN TITLES 8, 12, 15 AND 16' FOR INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND CLARIFICATION WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17921, the State of California ("State") must adopt and enforce regulations (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "uniform code requirements") for the protection of the public governing the construction, alteration, demolition, occupancy, or other use of buildings used for human habitation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958, cities may adopt ordinances imposing the uniform code requirements as established by the State; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its municipal code to adopt more recent, editions of the uniform codes established by the State; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, a city may modify the uniform code requirements if it makes express findings that such modification is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to adopt rules and regulations regarding safety assessment placards and repair and .reconstruction regulations in order to protect the life, safety and welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to adopt cost recovery regulations in order to provide the City with a mechanism to recover emergency service costs due acts of negligence; and Q~'~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, additionally, by this Ordinance, the City Council desires to make general corrections to its municipal code in !;order to `ensure internal consistency with other modifications set forth herein. THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code ("AGMC") Section 8.04.010, entitled "Adoption of the Uniform Fire Code", is hereby amended as follows: 8.04.010 Adoption of California Fire Code. There is adopted by the city, for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire, hazardous materials or explosion, those certain codes known as the "California Fire Code", as amended, and the "International Fire Code", including Appendix Chapters 1, 4, A, B, C, D, F and H and any amendments, and incorporating any California amendments required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 24. Published by the International Code Council (ICC), being particularly the 2006 Edition thereof and the whole thereof, copies of both of which have been and now are on file in the Building and Lifei'Safety Division of the city of Arroyo Grande and the same are adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out in full herein, and from the date on which -the ordinance shall take effect, the provision thereof shall be controlling within the city. SECTION 3: Modifications to Section 903 of the California Fire Code, entitled "Automatic Sprinkler Systems", are reasonably necessary based on the findings set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 4: Section 8.04.020, entitled "Section 903 Amended: Approved .automatic sprinkler systems" is hereby added to the -AGMC as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5: Section 8.04.030, entitled "Section 103 Amended: Fees" is hereby added to the AGMC as set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6: Section 8.04.040, entitled "Cost Recovery", is hereby added to the AGMC as set forth in Exhibit "D" attached. hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. ~~-8' ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 SECTION 7: AGMC Section 8.08.020, entitled "Amendment to Fire Code", is hereby amended as follows: 8.08.20 Amendment to Fire Code. California Fire Code Chapter 33 is amended to add the following provisions regarding the sale and use of fireworks, ;Class C ("Safe and Sane"). SECTION 8: AGMC Subsection 8.16.040.D. of Section 8.06.040 entitled "Alarm business standards" is hereby amended as follows: D. Each alarm business that monitors fire alarm systems must comply with- all sections of National Fire Protection Association Bulletin No. 72, as amended. SECTION 9: AGMC Section 12.04.020, entitled "Building numbers -Materials and size", is hereby amended as follows: 12.04.020 Building numbers -Materials and size. The figures to be used shall be contrasted to .the background and shall be at least four inches high; provided however, where numbers are painted on windows or other parts of structures, the, same shall be deemed sufficient. SECTION 10: AGMC Section 15.04.010, entitled "Adoption of Codes", is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced as set forth in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 11: Section 15.04.020, entitled "Section 3401, 3402 and 3403 Amended: General; Definitions; Additions, alterations or repair" is hereby added to the AGMC as set forth in Exhibit "F" attached hereto. and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 12: Chapter 15.10, entitled "Safety Assessment Placards" is hereby added to the AGMC as set forth in Exhibit "G" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 13: Chapter 15.12, entitled "Moving buildings" is hereby repealed from the AGMC in its entirety. ~ ~-9 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 SECTION 14: AGMC Subsection 16.16.080.E'.5. of Section 16.16.080 entitled "Minor Use Permits-Plot Plan Review" is hereby amended as follows: 16.16.080 Minor Use Permits -Plot Plan Review E.5. Where applicable, the project meets the alternative building regulations pursuant to Part 8 of Title 24 of the 2007 California Historical Building Code and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for,Historic Preservation Projects. SECTION 15: AGMC Subsection ; 16.20.130.D.8. of Section 16.20.130 entitled "Condominiums, condominium conversions, and mobilehome park conversions" is hereby amended as follows: 16.20.130 Condominiums, condominium conversions, and mobilehome park conversions D.8. All condominium and condominium conversion projects shall meet or exceed the California Fire Code requirements, and shall be inspected and approved by the Director of 'Building and Fire, and additionally shall have a complete one-hour fire separation between dwelling units (floors/ceilings, as well as walls). SECTION 16: AGMC Subsection 16.36.030.8.6. of Section 16.36.030 entitled "Commercial and mixed use regulations" is hereby repealed from the .AGMC in its entirety. SECTION 17: AGMC Subsection 16:56.070.A.3. of Section 16.56.070 entitled "Design and paving standards for off-street parking facilities" is hereby amended as follows: 16.56.070 Design and paving standards for off-street parking facilities A.3. Handicapped Parking .Spaces, All Applicable Uses. The number and size of handicapped spaces are specified in the California Building Code (part 2 of Title 24) Chapter 11. Each handicapped .parking space shall be fourteen (14) feet wide, lined to provide anine-foot wide parking area and afive-foot wide loading area, and shall be a minimum eighteen (18) feet in depth. If two handicapped spaces are located adjacent to each other, they may share the five foot wide loading area, resulting in a width of twenty-three (23) feet for the two spaces (see Figure 16.56:070-A). SECTION 18: Figure 16.56.070-A of the AGMC is hereby repealed and replaced with the figure set forth in Exhibit "H" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. ab-i° ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 SECTION 19: AGMC Subsection 16.56.140.0.4. of Section 16.56.140 entitled "Off- street parking structures" is hereby repealed from the AGMC in its entirety, and the remaining subsections C.5. and C':6. are hereby renumbered as C.4. and C.5. respectively. SECTION 20: AGMC Subsections 16.56.140.E.2. and 16.56.140.E.3. of .Section 16.56.140 entitled "Off-street parkiri''g structures" are hereby amended to read as follows: 16.56.140 Off-street parking structures. E.2. Stairway access to street level shall be provided where parking is located either above or below the street IeveL The stairs shall be located near the user's destination and are subject to compliance with the California Building Code. E.3. Elevators shall be provided, in compliance with the California Building Code. SECTION 21: AGMC Subsection 16.60.100.A. of Section 16.60.100 entitled "Construction specifications and safety" is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.60.100 Construction specifications and safety. A. Compliance with Building Code. All signs shall comply with all applicable provisions of this code, including, but not limited to, the California Building Code relative to design and construction, structural integrity, connections and safety. Signs shall also comply with the provisions of all applicable electric codes, and the additional construction standards set forth in this section. SECTION 22: Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this .Ordinance, it shall be published once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. SECTION 23: This Ordinance shall take effect`and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. SECTION 24: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid''or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 6 On motion of Council Member ,seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2007. ofb-~~ _ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 7 -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 ~~-~3 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 8 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") hereby modifies Section 903 of the California Fire Code and Sections 3402 and 3403 of the California Building Code (collectively referred to herein as "Amendments"), which are more restrictive in nature than those found in -the those sections adopted by the State of ',;California and are based on the local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions and findings (collectively "Findings") referenced hereinbelow. The Amendments, address the fire problem(s) and building problem(s), concern(s), and future direction(s), by which the City'can establish and maintain an environment which will afford an adequate level of fire .and life safety protection to its citizens and guests. The Findings contained herein shall address each of the Amendments and shall present the local situation, which either singularly or in combination, create the need for the Amendments to be adopted. CLIMATIC: Climatically, the City has dry warm summer and early fall conditions (as well as moderate late fall and winter conditions) with ,dry winds which remove moisture from vegetation. Further, the City frequently experiences Santa Ana wind conditions which exacerbate fire hazards and potential spread "of fire within the area, both in rural and urban settings.. GEOGRAPHIC: Geographically, the City is located in an area prone to frequent seismic activity which has a high potential for large scale,. `simultaneous