The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2008-05-27 . . CITY OF i ouncl , . . • - � en a . � _ �� .t Tony Ferrara, Mayor �� Steven Adams, City Manager � CALIFORNIA Chuck Fellows, Mayor ProTem _�_ � Timothy J. Carmel , City Attorney Y Joe Costello, Council Member � '9�1 � Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Jim Guthrie, Council Member Ed Arnold, Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 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: CENTRAL COAST MASONIC LODGE #237 4. INVOCATION: DR. MAYER-HARNISH, BAHAI FAITH 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. AG E N DA REVI EW: 6a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 27, 2008 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 Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action.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 May 1, 2008 through May 15, 2008. 8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of April 30, 2008. 8.c. Consideration of Resolutions to Implement Reportinq of Employer Paid Member Contributions to the California Public Employees' Retirement System for all Employee Groups (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolutions to implement the reporting of the Employer Paid Member Contributions to the California Public Employees' Retirement System for all employee groups. 8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of April 22, 2008, and the Regular City Council Meeting of April 22, 2008, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of May 13, 2008, as submitted. AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd): 8.e. Consideration of a Resolution Reducinq Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Securities for Tract 2310-II, Parkside, Constructed by S&S Homes, Located at Farroll Avenue and Bakeman Lane (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution reducing the Faithful Performance and Labor and Material securities for Tract 2310-II, Parkside, to 30% of the original value. 8.f. Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Aqreement with Caltrans for Development of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchanqe Pro�ect throuqh Pro�ect Approval and Environmental Determination (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo Grande and the State of California Department of Transportation for development of the Brisco Road- Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange project through Project Approval and Environmental Determination; and 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment. 8.g. Consideration of a Resolution Acceptinq Easements and Improvements for Tract 2539, Constructed by Rick Wheeler, Located at 185 Brisco Road (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the public improvements and the public easements offered by Rick Wheeler for Tract 2539. 8.h. Consideration to Approve Final Parcel Map AG 06-0204; Subdividinq 2.7 Acres into Two (2) Parcels, Located at 1400 W. Branch Street (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Approve Final Parcel Map AG 06-0204; subdividing 2.7 acres into two (2) parcels, located at 1400 W. Branch Street. 8.i. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Addinq Chapter 9.26 to Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Prohibitinq the Establishment of Medical Mari�uana Dispensaries (AN N I BALI) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance adding Chapter 9.26 to Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code prohibiting the establishment of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. 8.j. Consideration of Aqreement of Lease Renewal for Portion of Car Corral Public Parkinq Lot Located between 103 and 109 E. Branch Street for an Additional Five-Year Term from Auqust 1, 2008 to July 31, 2013 (STRONG) Recommended Action: Approve the Agreement of lease dated April 25, 2008 with The David Family Trust, Nancy T. Loomis Revocable Living Trust, and the Mathews Children's 1997 Irrevocable Trust, and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 4 8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd): 8.k. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Parkinq Requlations in the Vicinity of the Villaqe, Allow Clusterinq of Lots in Lower Density Residential Neiqhborhoods, and to Provide Additional "Clean-Up" Amendments for Consistency with State Law Requirements (Development Code Amendment 08- 0� (STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.56 (Parking and Loading Requirements) including parking standards for Barber Shops and Beauty Salons within the Village Core and Village Mixed Use (VCD & VMU) Zoning Districts; amending Chapter 16.32 (Residential Districts) regarding the clustering of lots in lower density residential neighborhoods; and amending chapters 16.04 (Definitions) and 16.20 (Subdivisions) for consistency with State law. 8.1. Consideration of First Amendment to Aqreement for Contractor Services for Custodial Services (PERRI N) Recommended Action: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Services with Commercial Maintenance Services in the amount of $4,250 per four weeks and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a Consideration of Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection, Recyclinq and Greenwaste Franchise Aqreement (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of June 10, 2008. 9.b. Consideration of a Vestinq Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001 to Subdivide a 26.9-Acre Property into Fifteen (15) Residential Lots and a Twenty-Two (22) Acre Permanently Preserved Open Space Parcel (STRONG) Recommended Action: Consider Addendum No. 2 to the previously certified Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and project plans for the revised 15-lot subdivision and planned unit development. The Planning Commission recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001 to subdivide a 26.9-acre property into fifteen (15) residential lots and a twenty-two (22) acre permanently preserved open space parcel with the included CEQA and project findings, conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. 11. NEW BUSINESS: None. AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 5 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) Brisco/Halcyon/Hwy 101 Interchange Project Subcommittee (4) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM CHUCK FELLOWS: (1) South County Youth Coalition (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (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 ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Other 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action ca n be ta ke n. 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 ta ke n. None. AGENDA SUMMARY— MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 6 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, including any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's office, 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. 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.arro ogrande.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. � pRROy� � c'P � INCORPORATED yZ V T * '°`� 10. ,°„ � MEMORANDUM c4��FORN�P . ro: cir�r couNCi� FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES� BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATI ATION DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period May 1 through May 15, 2008. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is a $645,492.11 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 136102-136249 $ 173,905.68 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 471,586.43 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. 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. ALTERNATIVES: The following altematives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendation; • Do not approve stafFs recommendation; • Provide direction to staff. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES: • The 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: No disadvantages have been identified as long as City Council confirms all expenditures are appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. May 1 — May 16, 2008, Accounts Payable Check Register 2. May 9, 2008, Payrolt Checks & Benefit Checks Register Attachment 1 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1 OS/19/2008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE • Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Involce Inv. Date Amount Paid Check ToWI 136102 OSI02/2008 006679 CAROLINA CUADROS O43008 04/30/2008 30.00 30.00 136103 05102/2008 006629 JEFF AMADOR 042508 04/25/2008 120.00 120.00 136104 05/02/2008 006673 PRISCILLA ARCHER 042708 04127/2008 30.00 30.00 136105 05/02/2008 006083 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM 050108 05/01/2008 588.00 588.00 136106 05IO2/2008 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT 2008-275 04I09/2008 21.55 21.55 136107 05/02/2008 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL S15444878 04121/2008 519.39 519.39 136108 05/02/2008 006684 ELIDIA BRITO 043008 04/30/2008 30.00 30.00 136109 05/02/2008 000096 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 46433 04/17I2008 98.22 9$•22 136110 05/02/2008 006674 CAL FIRE/STATE FIRE 042405 04129/2008 65.00 65.00 136111 05IO2/2005 006565 CALIFORNIA COASTAL PW2007-01 OS/01/2008 2,008.14 2,008.14 136112 OS/02/2008 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-245364 04/28/2008 6.40 6.40 136113 05/02/2008 003168 CELLULAR ONE 00973 04/27/2008 137.71 137.71 136114 05/02/2008 004680 ROBERT CHILD 042808 04/30I2008 50.00 50.00 136115 05/02/2008 000174 COASTLINE 4912257 04/17/2008 478.35 478.35 136116 05/02/2008 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 20378 04118/2008 252.89 252.89 136117 05/02/2008 003652 VINCE CONDE 042508 04/25/2008 126.00 126.00 136118 05/02I2008 006098 JENNIFER DANCE 043008 04/30/2008 30.00 30.00 136119 05/02/2008 001854 JIM DECECCO 042508 04/25I2008 120.00 120.00 136120 OSI02/2008 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 21020627 04/16/2008 352.55 20984107 04/14/2008 143.18 20959927 04/11/2008 96.57 21127063 04I23I2008 26.51 618.81 136121 05/02/2008 001840 DELL MARKETING LP XCKP6J8P2 04/10I2008 313.38 313.38 Page: 1 apCkHist Check History Listing aage: 2 OSH912008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa ' Check� Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 136122 05IO2/2008 006680 LINNAEA DOMINGUEZ 043008 04/30I2008 30.00 30.00 136123 05IO2/2008 006675 ELIZA DUBOIS O42708 04/27I2008 30.00 30.00 136124 05102/2008 006296 DYER'S DIESElRO 23873 04/15/2008 586.97 586.97 136125 OS/02/2008 003162 JOE FARNSWORTH 091407 09117/2007 200.00 200.00 136126 05/02/2008 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1476543 04116/2008 284.46 1476656 04I17/2008 �4��8� 432.26 136127 05/02/2008 006333 FIA CARD SERVICES 4/20-6347 04/20/2008 870.64 4/20-5029 04/20/2008 299.00 4/20-6321 04/20/2008 25�� 4/20-7615 04/20/2008 216.47 4/20-9702 04/20/2008 �99•�1 4/20-7583 04/20/2008 174.76 4/20-6313 04/20/2008 150.00 4/20-2611 04/20/2008 42.65 4/20-6339 04/20/2008 3z.29 4/20-6289 04/20/2008 �224 2,284.83 136128 05/02/2008 002214 FIRE SERVICE 4439 10/14/2007 364.00 364.00 136129 05/02/2008 000897 FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD 813 04I10/2008 104.00 104.00 136130 05/02/2008 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 042508 04I25/2008 108.00 108.00 136131 OSI02I2008 003017 RYAN FOSTER 050108 05/01/2008 290.42 290.42 136132 05/02/2008 006686 RIMA GHAL 043008 04/30I2008 30.00 30.00 136133 05/02/2008 006690 GWRRA 043008 04I30I2008 175.75 175.75 136134 05IO2I2008 000292 HACH COMPANY 5697338 04124/2008 34.64 34.64 136135 05IO2I2008 002405 CHUCK HARE 042508 04/25/2008 132.00 132.00 136136 05IO2I2008 004188 EDDIE HARRIS O42508 04/25I2008 80.00 80.00 136137 05/02/2008 006421 RIKI HEATH 041108 04I11I2008 22.30 22.30 Page: 2 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 3 OSN912008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 136138 05/02/2008 006592 JAMIE HEINZE 042508 04I25I2008 144.00 ��4 136139 05/02I2008 006688 JAMI HERLIHY 043008 04I30/2008 30.00 30.00 136140 OSI02I2008 000290 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY INC 115651 04/14/2008 463.70 463.70 136141 05/02/2008 004050 ICC-INTL CODE COUNCIL, 042408 04124/2008 50.00 50.00 136142 05/02I2008 0003431RRIGATION WEST(DBA) 0023482 04/24/2008 243.78 243.78 136143 05/02/2008 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 214204 04/24I2008 103.78 103.78 136144 05/02/2008 001793 J J KELLER 8 ASSOCIATES, 007292088 04/17I2008 156.59 156.59 136145 05/02/2008 006676 JEREMIAH KOLB 042708 04127/2008 60.00 60.00 136146 05/02/2008 004845 JOHN LARSON 042508 04125/2008 120.00 120.00 136147 05/02/2008 006683 CHRISTINE LEWIS O43008 04/30/2008 30.00 30.00 136148 05IO2/2008 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 042508 04/25/2008 148.00 148.00 136149 05IO2/2008 001136 DOUG LINTNER 042508 04/25/2008 132.00 132.00 136150 05/02I2008 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL V 05IO2I2008 080662 04I04/2008 825.00 V 05/02/2008 050108 05/01/2008 45.00 870.00 136151 OSI02I2008 006682 MERANDA MARATAS O43008 04I30/2008 30.00 30.00 136152 05IO2I2008 006689 MARCH OF DIMES O43008 04I30I2008 30.00 30.00 136153 05IO2I2008 006681 AMANDA MILLER 043008 04/30/2008 30.00 30.00 136154 05/02/2008 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 952526 04/23/2008 59.25 248286 04/16/2008 36.27 248284 04/16I2008 21.54 952235 04/21/2008 21.51 248445 04I17I2008 20.96 245379 04/17/2008 19.77 248427 04/17/2008 17.53 249455 04I24I2008 17.40 952712 04/24I2008 11.83 226.06 Page: 3 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: a 05H912008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 136155 OSI02I200S 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 187731 04/21/2008 166.24 166.24 136156 05/02I2008 006677 NCSA CODE COORDINATOR 042408 04/29/2008 50.00 50.00 136157 05/02I2008 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 425400391-001 04/78I2008 164.92 424340812-001 03128/2008 13.13 178.05 136158 05/02/2008 000481 PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC 4/17-194097 04I17I2008 14,418.64 4/16-704689 04I16I2008 23.68 14,442.32 136159 05/02/2008 001697 PET PICK-UPS 30985 04I04/2008 1,126.44 1,126.44 136160 05IO2/2008 000523 R&T EMBROIDERY, INC 32903 04117/2008 3927 39.27 136161 OS/02/2008 006630 PEDRO RIVERA 042508 04/25/2008 66.00 66.00 136162 05IO2/2008 004833 STEVE ROMO 042508 04/25/2008 198.00 198.00 136163 05/02/2008 000536 GREG ROSE 042508 04/25/2008 252.00 252.00 136164 05/02/2008 006021 BLAKE ROSKELLY 042508 04/25/2008 315.00 315.00 136165 05/02/2008 006594 LAWRENCE RUCKER 042508 04I25I2008 300.00 300.00 136166 05/02I2008 003649 CHARLES D(DON)RUIZ 042508 04125l2008 184.00 184.00 136167 OS/02I2008 000538 S&L SAFETY PRODUCTS 246747 03131/2008 150.74 150.74 136168 05IO2I2008 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 042508 04/25/2008 56.00 56.00 136169 05IO2I2008 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 042508 04/25I2008 200.00 200.00 136170 05/02/2008 004860 TAMMY SMITH 042508 04/25/2008 104.00 104.00 136171 05IO2/2008 000609 BOB SPEAR 042508 04/25/2008 132.00 132.00 136172 05/02I2008 000613 STATEW IDE SAFETY 8 61245 04I25I2008 295.47 61109 04I18I2008 213.96 61246 04/25/2008 S1•51 590.94 136173 05IO2I2008 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 1081043-001 04/17/2008 513.95 573.95 136174 OS/02/2008 000627 TARGET SPECIALTY 042208 04122/2008 140.00 140.00 Page: 4 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 5 05I79I2008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor SWtus ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 136175 05/02/2008 000666 UNITED RENTALS 72852311-001 04/09I2008 62.36 7216850-001 03I10/2008 $•5� 72168650-001 03/10I2008 $�5� 68307042-002 09/21I2007 -3�.