building and infrastructure damage, including fire. A major seismic event would create acommunity-wide demand on fire protection services, which would be beyond the response capability of the Fire Department. This potential problem 'can ke partially mitigated by requiring initial fire control through the installation of automatic fire protection systems. Further, the City has numerous older and historic buildings and structures which can often fail due to moderate seismic activity. Additions, alterations and repairs of these antiquated structures need to be properly addressed. Additionally, the many foothills and surrounding mountains are prime sites for residential development. These hillside residentiaal sites,. together with isolated rural and semi-rural settings of the City, create difficult conditions in which to provide immediate fire response. The City is heavily vegetated throughout and encourages native wildlife protection and enhancement. As the community is! developing and housing densities increase, the planting of shrubs and trees and other landscape is encouraged to beautify and enhance City living conditions. However, this increased density results in much higher fuel loads and together with increased planting, and when combined with native ~6-~~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 9 vegetation, significantly increases fire hazards and fire spreading from one dwelling or structure to another. TOPOGRAPHIC: The topographic element of these findings is closely associated with the geographical elements noted above. While the geographic features create the topographic conditions, the findings in this section are, for the most part, a result of the construction and design of the City. Highway 101 completely traverses and bisects the City. There are only three over/underpasses allowing access fo either side of the City. These physical barriers create significant barriers to emergency response. With limited parking and as the community grows and commercial activity increases in the City, delivery and other vehicles tend to double park. When added to already narrow streets, cars parked on the sides of streets and traffic congestion (especially around rush hour), emergency response times are highly affected. The City encourages and emphasizes affordable housing development. This creates buildings that provide minimum required clearances between structures and maximum allowable height. Although these buildings are built with more- stringent standards, the reality is that this type of development creates significant barriers in terms of access and fuel load for fire fighting purposes. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: The City has limited resources, in terms of ..fire fighting capabilities and due to the conditions noted above, need for additional fire protections are necessary. A report by the Institute for Local Self-Government, entitled "Alternative to Traditional Public Safety Delivery Systems" finds that a-fire chief must move toward built-in private fire protection equipment and systems if he/she is;to control the fire department operational budget and the community fire protection problem. This study, using guidelines from the Institute for Local Self-Government and the National Fire Protection Association, .proposed that the fire department control fires in all new structures built within the City. This could be accomplished by using an established first alarm assignment that will not create a deficiency in the fire protection services offered to the already established community. This ordinance and future ordinances of the same kind should reduce the need for additional publicly funded fire protection and allow the City to grow with an adequate level of fire protection. q~-t5 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 10 EXHIBIT "B" 8.04.020 Section 903 Amended:.Approved automatic sprinkler systems. A. Section 903.2 of the 2007 California Fire Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: Approved automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed in the following locations: 1. All new buildings or structures 'where the total floor area exceeds 1,000 (one thousand) square feet and as provided in the locations described in this section. 2. Throughout structures where additions to existing buildings adds more than 50% of the existing .square footage to the structure and results in a total square footage in excess of 1,000 (one-thousand) square feet. 3. Throughout existing structures -where alterations encompass more than 50% of the existing square footage of the structure and is in excess of 1,000 (one-thousand) square feet or where there is a change of occupancy. to a more hazardous use. These requirements will be applicable to the ".combined square footage of all building permits issued for the address or site within the last five years. Buildings or structures separated by less than ten (10) feet shall 'be considered as a single building or structure. B. .Section 903.2.7 of the 2007 California Fire Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: An Automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with sections 903.2 (as amended above) and 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a group R or group U fire area. ~b-l~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 11 'EXHIBIT. "C" 8.04.030 Section 103 Amended: Fees. Section 103.5 of the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Fees", is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 103.5 Fees. The fees for activities and services performed by this department in carrying out its responsibilities under. this code shall be set and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council, a~-~~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 12 EXHIBIT "D" 8.04.040. Cost recovery. The city .shall be entitled to recover- the cost of emergency services as described in subsections A through E. Service costs shall be computed by the Department of Building and Fire under the direction of the Financial Services Department and shall include the costs of personnel, equipment, facilities, materials and other external resources. A. Any person or corporation who allows a hazard to exist on property under control of that person or corporation, after having been ordered by the Department of Building and Fire or other City department to abate that hazard, is liable for the cost of services provided by the Department of Building and Fire should an emergency arise as a result of said unabated hazard. B. Any person or corporation whose negligence causes an incident to occur on any public or private street, driveway orb highway, which, for purposes of life, property or environmental protection, places a service demand on the Department of Building and Fire resources beyond the scope of :routine service delivery, shall be liable for all costs associated with that service demand. C. Any person or corporation who: conducts unlawful activity which results in fire, explosion, chemical release or any other incident to which the Department of Building and Fire responds for the purpose of performing services necessary for the protection of life, property or the environment shall be liable for the costs associated with the delivery of those services. D. When, in -the interest of public safety, the Fire Chief of the Department of Building and Fire assigns the department of building and fire employees as standby personnel at any event, or upon any premises, the person or corporation responsible for the event or premises shall reimburse the Department of Building and Fire department for all costs associated with the standby services. qb-18 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 13 EXHIBIT "E" 15.04.010 Building and construction codes adopted. A. California Buildinq Code. The:2007 California Building Code, including the 2006 International Building Code and appendix chapters 1, B, and I, as amended, is hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full B. California Electrical Code. The 2007 California Electrical Code, as amended, is hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full C. California Mechanical Code. T,he 2007 California Mechanical Code, including all of the appendix chapters, as amended, and excluding Table 1-1 of Appendix 1, is hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo' Grande and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. D. California Plumbing Code. The 2007 California Plumbing Code, including all of the appendix chapters as amended, :and excluding Table 1-1 of Appendix 1, is hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. E. California Existing Buildinq Code. The 2007 California Existing Building Code, including appendix A of the 2006 International ,Existing Building Code , as amended, is hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo, Grande, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. F. International Property Maintenance Code. The 2007 International Property Maintenance Code, as amended, .is hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande and incorporated herein by this reference'. as though set forth in full. qb-l ~ i! ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 14 I'~EXHIBIT "F" 15.04.020 Section 3401, 3402 and 3403 Amended: General; Definitions; Additions, alterations or repair. A. Section 3401 Amended: General Section 3401, entitled "General" of the 2007 California Building Code, is hereby amended to add the following subsection 3401:5: 3401.5 Adoption and intent. This chapter establishes regulations as amendments to the California Building Code for the expeditious repair of damaged structures. In the event an amendment to the California Building Standards Code results in differences between these building standards and the California Building Standards Code, the text of these building standards shall govern. B. Section 3402.1 Amended: Definitions. Section 3402.1, entitled "Definitions" of the 2007 California Building Code, is hereby amended to add the following definition: Substantial Structural Damage. A condition where: 1. In any story, the vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system, have suffered damage such that the lateral load-carrying capacity of the structure in any direction has been reduced by more than 20 percent from its pre-damaged condition, or 2. The capacity of any vertical gravity load-carrying component, or any group of such components, that supports more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure's floor(s) and roof(s) has. been reduced more than 20 percent from its pre-damaged condition, and the remaining capacity of such affected elements with respect to all dead and live loads is less than 75 percent of that required by the. building code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. C. Section 3403 Amended: Repairs. Section 3403, entitled "Additions, alterations, or repair" is hereby amended to add the following subsection 3403.5: 3403.5.1 Repairs. Repairs of structural elements shall comply with this section. 3403.5.1.1 Seismic evaluation! and design. Seismic evaluation and design of an existing building and its components shall be based on the following criteria. 3403.5.1.1.1 Evaluation and design procedures. The seismic evaluation and design shall be based on the procedures specified in the building code, ASCE 31 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (for evaluation ~b-~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 15 only) or ASCE 41 ' Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. The procedures contained it Appendix A of the International Existing Building Code shall be permitted'to be used. as specified in Section 3403.5.1.1.3. 3403.5.1.1.2 CBC level seismic forces. When seismic forces are required to meet the building code level,'they shall be one of the following: 1. 100 percent of the values in the building code. The R factor used for analysis in accordance .with Chapter 16 of the building code shall be the R factor specified for structural systems classified as "Ordinary" unless it can be demonstrated that the structural system satisfies the proportioning and detailing requirements for systems classified as "Intermediate" or "Special". 2. Forces corresponding to BSE-1 and BSE-2 Earthquake Hazard Levels defined ' in ASCE 41. Where ASCE 41 is used, the corresponding performance levels shall be those shown in Table 3403.5.1.1.2. TABLE 3403.5.1.1.2 ASCE 41 and ASCE 31 PERFORMANCE LEVELS OCCUPANCY PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE LEVEL CATEGORY LEVEL FOR (BASED ON IBC FOR USE WITH ASCE USE WITH ASCE 41 BSE-2 TABLE 1604.5) 31 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD AND WITH ASCE 41 LEVEL BSE-1 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD LEVEL I Life Safety (LS) Collapse Prevention (CP) II Life Safety (LS) Collapse Prevention (CP) III Note (a) Note (a) IV Immediate Occupancy Life Safety (LS) (I~) a. Performance Levels for Occupancy Category III shall be taken as halfway between the performance levels specified for Occupancy Category II and Occupancy Category IV. 3403.5.1.1.3 Reduced CBC level-seismic forces. When seismic forces are permitted to meet reduced building code levels, they shall be one of the following: 1. 75 percent of the forces prescribed in the building code. The R factor used for ;analysis in accordance with Chapter 16 of the ~~'oZ~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 16 building code shall be .the R factor as specified in Section 3403.5.1.1.2. 2. In accordance with the .applicable. chapters in Appendix A of the International :Existing `Building Code as specified in Items 2.1 through 2.5 below. Structures or portions of structures that comply with the requirements of the applicable chapter in Appendix A shall be deemed to comply with the requirements for reduced building code force levels. 2.1. The. seismic evaluation and design of unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings in Occupancy Category I or II are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A1. 2.2. Seismic evaluation and design of the wall anchorage system in` reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry wall buildings with flexible diaphragms in Occupancy Category I or II are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A2. 2.3. Seismic evaluation and design of cripple walls and sill plate anchorage in residential buildings of light-frame wood construction in Occupancy Category I or II are permitted to be .based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A3. 2.4. Seismic evaluation and design of soft, weak, or open- front wall conditions in multiunit residential buildings of wood construction in Occupancy Category I or II are permitted to be basedon the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A4. 2:5. Seismic evaluation and design of concrete buildings and concrete with masonry infill buildings in all Occupancy Categories are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A5. 3. In accordance with ASCE 31 based on the applicable performance level as shown in Table 3403.5.1.1.2. 4. Those associated with the BSE-1 Earthquake Hazard Level defined in ASCE` 41 and the performance level as shown in Table 3403.5.1.1.2. Where ASCE 41 is used, the design spectral response acceleration parameters Sxs and Sx1 shall not be taken q~-a~ ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 17 less than 75 percent of the respective design spectral response acceleration parameters SDS and SD1 defined by the International Building Code and its reference standards. 3403.5.1.2 Wind Design. Wind,designof existing buildings shall be based on the procedures specified in the building code. 3403.5.2 Repairs to damaged buildings. Repairs to damaged buildings shall comply with this section. 3403.5.2.1 Unsafe conditions. Regardless of the extent of structural damage, unsafe conditions shall be eliminated. 3403.5.2.2 Substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system. A building that has sustained substantial structural damage to the vertical.. elements of its lateral-force-resisting system shall be evaluated. and .repaired in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 3403.5.2.2.1 through 3403.5.2.2.3. 3403.5.2.2.1 Evaluation. The building shall be .evaluated by a registered design professional, and the evaluation findings shall be submitted to the code official. The evaluation shall establish whether the damaged building, if repaired to its pre-damage state, would comply. with the provisions of the building code. Wind forces for this evaluation shall be those prescribed in the building code. Seismic forces for this evaluation are permitted to be the reduced level seismic forces specified in Code Section 3403.5.1.1.3. 3403.5.2.2.2 Extent of repair for compliant buildings. If the evaluation establishes compliance of the pre-damage building in accordance with Section 3403.5.2.2.1, then repairs shall be permitted that restore the building to its pre-damage state, using materials and strengths that existed prior to the damage. 3403.5.2.2..3 Extent of repair for non-compliant buildings. If the evaluation does' not establish compliance of the pre-damage building in accordance with Section 3403.5.2.2.1, then the building shall be rehabilitated to comply with applicable provisions of the building code for load combinations .including wind or seismic forces. The wind, design level for the repair shall be as required by the building code. in effect at the time of original construction unless the damage was caused by wind, in which case the design level shall be as required by` the code in effect at the time of original construction or as required by the building code, whichever is greater. Seismic forces for this rehabilitation design shall be those ~~-a~ " _ i ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 18 required for the'~design of the pre-damaged building, but not less than the reduced level' seismic forces specified in Section 3403.5.1:1.3. New structural members and connections .required by ~ this rehabilitation design shall comply with the detailing provisions of the building code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. 3403.5.2.3 Substantial structural damage to vertical load-carrying components. Vertical load-carrying components that have sustained substantial structural damage shall be rehabilitated',: to comply with the applicable provisions for dead and live loads in the building code. Undamaged vertical load-carrying components that receive dead or live loads from rehabilitated components shall also be rehabilitated to carry the design loads of the rehabilitation design. New structural members and connections required by this rehabilitation design shall comply with the detailing provisions of the building code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. 3403.5.2.3.1 Lateral force-resisting elements. Regardless of the level of damage to vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system, if substantial structural damage to vertical load-carrying components was caused, primarily by wind or seismic effects, then the building shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 3403.5.2.2.1 and, if non-compliant, rehabilitated in accordance with Section 3403.5.2.2.3. 3403.5.2.4 Less than substantial structural damage. For damage less than substantial structural damage, !;repairs shall be allowed that restore the building to its pre-damage state, using.., materials and strengths that existed prior to the damage. New structural members and connections used for this repair shall v comply with the detailing provisions of the building code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. 3403.5.3 Referenced Standards Standard ~ Referenced Reference In Code Number Title Section Number ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings 3403.5.1.1.1, TABLE 3403.5.1.1.2, , 3403.5.1.1.3 ASCE 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings 3403.5.1.1.1, 3403.5.1.1.2, TABLE 3403.5.1.1.2 3403.5.1.1.3 ~b-~~P ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 19 EXHIBIT "G" Chapter 15.10 Safety assessment placards. 15.10.010 Intent This chapter establishes standard placards to be used to indicate the condition of a structure for continued occupancy. The .chapter further authorizes the Building Official and his or her authorized representatives to .post the appropriate placard at each entry point to a building or structure upon completion;. of a safety assessment. 15.10.020 Application of provisions. The provisions of this chapter are'.; applicable to all buildings and structures of all occupancies regulated by the City of Arroyo Grande. 15.10.030 Definitions. Safety assessment is a visual, non-destructive examination of a building or structure for the purpose of determining the condition for continued occupancy. 1.5.10.040 Placards. A. The following are verbal descriptions of the official jurisdiction placards to be used to designate the condition for continued occupancy of buildings or structures. Copies of actual placards are on file in the Department of. Building and Fire. 1. INSPECTED -Lawful Occupancy`Per-mitted is to be posted on any building or structure wherein no apparent" structural hazard has been found. This placard is not intended to mean that there is no damage to the building or structure. 2. RESTRICTED USE is to be posted on each building or structure that has been damaged wherein the damage has. resulted in some form of restriction to the continued occupancy. The individual who posts this placard will note in general terms the type of damage encountered and will clearly and concisely note the restrictions on continued occupancy. 