�9 48.41 136176 05/02/2008 006551 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC. 051716 04I23I2008 1,102.00 1,102.00 136177 05/02I2008 000660 USA BLUE BOOK 578406 04117/2008 197.78 575585 04/14/2008 125.13 322.97 136175 05/02/2008 006685 KATHY VALLENDER 043008 04/30I2008 30.00 30.00 136179 05/02I2008 003429 CARRIE VAN BEVEREN 042508 04/29/2008 35.00 35.00 136180 05/02/2008 006687 JACKIE WALKER 043008 04/30/2008 30.00 30.00 136181 05/02/2008 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 13375 04/16/2008 110.00 110.00 136182 05/02/2008 000699 �EE WILSON ELECTRIC 0803 04123/2008 1,593.75 1,593.75 136183 OSI02/2008 000717 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC 0104474 04/17/2008 313.14 313.14 136184 05IO2/2008 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 050108 05/01/2008 45.00 45.00 136185 05/02/2008 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 080662 04/04I2008 825.00 825.00 136186 05/02/2008 002163 BOND BLACKTOP, INC PW 2007-09 02/12/2008 76,306.96 76,306.96 136187 05I05I2008 000003 A T&T-L/DIST SVC ref#805-473-5400 05/02I2008 11221 112.21 136188 05/O6/2008 004548 CARMEL 8 NACCASHA, LLP 11396 05/02/2008 16,584.67 16,584.67 136189 05/06/2008 004548 CARMEL&NACCASHA, LLP 11395 05IO2I2008 1,039.50 1,039.50 136190 05/07I2008 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES O42808 04I28I2008 1,000.00 1,000.00 136193 05I08I2008 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING 031508 03115/2008 11.34 11.34 136194 05I09/2008 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POW ER 29050 04I30I2008 27.64 27.64 136195 05/09I2008 002632 API WASTE SERVICES(DBA) 84000026 04124/2008 319.23 31923 136196 05I09I2008 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 46578 04I08I2008 56.03 Page: 5 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 6 05179I2008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 46501 04/04I2008 48�48 104.51 136197 05I09I2008 000069 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC 106012 04124/2008 810.00 810.00 136198 05I09I2008 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS O41508 04115/2008 1,361.00 1,361.00 136199 05/09/2008 000090 BRISCO MILL& LUMBER 137095 04124/2008 72.82 137225 04/18/2008 ��5� 136836 03/19/2008 66.77 136672 03/OS/2008 34.99 136755 03/25/2005 27.43 137170 04/14/2008 ��•Z� 136825 03/18/2008 9�5� 136995 04/01/2008 8.60 136644 03/03/2008 5.33 136725 03/10/2008 4.62 137052 04/04/2008 2.84 137141 04/11/2005 1.70 137137 04I10I2008 0.64 136643 03/03I2008 -12.91 311.10 136200 05/09/2008 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, 2366188 04I10/2008 7.76 2365680 04/02/2008 ��9 9.55 136201 05I09/2008 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 246221 05I01/2008 59.17 7314-244815 04/25/2008 12.83 7314-246245 05I01I2008 3��4 75.74 136202 05/09/2008 000163 CHERRY LANE 24170 04/24/2008 499.91 23968 04/11/2008 483.44 24174 04/24/2008 366.17 23969 04/11/2008 193.93 24157 04/23I2008 129.30 24030 04I18I2008 43.02 24015 04/16/2008 38.73 24117 04/28/2008 20.46 24164 04/23/2008 �2•9� 24126 04/29/2008 9.69 1,797.56 Page: 6 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7 05/19/2008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 136203 05/09/2008 006039 CHEVRON &TEXACO CARD 12105292 03I22I2008 871.21 12322967 04/22I2008 6�2�89 1,474.10 136204 05/09/2008 000174 COASTLINE 09 3959420 04/30I2008 176.91 176.91 136205 05/09/2008 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 20384 04/25I2008 454.81 20373 04/21I2008 �88•02 642.83 136206 05/09/2008 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO INC 343577 04/02/2008 377.13 343576 04/02/2008 150.85 344168 04/29/2008 �8�� 546.69 136207 05I09/2008 004622 CULLIGAN INDUST.WATER 84424 04/28/2008 1,120.60 1,120.60 136208 05I09/2008 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 21127062 04/23/2008 147.83 21127060 04/23/2008 ��$•69 21058708 04/18/2008 44.10 21127061 04/23/2008 22•2� 332.82 136209 05/09/2008 002623 EMEDCO, INC 9307027040 04/23/2008 45.93 45.93 136210 05/09/2008 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 656826 04/14/2008 33.29 661755 04I18I2008 �4�49 47.78 136211 05/09I2008 004164 FEDEX 2-655-18182 04118/2005 21.60 21.60 136212 05I09I2008 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY 27277 04129/2008 16.62 16.62 136213 05I09I2008 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 5/1-140 05I01/2008 505.88 5/1-211 05/01I2008 ��$•7z 684.60 136214 05/09/2008 000272 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL 84183N 04/03/2008 131.62 131.62 136215 05I09I2008 002813 GRAINGER, INC 9625306080 04I25I2008 1,731.00 9627874648 04I29I2008 23.66 1,754.66 136216 OSI09I2008 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 080400013101 05I01/2008 28.00 080400713101 05/01I2008 25.00 53.00 136217 05/09/2008 000289 GROVER TOOL RENTAL 71 04124/2008 66.00 66.00 136215 05I09/2008 000291 HAAKER EQUIPMENT, INC C60854 04123/2008 491.46 491.46 Page: 7 apCkHist Check History Listing pa9e; g 05/19/2008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 136219 05I09/2008 000307 BOB HICKS TURF 26187 04/25/2008 98.72 98.72 136220 05I09/2008 003949 KERN'S PAPER 23789 04/10/2008 459.66 459.66 136221 OSI09/2008 005911 KING CONCRETE $ CONSTR. 050708 05/07I2008 15,80625 15,806.25 136222 05/09/2008 000383 LIEBERT, CASSIDY, 57358 03I31I2008 3,579.06 3,579.06 136223 05/09/2008 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 080693 04/07/2008 761.48 080687 04/07/2008 505.43 080671 04/07/2008 427.55 080685 04/07/2008 346.13 080692 04(07/2008 225.00 080679 04/07/2008 69.23 080691 04/07/2008 37.50 2,372.32 136224 05/09/2008 006547 KEVIN MCLEAN 050708 05/07/2008 663.71 663.71 136225 05/09I2008 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 140835 04/10/2008 312.48 140517 04/10/2008 234.90 140994 04/14/2008 63.57 610.95 136226 05/09/2008 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 250295 05/01/2008 312.45 250064 04/29/2008 ��8� 245865 03/27/2008 39.92 245766 03/27/2008 29.57 952281 04/21/2008 20.46 291184 03/29/2008 19.37 250687 05/04/2008 13.45 953301 04/28/2008 10.56 250467 05/02/2008 9.68 250067 04/29/2008 9•13 245930 03I28I2008 6�� 248743 04/19/2008 6.01 249973 04129/2008 3.76 246142 03131/2008 2.59 249838 04/28/2008 1•93 530.46 136227 05I09/2008 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 125772 04/12/2008 247.72 24�.�2 Page: 8 apCkHist Check History Listing pe9e; g OSH912008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 136228 05/09/2008 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 185720 04121/2008 57.10 185717 04121/2008 33.61 185719 04/21/2008 21.36 ��2.p7 136229 05/09/2008 005744 OCEANO COMMUNITY AG-14 04/25/2008 500.00 500.00 136230 05/09/2008 000492 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 05/06I2008 282.96 282.96 136231 OS/09/2008 006696 POSTAL CONCEPTS 297 04/08I2008 8.48 8.48 136232 05/09I2008 006691 JENNIFER RAMSEY 043008 04/30/2008 18.00 18.00 136233 05/09/2008 005316 CAREN RAY 050708 05/07/2008 706.04 706.04 136234 05/09I2008 002670 RICOH LEASING 08056701255 04(22/2008 155.28 155.28 136235 05/09I2008 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 7315 04/30/2008 175.00 7213 03/25/2008 66.45 241.48 136236 05/09I2008 000538 S& L SAFETY PRODUCTS 246746 03/31/2008 323.03 323.03 136237 OS/09I2008 006692 SANTA MARIA POLICE DEPT 050708 05/07/2008 90.00 90.00 136238 05/09/2008 000553 ALLEN SCHOFIELD 5801 04/24/2008 599.69 599.69 136239 05/09/2008 000620 STREATOR PIPE& SUPPLY 1082291.001 04/29/2008 15.86 15.86 136240 05/09I2008 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY 35257 03/12/2008 118.53 118.53 136241 05/09/2008 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1026917 04/30/2008 40.89 1026921 04/30/2008 37.66 1026892 04/29/2008 20.80 1026889 04/28/2008 18.44 ��7,7g 136242 OS/09/2008 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC 8872 05/01/2008 70.44 �0•� 136243 05/09I2008 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 0650801020 04I22I2008 63.53 63.53 136244 05I09I2008 002324 MICHAEI ZIGEIMAN 050708 05I07I2008 938.00 938.00 136245 05I09/2008 006693 JULIE CELLA Ref000085957 05/07/2008 134.83 134.83 136246 05/09/2008 006695 RYAN ROSS Ref000085959 05/07/2008 102.92 ��2•92 Page: 9 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10 05119/2008 7:40AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status CIea�Noid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 136247 05/09I2008 006694 JOEY RUTHERFORD Ref000085958 05/07I2008 95.02 95.02 136248 05I09I2008 006656 JOEL&AMY WATKINS Ref000085956 05/07I2008 140.06 140.06 136249 05/12/2008 002376 CENTRAL COAST BEARING 44392(2) 05/12I2008 147.51 147.51 boa Total: 173,905.68 146 checks in this report Total Checks: 173,905.68 Page: 10 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 4h8/OS- 511/OS 05I09I08 FUND 010 424,979.06 5101 Salaries Full time 224,660.55 FUND 220 12,220.14 5102 Salaries Part-Time-PPT 25,944.11 FUND 284 782.12 5103 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 6,890.44 FUND 285 888.34 5105 Salaries OverTime 10,744.31 FUND 612 6,787.36 5107 Salaries Standby 353.40 FUND 640 25,929.41 5108 Holiday Pay 8,202.35 471,586.43 5109 Sick Pay 5,962.10 5110 AnnualLeave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback - 5113 Vacation Pay 9,153.96 5114 Comp Pay 3,119.60 5115 AnnualLeave Pay 11,694.88 5121 PERS Retirement 80,486.14 5122 Social Security 21,885.87 5123 PARS Retirement 404.57 5126 State Disability Ins. 863.78 5127 Deferred Compensation 807.06 5131 Health Insurance 50,505.44 5132 Dentallnsurance 5,560.65 5133 Vision Insurance 1,276.46 5134 Life Insurance 621.06 5135 Long Term Disability 584.70 5143 Uniform Allowance - 5144 CarAllowance 1,187.50 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance - 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 175.00 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 427.50 471,586.43 pRROy� O� �',p � INCORPORATEO 9 v m MEMORANDUM # Jutv to. 19n * C4��FORN�P To: cirY couNCi� FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUSPERVISOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF INVESTMEN OSITS DATE: MAY 27, 2008 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 April 30, 2008, 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 April 30, 2008. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of April 30, 2008, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The Director of Financial Services has historically submitted to the City Council a monthly repoR, providing the following information: 1. Type of investment. 2. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc). 3. Date of maturity. 4. Principal amount. 5. Rate of interest. 6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months. 7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Recommended A/ternative - 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 ADVANTAGES: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments are undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. DISADVANTAGES: Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due to market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non- negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the default of an issuer. To minimize such risks, diversifications of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment instruments are being used as much as is practical and prudent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Portfolio Summary CITY OF City of Anoyo Grande 214 E.Branch St. • Moyo Grande,CA 93430 Phone: (805�735400 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE '4� C A L 1 F O R N 1 A � Portfolio Management � �� Portfolio Summary April 30, 2008 Interest Investments Book Value Interest Rate Rate PY Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date %of Portfolio Lxal Agency Investment Funds $ 18,855,290.17 3.40% 522% 97.94% Certicates o/Deposit-Banks Missian NB 99,000.00 5.65% July 11,2007 365 July 11,2008 0.51% Metro United Bank 99,000.00 5.85% September 12,2006 730 September 12,2008 0.51% Countrywide Bank 99,000.00 5.59% September 16,2007 12 Mos. September 19,2008 0.51% First Standard Bank 99,000.00 5.05% December 2,2007 365 December 2,2008 0.51% Total CeRificates of Deposit $ 396,000.00 2.06% Total investments $ 19,251,290.17 100.00% � pRROy� � C? � INCORPOAATEO 92 � m MEMORANDUM � JULY 10, iB71 * C4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS TO IMPLEMENT REPORTING OF EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS (EPMC) TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) FOR ALL EMPLOYEE GROUPS DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached three (3) resolutions to implement the reporting of the Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC) to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) for all employee groups. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City has been paying the EPMC since August of 1999. Effective June 27, 2008 the EPMC will decrease for Police from 9% to 6.5% and for Miscellaneous from 8% to 5.5%. This will reduce the cost approximately $197,000 and was included in the modification of the PERS contract that was approved by Council on February 26, 2008. BACKGROUND: The City contracts with the Califomia Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to provide retirement benefits to employees. These benefits are financed through iwo-part contributions, an empioyer contribution and an employee contribution. The employer contribution percentage varies from year to year, based on a yearly actuarial of accumulated reserves and future payments. The employee portion remains constant at 8% for miscellaneous employees and 9% for police and fire personnel. The City of Arroyo Grande has elected or negotiated to pay a percentage of the employee portion of PERS on behalf of the employees. For PERS purposes, payments made for the employees are called employer paid member contributions (EPMC). in July 1994, under Govemment Code Section 20636(c) employers were given the option of reporting the EPMC as additional compensation. This means that the PERS contribution paid by the employer, for the employee, is reported as income. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Employees benefit monetarily when an employer pays EPMC. Those employees take home 8% to 9% more than their counterparts that pay their own PERS. The EPMC eamings are not subject to state and federal income taxes, nor social security and CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING THE REPORTING qF THE EPMC MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 Medicare deductions. However, PERS (both employee and employer portions) must be paid on the additional reported eamings. Effective July 1, 2008, the 2.5% at 55 PERS retirement plan will be provided to miscellaneous members with the employee contribution rate increasing to 8%. The employees will pay 2.5% of the employee contribution rate with the City paying the remaining 5.5%. The PERS 3% at age 55-retirement plan is currently provided for police members, with the City paying the 9% employee contribution for PERS retirement. Effective July 1, 2008, the 3% at 50 PERS retirement plan will be provided to police members. The employees will pay 2.5% of the employee contribution rate with the City paying the remaining 6.5%. PERS requires the City Council to adopt the resolutions to pay and report the value of EPMC before the reporting change can be instituted. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: - Adopt Resolutions to implement the reporting of the EPMC for all employee groups; - Do not adopt the Resolutions; - Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Approving the recommended implementation of the reporting of the EPMC will reduce costs to the City and will be honoring the agreement reached with the respective unions. DISADVANTAGES: There is no disadvantage identified in relation to this recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. � PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received. RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE IMPLEMENTING THE REPORTING OF THE EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has the authority to implement Govemment Code Section 20691; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has a written labor policy or agreement which specifically provides for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer; WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to implement Section 20691 is the adoption by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande of a Resolution to commence Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC); WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: • This benefit shall apply to all employees of the local Safety Police Group. • This benefit shall consist of paying 6.5% of the normal member contributions as EPMC. • The effective date of this Resolution shall be June 27, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande elects to pay EPMC, as set forth above. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _day of , 2008. 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 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE IMPLEMENTING THE REPORTING OF THE EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has the authority to implement Government Code Section 20691; WHEREAS, the City Councii of the City of Arroyo Grande has a written labor policy or agreement which specifically provides for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer; WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to implement Section 20691 is the adoption by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande of a Resolution to commence said Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC); WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: • This benefit shall apply to all employees of the tocal Miscellaneous Group. • This benefit shali consist of paying 5.5% of the normal member contributions as EPMC. • The effective date of this Resolution shall be June 27, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Ciry of Arroyo Grande elects to pay EPMC, as set forth above. On motion by Councii Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll cail vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _day of , 2008. 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 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE IMPLEMENTING THE REPORTING OF THE EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has the authority to implement Government Code Section 20691; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has a written labor policy or agreement which specifically provides for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer; WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to impiement Section 20691 is the adoption by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande of a Resolution to commence said Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC}; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: - This benefit shall apply to all employees of the local Safety Fire Group. • This benefit shall consist of paying 9% of the normal member contributions as EPMC. • The effective date of this Resolution shall be June 27, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande elects to pay EPMC, as set forth above. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll cail vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2008. 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 �� LJ��#F� IVi�ETIh�� F TH� ��TY ��LJ��IL Tl��l]AY, APF�fL ��, �� I�IV�IL �H�IIA�E��, �"1� EA�T �F��#�V��I ��T �#�F��l�� CF�ANDE, ��A�IF�F�[V�� 'I. ��LL T� �F��EF� �V1��r�r F�r��r� ��I�d tf�� I��la�r�it� ��r��il r�n��tir�� t� ��d�r�t �:�� .r'r'�. �. F��.�. �A�L �i��r ��un�i�: ��r��'rl N��rr�b�r�1�� t��l�, Jirr� �u#�ri�, Ed Ar��ld: Nia��r Pr� T�r�n ��u��C ��I��v�r�: �r�� N1��r T�r�� F�rr�r� v�r�r� �r��r�t. � ��ty ��f Pr��n#: �it� N1�n��r �t�v�� d�rn�, �i�� Att�rr��r Tirr� ��t�r�n�l, D�r��r �� dr�nir�i�t��#�v� ��r-�ri��ity �f�rk ��I��r V'V��m�r�, ��r��t�r �� in�n��l . ��r�ri�� 1� �r��h, �i��t�r �� rr�m�r�it�r ��r�l�pr�n�nt F�� tr�n�, D�r��#�r �� Bui��i�� a�nd Fi�-� Nli�C� �I�b�rt, D�r��t�r �f P�t�l�� 1lll�r�C� ��rr �p��r��l�, As�i�t�r�� it�r �n�ir��r I�lik� L�nn, Dir��t�r �� P�r�c�, ��r��ti�n �n� F��ili�r�� P�rr�r�, �n� A��i�t� P�a�r�r��r Jir� ��r�r��n. �. FLA� �A��J�E ��y�r F�rra�r� I�d th� F�� t�. �. I1V11��ATI�h� Dr. P�ul E. J�r�� d�liv�r�� tf�� ir�v��a�ti�n. �. �P��AL. PF�E�EI�TAT��I� ��. H�n��ry Pr��rx��i�r� i��ni�in� ��r��r ��r�� 4�r�il �� . Illla��r ��rr�r� pr��n�� n �i�r��ra�ry �r��l�rr�a�ti�r� ��la�rir�� ri� ��, 2�� rh�r �]�y. P�r�c�, F��r��ti�r�, ��d �a��li�i�� r��t�r D�� rrir� ��pt�d th� Pr��l�r�a��i�n. �.b. H��n�r��-y Pr��a�r�arti�r� �e��r�i��ng IIII�� `��ic� �Ill�nt#�". N1��r �'�rr�ra� �r��nt�� n I--��n�r�ry Pr��l�rr��ti�r� ��I�ri�n� II�I�}� ��8 �� B�k� M�r�tf�. .��r� D�� h� Pr��r�n�ti�� r� b�l��lf�f��n Lu�� F��r��l F��d��#��r�. �nr��u�n��r��n�fr�rr� Illl��r F�rr�r�. IVI��r F�rra�r� ��C� a�b�u� th� hi�t�ry �n� ��rr�rr�� r�l��d �� th� �na�int�r��r�� f�� f��d ��ntr�l �h�nn�l �I�n� ��r�� ra�r�d� �r�d L�� err�� C�. �I� �nn�� tl��t �I�� ,n��r ��a�r� �� u��r�ri��r� a�ppr�v�d a�n� �i�n�� tl�� Arr��r� �r�nd� IfV�te��ed �� r��C Il��rr��ra�r�durx� �� 1..��i�r�t�r��r�� II�IJ} �t it� r��tir�g t�d��r �r�� Cn��nrl�� th� �C�� I��r� ir��r��r�d ir� dr�ft�r►� tl�� N1�1.�, H� r�� th�� f�i�i�l� fr�rr� t#�� it�r �f �rr�y� �ra�nd�, ��r�� '1�1A, ��r� L�i� ��i�� F��u�r�� n��rv�ti�n Di�tri�t, a�n� ��n Lui� �bi�p� ��r�t� �rv�� C�� r�r� in thi� �ff�rt. F�� fur�k�� r��gr�i��d �� t��rrk�d �rr��r� �r�r�� t� A�t�rn��, Tirn ��rrn�l: ��- hi� �ff�rt� �r� �r��tir�g th� 1111�1.J. �. ACEIV�A #�EVIEIN �.a�. �rdin�n�e� f�ea�d in T�� nl�. ��I�� r� ��I�Y1 ��V�I�S ��V�C�! C��L��1C�I� ��1�3��` C�� Cr��1C�� l�l� �I��I'1 �]��C� �r�a�r�ir��u��r �h�� II �rdir��r�� r��r�d ��r �r�#r�c�u�#��n �r a�d��ti�r� �t �h� r�n��#in� �h��l b� r��d i� titl� �r��r �r�c� ��I furth�r ��r�� b��nra�i�r�d. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 1 �I�f�r��: ��,y��crr��i1 Nfee��r�� e � T�re�day�Apr�l 2�� 8 �. ��T1�EN�' II�P�JT, ��III�IE�VT�# AIV� ��E�,,,`��_ ��rv ��h�,rq�, r�r�l Arr��r� �r�r�d� r��id�n�: r�f�r�� t� �� I�is��ri� ��t� ��urt �t �� rn�t# ��r��t n��r �--li�f�v�r��r ��'! �h�t v�r�� r��n��r�� v�ri�h�ut th� b�r��# �f ��ing thtr��l� �I�� p��li� h��r�n� �r��. �� r��d di��p��ntr��n� ��u�� th�r� �r� �r�ry f��nr �f �h�� hi�#�ri� �ut� ��u�t� r��m�ining in th� ��try. FI� r�f�rr�� t� �h� �nr�b�it� v�rww.l�i�#��i�1�1.��r� �rvh�r� tf�� pr�p��r �v�� f��r�d. �. ��I�T A�ENDA 11��r�r F�rr�r� in�i��f r�n�r��r� ��tl�� p��li��r�rh� v�r��h�d t� ��r��n� �� y ��r��r��g�n�� t�r� to do �o �t t�is t�rr��. ��r-y ��#��rq��, r�r�l �rr��r� �r�n�� r��d�nt, r��rr�� lt�rn �.�. r�ga�r��ng r��r��d �r�try �i�n� �n �. �ra�nd A�r�nu� �n� Tr�ffi� IN��r �rr� ��t�� r�rh�t rnight I�� r� �n a�lt�rn�t� ��r�� h� pr�bl�r�n. H� b�li��r�d th� pr�bl�rr� v�r�� f��t th� �ign� h�� t ��n �rr�irrt�in�d ��nd v�r�r� r��dl�r ��ri��-�tin�. H� ��g�� tl��t du� t� �� h�rrn ��d hi�t�ri�� r�i�i��r�� f �� i�n� th�t ��n��r �I��ul� b� r��t�r�� t��ir �rigin�� r�diti�r� i��t�� f r�r-�-��v�� nd r��l��d. �I� n�t�d th�t �I�� Tr�ffi�1JV��r �i�r� i� �I�� h�v�r� �r� v�rww.�i�t��i�1�1.��r�. ��ur��il IVl�r�b�r ��t�ll� r�q��t�� tl��t It�r�� .f. a�nd �.�. �� pul��d. �1��r ��rr�r� r��u��d #��t It�rn �.j. b� p�ll��. A�ti��: ��r��i� I�I�rx�b�r �rr��l� r��d, �nd ��r��il E111��b�r ��thri� ��n�� 1�� r��i��n t� ��p�� r��t �� r�� .�. �I�r�u�h �.�., v�rith �� c��pti�n �f it�r-�-�� .f. �.�., �n�f �.j., v�rr'th tl�� r��r�nr�n�r�� r�� i�n. �'I�� r��i�r� p�� r� tF�� Il��nrin� r�fl-�a�l �r��: �►YE�: Ar��id: ��th�i�, ��t�ll�, F�Il��rv�, ��rr�r� N�E�: None A��": I��r�� .�. �� Di��ur��r��nt I��if��ti�r�. ��I�1'�: ��I�� f"1� �I��I�1� �� (�1��l.Jl"��I'1'1��1�� I" ��1� ��C� ��]�'�� '�, �� 1�`��..J�� f I� ��t ��. �.b. C�i�r��id�rra�tilJn �f��er�n�n� �f�n�r�r+�,'�t�n�rrt� �]��,J�7��■ A��i�r�: F��iv�d �r�d �il�d th� r�p�r� �f�r�rr�nt in�r��r-Y-��n� d��i�� 1�I�r�f� ��, ��, �.�. ��r��i�� f�1��r��r�l �f�Illir�u�e�, A��i�n: Appr�v�d tl�� rnir�ut�� f�� i�l �it� ��ur��rl Il��tir�� f Apr�l �, ��; �r�� I�� I��a�r �it� ��un�il�F��r�l��rn��t A��r��r Il��tir�� ri! �, ��, a�� u�br-r-�itt��. �.c�. ��r��ic�era��n t� Appr��re F�na�� P�rr�� Illla�� 4� ��-�'I��; �u��ri�i�� .�'i �#�re� i�n�� T�r� �� P�r�els, ��eci a�t '�� r��r��re��. A�ti�n: �ppr��r�d Fi�n�� r��! 1111�� -�'I��, ��bdi�ridin� ,�� r�� i�t� �� p�r��, I��t�� a�t ��7 �l�r�ip�r ��r��t. �*�• ��7��1 i�� /� ��r�� Q� ��!� ��Q�� r� ��rien� ��e�� PVI� ��-'��. ��ti��: �� 1��p��d �h� �r�j��t irr�pr��r�rr��nt� �� n��ru�t�d �y ��n�� F��t�ry, Ir��. ir� ��-da�n�� vith th� pl�� n� �p��i�i��i�r�� f�r �k�� J�rx�� VII�� t I--t�bi��# IV�#ur� Tr�il �� F��a��rr��r�t Pr�j��t; �� i��t�d �ta�ff t� fil� � N�ti�� f ��p��ti�r�; �nc� �� t��ri�� r�l�� f th� r��nti�r�: #�irty-fiu� �� a��r� �f��r tl�� f��ti�� f ��r��ti��n h�� b��n r��rd�d, if r�� I��r�� ha��r� b�er� �ile�. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 2 ��r��rtes: �i�y�a�rr��i1 Il��et�rr� Pa�e� Tu��day� A�r��,�, �� .f�. ��s�c�er�ti�r� �� F��v��d I�Iler��ra�ndur� �� lr�cle��t�ndir�g �etwe�n t�� i�� f�rr�� r�r�d�, Lu�i� Illl�r �Jn��i�d ��h��l Di��ri��, �.F�. L�nc� P�rt��r��ip �nd ��#�n Ta��l��, �ru��e� F�e��-d�n� �a�nc� A�qui�iti�n �� c��r��i�r� ��'��i��ll� �� IIA�r t� Il��le� F��c�. A��i��n: Appr��r�� a�nd ��th�ri��d th� �I��r�r t� ��c��ut� �f�� r�� Il��r��ra�r�du�r�n �� lJnd�r�t�r�din� ��tw��n �I�� ity �f �rr��r� �r�r��, Lu�i� Ill��r ��n�fi�� I �i�tri�t, �.H. L�r�� P�r��r�hi� a�r�d J�I�r� �`��rl�r, �r��#��. �.�. ��n��ra�i�n �f A�mer�drx�en�� t� L��s v�rit� ��u�F� ��nt� �i��r��l ��i�t� �� 11�iv� � P�rti�� Illf��r 2�n�J ��r ��r��s. A��i�r�: 'I� �ppr��r�� th� f�r�t �r��r�dr��nt t� th� I�� v�i�h th� ��u�� t��t�r i�i�t�ri��l �S��I�L�I ��'�� I��I� ��" �� f�La�]�Ir� ��l�� 3T��]�J`�J t �} ��II�C� �� flC� ��'1'l�f'1��Y1��1� �� 1� ��:�� 1JII1��1 �� I�I�� I�� ` �f'1� �"'��`I��C�� Ll�� 31"��I"��; �} A��r�v�� thir� �rn��r��r�t t� th� I�� v�r�th th� H��t�r�� i��y ��r th� ��nt� N1�nu�l� ��h��l pr�p�r��r� �n� �� r�v�d tl�� I--�i�t�ri��l ��i�ty r��t be �h�r��d �v�t�r f�� r�d ��nr�r f�� f�r �h�� rti��: ��c�lu�si�r� �� L�p�� v�r�� r�� r�d ��uth ��ty ��ta�ti�n Di��ri�t ��r�r�� h�r��. �.f. ��n�id�ra��f�r� �f A��t�rr�� th� F�rr�l� A�rer�ue F�eh�biii��t��n �r��e�t, P1N �� . F�e��rr�rir��rrd�d A�ti�r�: �� A��t th� pr�j��t ir�p��v�rn�nt� �� n�tru�t�r� ��r �n��n A��ha�lt, In�. ir� ��rda�n�� v�r�th �� I�n� �n� �p��if�c�ti�n� f�r �h� F�rr�ll Av�n�,� F��ilit�ti�n Pr�j��t; �} Dir��t �t��f��i�� a� IV��i�� f ��r�pl�ti��; �n� �� ,th�ri�� r�1�� f th� r�t�nti�n, tf�irt��fi�� } da�� f#�r th� N�t�� f ��m�l�ti�r� �� n r��rd�d, if r�� i�r-�� h�v� ��n fil�d. �.�. ��r��i�r�t��r� �f A��r�� f �� r�nd �#�r�n�� I�e�ur�a��r�� Pr�j�� V ��W��■ �V��/�� I�■ � } �� V ��V�V�� F,l��V�� Y�� VR f � � Bla��Ct�p, In�. in ��r��n�� nrith th� �I�n� �� fi��ti�n� f�r tl�� E��t �r�n� Av�n�� F��u�f��in� Pr�j��t; �} Dir��t�t�ff t�fi�� IV�ti�� f��npl�ti��; �r�d �} �utf��ri�� r��a�� f t�� r��r��i��, thirt�-fi�� r� �� tf�� IV�ti�� f ��r�r�pl�t��n �� b��n r��d�d, �� n� I��n� h��r� ��n fil��. ��u�r��i� Il�l�rx��r ��t�ll� r�f�rr�� t�� t�ff r��rt� ��r It�rn� �.f. a�r�d �,�. v�rhi�l� ir��i�t�� th�t � di��dva�n�� t� a��ti�� th� �r-r��r��r�r�n�nt� ��u�ld �� i� ��c�u�r�t c��fi�i�n�i�� r� th� �nr�r�C �v�r� id��'r�i�d. �I� ��k�� tf��r� v�r�� li�C�lih��d �� d�fi�i��n�� in tl�� r��. D�r��r ��gr�� c��in�d th�t th� lik��ih��d i� �lirn, th� pr��t� h�� b��n �I��I}� r�r��ni��r�d ��d in��, �n� �� d�� n�t ��c��t th�r� t� b� �r��r ��fi�i�r��i�� ir� �it��r ��j��t. �11��r�r F�rr�ra� ��r�r��n�� th�t �I�� n��nr �triping �n E. �r�n� ��r�nu� I��C� �� I��v��e�, h� ��r��d ��n��rn �vith th� r��urf��r�� n�tin� t�� t�� rf�� i� r��t �� rn��l� �� it ha�� r� ir� tl�� a��t. ��un�il Ni�r��r ��t�ll� �n�v�d, �r�d ��n�il 1111�rn��r �ut�ri� ��nd�� tl�� r��i�r� t� �pp�'��r� ��r��nt ��r�� It�r�� .f. �n� �.�., �vi�h tl�� `��rr��nd�d ��r�� ti�n. Th� r�r��ti�n ��d �� I�v�rin� r�ll��ll �r�t�: Alf��: ��t�ll�, ��thri�, Arn�i�, ��Il��r�, F�r��r� N��: N�n� A��I�T: IVone Agenda Item 8.d. Page 3 ��. �� TueSC�ay, �4pri�22, ��$ �.�. ��r��i��ra��i�r� �f ��vi��J �r�try �i�r�� # E��t �r�n�l A�rer�u��'��'1 �r�t� Tr�ffi� IIV�y�'��'1 ��i��. F��r�ner��et� A��r�: ��n�id�r r�vi�� igr� d�t��l� ��r �i�� Er�try �i�n� �t E��t �r�r�d Av�r�u��'I�'I �r�d Tr�ffi�1fVa�y�'�� t� r��l�� h� ��ci�tir�� b��l�t� p�l� ��r��. �� I�� .�� ./� �� i 1� �� I��• �� I�� 1� ��1!�� I� �I�� I�I�� ■�� I��I�I�� V�F I�I�� I�� J � ��#�� I�� ..rt ��V11 ��I�� 7�� 7■ �� LF ��5.+�� J �� I�� I�� I�* �� I�� I�I�� J � v�rit� ��r�� Itr�n� ri�k�t��f-�v�r�� i�� t E. �r�n� ��r�r�u� ��ti �h� �i�r� r��d�d �� b� r��igr�� r�r��t ��I��a�r�� rit�ri�, �vhi�h d�� n�� Il��nr �rg��i��i�n��, ��rv�� l�tb: �r ��r�h �igr��. �I� ��c�l�ir��d �� tf�� it}� i� r��u��tir�� thi� �r�� r�lin�ui�� b� ��ltr�n�, �� r�r�i�h tir�n� �� ity ��r� �dd t� tf�� i�r� �t � I�t�r d�t�. H� �t�t�� #�� it�r r��i�r�d p�rrr�i��r� �r�r�n ��Itr�r�� f�r in��l��n �f � rn��r-r��n# �i�n ��I� �t E. �r�r��. 11��r�r ��rr�r� �t��d th�t tf�� r�a�ni��i��l �i�n� �nrrll b� pla��d �n tf�� try �i�n I��d �n Tr�ff��111l��r. Bri�f ��un�il a�nd �ta�ff di��i�r� �r�� r��r��n� tl�� r� �f th� �ntry �i�r� �� . �r�r�d, pr�p�� i�r� r��t�ria�l, �p��fi��ll�r �� it r�l�t�� t� tfi�� uth�nti� �t�� a�� p��d t� f�� t�r��; �r�� kr��vf�d�r��nt �f �� ir��ividu��, ��ri�� lu��, �nd �rg�niz�t'r�r�� th�t I��r� ��ntri�u��d t� thi� �ff�rt. N1��r ��rr��-� r��v��, �nd ��n�il Il��r�b�r �►rr��l� ��r�d�d �� r�n�ti��n �� a�ppr�� n��n� Ag�r�d� It�rr� �.j.: �nrit� th� r��rrrrr��r��t�d ��r�� a��n. Th� rn�ti�n p��d �n t�� Il�v�rfr�� r�l�- ��I� ��: AY�� F�r��r�, Ar��d} ��t��l�, �ut�ri�, F��I��nr� � N��: I�one �4��VT: I�or�e ��yor F�rrara arrr�aurr��d �f��r� i�ad b�err a reqr��s� �o rrrove �p 1��rr� 7 7.�. or� #1�� 4��rrd� �rior�� r��i�r� ��'��rr�� .�. �r��.�. 7�� c�rr�r!��r��f wi��r #i�� r�c�cre��. �'I. �1 E1�11 B��I iV E�� ITEIU�� '1'1.�. ��r��id�r��i�n �f A�ti�n� T��C�n b� ��e ��n�� n L�� i�� nd Pr��ed L.etter v�rith ��rx�nner�� h� ��rc� �f �u�ervis�r� F�egardin� �r��r�r�ti�n �f C��a�� Il�lu��l� a�t �a��Ce L�p��. �it� 11�1��n�g�r Ad�r�� pr��nt�d tf�� t�f� r��rt �nd r��rr�rr��r�d�d t�� n�il 'I� F��v� ��r��n�nt� fr�r�n �� ur�t�r �f ��n �u�� bi�p� F��r�C� D��rtrn�r�� r��r��er�t��i�r�; �� Pr�vid� inp�t; ��t� �� r�v� t�� r�� I�t��r t� �I�� r� Lui� �bi�p� ��u�nt}� B��rd �f �up�rv��r�. H� th�r� ir-�tr�t�� r�� I F��r�r� �h� ��t� I��r�t� D��rt��t. �� r� I�� ..��1� �� ..��i��l�i��.�r�� `�1��1�� 1 �C�� ..��7 ��7��t �C��i C� P��r�rP��nt �r��nt�t��n �r� th� ��u�t�'� r��p�� t� C��..�G�� ll��il�. H� ��k� C��ut r��th�d� th� ��r��y i� �r�d�rt��c�ng t� �r��r�r�t�h� inf��t�ti�r� �f a�ll ��n�indi��n�u� a�q�a��i�� int� �,�� a�nd ��r�t� Il�a�r��rit� La�l��. H� �t��d th�f�� i� ��n I��pin� th� C�u�� 11��1� �u�t �f tl�� I�k�� t p�� a� thr�� t� th� i�fr��tr��#�r� ��r the ��ira��r d�liv�r-y sy�t�rr�, �� v�r�t�r qu�a�lity, a�nd t� th� Agenda Item 8.d. Page 4 �ir��r�es: ��crr��i�1�ee�ir�� Tuesday� Apri1��, ��08 ��r�t�r�. I--I� fu�rth�r r��ri��nr�d th� �r�� r d��ta�rnir��t��n �� r�� f b�a�t� pr��r�� in� �Il�v�r�� I�un�l� ir� th� ��r�ty'� I��C��. I--I� th�r� re��nd�� #� qu�s#i�r�� fr�r�r� ��ur��l. �Vl��r�r F�r��r� ir�vi�ed ��nr��r�t� fr�rr� th�� n #f�� i�n�� vf�� vi�� #� b� h��rd �r� th� r�n�tt�r, �nd �p�r� ��rin� �n� p��li� ��r��r�� I�� I�� tf�� p�rbl�� r'r'�r��r�� r��d, ��un�il ��r�r��r�� i��l��d ��pp�r� f�r th� �ff�rt� �h� ��unt�r h�� ,n��rt��C�n �h�� r �� pr�v�nt �u�� M�� r�rr� �r�t�rir�� th� la��C��; a� ��g��ti�r� �h�� I��I b��t�r� ��r�� t t� th� I��C�� b�f�r� �� r�r�n�r ��n t� ��r�id I�r�� lir�� durin� th� d��r��rr�it��ti�n pr��; ��nd � r��u��# �� t��f ��r�t��t ��d�r�l �I��d �f�i�i�� t� r��t ��i��r�� ir� r��r�hi�� d d�v�l��n� ��luti�r�� t� �r��r��►t C�� N1��1� ir�f��t�ti�r�, A��i�n: �111��r Pr� T�rr� F�Il�v�r� rr��v�� t� ��pr�� I�� r��ec� I��t�r t� th� ��n Lui� ��i�p� ��ut�t� E3��rd �f ��-�ri��-�. ��I �111�rr��r ��hr�� nd�d, �n� th� r-��ti�n �� n th� ��Il��vir�� r�ll-��I v��: �41��: ��Il�v�r�, �c�thri�: ��t�ll�, Arr��ld, F�rr�r� N�E�: f�a�n� A��1T: IV��n� �. P�JBLI� I�IEAF�IN�� C/�r��LMer��i�� f �� A��e�� f�r tf�� E�c�en��n �f � "I�� P�r�C�r�� r�e �� l��il��s� �riv�. ��i��r�t �it�r Engin��r Linn pr��t�� th� �t�ff r�p�rt �r�d r��rr�r��r��d ��urr��l �tf��t � I��ti�n ��r��ri�� #�� pp��l �f L��n�rd ��rry �n� V��ri� ��nr��tt ��nd �ppr�v'rr�� ct�n�i�n �� ci�tin� "f�� P�rkir��„ ��r�� b�tw��n ��7� �nd 1�� H��I�r��t Driu�. ��ff r��r�� qu��i�r�� r��n ��un�il ��n��rr�ir�� t�e� r�l�t�d t� ��t� di�t�� n� �i�l�r��t �r�d r-�-�i�nir�n�r-�-� ��w.