3. UNSAFE - Do Not Enter or Occupy is to be posted on each building or structure that has been damaged such that continued occupancy poses a threat to life safety. Buildings or structures posted with this placard shall not be entered under any circumstance except as authorized in writing by the Building Official, or his or her authorized representative. Safety assessment teams shall be authorized to enter these buildings at any time. This placard is not to be used or considered as a demolition order. The. individual who posts this placard will note in general terms the type of damage encountered. 4. STOP WORK is to be posted on structures that are found to be in violation of the California Building Code,; Sections 103, 104.2.4, and the Arroyo Grande ~~,•a5 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 20 Municipal Code Section 15.04;.010, in that WORK HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS. - ' B. This ordinance number, the name of the jurisdiction, its address, and phone number shall be permanently affixed to each :placard. C. Once it has been attached to a building or structure, a placard is not to be removed, altered or covered until ';:done so by the Building Official or his or her authorized designee. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to alter, remove, cover or deface a placard, unless authorized pursuant to this section. ~ b -a~ i ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 21 - - Figure 16.56.070-A d$" MiN ~ ~ d8"MiN 48"MIN. - - __t Pedestrian Rya - - ~ , t ~ WhselSMp ACCESSf~AMP or Cuib ~ ~ r n grooved border ~ - - . Y.._..36" Sid. ' PmicsgSta@ EnlVmn ' ~ ~C€UC2tE,^ ~r7.fttt(t~ ~13~~ . s ' ~Acce~~ Ramp in sidewalk) 9'•U'MIN, 9'-"MIN. 5'•U' A7iN, at Typ. Hccesa$k Stats. B'-0"..MIN.. at VAN•ACCESSIBLE stalls; ~ ~ z - Pedeztdan Route . 10 1 12 M.C~ ~ i 1 ~ - X70"SQ. ~ ~~~'on ' -Parkmg 5ta0. ~i Sign 1 WheelSmp ~ ACCESS RAAAP or Curb . z 36" TYP> ~ " 36 Sq.; ' Parkmg Stall - ~ Emhlem ' Raukl~ Hra€tdlc<~p P~€king Shalt ' ~ ~ 9'-g"MIN. ~ 't~ ~ 9-0' MIN 1 (ACCB6U t~8i171p B€1Cf03diC5 Oll - , tea~dinr~ zone:.. ~c~eptabte ir? CA.) 5'-D"..MIN. at ' CAi FIG. t 1 B-18A TyP: Accessible Stalls. 5'-0"MIN.a€VAN-ACCESSIBLE'. stalls., SINGLE HAI~OtCAP PARKING SPAGE ' j~; _ rr:- ~ sc ~ ~~I:~ - ~~I - _ ~ / LaadingfUnloedingstr~~c runs- . f at€slt bs on the PAaSENGER side. {I ~`VdheeSchair users must€sat 1 (bs campcUa,±ta ~hael tcrhsd~.ara, ' `'atheri#fsntbetro~rrn. - ~ ~ ~ - i 1 b y~~ E p.RROyo ~~C¦ O C~ ~ INCOHPOAATED 9Z ~ ° CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE r""10• * CITY COUNCIL c~t~FORN~P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS at 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: Reallocation of 2005, 2006 and 2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Facade Enhancement Grant Program to a project to improve disabled access and aesthetic enhancements to the recycle facility at the Arroyo Grande Town and Country Shopping Center. The City Council will consider a proposed Resolution to 1) reallocate $40,000 from unused facade enhancement grant funds to a Courtland/East Grand Avenue Recycle Center and ADA improvement project to enhance facilities within the Arroyo Grande Town and Country .Shopping Center (Spencer's/Applebee's), and 2) Authorize staff to administer the facade enhancement matching grant allowance to increase the maximum from $5,000 to $10,000 per project or property, and expand the area to all properties within the redevelopment area (RDA). In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the allocation of CDBG funds is not. considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specific projects that may have environmental impacts will be reviewed under CEQA and NEPA prior to implementation. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or"after the items listed above. If you challenge the; proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the . public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to the proposal is available by contacting the Building and Life Safety Division at 473-5450. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Cha nel 20. Kelly Wetmore, ity Clerk Publish 1 T, The Tribune, Friday, November 16, 2007 I t pRROyO o`~ F INCORPORATED 92 V ~ m i~ du~r io, ieii ,f c4~f F°RN~P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 2005, 2006, AND 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) REALLOCATION AND CLARIFICATION OF FACADE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT ALLOWANCES DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council 1. Adopt a resolution to amend the 2005-2007 CDBG Program to reallocate $33,192.36 from unused facade enhancement program grant funds to a Courtland/East Grand Avenue''' Recycle Center and ADA Improvement Project to enhance these facilities within the Arroyo Grande Town and Country (Spencer's/Applebee's) Shopping Center, and 2. Authorize staff to administer the facade enhancement program matching grant allowance to increase the maximum .from $5,000 to $10,000 per project or property, and expand the area!'to all properties within the Redevelopment Project Area. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The CDBG Program is currently behind schedule with expenditures from 2005 through .2007, and the Federal and County administrators have advised the City that it must improve performance by April 2008 or risk loss of funds to other, jurisdictions. To expedite expenditures, encourage and facilitate, facade enhancement projects, it is recommended to: 1. Reallocate $33,192.36 from 20;05-2007 Facade Enhancement Program grants to the Recycle Center and ADA Improvement Project described below, and 2. Increase the maximum amount for future facade enhancement matching grants from $5,000 to $10,000 per project or property. 3. The difference in allocated costs of $33,192.36 and the anticipated costs from the construction bid will be paid through the 2008 CDBG allocation. BACKGROUND: The Facade Enhancement Grant Program was initiated in 2004 and provides matching grants up to $5,000 for facade enhancements, which were most often used for the installation of new signs and awnings. Since the program began, 20 grants have been awarded for a total of $80,564. However, the amount of the grant often does not provide . plc-~- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF 2005, 2006, AND 2007 CDBG REALLOCATION AND CLARIFICATION OF FACADE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT ALLOWANCES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 enough of an incentive to outweigh the costs and requirements resulting from Federal regulations associated with the program. As a result, a balance of approximately $33,192.36 has now accumulated. If the funding is not expended in a timely manner, the City is at risk of losing the funding. Therefore, recommendations have been developed to utilize the existing balance, as well as, increase and expedite utilization of future funding. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached Resolution approving reallocation of existing Facade Enhancement Program Grant funding and modifying the criteria for future Facade Enhancement Program Grants. - Modify the Resolution to delete the proposed project at the Arroyo Grande Town and Country Center and/or modify the future maximum amount for Facade Enhancement Program Grants. - Modify the criteria so that the maximum grant amount is dependent on the type of project. However, staff prefers to simplify the criteria and provide flexibility to relate the funding to the specific nature of the project and circumstances existing at the time the application is made, in order to expeditiously evaluate and award grants. - Do not approve the proposed changes. - Provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Use of facade grant funds have started to decline presumably due to federal regulations that require "prevailing wages" for the entire construction project, if CDBG funds are used. This rule generally makes construction and landscaping projects economically undesirable. Signs, awnings or similar improvements that can be manufactured and installed without substantial onsite improvements are eligible. Another disincentive has been the original maximum of $5,000, which the City allows to any one project or property, but this standard is set. by the City and a higher amount would be appropriate and more efficient to encourage fewer, but larger projects. There are also instances where improvements would be beneficial to properties outside the current target areas. Furthermore, the staff time involved in processing environmental clearance, administering payments, potential audit and other reporting requirements is inefficient for such small projects. Staff proposes to increase the maximum matching grant to $10,000. and expand the eligible area to encourage and facilitate future facade enhancements within all of the RDA; rather than just the Village, Traffic Way and East Grand Avenue Mixed Use districts. The prevailing wage problem may be less significant if an applicant could pursue a project of $20,000 or more and receive CDBG matching funds fora $10,000 maximum. The Nex Cycle Recycling Center serves to meet the requirements of .State recycling ,File: S:\Community Development\CITY_COUNCIL\2007\11-27-07\11-27-07 Reformatted CDBG Fagade Grant sr ~ ~ r CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF 2005, 2006, AND 2007 CDBG REALLOCATION AND CLARIFICATION OF FACADE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT ALLOWANCES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 3 legislation. The location of the center leaves the day to day operation exposed to view from Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue. Activities include collecting, seperating and collecting cans and bottles that are brought to the site by customers. This process generally creates noise and the outside nature of the ,business generally is not compatible with the shopping center use. It is important to clarify that $10,0001 would represent the maximum grant amount. The City would maintain discretion on the determination of any individual grant amount. Therefore, the amount awarded would depend upon the value of the proposed project in meeting the City's economic development goals, as well as, the fund balance and number of applications. In order to expedite an enhancement project rather than lose the 2005 through 2007 unexpended facade enhancement balance of $33,192.36 and enable a needed improvement project, staff has conceptually designed the following project description and plan: 1. Saw cut, remove asphalt and ;construct 2,400 lineal feet of 8-foot wide sidewalk and curb across the parking lot between Applebee's Restaurant and Spencer's Fresh Market including two new ADA ramps at both ends. (One aisle was recently restriped and foundU to have 8' more than required to be efficient perpendicular parking on both'sides of the driveway aisle.) 2. Construct a curb island parallel to Courtland Street to enclose the Recycle Center container on three sides and install 6-foot high wrought iron black metal fence. and plant hedge to screen the 8'x8'x24' container from permanent visibility. The City will also initiate a conditional use permit application to formally accommodate these improvements and make the Recycle Center a conditionally permitted use. (The facility is heavily used by residents in the City's RDA to recycle glass, plastic and aluminum, but the location has never been approved by the City.) Staff has obtained a construction bid,. at prevailing wages from M. J. Ross Construction for the asphalt demolition and new concrete work which is approximately $37,000, and the fence and landscaping will be budgeted at approximately $3,000 for 100 lineal feet of screening. The difference in allocated costs of $33,192.36 and the anticipated costs from the construction bid will be paid through the 2008 CDBG allocation. ADVANTAGES: Advantages associated with the reallocation of facade grant funds include the ability to fund larger projects within the redevelopment area that seek to reduce slums and blight. The changes will allow the City to 'utilize existing CDBG funding, to meet the City's File: S:\Community Development\CITY_COUNCIL\2007\11-27-07\11-27-07 Reformatted CDBG Facade Grant sr ,r CITY COUNCIL. CONSIDERATION OF 2005, 2006, AND 2007 CDBG REALLOCATION AND CLARIFICATION OF FACADE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT ALLOWANCES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 4 economic development goals and further enhance the efforts targeting upgrade of the Town & Country Center and the Gateway segment of the E. Grand Avenue corridor. DISADVANTAGES: The disadvantage of this change will be to fund fewer projects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: .The allocation of CDBG funds is not considered a project under the California "Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061.6.3' of the CEQA Guidelines. Specific projects that may have environmental impacts will be reviewed under CEQA and NEPA prior to implementation. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted. in front of City Hall on Friday, November 16, 2007. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 16, 2007. A public hearing notice was published in the Tribune on Friday, November 16, 2007. No public comments were received. File: S:\Community Development\CITY_COUNCIL\2007\11-27-07\11-27-07 Reformatted CDBG Facade Grant sr ~ RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING AND RECOMMENDING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO REALLOCATE $33,192.36 FROM UNUSED FACADE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS TO A COURTLAND/EAST GRAND AVENUE RECYCLE CENTER AND ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO ENHANCE THESE FACILITIES WITHIN THE ARROYO GRANDE TOWN AND COUNTRY (SPENCER'S/APPLEBEE'S) SHOPPING CENTER, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADMINISTER THE FACADE ENHANCEMENT MATCHING GRANT ALLOWANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FROM $5,000 TO $10,000 PER PROJECT OR PROPERTY, AND EXPAND THE AREA TO ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE RDA WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande wishes to reallocate $33,192.36 from 2005-2007 Facade Enhancement grants to the Recycle Cehter and ADA Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, to better administer future facade enhancement matching grant allowances, the Council desires to increase the maximum grant from $5,000 to $10,000 per project or property and expand the eligible area to all. properties within the Redevelopment Project Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo reallocate funds as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference On motion by Councilmember, seconded by Councilmember, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of November 2007. S:\Community Development\CITY_COUNCIL\2007\11-27-07\CDBG Reallocation Resolution rA Y RESOLUTION NO. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 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 9~ RESOLUTION NO. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 3 EXHIBIT "A" REALLOCATION OF CDBG FUNDS 1. Reallocation of 533,192.36 from Facade Grant programs from program years 2005, 2006 and 2007 to the Courtland/East Grand Avenue Recycle Center and ADA Improvement Project to enhance these facilities within the Arroyo Grande Town and Country (Spencer's/Applebee's) Shopping Center. 10.a. ~ PRROYO o . ~ INCOFPORATED ~ _m MEMORANDUM ~ JVIY 10, 1911 _ c~~~FORN~P', TO: .CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER D~~~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BRISCO ROAD -HALCYON ROAD/ ROUTE 101 .INTERCHANGE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES DATE:, NOVEMBER 27,.2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: A. approve the phased strategy 'for. funding and implementation of proposed improvements to the Brisco Road -Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange; and B. select closing the Brisco Road on-ramp and relocation of the off-ramp to Rodeo Drive as the preferred alternative fo'r Phase II improvements. FINANCIAL IMPACT: .The Capifaf Improvement Program budget;includes $494,495 forthe Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Approval and- Environmental Determination (PA&ED). Of this amount, $182,320 is funded with Regional State Highway Account (RSHA) grant funds. The estimated cost forthe proposed alternative is projected to be approximately $9.3 million. The Capital-Improvement Program': includes funds to complete the PA&ED and the project design. It is anticipated that funds for construction will be provided from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and revenue generated from sales tax. BACKGROUND: The Project Study Report (PSR) forthe Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange Project identified alternatives fore.: analysis in the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED). The initial alternatives included widening of the underpass and . closing the northbound freeway on/off ramps; realigning West Branch Street to intersect East Grand at the existing northbound East Grand on ramp, including a new on ramp at Old Ranch Road; and an overpass at HaPeyon Road, which is not recommended due to right of way and cost constraints. to the PA&ED process, the appropriate environmental studies are completed so that the preferred' alternative and subsequent project funding for that alternative' can be programmed. The City also performed a °before/after" pilot study at the end of May into the beginning of June to analyze';traffic patterns caused by a temporary closure of the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road. This pilot study was used to model ~ a- ~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF BRISCO ROAD -HALCYON ROAD/ ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 2 anticipated differences in traffic volume forecasts for all the alternatives under year 2030 condition's. The City's consultant, Wood Rodgers, Inc., has completed the PA&ED analysis. Prior to presenting the results to Caltrans,.staff requests City Council direction regarding preferred alternatives. A copy of their report is attached. The report refers to prior technical memorandums for detailed analysis. Please let staff know if City Council would like copies of these technical reports.. At the November 27, 2007 Council meeting, the consultants will present computer simulations of the operation of each of the proposed alternatives. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives have been analyzed as part of the PA&ED process: Alternative 1 • widening of the Brisco Road underpass; • removal of the northbound on-..and off-ramps at Brisco Road; • construction of a southbound auxiliary lane between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue; • construction of a northbound auxiliary lane between Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado; and • improvements to the East Grand Avenue/Route 10.1 interchange/Route 101 ramps. (estimate cost $8.2 million) Alternative 1A (Same as Alternative 1, but°northbound ramps remain open) • widening of the Brisco Road underpass; • the northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco. Road remain open; • construction of a southbound auxiliary lane between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue; • construction of a .northbound auxiliary lane between East Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado; and • .improvements to the East Grand Avenue/Route 101 interchange/Route 101 ramps. . (estimate cost $8.4 million) Alternative 2 • removal of the northbound on-:and off-ramps at Brisco Road; • removal of the. southbound on= and off-,.ramps at Halcyon Road; • construction of a overpass connecting Halcyon Road and Rodeo Drive; • construction of a southbound auxiliary lane between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue; • .construction of a northbound auxiliary lane between Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado; and • improvements to the East Grand Avenue/Route 101 interchange/Route 101 ramps. (estimate cost $13.4 million) `0 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF BRISCO ROAD -HALCYON ROAD/ ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 3 This alterhative is no longer considered a feasible alternative due to cost constraints of the proposed overpass and retaining walls along Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real. Alternative 3 • widening of the Brisco Road underpass; • removal of the northbound on' and off-ramps at Brisco Road; • .realign West Branch Street to intersect with East Grand Avenue northbound off-ramp; • relocate East Grand Avenue northbound on-ramp to Old Ranch Road and signalize intersection; • construction of a southbound auxiliary lane between Halcyon Road and East Grand Avenue; • construction of a northbound auxiliary lane between East Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado; and • improvements to the East Grand Avenue/Route 101 interchange/Route 101 ramps. (estimate cost $9.5 million) This alternative is no longer considered a feasible alternative due to inability to obtain Caltrans `approval. of relocating West Branch Street with the East Grand Avenue northbound off-ramp (wrong way movements). Alternative 4 • widening of the Brisco Road underpass; • removal of the northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road; • construction of new northbound off-ramp at Rodeo Drive; . • construction of a southbound auxiliary lane between Halcyon Road and East Grand Avenue; • construction of a northbound auxiliary lane between East Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado; and • improvements to the East Grand Avenue/Route 101 interchange/Route 101 ramps. (estimate cost $8.6 million) Phased Approach In orderto meet the STIP programming deadlines, a phased approach has been proposed. The purpose of phasing the project is so that funding can be requested in the 2008 STIP funding cycle for improvements that would not require Caltrans design exceptions. Phase I improvements would include (Alternative 1A): • widening the Brisco Road underpass; the northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road remain open; • construction of the southbound and, northbound auxiliary lanes; and • improvements to the East Grand Avenue/Route 101 interchange/Route 101 ramps. 