+�� +�� r.��V��V�� l��r +..r � �a��r�r F�rr��-� �p�r��d tl�� ubli� ��ri�n�. H� ��I�r��v�rl��d � I�t��r ��'�r� �I�� Il��t v�rl�i�h ��t�d th��r ��uld n�t b� pr��nt �� n il�n�� n th� ��r�nil�. �� 4J��YY1�� L�� L�� F�.+ ��1� �� 1 4 �� i �fl Y� �GI��1��!! �� 1�� Y� �.7 ��7��. Torn ��nderco�k, �lillcr�s� Drive'� hlli�C� P�t�r��n, F-lil��r��t Dri�r� �1�� VI��I��, I--��Il�r�� riv� D�r�th� �hri�d��l, �--lill�r��t D�iv� E�di� ��rl, F��II�r�� ri�r� P�tri�i� ��r�d�r��k, Hill�r��# Dri�� a�r�da�� Th�rr�inc�, Hill�r��t ��i�r� �h�r�� C��ir�, w-f�ll�r�� l�ri�r� ��ri�i� �#��t�-��nd�r��k: F-��Il�r��t �ri�r� �' Mr. �and�r�a�k �-eferre�i �o Atta�hm�n� � ir� th� s�a� rep�rt �r�d �sked that it b� r�rnov�d fror� the r��r�i �� it ��nt�in�c� d�f�rna�t�ry ��rr�rr��r�� r�r�n #�� pp�lla�nt a��ut hirr�. ��r�r Ferr�r� �d�ri��d t��t th� rna�t�r��l �r�� n�id�r�d � p�bli� r��r� �r�d ��u�d ��t b� r�rn�v��. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 5 Nf�r�u��: �i�y�our��i!I�fee�irrgr Page� T�res�fay, A{�r��2�� ,��8 1.��n f��in� n�fur��r p��li��r�n�n�nt�, N1��r�r F�rr�r� ��d th� �u��i� h�a�rin�. ��r��l ��rr�k��r ��th�i� pr�vi��d tl�� I��v�n� ��rnr��n��: �- ��k��v�r��d tl��t Hil��r�� ri�r� �� n�t r�r��t �urr�nt �tr��t �t�r��d�: th�r�f�r� i� i� di��ult �� r��u�t� f��rn � pl�nni�� n� ��I��r �ta�ndp�int� � ��cn��nrl�dg�d th�� I--�i�l�r�� riv� ��r�'t�I�� r�l}r r��r�-��r��r�min� �tr��t�r� th� �it�r; -- A��Cn��vl�d��d n��d t� ��I�n�� v�rh�� i� n�rr�n�ll�r req�i��d �g�i�n�t v�rh�� i� r��r��bl� f�r thi� n�i�hb�rh��d; - ��rr��n��t�d �r� ��rki�� t��n�a�r�� v�rh�n h��m�� r� ��i�n�d �rrd ��pr��r�d a�� i� r�l�� pac� ins'rd� ar�d o�ts�d� �f garages; �- �t�t�� tha�t fr�r�n pla�nnir�� nd ��li�� n�p�int, th� ��I��r�� h�� u� ��} ��n��t� p��Cin� �� v�rh��h �h�ul�# b� �v�il��l� f�r ��rkir��; �- �� tl��#I�� b��t �� f pu��i� �� t b� �v��u�t�d; - F��r�r�d r�ta�inin� p�r�Cin� ra�th�r th�� lir�-�in�t�ng p�r�Cir��t � ��id h� h�d �ri�it�d #h� ��hb�rl�� r�d ��C��v��dg�d tf�� r��rr�v�r�i�th �r�d ��pn�� f th� �treet; - �t�t�d fr�rr� � ��#y �#��dp�int, h� b�li��r�� it �nr�� ppr��r��t� t� r�d�� rn� pa�rkin� t� �n�ble �ar� t��r�ve�: � ��r��d�d th�t #��r� ��ul� �� th� a��ilit� #� �r�vi�� a� ��c�p�� f �pa�� rr��rl��r� �n th� �tr��r p�r�Cin�, �nd th�� i�v�r�� a� r��n�� f�h� �u�fi� ri�ht-�f-v�r�}r t� pr�vi�� p�rki��, ��un�il Ni�r�nb�r�rr��l� �r��ri�� tl�� Il��rvir�� rnen��: - In r��p�n�� t� � �u��n r��a�r�ir�� in�r��d ��cp��r� t� li�bil�ty if ��ting ��r� ��I�� n the s�reet, �ity Attorr��y ��rrnel re�ponded r�o, an� explair�ed that the ��n�ra�l st�r��ar� of li�bili#� f�r ��ti�� r� ��r��r�ll� ��r��r�u� �nd d��t�v� ��r�diti�n� �f � pr�p�r��r �f �vhi�h it h�� r��ti��, �r�d th�t b��d �r� th� ��id�n� hi�t��y ��r �I�� tr��t, ��tinu�r�� t� �Il�v�r �a�r�Cin� �r� th� �tr��t in tt-�i� �r�� v��l� n�t in�r�� t�� Et�'� li��lit�; - �p��C� �f f�irn�� v�rith th� ��tir� n�i��b��'h��d; �- �V�t�� tl��r� �� lirr�it�d �a�rkin� a�l�r�� Hil��r��fr�rn �I ��rnin� F��I; - L�� t tl�� pp�ll��t'� pr�p�rty �n� cor�rn�n�� th��-� �� r�� r`t�r�'rty ��r ��lditi�r��l ��f-�i�� p�rki��; �- �t�t�� t r-�-��k�� r�� #� ��r� �h� N� ��rkir�� n� t� �Il��nr �p��;e� in fr��t �f �� Hili�r�� fr�r�n th� �nr��t �d�� tf�� dr�v��r�� t� #�� ci�ting IV� ��rl��r�� t �- �ornrnent�� th�t parked ��r� or� tl�e �treet s�r�r� a�� sp�e� �or�tr�� d�vi�e; - A�k��+�r��d �i�i��li��r i��u�� a�r� � ��n��rr�t h�v�r��r, I�� did r��t b�li�v� �t �r�� ur�iqu� t� tl�i� �r��; ��r� �r� I�t� �f��c�rr�pl�� f�ir�il�r �tr�� n �I��r r��i�t�b�r�� thr��u� �� ity; -- ��p�r-t�d upf��ldin� th� �ppe�� d rn�ving th� IV� Pa�r�Cin� ��n� t� �It��r�r tw� p�rkir�� p�� in fror��of tl�� pp�ll�n�'s hou�e. ��ur�cil Me�rnb�r �os��lo �ravided th�fa�lawi�n� �or�rne�ts: �- ��Cr��r�rl�d�� t�a�t tf�� ci�tir�� r��d �a�nn�t b��nrid�n��; - A��Cr��nrl�d��d th�t�hi� i� � �u�li� �tr��t�rvhi�� r�nu�t b� ��C�r� ir�t� ��r��iti�r��r�; - IV�t�d ��t thi� i� � �r�va�t� ��r�u� p�bli� �� -- t�� iii��r �f �n� �r��rty �vith lir'r'�i�� r�-�i�� rk�n� t� �a�v� a�dditi�na�l pa�rkin� �� th� �tr�� r�u�� t�r�ti�� f�r��f�t�r �� lir��r��i�n� ��- �tr��t p�r�Cir��; - V1��Id �ik� t� fin� � ��r�n�r�rni��v�rl��r� � ��upl� �f pa��Ci�n� �p�� I� �� pr�vi��d; Agenda Item 8.d. Page 6 N�ir��es: �ity Co�r��i�A�fee��r�gr Pagre T T�resday� �4�r�1�2� �0�8 � N�t�d th�t �n�� r�� p��cin� r��tr��t��n� �rv�r� p�t �r� �I��, 'rt ��ul� ��cp�nd t� ��r �re�� f the �neig#�bor�oo�� — N�t�� n�� r ��th� �r�p�rti�� a��r� I�rg� ��-ivev�r��r� t� a�ll��r�r�rr-�i�� p�rk�r��; -- �u�� ur� ��n�i��-��r�n ��r�a��Ci�n� �h� �tr��t �r��-v�r�}�d�� f�t�r i��u�� inv�l�r��; — 1N��Id d�� p��l. ll�a��r�r Pr� T�rr� F�II�� pr�v��d th� f��l��rir�� rr�rn��#�: — ��r-�-�r-r�en��i �#��# h� dr�v� u� t� �--li�l�r��t ��d r��t�d un��u�n�� f hi�l�, ��r�r�r, r��rr�v�r, �tr��t �� rv�d ��r� tr�v�l�r�� I��►�rl}�; — N�t�d th�t v�rh�n �tr��t� �� vid� �r�d ��r� �� t�� f��: �tr�� r� �� rr�v�r�� ir� ��ri�u�� n�r�ys to �I�w �r��i� do�rn; — ��r�r��r�#�d th��tr�� re n�rr��v�r�r�nr��n ��r� i� ��r�ir�� r� b�th �i�� #h� �tr��; �- ��Cr��v��d t��t �i��r ��t� ir�di��d th�r� ��v� b��n r�� r��rt�d ��id��t� in �I�� r��; — F��f�rr��! t� �r�p��d p�l�� d �r� � ��r�n� hi�h�nr��r t#��igr� rn�r��l �i��l�r�� nrith ��n-�tr�� r�in� �� i� r��t�� t��d�qu��t� �i�l�� di�t�n��; — ��r��d #��t ��t�r �� irr��t�n� i��u�; �� cpr��d ��n��-n ��t �� n-��r�� rkir�� i� r�nr��v��i, th�# p��pf� vrrill �ri�r� f��t�r, �t v�rill r�� b� �� f� �� i� i� �n�v�r, �r�d ��id�r�t� �r� lik�l� t� in�r��; — ��r�n�t ��p��rt��p��n ��t�� pr��d F��I�ti�r�. ��r F�rr�r� pr��r`r�� Il��nrin� ��r-Y-�rr��nt�: - �1�� t �� — A�r��d th�t r�a�rr�v�r�tr��#� t�nd t� �I��nr�r�ff��; -- �b��rv��l �r�r��r� t�lk�r�� t� th� ��I��n� th�t th��r ��v� � t��-��r ��ra�� n� di��u��d �p��li��f r��id�r�� t� p�rk f��r�r��i�l�� n-�it�; � ��Cr��nrl��d �I��r� �r� p�r�Cir�g �h�ll�ng�� i� �I�i� n�i��rl��d �n�i ��r�� h�u�ld b� ��'rli�� for�arkir�g; — F-�� n�� I��t tl�� ri�`rbilit�r i�� idn't ��r-r� t� h� �� i�� in t�rrr�� f di�ta�n��; ��r�r, t#�� I�� i� � ��g�r i��; — V'V�uld �il�� t� �r�- �� th� �i�� f �a�f�ty, ��i�i��l��r f�r tl�� I�� i��u�, �� t�� p�t�nt��l f�� d��i�r��l pa�rl��r�� #� ��r�r�-�it�: a�n� d�n�r�I�� p��l; — ��t�� h�t i� th�r� �nra�� a� �v��r �� r�gis��r �n� �� n �� r��# a�nd r��v� tl�� i��: h� r�i�ht ��,pp�r-t �I�a�t; h��rv�v�r, �� r�ul� n�t ��pp�rt �n-�#r��t pa�r�Cin� �� -nr��da�t� �4-� v�l�i�i��. ��i�n: ��r��i� 11�1�r7r�b�r�rn�� r�n��r�� t� dir��t �#�f�� pr�p�r� � F��I��i�r� u�l��fdir�� th� �pp��l �f L��r��rd ��rry�n� Il�l�ri� B�nn�tt �n� ��pr��rin� � "��r�i�g �I��rv�dr' ��r� �r� �h�v�r�� i�� Hi�l�r��t �riv� ir� �r�nt �f ��, �t�rtin� �� t�� f �� c�ri�r��rv�� r�� in� t� th� ��ci�#�ng `ifV� P�rl�ir��„ �i�r� �r� tf�� nr��t�rn �� f 1�� h�� it b� I�rn�ted t� � m��cir��r� ��tw� pa�rkin� ��; a�nd �Il��i�� #�� dditi�t��l "IV� Pa�rkir��„ ��ne� #�a�t �r��-� ��pr�� r �I�� Tr��fi� ��r�rni��i�� t� b� in �f��t. Il�l��r�r Pr� ��rn ��Il��vs ��n��. �ri�f��i�n f�ll��nr�� I�r�f�i�� t�� rn�ti�� it ��la�t�� r►-��t ��r�Cing ir� fr�r�t 1�� Hill�r��t �r'rv�, �n� th� fa��t th�t �n-�tr��t p��Cing i� �u�bli� �� r�d i� n�t r��tri��d p�r�Cing ��r th� t�n�nt� a�t ��8� �i1f�r��t Driv�. �h� rn�t��r� p��d �r� th� f�fl��vin� r�l� �a�l� v�t�: A1�E�: �rr��ld, F�I��r�x ��hr�� V��: �os��lo, F�rr�ra AB�Ef�T: IV�r�� Agenda Item 8.d. Page 7 Nf�r�r��es: �i�y�our��1�Vfeetir�� Pa�e� Tuesday�A pr�1�� 20�5 ��Vf f��4� �/V��r�� 41�\ �i �� .�r�r �� /M��l��J��Lf��./�r�a � ��■ CIV��M��/� �� 7�R� ��V� �� Y� M�� Y Y�� rr�� r�nd� 1111ur��ipa�� c�e �eg�rdin� �� Hrs��ri� f��s��ur�e I��ign��i�n PI'�C�S�, ��i�t�r�t P��nr��r B�rgrr�a��n �r��er�t�d �h� ��f� r�p�rt �r�d r��mrr��nd ��un�il i�tr�du�� r� �rdir�a�n�� r�n�r��ir�g ��pt�r� 1�.�� r�d ��.�� f T�tl� 1� �� I�� r��}�� r�r�d� N�ur�i�i��l �� r�l�t�d t� tf�� I�i��r�� r��t�r�� d��i�r�a��i�r� p��. �t�ff ��p�r��t t� que��i�r�� r��# ��r�rn�r�t� �r�rr� ��il r��a�rdir�� th� �r�� ri��r�a� f�r d��r�a�t�ng � hi��ri� r��,r��: r��ti�ir�� et�uir�r-r��nt�; ��r�#i�a��n tl��t tl�� r��t�r� �f �h� I��t�ri� r��r�� d��i�n�ti��n ��-�� v�ulc� r��t ��n�ti��t� � ta��Cin� �f r��l �r��rt�; I��v�r t�� it� �n��r�� du� �ili��n�� it r�l�� t� n�tifyin� tl�� p��rt}r ��r�rr��r �f � I�i�t�ri� r��ur�� n�r�r�in��i�r�; �r�� r�r��vir�� ri��ri� #�� in d��rr�inin� � �i�t�ri�a1 r��ur��, �ir�� i� i� ��r� �f th� r��r�d fi�ndin�� f�r�ppr�v�l. �11�y�r F�r��r� �p�r�� I�� i� ��rin�. ��r� ��I��r�ui�t, rura�l Arr��r� �r�r�d� r��de�nt, ��C� in �u��r� �f th� ��-�� rd�na�n�� r�ga�r�in� th� hi�t�ri� ��ur�� gn�ti�r� �r��. �.J��r� ��r�r�� r��f�rth�r publi� ��rnrn�n#�, N1a��r F�rr�ra� �I��d t�� publ��f��a�r�r��. ��r��l N1�r�nb�r Arr��l� �r��rid�� I��nrir�g ��rn�n��: -- �u��rt�d ��ing f��nr�r� �vith th� �r�p�� rdir�a�n��; �- H�� r�nil� ��r��r�� b�u� �u��i� ��ti��ng ��ir�rn��nt�; r��rr�rn�nd�d � �r��r��i�n t� r�q�ir� p�r��na�l ��r�t��t b�tvv��r� th� ��rty��r��r ar�� th� �ity r��a�r�ir�g n�rr�'rn��r� �f� �r�p�rt�; �- ��gested d��prn�n� �f a bro�hure to b�tt�r info�rr� th� public �f th� hist�ri� d�sign��on pro��; — I��t�d ��h� �r�gr�r� �:an �� i�i�r� ��r�I�� ity�r�� r��id�r�t�� — 111f�uld li�C� t� �� a�n ir��nti�r� pr��r�r� put in pl�� f�r d��n��d �i��ri� r��ur�e�; — A�r�eci t�a�t ��it�ri� ##� r��d� �� e r�r�n��re� f�-�r�r ��ti�r� �6.1�.��.�. ��r�� it i� ir��l�d�d �� a� �p��ifi�fir�din�; - �Li��t�d t�"1�� th� ��r'��U�� ir1 ��tl�r'� �1�.�1�.1��.�.�. r��d� t� b� I'Yl�dlfl�� I"�I�t�d �� t�1�11�1� ��1� Ifl��l��l��1� C�G�I��1. ��1.��1� ��1'1��' �l.��f'1�"I� �]f°111C��C� ��"1� ��1IV1�� '1''lrl'1��1��: � A1�� c�r��d �or��rn uvi�h p��li� n��i�ing r�q�rirerr��nt�� — �I�r�fi�� th�t th�r� �rv�ul�# �� rr��r�t re��r��d �r� th� pr��p�rty d��i�r��ir�� hi��ri� �t�tu�; — �t�t�d th� r�vi��d �rdin�r�� r�vi�� r��r� �ert�ir�t�r ir� �I�� hi�t�r��d��i�n�ti�r� pr��; � �I�r�fi�d th�t if � pr��rt}r v�r�� d�t�rnrr�n�d n�t t� �� i�t�ri�, it ��t�� b� r��r��d��d �t � I��r �irne; — �u��rt��t t�� r��d ��dir�a�n�� a�� rn��if��d. ��r��il �Il��rr�b�r��#��I� �r�vid�� th�f��l��ri�� r�rn��t�: �- �u�p�rt�c� th� pr�p��d d�finiti�r��; — �upp�rt�d r�r��rir�� rit�ri� ##� fr�r�-� ��c�ti�r� 'I�.'I�.'I��.�. �in�� it i� in�l�d��! �� i�� findi��; Agenda Item 8.d. Page 8 �I�f�r��r��s: ��r��r��i��4#ee��r�� e� Tu esda y, A pri12�, 2�� — If11��d 1'r�C� t� ��t� ��r� t�� n�ti��ng pr�� fi�i��nt; — �upp�rt� id�� r��tir�� br��r� ��r'rb�r�� h� hi�t�ri��igr��ti�r� pr�� — A�r��d th�� pr��r`�i�� b� r��n�rnin�� r hi�t�r��d��i�n��i�r�; T ��rt�d t�� pr��d �rdi��n�� a�� rn�d��i�d. ��ur��il �Vl�r�nb�r F�Il��nr� pr�vi��d tl�� f�ll��nrir�� or�r��n�nt�: �- ��r�� th�t �r��rr�n�ti�n i� k��r; #�� pu�li� r��}� h�v� ��r��i�r�d rr��iv�n�� nd th�� rn��t un��r�t�nd �I�� lu�� n� b�r��fit� �f�i�#�ri� d��i�r��i�r�; � �up��r-t� th� ��di�n�n��, �� n��d, �� it�r�ril� i�pr��r� tt�� I��I e��r��r�ny k�� ttr��ti�� t��ri�r�: �rrd it�rvi�l i�npr��v� tf�� n�r�ni�v�lu� �f hi�t�ri� �r��rti��; — �u��rt�d r�n�difi��ti�n t� th� I��t,�� in ��ti�n 1�.'I�.'I��.D.�. t� ��-�vi�� I�ri�}�, N1��r ��rr�r� �r��i�� th� f�ll��vin� ��nr��r�t�: �- ��r��#�ri��d thi� ��ti�n �� n �r�n��rt�nt�t�� n�v�rd f�r th� ��r-nr��r�i��r�d ��Cr��v��d��d �� Histori� Re�our��s ��m�nittee; _ ��r��i �rvi�h ��i�r�� n��rr�i�� i�ht�n�� n�#if��ti�r� r�qu�r�r��nt�; �- ��rt�d id�� f� �r��u�� p�-�a��t�v� ��rr� t� inf�rr� �I�e publi��th� pr��; — ��t�d �I�� dif��ti�� u��t��; �-- �u��rt�d �h� pr��d �rdir��, a�� rn�r�d��. ��d �r� ��i� �i��u��i�r� �n� dir��ti�r�, ��ty �tt�rr��r ��rr��l �u��t�d � �n��fi��ti�r� t� ��ti�r� 'I�,'I�,'I��.�.�.�. �� Il��v�: "Th� r��r�� r��in� �� int��r�t� ��I�� d��igr�, a�nd h�� n�t �� ir��p�r��ri�t�ly: � �It�r�d; b� r�l�cat�d; ��dd�d t�; �r� r�r��d." ��r��il ��n�urr��f �nrith �h� rn��ifi��#i��. A�ti��: ��un��l N1�r�nb�r ��II� r�n��r�d t� in�r�du�� a�n �rdin�n��, �� #�l��v�r�: �`�4�V ��4�l��411�� F T!-!� �1TY ��[l�11�1L �F TFf� �lTY ��AI�R�Y� GRA�11D� AA��IIDl�V� �1-��1'�'�1�� .�� 4�V� �G.�� ' �1�� 9� �� '�� 4�4F�� l�i41V�� 11#.1�1�l�i4L ��,� F��C�4F��IV� �J��1� �"1�7'�1�1� ��[J1�� l�1V�1�'��1V ��'; �� r�er�t�� ir��lu�d� t�� rn�c��i��tf�n t� �e�t��r� 'I�.'I�.'I��.�.�. �� r��; d�l�tir�g �rit�ria� #� fr�r�n ��ti�n ��.'I�.��.�.; �� ir�� f�� d��l�� r��t�r� ��I�ir�ir�g �� hi�t�ri� d��igr��t��n pr��; �nd t� dir��t �t�ff t� ��r�l�p � �r�� n�u�r� a� f�� fa�� rn��tin� �nrith th� pr�p�r�� v�rr��r. Il��y�r Pr�� T�r� F�Il�v�r� �� lA ��V 1 F IV�I�1 1 �� II�/�*I�v� ��.€II ��I� ��./��• 1 �„/ �� 1�� I�� 1�# �� I��: �f�r�� AB�EN�: �Vor�e '��. ��lJ�� J��1�� I�E�I� I�a�e. ��. ��1� ��N�IL l��RT� �. �II'�AY�I�T��IY ��I�,A�: �'�� n �,ui� ��i�p� ��r��i� �f ��ernnne�t��r� Luis �bisp� I�e��r��f Tr�n��t ��th�ri�� L��1�L��TA�. f��p�rt�� r� �h� ��t�n�iv� di��i�r� th� �L�� B��r�# ��d ��n��r�ing th� n��ct r��n� �� F�egi�r��l I--��u�in� I��d� ��e��r�n�� R�iNA} fi��res. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 9 N�rr�u��. ��rrc�.r!N�ee��r�� a�� f i.I Tue�d�y, Apr�!�� 8 �� n �� k�i�� n�� 2�r�i��ti�n ��st�i�� L��D�� n��l 1�1�r�b�r � �u�f�ri� �� I�� I�� tir�� h��I��r��. �� r��1H��n�H�nr� 'I�'1 In��r��F��e Pr�je�� ul��r�nr�rrit#��. �til� v�r�iti�� t� h��r b��C�r�r�r� th� En��n��r; n�xt r�-��n� i� t�nt�ti��l� ��h�d�l�d f�r IVl�n�i��t April ��'. {�} ��f�� V�r��. �* 1�1�1��1� P�� TEIIA �HLJ��t FELL��IV�: �1� ��u�h ��unt� Y��f� ��i�i��. N� ��rt. ��t�� A�t�rn�t� �t��nd th� n��ct rr��#ir�� n Thur��a��, A�ril ��t�' . �� unt� Vl�f�#�r F��ur�� dvis�r� ��r�rir��tt�� VIfRA�}. E�t�n�iv� di��u��i�n v�r�� r�ld �r� �� u�� N1u��1 ��u�; �I�� r��rt�d th�� i� Il�a�r�h ��, L�p�� k� v�r�� # �� p��it�r �n� ir� N1�r��n �� i��r�r�� t 7�°l0 �p��r. �3} �tl��r. None. . �, ��I�N�IL �VIEII��EF��E ��T�LL�: �7� ��e � �11�a��r�c��i��ry ��a�rd. �V� r�p�rt. �� A�r P�IIu#i�n ��r�tr�l Di�#ri�t �AP�D�. I�� r�p�r�. �� Fir� ��r�r�i�ht ��mr�i��. N1�t I��t Frid��r; �� i� �r� b��r� ��d p�rti�ip�ti�g ir� r�n��ir�g�� r�t��n� �r� ��; �h�r'rn� r��r�� i� v�r��ki�� nr��l; in �r�� f��Il�n� �ur�l�� q�i�r��t; �r�� A�r�u�l F��p�rt�va�� i��u��. �� ir� ��r��i�r► ��re��i��rnr�itt��. !V� r��rt. �� I�er. N�n�. d. ��N�IL �III�lI��EF�JIII� ��.JTHF�I�: �'1� ��h ��unty �r�2� Tr�r��i� ��AT}. 11�1��t� t�rr��r�-��rv �� -��i�v�r �r�d ��n�id�r �I.�I�C��rl G�I.�I..�t S��iCrl��CrC��I� �I� L�� I�� G��IPr��S�I�G�. �� a�l��rni��in� P�v�r�r� Ir��r��n�� uth�ri�{�JPI�#�� IV�n�. �3� �t��r. �tt�nd�� th� ��th �� Lui� �bi�p� ��t�r�ty ��ni��ti�n �i�tri�t r�n��ti��t th� Pl�r�t i� �p�r�#ir�� d v�rith n� vi�l�ti�n�; � r��j�r ��n-t�p �p�r�ti�r� �f th� di��t�r� �� und�ru�r��r a�r�� h� v�r�r�c i� b�ir�� d�� ir�-h�u�� r��ultin� in a� �i�nifi��r�t ��t ��ri�g�� u��in� ��-��n�r�ti�n �rith �s�� f rr��th�r�� t� �f#��t �I��tr��ity ��#�. �. ��1�1V�� I�I�� 4F�[V�L�: �'I� lntegr�te� V112��e Ill��na��r��nt �utl��ri�� rd ��1N�IA�. Ar� �rdin�n�� r��rin� ��ry �n� �I��r��n� tub� r��r�li�� ha�� b��r� ��p�� nd ir�pl�r��n��t��n ��i�t�n�� i� b�in� �r��ri��d t� r�ta�il�r�, AI�� nr�r�Cin� �r� � ��r-�+�r�d� r��r��i�� r��r�r�n �r-�� v�rill �� r�g �Ir�r�}r� �r�r�d�'� pr��ra�r� �� rr��l. �� r��r�i� Ilit�lit� ��rp�r�ti�n ��If��. �it�r �1�I�r��g�r Ad�r�n� v�rill b� �i�rin� �� n�r�i�c��r�l�prn�nt pr��r�t�ti�rr ��tl�� r��ct rr��ti�� i�n �J1a�y. �� ther. f��n�. 1�* �ITY ��lN�I�.. �EIIII�E� I�EIIII�: a�� n�id��-�ti�n �f r�q�est �� i'#t� pre��r� �r� ��c�ir��r��e �I�rif�ing �it�'� �r�h�bi�i�r� �� rr�ec��l rna�r��a�n� r�i��err��ri��. �FEI��AF�A� Mayor �errara r�qu�st�d, �r�d ��e �our��i� concu�red: to dire�t �t�f� to �r��ar� an ordinanc� �r�hibi�in� rr��di�� r�n�ri��r�� i��r�� ir� th� �it�r. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 10 ��.7. ��r�� #J��C��I, �4��'��, �� k�� F��q��t t� di�� r��ed�r� �nd��r ��l�l�r�� f��- deterrx��r�in� �r�p��ecl �i�� ur��il �r�v�l bud��. ��F��A� �1�1��r�r ��rr�r� r�qu��t��, �r�d th� ��r��il ��rr�d, �� ir��t �t��f t� d��r�l�� r��rr�r�r��n��t��n� r��r��r�� pr�� f�r �r��rir�� nd r�n�ni#�r�rr� �h� �it�r ��r��il'� �ra�v�l b��t. 1�. �I�Y IVIAhlA�EF� I��III��: IV��. 'I�. ��LJ1��L ��NlIIIII�IVI�ATI��V�: �Vl��r�r ��rr�r� r�q��t�d �t�f�f�ll��nr-�� n tf�� it� i��u�� r�l��d �� th� L��i� Illl�r l.l�i�i�� I�� i�tri�t 1111a�i�nt��n�n�� F��lit�r �� t�r�l��r Av��n��. 1�f �TAFF ��IUIIVII�NI��#T1��1�: �ity A�t�rn�� rr�n�� t�a�nl��d N��r�r ��rr�� r f�i� �a�rli�r pr�i�� r��din� th� �r��k M��; h�r►�r��, h� ��Cr��rl�dg�d M��r ��'r�r�'� r��j�r r�l� in th� pr�� r�d �I�� r�nr��nd�d ��i�� Pl�nn�r ��r��a� ��li�h f�r h�r in�a�l��l� �nr�r�c �n th� M�l.