10a-~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF BRISCO ROAD -HALCYON ROAD/ ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 4 For Phase II, several options have been developed for improvements that may require Caltrans design exceptions: • Alternative 1.0 -Accept Alternative 1 as currently proposed, Accept LOS "E" at Camino Mercado/West Branch Intersection (Favored by Caltrans) • Alternative 1.1 -Current Alternative 1 .plus dual receiving lanes at Camino Mercado northbound on-ramp with ramp metering (Difficult to obtain CT approval) • Alternative 1.2 -Current Alternative 1, Extend northbound left-turn lane storage on West Branch (May still need to accept. LOS "E" at Camino Mercado/West Branch Street) • Alternative 1.3 -Alternative 1 plus northbound hook off-ramp to Rodeo Drive (Difficult to obtain. CT approval, exacerbates SR 101 mainline weave issue) • Alternative 1.4 -Alternative 1 plus hook on-and off-ramps at Rodeo Drive (Difficult to obtain: CT approval, exacerbates SR 101 mainline weave issue) ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: In order for the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to program funding for the next phases of project development (Plans Specifications & Estimates [PS&E], acquisition of Right of Way [ROW], and Construction), a Project Report (PR) approved by Caltrans is required. San Luis Obispo-Council of Governments (SLOCOG) staff has indicated that a draft PA&ED that has the. support of Caltrans District 5 will be sufficient for programming the next phases of project development in their Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). However, the PA&ED would have to receive final Caltrans approval prior to CTC programming. Under this programming scenario,;Caltrans District 5 support of a draft PA&ED would need to be obtained by the end of this year in order to be considered at the February 2008 SLOCOG'' Board meeting. A final PA&ED approved and signed by Caltrans would need to obtained'in order to be considered at the June 2008 CTC meeting. Therefore, it is proposed that the improvements be phased. Phase I would include improvements that do not require design exceptions from Caltrans. As a result, it is anticipated that agreement regarding these improvements can be obtained in a timely manner. It will also be more feasible to fund these improvements in the current STIP. Phase II would involve improvements that-will require a Caltrans design exception, which will take more time to process. However, it is not clear whether SLOCOG will program funding for Phase I if all phases have not yet received Caltrans approval. The primary improvement proposed in Phase I will involve widening of the underpass. Staff believes it will be more feasible to obtain approval for a design exception from Caltrans fo'relocate an off-ramp a`nd/or onramp than to add one after the existing ramps have been closed. Therefore, it is recommended the northbound on-ramp and off-ramp remain open during Phase I. ID~-`~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF BRISCO ROAD -HALCYON ROAD/ ROUTE 1.01 INTERCHANGE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 5 Alternative 1A is projected to offer acceptable LOS operations through year 2022, but some queuing/spillover issues may still., occur. Phase II alternatives that involve elimination/relocation of the northbound on/off ramps will become necessary to provide acceptable operations through year 2030., Therefore, in addition to consideration of the strategy proposed to phase improvements, the primary direction being requested from City Council is to select preferred Phase II improvements. The current programming targets anticipated for the 2008 SLOCOG funding cycle for Highway, ,Streets & Roads have been significantly reduced for the region, which are as follows: ' 2008 STIP FY 2008/09- FY 2009/10 $ 7,996,000 2008 STIP FY 2011/12 - FY 2012/13 $ 12,274,000 2010 STIP FY 2013/14 - FY 2015/16 $14,000,000 to $28,000,000 Totals for' Programming: Low = $20.3M (likely) High (with 2010 Advance) _ $34 to 48M (less likely) Therefore, available funding will be highly competitive. ADVANTAGES: Approving the phased strategy will .provide the project be constructed in combination with the traffic'-need and future SLOCOG funding cycles. Identifying the options forthe second phase will' provide a clear direction forfuture improvements. These improvements could be programmed for future funding and designs. can be prepared in time to be constructed before the traffic demands exceed`the capacity of the existing roadway. It,will also provide a feasible'vvay in which to obtain funding to address the most significant current problems in a timely period. According to the consultant's analysis, improving the Camino Mercado northbound onramp (1.1) underPhase II will provide the greatest improvement to the level of service. It is also the most cost effective option. As`a result, his option is recommended by the consultant. The advantage of moving the onramp and off-ramp to Rodeo Drive (1.4) is that it maintains this additional interchange and direct access to the businesses located adjacent to Brisco Road. The~advantage of relocating only the northbound off-ramp (1.3) is that it provides a compromise, which maintains an acceptable level of service, but also maintains direct access tp the businesses located adjacent to Brisco Road. DISADVANTAGES: Based on the consultant's analysis, the primary disadvantage of relocation of the onramp and off-ramp to Rodeo Drive (1.4) is that it will not provide an acceptable level of service past 2022. It will also likely be the most difficult option to obtain Caltrans approval given the distance between the onramp°at E. Grand Avenue and Rodeo Drive. l~a...5 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF BRISCO ROAD -HALCYON ROAD/ ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES NOVEMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 6 The disadvantage of limiting improvements to the Camino Mercado onramp is that it will eliminate the entire northbound .portion of .the interchange (1.1 or 1.2). Caltrans may oppose the dual entry lanes (1.1) unless' they are metered in order to avoid merging problems; Caltrans will likely prefer lengthening the left turn lane (1.2), but this will result in significant stacking distances on the local street. The primary disadvantage of the recommended alternative (1.3) will be creation of an off- ramp without an accompanying onramp. However, decreased access from a business to an onramp will likely have less impact on adjacent businesses than would decreased access from the off-ramp to the businesses. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:. Environmental review is being performed as part of the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) process. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The- agenda was posted on Wednesday, ,November 21, 2007. The agenda and staff reports were also posted on the City's website on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. No public comments were received as of the time of preparation of this report. Attachment: 1. Wood Rodgers, 11 /21 /07 Report on Alternatives l ~ ~.--f~ i ATTACHMENT 1 . wooer ~ao~Er s ENGINEERING ~ PLANNING ~ MAPPING ~ SURVEYING To: City of Arroyo Grande -Don Spagnolo, Jill Peterson Cc: Wood Rodgers -Mark Rayback, Keith Hallsten From: Wood Rodgers -Ravi Narayanan, P.E., Bikramjit Kahlon, E:LT. ; Date: 11/21/2007 File: $094-SR101BriscoHalcyon_TrafFrestg&Ops_SUMMARY_11212007.doc Job No.: 8094:001 RE: SR 101/Brisco Rd/Halcyon Rd I/C Modifications, 05.OA370, 05-SLO-101, KP 21.2/23.5 (PM 13.1!14.6) Project Approval & Environmental,betermination (PA&ED) Phase Alternatives Traffic Operations Analysis Summary INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND In 2001, the-City of Arroyo Grande completed a„Project Study Report (Project Development Support). [PSR(PDS)) to develop and study alternatives to improve the operation of Brisco Road - Halcyon'Road Interchange on State Route 101 (SR 101) in the central portion of the City. The approved PSR(PDS) identified five "build" alternatives, and recommended that three "build" alternatives and the "no-build" alternative be carried forward for further evaluation. The.current effort is part of the Project Approval & Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase, which is intended to further study and refine the project alternatives, complete environmental analysis for the interchange improvements, and to obtain Caltrans District 5 (and SLOCOG) approval of a Project Report (1?R) to construct a "preferred" set of interchange improvements. . A technical memorandum titled SR l0i/Brisco Rd/Halcyon Rd I/C Modifications Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers, dated'08/08/2005) was completed for the City of Arroyo Grande by Wood Rodgers, Inc. in order to quantify traffic operations for the four project alternatives (the "no-build" and three "build" alternatives referred tows PR Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) carried forward in the PA&ED phase. Per City request, a first supplemental technical memorandum (Wood Rodgers, dated 06/04/2007) was completed to quantify year 2030 traffic operations for three newly created alternatives -Alternative lA, Alternative 1B, and Alternative 6. Subsequently, a second supplemental technical memorandum (Wood Rodgers, dated 11/19/2007) was complete_ d that quantified a traffic phasing analysis that determined how long "Alternative lA" would offer acceptable operating conditions (prior to the projected failure by year 2030), as well as provided a year 2030 traffic. operations analysis of a subsequently created alternative, referred to as PR "Alternative 4" (now also referred to as "Alternative 1 -.Option 1.3"). Per City staff request, this memorandum has been prepared to provide a brief summary of traffic operations analysis for the key alternatives that have been evaluated thus far, as part of the PR phase in order to .help assist in the PDT selection of a "preferred" alternative and a phasing strategy for the project. Specifically this memorandum focuses on providing a recapitulation of the definition of key alternatives and a summary of study intersection traffic operations results for those alternatives. For a more comprehensive discussion on traffic forecasts, operations analysis results and findings, the aforementioned prior technical memorandums (dated 08/08/2005, 06/04/2007 and 11/19/2007) should lie referred to. _ 10a~-'7 i S#~; 1Q1!E3riscc €2diNalr•yon lid l.'C Mc~cfifications, 05-CA3"r 0, O:i-Sl~C}-101, KF' 21.2123.5 (P~fi 13.1'14.~i Pro~ct Apprcvai & Environmental Determination {PA&E~j Pnase Traffic l arecxasting and C?peratiorrs Analysis PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES As previously noted, the City of Arroyo Grande completed a Caltrans Project Study Report (Project Development Support) [PSR(PDS)] in ;September 2001 that developed alternatives to improve operations at the SR 101/Brisco Road =Halcyon Road interchange. The approved PSR(PDS) identified six alternatives (the "No-Build" alternative and five "build" alternatives) and recommended that four alternatives (the "No-Build" alternative and three "build" alternatives) be carried forward for further evaluation..This current effort is intended to further refine the alternatives, complete environmental analysis for the study interchange improvements, and obtain Caltrans' approval to construct a "preferred" set of interchange improvements. The project is intended to maximize the efficiency of the State and local roadway systems to better serve the existing and future needs of commuter traffic, within and through the City of Arroyo Grande. The project is needed because non-standard existing SR 101 ramp spacings relative to the study interchange cause relatively poor and declining operational characteristics on SR 101 as well as local streets. Ramp closures and associated improvements to adjacent interchanges have been evaluated as a means of improving traffic operations. Therefore, the purpose of the project is to improve,ramp and mainline operations on SR 101 at/through the SR 101/Brisco Road-Halcyon Road interchange in order to improve traffic flow and safety for both local and inter-regional movement of people and goods. "No-Build" Alternative (No Improvements to' Existing Facilities) -The "No Build" scenario maintains status quo at the study. interchange and vicinity, which means no circulation/capacity/control improvements over existing facilities within the study area. The analysis of the "No-Build" condition constitutes the future "base" upon which project alternatives are evaluated. The definition of the three "build" alternatives (as originally described in the 08/08/2005 memorandum) are recapitulated as follows. Alternative 1 - "Alternative 1" proposes the partial closure and modification of the SR 101 /Brisco Road-Halcyon Road interchange and improvements to the adjacent SR 101 /East Grand Avenue interchange located to the south. "Alternative 1" (illustrated on Appendix Exhibit 1) includes the following design elements: • Closure of SR 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of existing traffic signal equipment. • The widening of Brisco Road undercrossing to four lanes (two lanes in each direction). Note: Brisco Road improvements were not included in the PSR(PDS) due to financial constraints, but are recommended for consideration as part of the PA&ED improvements. • Construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach at the East Grand Avenue / SR 101 Northbound Ramps intersection and provision of an exclusive right-turn lane`on the westbound approach. • Relocation of SR 101 southbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite of the existing SR -101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated Traffic signal phasing modifications. • Lengthenirig the SR 101 southbound off:ramp to Halcyon Road. • Construction of an auxiliary lane on southbound mainline SR 101 between the Halcyon Road southbound on-ramp and East Grand Avenue, southbound off-ramp and construction of a retaining wall adjacent to this auxiliary lane. • Signalization of the East Grand Avenue /West Branch Street intersection -This improvement is recommended in order to sustain coordinated traffic operations along the closely-spaced intersections on the East Grand Avenue segment east of the SR 101 interchange. An alternative 85~9~.00 a pg 2 N~vern~ler 2007 R ~~4~'~ S~ 101f~riscc ;~d,~~~lcyw°r~, d 11C i~rjt9if(G~tior~s; UO-OA37£~, 0`~•?~Q-101, KP 23.°~i23.5 {P 'Y3.1!14.6i Pro~ct Approval ~ Er~virc;nrneni~l C}eiermina!iar~ {PA&©? Pease ( rafFic i"carecastir~g ar~d tOperati~r~s Analysis strategy may be to consider left-turn access restrictions at this intersection. This signalization improvement was not included in the PSR(PDS), but is recommended for inclusion as part of the PA&ED improvements. Alternative 2 -includes the following design elements: • Closure of the SR 101 northbound ramps at Brisco Road and removal of existing signal equipment. • Closure of the SR 101 southbound ramps at Halcyon Road and modification of existing signal equipment at Halcyon Road/El Camino Real intersection. • Construction of a-new three-lane SR 101 overcrossing between El Camino Real at Halcyon Road, and West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive. • Reconstruction of the Halcyon Road / El Camino Real (signalized) intersection. • Construction of the Halcyon Road West Branch Street /Rodeo Drive intersection, and installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. • East .Grand Avenue / SR 101 Northbound Ramps intersection -Construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach and provision of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach. • Relocation of SR 101 southbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite of the existing SR 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications. • East .Grand Avenue / SR 101 Southbound Ramps intersection -Addition of a second southbound right-turn lane from the SR 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and addition of an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane into the SR 101 southbound on-ramp. • Signalization of the East Grand Avenue /West Branch Street intersection. Alternative 3 -This alternative (which is a variant of Alternative 1) proposes realigning West Branch Street so that it intersects with East Grand Avenue at the current location of the SR 101 northbound on-ramp intersection. "Alternative 3" includes the following design elements: • Closure of SR 101 northbound ramps at Brisco Road and removal of existing traffic signal equipment. • The widening of Brisco Road undercrossing to .four lanes (two lanes in each direction). • Realignment of West Branch Street to intersect East Grand Avenue at the current location of the SR FO 1 northbound on-ramp. West Branch Street, to the east of the proposed realignment, would be reconstructed. so that- access to/from adjacent properties is maintained. The existing West Branch Street approach to East Grand Avenue will be terminated into a cul-de-sac. • Replacement of the SR 101 northbound on-ramp from East Grand Avenue with a new hook on- ramp'. from .West Branch Street at Old Ranch Road, and installation of traffic signal at the West Branch Street/Old Ranch Road/SR 101 northbound on-ramp intersection. • East'Grand Avenue / SR 101 Northbound Ramps intersection -Construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach and provision of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach. • Relocation of SR 101 southbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite of the existing SR 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications. • Construction of an auxiliary lane on SR 101 between the Halcyon Road southbound on-ramp and the East Grand Avenue southbound off-ramp and construction of a retaining wall adjacent to this auxiliary lane. This will include extension of a triple 1,050 mm RCP. • Lengthening the SR 101 southbound off-ramp to Halcyon Road. ~sC~9~.0~?1 pg :3 Nvv~rn~?er 2E7t37 l fla - `.i~ 4G~t~3riscc t"~d;~~,i;:.y~:~r~ ~~~1 1.'G Mc~difi~~tlta°~s: u5-^iA3~7r.;', t~5-~LQ-1Q1, KP 2~,2i23.5 (PM X3.1%`4.6; Prc~ect t1p;~rcu2':. ~ Envrcnrr:.ental [~~termin~ticr~ (PA&EC5'i PP~ase t r~afFic (~rer;astins~ ar~d C3p~ratic~r~s An<~lysis • Reconstruction/modifications of the East Grand Avenue/SR 101 northbound off-ramp/Re-aligned West Branch Street intersection. All of the project "build" alternatives (described above) propose the closure of the existing SR 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road. Subsequent to the evaluation of PR Alternatives 1 through 3, the City requested evaluation of an alternative that retains the existing on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road. Alternative 1 A was created, and is described as follows. Alternative lA -This alternative (which was evaluated in the 06/04/2007 memorandum) is a variant of PR "A'lternative 1" (as originally described in the 08/08/2005 memorandum) with the following modifications: • The Brisco Road undercrossing is widened from .three lanes to four lanes. • The .existing SR 101 northbound ramps to/from Brisco Road are kept open. The 06/04/2007 memorandum evaluated Alternative. lA year 2030 traffic operations, and concluded that Alternative l A would be able to sustain acceptable. LOS operating conditions through year 2022 only. Subsequent to the anticipated operational failure of "Alternative lA" (by/before year 2022), one of the following year 2030 alternatives/options are recommended to be pursued in order to provide. acceptable operational life through year 2030: Alternative 1-Option 1.0 -This Alternative is essentially "Alternative 1" as described earlier in this memorandum. The 11/19/2007 memorandum contained updated traffic operations analysis results for this alternative, based on revised traffic volumes developed as a result. of findings from the Brisco Road ramps temporary closure "before/after" pilot project conducted by the City in May-June 2007. The updated operations analysis. indicated, hat all study facilities would continue to operate acceptably under year 2030 Alternative 1.0 cond,tions., except the Camino Mercado/West Branch/SR 101 NB ramps intersection which is projected to operate at year 2030 PM peak hour LOS "E" conditions. This alternative thus involves relaxation of Caltrans/City's minimum LOS standards