� �� I��r I��r�� i� th� pr��. �it�r ��na��r�4��r-�-�� nr��n��d th�r� v�r�ul� �� a� r�bb�n �utt'rng ��r�r�n�r�}r �t �h�li'� I��ta�ura�r�t �n �hur�d��r, �pr'rl 2��'. I--�� I�� a�nn�un��d th� ��ty �nr�ul� b� ��ndu��r�� a� ��igr� �nr�rk�l�� ir� r�ni�- Il�l��r v�ri##� tf�� r��il, Hi��ri� F��r�� r�nr�'r��ee, �r��it��tur�l ��rf��►�r ��rr�r�nit��, Pl�nnir�� rnr�i��r-�, �n� th� 1li�l�� Ir�npr�v�r��r�t A��i�ti�r�. '��. ��II�II�II�IVIT�( ��IIIr�IIE�f�`� A[VD �I��CE�TI��I�: Nane. '�8. AD�J��F�NIIIIENT N1��r F�rra�r� a�d��rn�d �� rr��ng �� '!�:�� p.rn. T�r�� err�ra�, �Ila��r ATTE��: K��Vll�t��r�, �i�y�I�rk ��rove�l a�t �� Ilt� } Agenda Item 8.d. Page 11 � . �� .7 �� T�l��3�1f, IVIAY 'I�� I��I� �H�III��E��, �'I� EA�T ��AIV�I-� �TI�EET �41�I��Y� �I�AI�� ALI��F�IVI� '�. F��L� �ALL: fllx��r F��'r�r� ��I�d th� r��#in� �� rd�r �� :�� p.rn. ��r��l N1��b�r �lir� �u��i�, ��un�il M�r�b�r .J�� , ��r��il �I1�r�b�r E� �rn�ld, IVla��r�r Pr� T�rr� �h��k F�I��nr�, �i��r Illl�r��g�r �t��r�r� A�l��nn�, �nd ��ty��t�rr��r Ti��thy��rr��l �nr�� pre��t. �. ��JBLI� ��l�lIIAENT: �Vor��. �. �ITY ��LJIV�IL �� E��I�[V: �. ��FEF��V�E 11VIT� LE�A� ��l�I��L. � �NTI�IPATE� LITICA�I�hI� �igr��i��r�� cp��r� t� li�i��rr �ur�u�r�t t� ��v�rnrn�nt �� i�r� ��.��: �n� p�t�nti�l ��. �. i�E��1IEIVE T� ��hi ��1: I��r�r ��rr�r� �nn�un��d �I��t t��r� v�r�� r��r#�bl� ��t��n fr�r� tf�� I�� r�. �. A�.1��J I�[V�II�IVT: Th� r��r�� v�r�� dj�urn�d �t�:�9 �.r�. 1'�r�y Ferr�r�, �ayor ATTE��': � �{��I�INe�r�r��r�, �i�� I�rk ��I��r��r�c� �t �� IIII�� _. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 12 ��1�� F�E��L�►� IVIEETINC �F TH� ��'Y��IIN�� TU��I]AY, �1AAY '��, ��8 ��JN�� H�II�B�� 1� E��T �RA�V��I �TI�EET A��Y� CRAND�, �ALIF�F�NIA '!� �ALL �� R�E� N1a��r F��-r�r� ��I��d th� I��g�l�r �it�r ��un�il r�n��ti�n� t��r�t�r�t �;�� .�. �. F��LL ��LL �it�r ��r��i�: �V1�y�� T�n� F�rra�r�, N1��r�r P�-� �'�rr� �h��l� F�II��►�r�, ��n�il Nf�r-�-��-� �1�� J��Il�t �� i..�L�� I 1�.I�� .► �1�.r��.►�L. �i��r �t��f Pr��e�t: �i�� N��n�� t�v�n Ad�r�r��, �it�Att�rn��Tir-r� ��-rr��l, �ir��t�r �f Fir��r��i�l ��rvi�� An��la� I�r��t��h, D�r��t�r �f Publi� 1lV�ric� ��n ��n�l�, �hie� �f ��f�� e�e An�ib�l�, Dir��t�r �� r�rnunit� ��r��pr��r�t F��b �tr�r��, ��d ��i�t� �I�r�r��r T�r��a� �1��1i��. �. FL�4C ��4L�� N1�rnb�r� �f A�PD ��c�l��r� I�d th� �I�� lu��. �. �I�II��AT��h� P��r ��rt �..Jn��v��t Fir�t IJr�it�� N1�tl��di�t �I�ur�f�, ��liv�r�� t�� irr�r��ti�r�. �. �P��IAL. �F�E�E�VTJ�T��V� �.�. H�r��-�ry Pr��r�n�t��r� �e��r�izin� I��i�n�l P�bl��Il��rk�INee�. ��y�r F�rr�r� �r��err��i �r� ��r��ry Pr��l�r7r��ti�r� d��l�r�r�� th� �nr��l� �� 1111��r ��-��, �� ii�G1�l��l 1 ��II� ��i��7 ��Il��. �I��1./�� l� �41�I�1.+ �kJ�l\��Jf�� 1 1�1�� L�.��I� �LIL�� Pr��1�r1'��tl�r� �r� b�l��t�� It],1. �. A��CV��4 REV1�1�1� ��. �r�iin�n�� F��d ir� Titl� �n��. ��r��il I��r�b�r ��1�� rn�u�d: ��n�il flllerr��r Art��l� ��r�d�d, �r�� th� r�n�ti�n p��d �r��r�ir�n�u��r th�t �Ir �rdir��n�� pr��nt�� t �� r��in� �h�ll b� r��d i� t�tl� �r�l� �nd �fl f�rth�r �-�a�dir�� b� �nr��r�d. 7'. �ITI�E�f�' INP�JT ��II�II�EI�T� AN� ��C��T��N� None. 8. ��N�ENT A��NDA ��r�r ��-r�r� invi��i rn��b�r� ��tl�� p��li�v�rh� v�ri�h�d t� �r�r��r�t �r� �r�� r��r�t A��r�d� It�r�n t� �� t tl�� ti��. Th�r��nr�� r�� bli��rx�r��nt� r��i�r�d. �11��r�r F�rr�r� p�ll�d It�rr� �.�. ��r � ��p�r�t� r�ll-��II ��. A�ti�n: �111��r�r F�r� �`�rr� F�II��r�r� rr��r�d, ��d ��un�i� N�ernb�r �uthri� ��r�d��# t�� r�n�ti�r� t� a��pr�v� ��r��nt ��n�� It�rn� �.�. th�-��I� �,�., �nri�l� �� c��pti�� f �t�r� �.�.: v�rith tl�� r��r-�-�rn�nd�d ��ur�� a��n. Th� r-��ti�� r� t��f�ll��vin� r��l-�al� �r�t�: Agenda Item 8.d. Page 13 } ��: ��y��C��n��, P��2 ��,��r�y, ��y �� a�� . ��.r��+�� 7�� L+��`�� I�t r�.��C� ��: ��1� �1��VT`: N�r�� .a�. ��h �E�bur�err�e�n� ��if��i�r�. A��: ��t�fi�� h� li��ing ��a��l� di�bur��r�n�nt� f�r th� p�r��d A�ril 1�, �� thr��gh ��ril ��, ��. �.b. ��r��it��r�ti�r� �� F��s�lu�i�� t� Irr��l�rr�er�� err��l i��r�nu� ��t�e ��ti�n �'��h��, f�r �r��l�� ntri��i��r�� t�� I�f�rni� P�bii� �rr��l��' F��t�r�rner�� y��te�. ��t��r�: Ad�pt�d ��luti�n IV�. �� Il�v�r�: `��4 1��L,.#J��11� �� Tl�� lTY ��l�11�lL �F Tl-1� �1TY�F ARI��Y� �I�AII��lMPL�N�ENT'1N� 7��fE PR�V1�1�� F �NT��N�4L ��V�N�,l� �� Tl�IV ��{i�l��, F�I� �1V�PL�YE� ��11IT1�1��J��N� �� '"H� ��1�1��N��4 P�l�L1�EIU��L�Y��?"11��1�E�VT S Y�T�1�11��1��'� ��. ��n�id�r��r� �#A��r�tr�r��r�� P�r�cing �c��i��ry ��nr�n�t�ee. A�t��n: Appr�v�� p�ir�tr�n�n# �f �r�� t�i�nb�r��r �� tl�� nrnt��vn ��r�Cir�� dvi��ry ��r�. �.�. ��rr�id�r��i�r� ��A��t �k�e P��I�r ��sir� I]r�ir�� Ir�r��r�v�rx�er�� r�j��t, P1N��. ��t��n: 1} A��pt�d tl�� ir�n�r�v�r��nt� a�� r��tr��t�� Cing ��n�r�t� a�r�d ��n�tr��n, Ir��. �n th� �rn�un� �f ��,��.��; �� ir��t�d �t�ff t� fi�� IV��e �� r�pl�ti�r�; �n� �� i��d r�l�� th� r�t�nti�n �I�irt�r-�iv� ��} ��r� �ft�r th� f��ti�� f ��rr��l�ti�r� �� n r��r��, i� n� li�r�� h�rr� b��r� fl��. �.�. ��r��i��r��i�n t� Ad�� a� F��r� �4��ep�i�� E��rnen�� n�l �r�np��v�r��nt� ��r `fir�� '��, ��e�n ��C�� stre��J b� ��rr��r�� I�I�r�2�d� P�rtner�, L�'� L��d �t �� 1711�1� ��'��. ��i�n: Ad��t�d F��I�ti�r� �V�. ��1 a�� f��l��r�: `��4 J��i�r� �#' �l�� i��r ��r��i1 �� i�e Ci�y �f Arro�r� �rar��e A��ep��r�� E�s�m�rr�� ar�c� �rnprov�merr�� for Tra�� , ��e�r� ��rs, �o��ed �� l� ��mir�o N�e��a�o, ��r�s#ru��e�' �� rr�irro Nfer�ado Par�rrer�� LP'� �.�, ��r��ic��r��n �f Ac��ptE�n �f �n �rctin�r�� Arn�ndin� �1�2�� 'I�.�� ncl 1�.'1� �f �itl� 'I� �� the Arr�� r�r�t�� Illur�i�i}�a�� le I�e��d�n� th� Hi�t�rM� F��ur�� D��igr��ti�r� Pr��s ��evel�p�ner�� d�Arn�r�drr�en��-��. A��i�r�: �d��d �r��n�� N�. ��8 �� Il�v�r�: ��4�V �l��111��1�� TFf� �1TY ��/�� Y� �� r#R� �� ■�� +�� /� �� .h� ��r��i��ti�� t� Au�h�rize �r� �►�v�r�c� �� Bid f�r P�r�t��s� �� i��Fir� ��r�r��nr�ni��t��n� F��d�� ns�le�. ��: Aut�r�ri��d tf�� nra�rd �f �i� t� �u�r�� r�d�� r�� r tf�� P��i��Fir� ��r�nr�n�r�i��ti�n� ��r�t�r t� 1N��r� �i�p�t�h �� P��b�, 1N��hir��t�r� in th� �r��ur�t �� $��,��. �.�l. ��i�ler��ti�n �f �a��pti�r� �f � �e��lu�t��r� �Jph�ld�n� ir� Pa�rt �r�tt ��n�in� in P�r� �n Ap��i F�e��r�lin� �he ��c��r��i�r� �f� "�V� P�r��ng'� ��r�e �r� H�Il�re�t �ri�r�. F��rir��n��d�d A�ti�n: �►�� F��luti�r� u�l��l��r�� ir� p�rt �� d��ir�� in p�rt �r� �p��l r��a�rdin� th� ��r��n ��a� "N� P�r�c�r�g„ ��r�� n Hil��r�� Dr�iv�.,} t Agenda Item 8.d. Page 14 �V1�rru�e�: Ci�y�or�r��!A�eetir��r Pagr�� Tue�day, �Vfay 7�, ��5 �4�ti��: ��r��i� N1�r-r�b�r Arn�ld rn��r��, a�nd ��n�il N1�rn��r �u�hr�� i th� r�r��'r�n t� �p�r��r� ��n��nt ��r�d� It��m �.d., v�rit� th� r��r-r�rn�r�d�d ��r�� f��ti�n. T�� r-��ti�n p�� n th� f�l��r�rir�� r��l�-��II ��t�: AYE�: Ar��1�, �utl�ri�, ��Il�v�r� ��; ��t�li�: F�rr�r� �#��h1T: IV�n� 9. P��I� HEAF�ICV�� .a. ��nsicl�r�ti�n �f a�r� �r�l�n�r�� Ac�c�ir�g �h��ter �.�� T��I� � �f �l�e ��r�� r�nd� Il�u��i��f ��e Pr��i�ir�� F�� E��b�i�h��r�� Il��di��l IVl�r�j��r�� C��s�er��rie�. �'�li�� i�f Ann�ba�li r��r�r-r��n�� th� ��un�il in�r�du�� n �rdin�n�� a�ddin� �I��t�r �.�� Titl� � �f tf�� Ar�r�}�� r�nd� 11�1�r�i�i�� d� pr�hi�it�r�� tl�� t�bl��[��n�r�t �� Ill��li��l �11�riju�r�� Di�pens�ri�s. # 1111�}��r F��r�ra� ��cpl�in�d h� h�d r�qu��t�� hi� �� r�u�l�t b��k f�r ��r��id�r��n �� #� ��r�t a��ti�� b}� th� L��u� �f �a�lif�r�ia� �iti�� L��, ��e�ifi��ll�r tl�� P�bli� ��f�ty P�li�� r�r�itt�� nd �.�� 8��. H� ��C� �f r��n� I��i�l�ti�n ��r��:;ernir�� th� �� f r��di��l nna�r�j�a�n� a�r�d a��#�d di��r��t �I�� rr�ill�ry i��u�� th�# I�� d�v�l�� r� �th�r juri�di�ti�n� �� r��u�t �f th� ��li�h��r�� f r��di��l rr�a�riju�n� ��r��r��, �r�d �t�t�d t�� pr�p�� dir��n�� rv�ul� �I�rif�r tf�� i��u�. ��un�il ��rnr'r'��n�� n�u�� i� �up��t �� tl�� r��d �r�in�r��, ��ifi�a�l� �r�til i��u�� r� r��ltr�� t �� F�d��-�I I�v�� nd tf��r� i� ��r��t�n�� tw��n �t�t� �n� F��r�l I��v. 11�1��r F�rra�r� �p�� t�� pu��i� h��ri�n�, �nd up�� vin� n� ��r�n�n��, h� �I�� tl�� hli� ��ri�n�. ��i�n: {I�I��r�� Pr� T��-r� ��I��r�r� r��r�d #� intr�du�� r�ir��r�� f�l��v�r�: �`�4�V ��4�11V�4��E �F T1-l� �lTY ��lN�1L �� T�fE �lTY �F AR��Y� �RAN�]� ADDI�VG �HAPT��4 �.�6 T� T1TLE 9 �� TH��4RR�� ANDE N1[lN1��P�4L ��D�PR�Hl�1T11V� T�f��TA��1�!-�1V��IIT ��E�lCAL 1�lAR1J�,JA�IIA D1��'�V�Af�1��'� �o�n�il Ill��rr��r ��t�rie se�or�d�d, and #he �o�iort ��d �r� th�f�l��vin� r��l ��I� �r��: A��: F�II��v�, �u��ri�, ��t��l�� Arr��ld: F�r��r� N��: Nor�� . AB��NT� Nor�� .�. ��r��ti�r� �f D��r�l��m�r�� c�e Arx��ndr�e�t ��-��'�; J� �r�� rdin�n�e �� r�r�end Pa�rkin� F�e��t��n� in th� Ili�init� �f th� Ilill�� I�v�r �lu�ter�n� �� ir� L�v�r�r �en�it� F�e��ier��i�� hl�i��rh��ds, �n�J �� r��rid� Addi�i�r�� "��n-�J�" �rr��n�rnent� f�r��i��r��v�r��l� �t�te L��► Ft�t�u�ir��r�n�rr��, ��i�t� Pl��nn�� N��i�fi� �r��r�t�� th� ��f r�p�rt �r�� r��r��nd�d th� ��ur��i� i�tr�du�� a�n �rdin�r�� r�n�n��rrg Arr��r� �ra�nd� N1u�ni�i��l ��d� �h��t�r ��.�� P�r�Cing �n� L��dir�� . ��q�ir�r��n#�� ir��l��ing ��r�c�r�� t�n��-�� r ��b�r �h�� r�d ��a�uty ��I�r�� itl��n th� Ili�l�� r� �n� 1lil�� N1��ed l.J�� n�n� Di�tri��; ��m�n�'rn� ��r� 1�.�� {F��d��i�l Di�tri�t�� Agenda Item 8.d. Page 15 ��r�u�e�: �ity Cour��111�1�ee��r�� Pa��4 Tue�da y� �Vfa y�� 2�� r��a�rc#�r�� th� �lu�t�rin� �f ��t� in ��v�r�� r��t}� r��i��nt��l r��i�h��rh��d�t a�n� �rr�n�n��r�� h��'� 1�.��4 ��finit'r�n�� r�d 'I�.�� i�r��i�r��} ��r ��n�i�t��n�� nri�� t��e L�v�r. �t�f� r�� u��ti�r�� r�rr� ��un�rl r��rdin� �� r��d p�rkin� �t�r�d�rd� f��- tl�� 11�11�� r� �r�d 11�II�g� 1111��c�d lJ�� d'r�tri��; �� p�t�n�'r�l ��r �-��ri�i�in� ��r�Cir�� #�r��a�rd� �rv�� r��r� p�rkin� �tr��tur� i� ��ilt �r� �� Ilill��; �r�d �I�r�i�i��ti�n ��r��rnir�� I��d �� li��i�r�� nd �ta�nd�rd� f�r �I��t�rin� �f r��i�t�� in I�v��r�e�n�i��r n��gl��rh��c��. Illl��r�r F��r�� p�r�� #�� pub�i� h�a�rin�, �n� up�n r��i�rir�g r�� rx�r�n�nt�: h� �I��d tl�� pu�li� h��ring. ��ur��l ��rn�n��t� �n�u�d in ��p��rt �f th� �r�p��d �rdir��r�� t� �r�r��nd ��r�Cin� �t�r��r�� i� t�� V�II�� r�d t� ��I�v�r �lu��r�r�� f ��t� ir� I��v�r d��n��ty r��d�n��l ��tri�t�. It �va�� d th�� n� �f �� J�� 1 1� �� 7..� �IIIR�.�� 1 �II ��I��• �� .� �.� ��I��i �VL��VII ��„■�� I� ��T�� I��/MMVV �� *��V� �� I��f■�. �� i� �� f�� f�� i�� f�� A M�N�N1��T ��=�0�} A N��Dl�ll� ��fAPT�R ��.�� {PAR�Cl�V� A 11�D L�AD1�V� R�Q�!lR�M�NT�} 1N�L�lD1N� PAR�C111I� �TANDA�D� F�R �AR��R ��f�P� AIVD �EA�lTY �AL.��V� VII1�T�-11N �H� 111�.�4�� ' �4�D �LLA�� Vl1�C�D �J�� V�D � �II�I��!} Z'�N1�V� �1�T�4l�T�� A1�1�N��111G ��fAPT�R 7�.�� R��1D��V7`1�4L �1�T1�l�T�� A1�DlN� T�� L�L��1��IVC �� .�?'� 1�11 L��1� D�N�1TY �4��1��NT1�4L 11��1�J�-1B�R�f��D�; AND �a��v��nr� ��r�a�r�� .�� nr��v�� rv� �s.�� v�� v��n�� I�V1�1� �Ti4T� L�411V". �� Pr� T�r�n F�Il��nr� ��n��: �n� �I�� r��ti�r� ��d ��n tl�� f�l��nri�n� r�l I ��I I ��: �►1��: �rr��l�, �ell�v�r�, ��II�, �u�h�i�, F�rr�r� I��E�: I��n� A��E�VT: IV�n� 'I�. ��N`�`�IVI.l�� B�J�I�V�� '��111� IVone. 11. �l�VI� �lJ��IV E�� I�'E�II� �Vone. 'I�. �lTY ��IJiV�IL NlEIII1BEF� I�E�III� N�r��. 7�� ITY II�AIVA��F� ITEIIA� I�on�. �I�, ��1J1��L ��IIII�III�Jh��ATl�hl� ��un�il M�rnb�r Arn�ld r�f�r��d �� ur�n�� ir� �h� 1lill�� r�d ��ur��d �v��y�n� v�r�� i� ��r��ng ��t t� d�n� ��C��r �� th� ��r� r�i�tC�urC�r►t�. 4 Agenda Item 8.d. Page 16 ��. ��i� .�i��:�� l�� N1��r ��r��r� g�v� �n ��t� �r� tl�� i��l�ti�r� �f th� �it�r�� ntry ��r�� t Tr�f#i� Vll��r �r�� t �. �r�rr� ��r�r-��, 1--I� a�l�� er��r�� r��rnb�� ubli� t� v�l�r��r ��r �� rr�� n�� r� �I��rr� pr��r�r� ��ry ��rd�� r��r�in� �t �:�� .r�n. �� i�t �n th� �it�'� b��tifi�ti�r� ��rt�. ��a �� I�� t}r Il��r��r ��r-�� a�nn�ur��d � ��i�l J�ir�� N��ing�Pu��i� 11V�r�C�l��p �r� �f'I�c��-��, h�#��r 1��n �t �:�� p.r�n. �nritf� tl�� ity ��un�il, �4r�hit��t�r�l F��ri��nr ��r�r�r�r�itt��: P��nnin� ��r�r�ni��i�r�: �r�d Hi�t��i� F��r�� r�r�rni�t�� r� � p�t�nti�l �r�j��t b� �r�� IVe�t�r in th� llill��. H� �I�� nn�un��d � �p��i�l �it}� ��ur��il �V1��ting��dg�t IN�r��h�� n Il��y �9��' �t �:�� p.rn. ��i �� i�� N�n�. 'I�. �D�I�I�F�IVIIAENT ��r�r F�r�-�r� a�dj��r�� m��tir�� t �:�� p.r�n. T�r�� F�rra�r�� IIINa��r ATTE�T: �Cell�1N�trx��re, ��y�I��k ��4��r�ved �t �� IIII�� ____ _ _ � Agenda Item 8.d. Page 17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.d. Page 18 � pRRO�� ° ��A F INCORPORATED 92 MEMORANDUM V T � JULY 10. 1811 * C4��F OitN�P To: cirY couNCi� FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSICITY ENGINEER� v�� v BY: VICTOR DEVENS, ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER — DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REDUCING FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIALS SECURITIES FOR TRACT 2310-II, PARKSIDE, CONSTRUCTED BY S&S HOMES, LOCATED AT FARROLL AVENUE AND BAKEMAN LANE DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution reducing the Faithful Performance and Labor and Material securities for Tract 2310-II, Parkside, to 30% of the original value. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time. BACKGROUND: On April 25, 2006, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2310-II located north of Farroll Avenue, south of Soto Sports Complex, east of Dixson Street, and west of Golden West Place. Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the developer posted securities for the faithful performance and labor and materials as required by Municipal Code Section 16.68.090. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Government Code Section 66499.7 allows the legislative body to partially release the securities if the obligation of the securities has been partially completed. The improvements have been substantially completed in accordance with the approved plans. The City has not yet accepted all of the improvements. It is anticipated that 70% of the improvements have been completed and that 30% remain incomplete. The applicant has requested the amount of the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials securities be reduced to 30% of the original amount to reduce the premiums for renewing the securities. Staff believes this amount is more than adequate to cover the remaining items. cinr couNCi� CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REDUCING FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIALS SECURITIES FOR TRACT 2310-II, PARKSIDE, CONSTRUCTED BY S8S HOMES, LOCATED AT FARROLL AVENUE AND BAKEMAN LANE MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following altematives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached resolution reducing the amount of the securities, - Do not adopt the attached resolution, - Provide other direction to staff, ADVANTAGES: The recommended action reduces cost to the developer, while retaining sufficient security to guarantee the remaining improvements are constructed in accordance with the approved plans. DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages except the owner will require additional time to complete the remaining improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: No special public notification is required for this item. The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received as of the publishing of this report. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REDUCING THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIALS SECURITIES FOR TRACT 2310-II, PARKSIDE, APPLIED FOR BY S&S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST WHEREAS, On April 25, 2006 the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2310-11 located north of Farroll Avenue, South of Soto Sports Complex, east of Dixson Street, and west of Golden West Place, on April 25, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to provide Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials securities; and WHEREAS, the improvements guaranteed by said securities are substantially complete; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66499.7 allows for the partial release of securities; and . WHEREAS, the developer has requested the Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials security be reduced to 30% of the original amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ciry Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby reduce the amount of required securities as follows: 1. Faithful Performance Bond No. 2173382 to be reduced from $1,721,963.11 to $516,600.00; and, 2. Labor and Materials Bond No. 2173382 to be reduced from $860,981.56 to $258,300.00. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll cail vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2008. 