for the West'Branch Street/Camino Mercado/SR 101 northbound ramps intersection by accepting projected year 2030 LOS "E" operating conditions at this intersection. Alternative 1-Option 1.1-This option is essentially Alternative 1.0 with provision of two- entrance lanes to the SR 101 northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado (i.e. dual northbound left- . turn lanes from West Branch Street), provided the on-ramp can be designed to meet appropriate Caltrans design standards. Alternative 1-Option 1.2 -This option is essentially Alternative 1.0 plus other reasonable design or signal control modifications at the West Branch Street/Camino Mercado/SR 101 northbound ramps. intersection. Provision of an extended northbound left-turn pocket for the critical northbound left-turn movement from West Branch Street to-the SR 101 NB on-ramp will increase queue storage capacity'for this movement but would still entail accepting year 2030 LOS "E" operating conditions. Alternative 1-Option 1.3 -This option (which was referred to and evaluated as "Alternative 4" in the 11/19/2007 memorandum) is the same as Alternative 1.0 with the following modifications: • The SR 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at. Brisco Road are eliminated, and a new SR 101 northbound off-ramp to West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive (signalized intersection) is constructed. Alternative 1 -Option 1.4 -This option (which was referred to and evaluated as "Alternative 6" in the 06/04/2007 memorandum) is the same as Alternative 1.0 with the following modifications: • The SR 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road are relocated to intersect with West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive (signalized intersection). H094.C~71 P 3 4 Nouer~~~a~r 70fl7 lo~`~~ S3~ 1(71,•Briscc F~c9tl-ialr~yos~ ~#d I;'C Mod'afscator~s, 05-vA3iG, O:i-SImC3-1011, KP 2?.2123.5 (Pty 13.1'"4.~ii Pra~ct Apprava€ & Er~vironmentai C~eterminaiicn (PA&FC7) Phase ~T7ai~ic t"~orec:=~stinq arad Oper~ticns Analysiw TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Study intersection traffic operations were quantified under all of the alternatives described above, and the results are summarized in Appendix Table 1. For a more comprehensive discussion on traffic operations analysis results and findings, the aforementioned prior technical memorandums (dated 08/08/2005, 06/04/2007 and 11/19/2007) should be referred to, ALTERNATIVES PROS & CONS Based on the results from the traffic operations analysis as well as preliminary evaluation of costs, Caltrans approvability and other constraints, the following table of alternative pros and cons was developed.. Alternative Pros Cons Alternative lA • -Keeps Brisco Road ramps open • Does not offer acceptable LOS • Offers acceptable LOS operations through operations through year 2030 year 2022 • Queuing/spillover issues on Brisco • Relatively less expensive ($8.4 million) undercrossing will remain/reoccur. • Represents a reasonable first phase/stage • Does not improve SR 101 NB of improvements mainline/ramp operational issues - • Ma not be su ortable b Caltrans Alternative 1 - • Generally offers acceptable LOS • Closes Brisco Road on- & off-ramps Option 1.0 operations through year 2030 • No new ramp is constructed • Improves SR 101 mainline and ramp • May need to accept year 2030 LOS junction operations "E" operations at Camino Mercado/W. • Alleviates queuing issues on Brisco Branch intersection . undercrossing • Represents a logical second.phase subsequent to Alternative lA. • Favored by Caltrans • Relative) less ex ensive ($8.7 million) Alternative 1 - • Same as Option 1.0 • Same as Option 1.0, but mitigates Option 1.1 • Relatively less expensive ($9.1 million) year 2030 LOS "E" at Camino: Mercado/W. Branch intersection. • May involve Caltrans design exce tion for two-lane on-ram Alternative 1 - • Same as Option 1.0 • Same as Option 1.0 Option 1.2 • Relatively less expensive ($8.9 million) • May involve Caltrans design ; exce tion for two-lane on-ram Alternative 1 - • Keeps at least one ramp available at/near • Queuing/spillover issues on Brisco Option 1'.3 Brisco Road undercrossing will reoccur by year • Generally offers acceptable LOS 2030 operations through year 2030 • Exacerbates existing SR 101 • Moderately expensive ($9.3 million) northbound mainline weaving issues • CT Design exceptions are involved • Ma not be su ortable b Caltrans Alternative 1 - • Keeps both on- and off-ramps available • Does not offer acceptable LOS Option 1.4 at/near Brisco Road operations through year 2030_ • Moderately expensive ($9.5 million) • Queuing/spillover issues on Brisco undercrossing will reoccur by year 2030 • Exacerbates existing SR 101 northbound mainline weaving issues • CT Design exceptions are involved • Ma not be su ortable b Caltrans ~Da?lf '4 ~F~ 1u1it3ri~cc €~ct?Nai:lyon 12d I~odificator~s; 05-OA37U, 05-.fisL.C)-101. KP ~".2;'23.6 iP 13.1!'4.6; Protect A¢~prova ~ Environmental Cteterminatie~n (F`-' SEC?j Pnase ( raffic C arecastincl and Qpe ; analysis Alternative Pros Cons Alternative 2 • Offers acceptable LOS operations • Relatively most expensive ($13.4 through year 2030 million) • Does not represent a logical second hase subse went to Alternative lA. Alternative 3 • Offers acceptable LOS operations • Same as Alternative 1 -Option 1.0 through year 2030 • CT Design exceptions are involved. • Represents a logical second phase •Caltrans has recommended that this subsequent to Alternative lA. alternative be dropped from further • Moderate] ex ensive ($9.5 million). consideration SUMMARY • In general, Alternative lA is projected to offer acceptable LOS operations through year 2022 conditions, and may be regarded as a reasonable first phase of improvements. With Alternative 1 A, even with the proposed widening of the Brisco Road undercrossing to four lanes, queuing/spillover problems are projected to occur on Brisco Road undercrossing under "opening day" as well as through year 2022 conditions. • Alternatives that involve elimination/relocation of the SR 101 northbound on/off ramps at Brisco Road will become necessary to sustain acceptable operations through year-2030. • Alternative 1 -Option 1.0 (which proposes closure of the SR 101 northbound on/off ramps at Brisco Road) and Alternative 1 -Option 1.3 (which proposes closure of the SR 101 northbound on/off ramps at Brisco Road, and addition of an isolated northbound off-ramp to West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive) are anticipated to offer acceptable LOS operations through year 2030. • Alternative 1 -Option. l.3 would cause Brisco Road ;undercrossing queuing issues to reoccur (by 2030'or sooner), exacerbate SR 101 NB mainline weave issues, and is generally less likely to be supported by Caltrans. • Alternative 1 -Option 1.4 does not provide acceptable year 2030 operations and is unlikely to be supported by Caltrans. • Alternatives 2 and 3 are no longer urider active consideration: • A "preferred" alternative is recommended to be selected between Alternative 1 -Option 1.0, Option 1.1 and Option 1.2. 8O94.L;i? pg6 Nov~r~.;~er?(i0i ~Oa - !a SF~ S€J1•`t'~risco i~ ~ Rd(.'~ Mc~ciif~c~i3arxs, 05-Q~3~7C, t~~-Sl.~-1~i1, KP ~';.2123.C~ (PNt'P:~.1?14.5 Prc~;~ct Appre~v~i ~ Envrottmental Ceterminatia~~ (,PA&~~~} Pease ~7rKaffic ~~or~c~sbiris~ ar~:~ Uperat€r~rs Anr~lgsis Appendix Table 1 -Summary of Intersection Levels of Service t>tif}~.~~~? ~ pg'i Ncsve;rrs»ttt 2DG7 - ~fla`~3 APPENDIX TABLE 1 SR 101 BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE STUDY INTERSECTIONS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS -LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Alternative 1 Existing (2005-07) 2022 Altemative 1A' 2030 No-Build 2030 Alternative to 2030 O lion 1.0 2030 O lion 1.1 Control qM peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Nour PM Paak Hour AM Peak Nour PM Peak Mour qM peak Hour PM Paak Nour AM Peak Hour PM Peak NOUr Akt Peak Hour PM peak Hour a Inlaraection: Type Delay LOS Delay LOS palsy', LOS Ds4y LOB Dalsy LOB Delay LOB Delay LOS Dewy LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS DeNy LOB Delay L0.5 4 West Branch St / Csmino Mercatlo / SR 101 NB Rampe Sgnal 28.1 C 2a.0 C 27.8 C 33.2 C 31.1 C 31.0 C 27.8 C 333 C 49.8 D 86.1 •E 09.6 D 36.0 D 5 Bdxo Rtl /El Ginno Real Sgnal 18.1 B 01.0 D 35.3 C 50.2 D 36.5 D' 118.7 F 268 C 82.4 E 24.0 C 48.9 0 20.0 C 48.9 D 6 Briaco Rd /SR 101 NB Ramps Sgnal 1]0 B 183 B 22.5 C 313 C 288 C~; 69.9 D .28.11 C d9.0 0 7 Briaco Rd /Weal Branch 91 Sgnal 15.] B 113 B 29.6 ' C 2]A C ' ' 22.d C - 26./ C 28.8 C ~2].d C 182 C 19.9 C 182 C 19.9 C 8 Halcyon Rd/ EI Camim Real / SR 101 SB Rampa Signal 350 C 210 C 44.1. D 36.1 D 48.1 D'' 46.0 D 15.8 D 07.8 D 44.1 D 41.1 D N.1 D 41.1 D 9 Grand Ave 1 SR 101 SB Ramps Sgnal 230 C 29.7 C 11.6 ~ B .24.0 C 32.9 C 88.1 E 12.7 B 2].5 C 10.8 B 22.3 C 10.8 B 22.3 C 10 Grand AVe/SR /01 NB Rampa Signal 190 B 22.6 C 109 B 8.1 A- 209 C'. 19.] B 11.2 B 8.2 A 13.0 C 11.2 C 13.0 C 11.2 C 11 Weal Branch Bt /Rodeo Dr. Signal 12 West Branch 81 / OM Ranch Rd / SR 101 NB Dn-Ramp Sgnal Nobs: 1.'AVwepe'<oMmIWHYa(in ascaMWelkrN)are inlceMdb aip~aVCWrdbdinbaeckora. _ 2.L05'D'iacmaideredtlro mrkmum eccepeeb LOS tlvealaldbe2atudY iMerasc8ata. APPENDIX TABLE 7 (CONTINUED) Alternative 1 ' 2030 O lion 1.2 2030 O lion 1.3 2030 O lion 1.4 2030 Alternative 2 2030 Alternative 3 Control AM peak Nour PM Peak Nour AM peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Nour AM Pesk Hour PM Peak Hour AM peak Hour PM peak Hour q Intaraectbn: Type Delay LOS Delay LOS pelay~~ LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOB Delay LOB Dela LOS Delay LOS d West Bench St/Camrw Mercatlol SR 101 NBRampa Signal d9.6 D B8./ 'E d5.4 D 51.] D 27.8 C.. 0.T.9 D 33.0 C 520 D 30.4 C 49.8 D 5 Bdnco Rd/El Camino Real 5 nal 2d.0 C d8.9 D 20.6 C Sd.] 0 25.0 C'~ 88.2 E 252 C 49.0 D 21.7 C 42.1 C 6 Briaco Rd /SR 101 NB Rampa - Signal ' ] Brisw Rd /Weal Branch SI Sgnal 18.2 C 188 C 42.4 ~ D 51.1 D ' 18.5 B' 29.2 C 10.5 B 16.5 B 193 B 18.3 C ' 9 Halcyon Rtl/El Camino Real/SR 101'SB Ramps Signal W.1 D dt.t D 46.0: D 0.5.1 D dd9 D", 00.] D 25.3 C 32.1 C 39A D 312 D . 9 Graral Ave I SR 101 SB Ramps Signal 109 B 22.3 C 10.6 ~ B 23.8 C 11.0 B ~ 23.8 C 16.9 B 249 C 18.0 B 28.9 C 10 Grantl AVe /SR 101 NB Rampa Sgnal 13.0 C 11.2 C 13.0 0 148 8 11.6 B'. 10.1 B 233 C 12B B 38.8 C 003 D 11 West Branch St/Rodeo U. Signal 30.5 C 280 C 34.5 C'.' 00.2 D 19.9 B 242 C 12 Weat Branch 5l/Old Ranch Rd /SR /01 NB on-Ramp Signal 32.5 C 25.8 C Nokrs: 1.'AVarepe"caraoldWYa(in axo~da4Micbl eAiMCetrd bagnNCmlydbdinMdeceona. 2. LOS'D'ia cauitbrMlM mrkmum accsphble LOS tlaafhntlbatlsMyiMaaacliara. J'.UObs1B09bArmyoGnMa`&ISCOHakyon101PR\TMirDxaViaporbVnlan:ecdon LO85~anmery 11212007xb WOOD ROOgere, lOC. 1!8084.001 1121200] !na-~~f