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 � PRROy� � c9 � MICOAPOR�TED 92 V O m # .u�r �o, �eii * c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM To: cinr couNCi� FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER„�( (N// BY: JILL MCPEEK, SENIOR CONSULTANT ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PA&ED) DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: 1. adopt a Resolution approving Amendment No. 1 (the "amendment)"to Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo Grande and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for development of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange project through Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED); and 2. authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City's Capital Improvement Program budget includes $522,794 for the preparation of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Project Report to complete the Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project development. Of this amount, $182,320 is Regional State Highway Account (RSHA) grant funds from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). BACKGROUND: A cooperative agreement is required when a local agency proposes improvements over$1 million within the State highway right of way. The agreement is a legally binding contract between the appropriate parties involved in the project. It documents the duties and responsibilities for each party and defines what work will be perFormed, by whom, how it will be paid for, on what schedule it will be completed, and any other duties and responsibilities of the parties. In this case, the City of Arroyo Grande is proposing interchange and ramp improvements on State Route 101 from 04.km south of the East Grand Avenue overcrossing to 0.5 km south of the Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD- HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PA&ED) MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 is for the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project development. It defines the duties and responsibilities for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) compliance. A separate cooperative agreement will be required to cover responsibilities and funding for the plans, specifications, & estimates (PS&E), construction, and right of way phases of the project. For this phase of the project development, Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 identifies Caltrans as the CEQA lead agency and the City of Arroyo Grande as a responsibte agency. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)will be the Federal lead agency for NEPA and Caltrans providing oversight. Much of the Environmental Technical Studies are completed, however, the completion of the Environmental Document cannot occur until a City and Caltrans preferred alternative is selected. Much of the engineering analysis has occurred on three project alternatives and completion of the Project Report will occur when the City and Caltrans select a preferred altemative. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 expires on June 30, 2008. Caltrans has prepared Amendment No. 1 to the cooperative Agreement extending the termination date from June 30, 2008 to December 31, 2011. In addition to extending the termination date,Articles 17 and 18 of Section I11 to the Cooperative Agreement have been switched and the language modified as follows: �17. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, orjurisdiction conferred uaon CITY or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that, CITY sha14 will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this agreement. �18.Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred u�on STATE or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that, STATE s#�aN will fully CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD- HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PA&ED) MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 3 defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this agreement. These articles have been switched to conform to other standard Caltrans cooperative agreements. The word "will" has been changed to "shall" in the second sentence of each article. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140; • Do not approve Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 and appropriate funds for quality assurance activity being performed by Caltrans; • Modify and approve Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 and forward to Caltrans for consideration; or . Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The amendment primarily provides a time extension to December 11, 2011 to allow the City to complete the PA&ED process. Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 also allows Caltrans, at no cost to the City,to provide quality assurance activities such as investigation of potential hazardous material sites, reviews and approvals, and timely processing of PA&ED. The Agreement also allows Caltrans to issue encroachment permits to the City and its consultants authorizing entry onto the State highway right of way to perform survey and other investigative actives required for preparation of PA&ED at no cost. DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages in approving the proposed amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A detailed environmental review is performed during the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project development. A draft Project Report (PR), an engineering report that describes the work and possible alternatives, is prepared in parallel with the environmental studies. Following circulation of the Draft environmental document(the public review period), a public hearing is held.After analyzing CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD- HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PABED) MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 4 the public hearing comments, a preferred alternative is normally selected,which allows the preparation and approval of the final environmental document which is attached to the PR. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received. RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #05-CA-0140 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT THROUGH PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PAB�ED) WHEREAS,the City of Arroyo Grande desires improvements on State Route 101 through Arroyo Grande, including modifications to interchanges and ramps, between East Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard; and WHEREAS, a cooperative agreement is required when a local agency proposes improvements over$1 million within the state highway right of way; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3915 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on April 25, 2006 approving the execution of Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo Grande and the Califomia State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)outlining each agency's duties and responsibilities for the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase of project development; and WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 expires on June 30,2008,and Caltrans has prepared Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement extending the termination date from June 30, 2008 to December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement #05-CA-0140 a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and has determined it to be adequate and complete. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement#05-CA-0140 between the City of Arroyo Grande and Caltrans for the PA&ED phase of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange project and authorizes the Mayorto execute said Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the City. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2008. 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 District Agreement#05-CA-0140-A/1 05-SLO-101-PM 13.1/14.6 05-0A3700 PA&ED—Brisco AMENDMFNT No_ 7 TO AC+RFFMFWT THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 TO AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as"STATE," and CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of Califomia, referred to herein as'CITY' RF .(`ITAI S (1) The parties hereto entered into a Cooperative Agreement No. 05-CA-0140 on April 25, 2006, said Agreement defining the terms and conditions of a project consisting of modifying interchanges and ramps from 0.4 km south of the Grand Avenue Overcrossing to 0.5 km south of the Oak Park Overcrossing on State Route 101 in Arroyo Grande, referred to herein as "PROJECT'. (2) New language has been developed to replace Articles 17 and 18 of Section III since the original Agreement was written. (3) It has been determined that PROJECT will not achieve Project Approval and Environmental Documentation (PA&ED) prior to the termination date of said Agreement. IT IR THEREFARF MLITLIOI 1 V O[�RFEO• (7) Article 17 of Section III is replaced in its entirety to read: °Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that, CITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all ciaims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this agreemenY. Page 1 of 3 District Agreement#05-CA-0140-A11 (2) Article 18 of Section III is replaced in its entirety to read: "Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon STATE or arising under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that, STATE will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from ail claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this agreemenY. (3) The termination date specified in Section III, Article 20 of the amended Agreement shal� now be December 31, 2011 instead of June 30, 2008. (4) All other terms and conditions of said Agreement shail remain in full force and effect. (5) This AMENDMENT No. 1 TO AGREEMENT is hereby deemed to be a part of Cooperative Agreement No. 05-CA-0140. Page 2 of 3 District Agreement#05-CA-0140-A/1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Departrnent of Transportation P. O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93451 WILL KEMPTON Director By Mayor By RICHARD KRUMHOLZ District 5 Director Approved as to form & procedure: Approved as to form 8 procedure: By City Attomey � By �" Attomey, Department of Transportation Approved as to financial terms&conditions: Certified as to financial terms &conditions: By Fiscal Officer / By�� O,v-� F�ccoLnting Ad nis rator Approved as to content: Certified as to funds: By City Engineer By District 5 Budget Manager Page 3 of 3 � pRROYp p C� ' INCOflPOR�TEO 9 � m MEMORANDUM � JULV 10. IB11 y c4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER � BY: VICTOR DEVENS, ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER— DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2539, CONSTRUCTED BY RICK WHEELER, LOCATED AT 185 BRISCO ROAD DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the public improvements and the public easements offered by Rick Wheeler for Tract 2539. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded from Public Works Department maintenance funds in future years. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Final Tract Map 2539 on December 13, 2005. The project consists of twelve townhomes constructed on three terraces. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: As a condition of the tentative tract map, the applicant was required to install the following improvements: ■ Public water mains on-site to serve domestic water and on-site fire hydrants, • Public sanitary sewer, • Private storm drain retention system, ■ Widening Camino Mercado within the project frontage, The owner is required to provide securities for the faithful perFormance and labor and materials to guarantee the improvements are constructed in accordance with the approved plans. One of the securities will be reduced to 10% to provide the required one year maintenance security per Municipal Code Section 16.68.100.C. This security will be released at the conclusion of the warranty period provided that the improvements are in proper working order. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2539, CONSTRUCTED BY RICK WHEELER, LOCATED AT 185 BRISCO ROAD MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 Staff has inspected the improvements, determined that they are in satisfactory condition, and recommends that the City Council accept them as constructed. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached resolution accepting the improvements and easements. - Do not adopt the attached resolution, - Provide other direction to staff, ADVANTAGES: The City will have legal access to operate and maintain the public water and public sewer improvements. The City will be able to ensure that the improvements are in good working order. DISADVANTAGES: The City would not have legal access to operate and maintain the public water and public sewer improvements that are on private property. The City would not be able to ensure that the improvements are in good working order. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: No special public notification is required for this item. The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received as of the publishing of this report. Attachment: 1. Site Plan RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2539, LOCATED AT 185 BRISCO ROAD, CONSTRUCTED BY RICK WHEELER WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2539 on December 13, 2005; and WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to complete certain public improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the conditions of approval for Tract 2539; and WHEREAS, staff has inspected the improvements and finds they are constructed in accordance with the approved plans for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby accept the following offers of dedication and improvements for Tract 2539: 1. Public Water Easement and associated improvements, 2. Public Sewer Easement and associated improvements, 3. Public Street Tree Easement, On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2008. 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 \ • I � �a I ' OW"�� NYMO��3�/ �t�� y�� 1 �MIMM�A�- _� , �aMhN � ��'�c ' n,r00U� \ —',�--�"__"_�. �wrprao�—� 12 :�.n � \ �' � � . �� n r \ � � . � .+� � � � _ � � ' \ \ � � � ` � _yl � ��\ �\ \\ \` � C-'-�' _ _ -� a � . . �ti �o' �:R \ v� � `� � ` �^�'� �."�ik. � � . . � \ ��a 7,.a c--� ,� � , � . yy,� a{ ♦�j \ `\ ' `\ •\ \ '� � �y -LqrR_ auMT'�� a n `� �t `1\ , \ \ � 7 3[ � � � o y , � � � �\ � � � � � � . . . � ±TM -�--�` � \ mrn � � ` \ ` ` � � �� ` � `��'�lale �� \ \ � �ry \ \ \ ` r A \ � "K � . �[ `\ ` VT ` \ \ \ 'i`` ♦ 3 �� " � \ 0 \ \ � � �` �. wwrt�iw�n�x ♦ ` ` \� � �� `� � � � ___'_� \ \� � � � � � � \ � � - � ` ` ` �' `\Qq aa w rt. �.�rt �`` � \ � ♦ \ � �,-- \ ` � — `� ` ` \ _�.j� �� TwbWl� NIMM� ''� � ''�,"�_'�- _ ,�__ �w'i+9c.LM9Y��r.leS'3.��---^�-�wdMW � _�-�.-_---•� _ _��' �� {�� `_ l --mrw_�r�ot� � . �.�_�_"__�� _` �-"�� _�_ `�^ �n� � .---- � � _�` •••—_-- 1 r�w�lua�raa �� 1 I � � �'°��"��'� ' 0 o N'1�rrmw � • rorrrner�+ �ss�y�, . w �+�o�� :::i:s:: aa rr• y • . � p •��q�aonn,Py Asfoc��rac 4��,,,. M w�.r+�a' . ,r„ IM9 r�r-✓� � KmM�1��IiY�YW��f�1'• � . �L.iCi� W�iV3 �Iw.r�st M�s�oOl �M��RUUw�M�f�fM�i�mt � pRROy� a c,� F INCORPORATEO 92 MEMORANDUM U m # �u�r io, icii * c4�/FORN`p To: cirir couNCi� FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE FINAL PARCEL MAP AG 06-0204; SUBDIVIDING 2.7 ACRES INTO TWO (2) PARCELS, LOCATED AT 1400 W. BRANCH STREET DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council approve Final Parcel Map AG 06-0204, subdividing 2.7 acres into two (2) parcels, located at 1400 W. Branch Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact. BACKGROUND: The real property underlying Final Parcel Map AG 06-0204 is owned by Arroyo Hotel, LLC. The property is located at 1400 W. Branch Street. The map divides 2.7 acres into two (2) lots of 96,948 and 20,425 square feet. The current zoning for this property is PD 1.1. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: This tentative parcel map was conditionally approved by the City Council on July 26, 2005, for a period of two years. Since a time extension was not applied for, the map expired on July 26, 2007. Therefore, the tentative map was reapplied for and approved by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2008. Conditions include requirements from the Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Parks, Recreation and Facilities, and Public Works Departments. Approval of the Final Map is subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer finding that it is technically correct and in substantial conformance with the approved tentative parcel map. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE PARCEL MAP AG 06-0204; SUBDIVIDING 2.7 ACRES INTO TWO (2) COMMERCIAL PARCELS, LOCATED 1400 W. BRANCH STREET MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The foilowing alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the Finai Parcel Map, subject to the City Engineer's approval of the Final Map, - Do not approve the Final Map, - Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The property will be subdivided into two properties. One parcel will be created for the new Hampton Inn site and the other is intended for a restaurant. Approval will enable the owner to proceed with sale and development of the restaurant. DISADVANTAGES: The only disadvantage would be that it would reduce the City's ability to address complications with the site if problems occurred with completion of the hotel project. However, performance bonds have been provided to address any such unlikely problem at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this ministerial item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda for this meeting was posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The agenda and this staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. As of the writing of this staff report, no public comment had been received. Attachment: 1. Final Parcel Map AG 06-0204 PgRCEL M�P gG-06-0204 IN T8S CITY 08 AHROYO 6$ANDID 8AN LIIIB OHIBPO COIINTY, CALItOBWIA rwn ws c....w.4�� 8IIHV7YIDD ARD PLATTID II7 APSII.,/008 � '�u"""m"�'v16�""/��/ HY IRQELB-BSAIIN� A9BOCIATBB PoReM/�1 iM�n/m�i�n� . \ � ��0.%ri �19 . � CONBIBTINO OF 8 886ET8 BHSZT l Ot• 1 ♦ 2gjvMlt9 �hmu5l.c rww a T eao�^°'� �ao' (J� ��u�w rt�i`bT.N�R �R�INVI'P n.�JyO'Iff Dp�3'Y y�L^ / /• '%4` ° ��pp��,�. sseis or aassxxae � /¢ .�:a..��.��.�°:."�"�.�. �w,a�,�. � y'' � ��z x. / L866ND �� iNig / � • cwsmc uauuui muxo.wo�asim a n xaw. � " s�ist E_ _l "' / o �r oa nw nt ow�c.o uc�usun uuv anm�ro�m. rl"""" '�5 j v�e �rw • rwaw�swnwerxrwu m `k `� �'zvu�0x G� � xcc�e� I t...) ffomo�r�rmv.wmyrrinuic�ea�mnvxem�nor.wu ��n `"ieitROY� P��pMI ' ��szP!¢�i.z�o.0 �1 s�n e��, ��& �"� / i...i Ro�wnxxtuW/N) 'r�F¢ � 8 ��tt � raroeuv � �'"��"41°" �� I � j� u ticunmumriamsve P �v�m�i��vu� � �' , wIo� v�wsim GRAPFIC SCP1P umon m w w a , - a .��.�"�'k��^,��s; i �.�,/�.m a",�.�"' e u� ��.� �QiM/A ♦ .. ;�ui r ' � un0. maRwdKa.wm L �,� N1Qf1 Y 10.9R4 ryI �� ( I�.� I�OI-10 ISf F �M(.6] � �^�lY] S� A '�+ � YMAI �F � E I�) 14]4�11MBa11E�IX�EORONMq0.VQ � �� -�__,i��4, �ar il � u.ErtaE p wcvurcxosos*�euua�wia C �" "_-�_�"�r err� ♦ ' u� r.a� uwd uE rrxc �, invn.aws�m�ewwx�zuvrnial-L F ;- .�� --r,_ ° �. �x' "�a,�°+:y- i 5 6 „ ,1 �' �;5f m<J,y�,��"!a?:n.'yrr__ !8 I��111 : `w j i i ��i�� I : y 3' � u ui \ � Y�•wwn oorr �� ,N e¢f�1k i � I u � � rINONStMM qI�41PR VLISM� u IID °��n le�i �MVAI ul ' '�O u � � �av.xv �9IM u[vrnme !i I(� M1Emrt � k 2 w u a �e� ry� _ � I y�C�i �( 411.106 YIE Y I�� L] �L Y g �\ .L_`_� % l' I' � '• L �l/�911Rp�16 q ' 3.0 q��r j Y � 9ZEW:R� 1 \`N�bl� �}!�I�} b' '�V ll' W ^E � �.u��p'wws �� mm.a.xim: �( k +a cutrE*.eae �nDU�r�st 5 � \ ��"�'R'r\:7" e t "� \ � �y��b , u r y r�' ° .".o i � _ ,,, '�, � 'ra• �Y��- 4t_ �GGTAIL a uo� i e "'� pTy e �_-1F'�, .� � '�'� o un� { d � �'• p �rt"S aur�ir �[e� s�nYi'� A pq'�y'r � "_ - 0 I a xo� � �'3Tq�� — /� -"�18�r � irem�i�a°a,er�'.iu i r a " ° "'�e„�_ ' DETAIL "A" 3 '�+a{��-� o � xor ro scuc � p m �n+nx�wn m z�ia M] � Z a �M CFDN12�. 06aiA ee.�r..ya�r +N/m � pRRO�� a c,� � 1N0O1PO"^'� 'z MEMORANDUM u ,°n } JULY 10. lYll y c4��FOaN�p TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN N. ANNIBALI, CHIEF OF POLICE� SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 9.26 TO TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 9.26 to Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code prohibiting the establishment of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The attached Ordinance was introduced to add Chapter 9.26 to Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code prohibiting the establishment of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, without modification, at the City Council meeting of May 13'h, 2008. There was no pubiic comment received. As discussed at the May 13`", 2008 City Council Meeting, at the request of Mayor Ferrara, the Ordinance was introduced to directly resolve the conflict between Federal and State law by prohibiting the establishment of inedical marijuana dispensaries within the City without violating any provision of the Compassionate Use Act. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: While State and Federal law still stands at opposite ends of legal spectrum regarding medicai marijuana, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich (as weli as others) establish the illegality of the CUA and set precedent for interpretation of its provisions. Consequently, the manufacture, distribution or possession of marijuana should be regarded as illegal activities regardless of State law. Further, through investigating other cities in California with experience with medical marijuana dispensaries, staff has found that medical marijuana dispensaries directly CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 contribute to negative and undesirabie secondary impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and communities. For instance, locally, in the City of Morro Bay, police investigators discovered multiple illegal activities including money laundering operations and illegai marijuana sales to undercover police. Palm Desert police also experienced similar illegal marijuana sales to undercover police. In Claremont, a dispensary was burglarized and numerous marijuana plants were stolen. In Santa Cruz, the owners of a medicai marijuana dispensary shut down operations citing the ongoing behavioral problems in the neighborhood contributing to its closure;the owner of the dispensaries stated"They would use our front yard and parking lot as a bathroom. Theyd steal anything not fastened down." Staff found that such undesirable situations are commonplace and appear to be a direct result of inedical marijuana dispensaries. The Califomia Police Chiefs Association has compiled extensive reports and information detailing the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries which can be found at its website: www.californiaoolicechiefs.ora. Staff believes that medical marijuana dispensaries negatively affect the health, safety and welfare of the community and wouid pose an unnecessary burden on the City's Police Department. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Recommended Alternative: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 9.26 to Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code prohibiting the estabiishment of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. - Do not approve staff's recommendation and continue to enforce the prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries through the Controlled Substance Act. - Consider alternative measures to deal with medical marijuana dispensaries. - Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: This Ordinance directly resolves the conflict between Federal and State law by prohibiting the establishment of inedical marijuana dispensaries within the City, without violating any provision of the Compassionate Use Act. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 3 DISADVANTAGES: The disadvantages of adopting the recommended action would be that it conflicts with the results of a State of California initiative vote or if the City Council determines that allowing medical marijuana dispensaries is desirable. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The pubiic has been made aware of the proposal before Council by a posting of the Agenda in the front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008 and public notice posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public input has been received to date. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADDING CHAPTER 9.26 TO TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California ("State") approved Proposition 215, codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 et seq. and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" (the "Compassionate Use Act"), which provides seriously iil Californians "the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" once a physician has deemed the use beneficial to the patienYs health; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the State legislature enacted SB 420 to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act and to allow cities to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of SB 420; and WHEREAS, the Federal Controiled Substance Act (the "Controlled Substance Act"), codified as 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., makes it unlawful for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense or process with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, in which the Court held that there is no medical necessity defense or exemption for the possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Court held that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the manufacture, cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana pursuant to the Controlled Substance Act, even as such prohibitions apply to marijuana manufactured, cultivated, distributed or possessed within the State of California under the auspices of the Compassionate Use Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") recognizes that, pursuant to Gonza/es v. Raich, the Supremacy Clause (Article IV, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution) "unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law shall prevail [and that] [i]t is beyond peradventure that Federal power over commerce is superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be"; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 560 establishing an interim moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries; and ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 561 extending the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days to allow staff to study all aspects of this medical marijuana issue, including the analysis of the conflict between State and Fede�al legislation and the impacts that medical marijuana dispensaries have had on other local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, based on said study and analysis, the City Council hereby finds that the cultivation and distribution of inedical marijuana through medical marijuana dispensaries contributes directly to undesirable secondary impacts on the surrounding community, inciuding, but not limited to: an increase in illegal drug activity, illegal drug sales, robbery of persons leaving dispensaries, burglary, theft, loitering around dispensaries, falsely obtaining identification cards to qualify for medical marijuana, trespass, display and discharge of firearms, vagrancy, on-site consumption of marijuana and marijuana enhanced products, driving under the influence of marijuana, excessive tra�c, disturbance calls, and vehicular violations; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association has compiled extensive reports and information detailing the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. The City Council hereby finds that the reports and information provided by the California Police Chiefs Association, which can be found at http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/nav_files/medical marijuana.html, contain further persuasive evidence that medical marijuana dispensaries pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that under the Supremacy Clause, Article IV, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the conflict between the Federal Controlled Substance Act and the State Compassionate Use Act must be resolved in favor of the Federal Controlled Substance Act, and because of the documented threat and danger to the public health, safety and welfare from medical marijuana dispensaries, it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Arroyo Grande that the Ciry Council prohibft the establishment and operation of inedical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Arroyo Grande. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: Chapter 9.26 is hereby added to Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows: ORDINANCE N0. PAGE 3 Chapter 9.26 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. 9.26.010 Definition. A"medical marijuana dispensary" is defined as any facility in a single fixed location where a primary caregiver makes available, sells, transmits, gives or otherwise provides medicai marijuana, or cannabis, for medicai purposes to two or more qualified patients or persons with an identification card in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq.. A medical marijuana dispensary shall not include the following uses, as long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Healthy and Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. 9.26.020 Medical Marijuana Dispensary; Prohibited. A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be permitted within the City. 9.26.030 Penalties. volation of section 9.26.020 is a misdemeanor unless the city attorney authorizes issuance of an infraction citation or files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction; or the court, upon the prosecutorial recommendation of the city attorney, determines that the offense is an infraction. 9.26.040 Violation. Any person who violates section 9.26.020 shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any such person commits, continues, permits, or causes a violation thereof, and shall be penalized accordingly. 9.26.050 Civil Injunction. The violation of section 6.26.020 shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and contrary to the public interest and shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause of action for injunctive relief. SECTION 3: This Ordinance is consistent with protection of the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the City. This Ordinance is hereby found .to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). ORDINANCE NO. . PAGE 4 SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk. 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 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. SECTION 6: 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 deciares 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. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: , NOES: ABSENT: the foregaing Ordinance was adopted this_day of , 2008. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 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 � pilROYp � C9 FINCORPOHATED 92 u m * ��• ��, 19„ * MEMORANDUM c4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR-� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT OF LEASE RENEWAL FOR PORTION OF CAR CORRAL PUBLIC PARKING LOT LOCATED BETWEEN 103 AND 109 E. BRANCH STREET FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR TERM FROM AUGUST 1, 2008 TO JULY 31, 2013 DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the agreement of lease dated April 25, 2008 with The David Family Trust, Nancy T. Loomis Revocable Living Trust, and the Matthews Children's 1997 Irrevocable Trust, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The lease provides that the City pay the $60 rent of $1 per month upon acceptance, be responsible for the Ciry and County property taxes, and hold the owners harmless from any claims during the lease term. The City is responsible for parking lot repairs and maintenance, which has been deferred and will need to be considered concurrent with the E. Branch streetscape project construction as a separate expense. An alternative configuration will also be considered prior to repairs. BACKGROUND: The City owns most of the public parking lot on the north side of East Branch Street east of Nevada Street known as the Car Corral. However, a portion adjoining 101 and 103 East Branch Street, the Village Grill and Sports Card Shop is owned by David, � Loornis, and Mathews Trusts and is leased to the City for $1 per month by lease agreement. The current five-year lease expires on July 31, 2008 and the City requested renewal for an additional five-year term (See Attachment 1, letter to Susan Gaddis). To become effective, the City Council needs to accept the agreement and authorize the mayor and City Clerk to sign on behalf of the City. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The Village Downtown Core and a portion of the Village Mixed Use Districts between Traffic Way, LePoint Street, Crown Hill and Arroyo Grande Creek are served by a combination of on-street parking and public off-street parking lots, both owned and leased by the City, and numerous private parking spaces. The City owns most of Olohan Aliey, the Car Corral and the LePoint Street lot behind the Council Chambers, CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT OF LEASE RENEWAL FOR PORTION OF CAR CORRAL PUBLIC PARKING LOT LOCATED BETWEEN 103 AND 109 E. BRANCH STREET FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR TERM FROM AUGUST 1, 2008 TO JULY 31, 2013 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 3 and leases some of the private properties adjoining the Car Corral. These separate leases are for five year periods and include provisions for early termination by either the City or the owners. The City is responsible for maintenance and operation of the lots and payment of property taxes and holds harmless the owners from claims unless or until expiration or termination. The public benefits from the use of these private properties for public parking without the cost of land purchase, but costs of repairs or reconfiguration are vulnerable to possible early termination. Most of the spaces located on private property would be required for adjoining existing commercial uses on private properties owned by the same parties. However, these spaces could be operated as private parking spaces similar to many other off-street parking areas within the Village area. Because the lot needs substantial repair and the City is proposing possible reconfiguration to increase the number of spaces and improve access from E. Branch Street, staff requested that a termination clause providing for lease termination with 30 days written notice be eliminated from this lease. However, the termination clause was retained and the lease signed by the property owners. The owners indicate they have no present intent to cancel the agreement. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1) It is recommended that the City Council accept the agreement of lease dated April 25, 2008 with the David, Loomis, and Matthews Trusts and authorize the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City. 2) The Council could reject the lease, which would effectively make nine (9) existing spaces private parking accessed from City owned driveways. ADVANTAGES: Benefits include continued public use and the potential of increased number of spaces, improved efficiency, access, and appearance. DISADVANTAGES: Assuming the City renews the lease and then proceeds to repair or reconfigure this portion of the Car Corral, the cost of improvements could be short-lived if the lease were terminated on 30 days notice by the property owners to enable new development or make the leased part private parking with shared access drives. New development would require conditional use permit approval, expected to take several years and not yet being considered by the property owners or the City. Therefore, such a risk is minimal. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT OF LEASE RENEWAL FOR PORTION OF CAR CORRAL PUBLIC PARKING LOT LOCATED BETWEEN 103 AND 109 E. BRANCH STREET FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR TERM FROM AUGUST 1, 2008 TO JULY 31, 2013 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE30F3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Renewal of the lease is categorically exempt CEQA Guidelines section 15311, as is possible reconfiguration 15302. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Downtown Parking Advisory Board (DPAB) and Village Improvement Association have been informed of lease renewal and future public parking improvements for the subject site. No notice is required for the City to pursue lease agreements. Attachments: 1. Letter dated May 14, 2008 to Susan Gaddis 2. Preliminary site plan for Car Corral parking lot a. Aerial b. Diagram 3. Copy of draft lease agreement Attachment 1 �� , ; P.O.Box 550 �_� �-fa��,__ „/ r 214 East BraachStrat v , ��.cu� Arropo Gnmle,CA 93421 Phunq:(80�4715420 ' COMMLJNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX:(80�4710J86 E-Mail:agcity@arroyogrande.org May 14, 2008 Ms. Susan Gaddis . 9200 San Ramon Road Atascadero, California 93422 SUBJECT: Repair and Reconfigu�ation of Car Corral Public Perking Lot Adjoining 101 and 109 E. Branch Street;City of ArPoyo Grande and Leased Properties Dear Ms:Gaddis: Thank you for retuming the Car Corral lease agreement for renewal and your subsequent call �egarding need for repairs to reduce possible City liab3lity. The repairs to winter pothotes will be completed nextweek according to Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo. The .City, is also proposing resurtacing or additional maintenance such as seal coat and � restriping concurrent with East Branch Streetscape improVements later in 2008 oc 2009. ; Alterriafively, as we have discussed; the City is considering Car Corral reconfiguration that would increase the number.:of spaces, improve access and enlatge.landscaping by more ' efficient design,subject to funding for th,is optional capital improvementproject. I am enclosing an aerial photo of the current configura4ion of fhe Car CoRal and a preliminary ske4ch'of proposed optional ieconfgu�ation. I would appreciate your written confirmation of yourverbal approval of thiS reconfiguration design to enable the City,to prepare engineering plans and cost estimates for further,CiP budgeting. These plans would be provided to'you when completed prior,to reconfiguration construction. ' ,If you have. any questions please`ca11 arid confirm you��consent�to reconfiguration preliminary ;'design by signing and retuming the enclo§ed copy of this letter and attached sketch. ' Sincerely, ' Rob Strong - :: Comiriunity Development,Di�ector _ cc '. `Steve Adams, City Manager , `. Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director �' ; 'Consent to Reconfiguration Design as Submitted:: `Susan Gaddis Date , .._.__.— i —.�y�� i �„� ,�. . �� - .. �a,.;x . �' �gv '�d u �`^ "�.: . 4 �M � '� � �` � �, 4 � 'w ,:'�' � , � ^ m . � t ' `'t ,�' '� 1 � N = �S�"a x I ' � .. ti� .. .�� .�'�� ,�, ' ' - c , � � �d a� „ �: �.! `1 1 m � � •li' ��e�f+R b� ' q�s" � �dn �1� ✓ . . '4 �� . .y;�� ' � � � � n v i ¢4P�� " r ' '°"�ru� ��+ ]�, a�.. �,' � :.�� .t�• '�/'r 6"� �' . . �'1� � r •+ ,�s ..�}�; �a -�" � • f^d4 . .... � Q . �1 td `l � ,� �� , �w , � •'� " ,`.. �l *:" � . . :y,� . ' jd'y+�� , > . . "� � ��,�a �: � � " .. �� }•�• r�_� i,. ;4 , � � ! � � ..J � ,"��, ,�.. . , . . � � � � �� , . ,��,� # . ,� . 9 = �,� , �� ' .� � / a:n� +; II s O a„�y�a'. , V ! ,,.� � � � � � � ��+ �� i ��. �� , '�� 3 : � .� ��.'` W: a +s� , � k ; � ��?� � � . . � � : � , t "1�":� w k..a .�M . � � J .1�. 'vyk ."'�f � � .y� „� ^I 5' •��,��Yi�+'��iaM`x.z' . �.. �:l . � J%"`..A" � �. • � .. �Y :.: �n � ,;�jN' .6�` ' � " � � �l"�� , �i4 . b� . .� � � ��„�. �i �� ;�'ra' r�.. , , � � � ' ..� � � n O�'. a. p� ...r y� ll, � ; � �...��i.� �ple' � yy;�� . �yA : � ' .,. � � b�� y; � ��s�� y�s• - � _. � � r n _ ` •}i,¢ -_ � ` . . � � ♦ � �s I�N� �� 'K �' N$� � r t . ;.�t .; �c ..,,._ .� E0 .',S�" . .. * � ,F� � .. � ��f� ,.. �� _ �� +. l .e`'` +' , �,.d(�` � � , � 4 �� .t+". ✓F .Y � > i " • . �' - � � ��-: ,. �� .� � � . *�.. � i i'" , �' � % ` u`� f � �,: . . . �. • , x� �y s w ! �{� . Q 20 .. y .. .. �,' � �, �q ¢� `Y` 'Y4 '� N V � �� e 4`° ;� � �t , �� f� � �.. Faet „ ..+� /r i , r y� �„d� �a,,.�r y + t 'i 4s."��[ � A'A� � �`7' ��.. ��i;� /�� . . . .. . . � ATTACHMENT3 AGREEMENT OF LEASE TH1S AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 2S�`day of �, 2008, by and between Andrew David, Trustee, 7he David Famify 7rust, E t'd May 15, 1986; NANCY T. LOOMIS, as Trustee of the Nancy T. Loomis Revocable Living TNSt; and SARAH M. MATTHEWS, Trustee of the MATTHEWS CHILDREN'S 1997 IRREVOCABLE TRUST dated December 30, 1997" hereinafter for the purpose of convenience sometimes termed "Owner," hereby lease to the City of Arroyo Grande, hereinafter for the purpose of convenience sometimes termed "Tenant," that certain real property in the City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo Couniy, Califomia, more particulariy described in Exhibit "A", a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. Term: The term of this lease shall be for a period of five (5) years, beginning on the first day of Auaust, 2008 and ending on the last day of Julv, 2013. Rent: Rent for the term of the lease is Sixty Dollars ($60.00), being the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per month, for each and every month of the term hereof, to be paid in advance upon the signing of this lease by the parties hereto. Taxes: Tenant shail pay not less than thirry (30) days before delinquency, ali City and County real property taxes assessed on the leased premises during the teim of this lease, or any extension thereof. The taxes shall be prorated as applicable for the taxing fiscal year forany portion of the term. The leased premises are presentiy assessed on the county tax records as a separate parcel and taxed as a separate parcel. All parties to this agreement mutually agree to use their best efforts to have the county continue to tax the property in the same manner. Owners shali cooperate with Tenant in promptly delivering to Tenant all tax bills received covering the leased property. u�'. Termination Prior to Julv 31, 2013: Either Owner ;of Tenant may terminate this lease at any time during the term hereof by giving the other party not less than thirty (30) days priorwritten notice. Hold Hacmiess and Insurance: Tenant shalf hofd Owner harrnless ftom any claim for loss or damage to person or property by reason of the occupancy and use of the leased premises, or failure to keep the premises in good condition and repair. Tenant shall keep said leased property insured for liability under its municipal blanket insurance policy, which policy shall specifically name the parties hereto. � RECElVED. MAY 0 2 2048 anoF��rtrnoea� �� AGREEMENT OF LEASE — CAR CORRAL PARKING LOT PAGE 2 Notices: All notices to be given to Owner or to Tenant shall be given by personal delivery, or, registered mail (return receipt requested) deposited in the United States post o�ce in the City of Arroyo Grande, postage prepaid. The addresses to be used for the parties to this agreement are: Tenant: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P O Box 550 Arroyo Grande CA 93421 Owner. ANDREW DAVID P O Box 166 Arroyo Grande CA 93421 Personal delivery to Owner may be made by personai delivery to Andrew David. Personal delivery to Tenant may be made by personal delivery to the City Manager, or the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Change of address may be made in writing, delivered to Owner or to Tenant as herein provided. Sublease: Tenant may not assign, transfer in whole or in part, or sublet any portion of the leased premises without the prior written consent of Owner. Parkinq Meters: No parking meters shall be permitted on the leased premises without the prior written consent of Owner. Waste. Alterations. Additions: Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste of the said premises or permit any public or private nuisance. Tenant shall not make or suffer to be made any alterations to the leased premises without the prior written consent of Owner. Any additions or alterations, which may be permitted on the leased premises, shall become a part of said premises. Tenant shall keep all trees, bushes and shrubs on the property trimmed to a height not to exceed one (1) foot below the top of the parapet of the portion of the building situated at 101-103 East Branch Street. Use of Premises: The premises are being leased for the sole purpose of use for off- street parking, and Tenant shall not permit the premises to be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of Owner. Owner Apent: Andrew David is appointed by the various Owners to serve as their agent in all matters pertaining to this lease. This provision may be revoked at any time by any of the individual owners giving written notice to Tenant. Reaairs and Maintenance: Tenant shall, at TenanYs sole cost and expense, keep the premises in good condition and repair at ali times during the term of this lease AGREEMENT OF LEASE— CAR CORRAL PARKING LOT PAGE 3 Dated: �(- � 2�� d OWNER: TENANT: C� By: �oCir. �c� :. , By: ANDREW DAVID TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR Sy: 4 � � BY: NAN . LO IIS KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK �` i By: � SARAH M. MATTHEWS EXHIBIT "A" That certain real property in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: That certain portion of the "Hotel Lot" of the Buena Vista Tract in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record October 2, 1885. In Book A, Page 58 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; beginning at the most southerly comer of said Hotel Lot and running thence north 57° 15' east, 97.90 feet along the southeasterly line of said lot to the true point of beginning; thence north 32° 43' 37" west, 75 feet; thence south 57° 15' west and parallel with the southeasterly line of said lot, 97. 90 feet to the southwesteriy tine of said Hotel Lot; thence south 32° 43' 37" east (record south 32° 45' east) along the southwesterly line of said lot, a distance of 20 feet; thence north 57° 15' east along the line parallel with the southeasterly line of said lot, a distance of 55.90 feet to a point; thence south 32° 43' 37", east afong a line parallel with a southwesterly line of said lot 55 feet to the southeasterly line of said lot; thence north 57° 15' east 42 feet along the southeasterly line of said lot to the true point of beginning. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL T0: -- DAVID and ZIMMERMAN Attorneys at Law 227 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Post Office Box 166 Arroyo Grande, California 93421-0166 DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY WARNING TO PERSON EXECUTING THIS DOCUMENT IN REGARD TO THE FINANCIAL POWER CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT, I HAVE READ THE FOLLOWING WARNING: 7HIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENT. IT CREATES A DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY. BEFOR� EXECUTING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE IMPORTANT FACTS: 1. TH4S DOCUMENT MAY PROVIDE THE PERSON YOU DESIGNATE AS YOUR � ATTORNEY IN FACT WITH BROAD POWERS TO DISPOSE, SELL, CONVEY, AND ENCUMBER YOUR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. 2. THESE POWERS WILL EXIST FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME UNLESS YOU LIMIT THEIR DURATION IN THIS DOCUMENT. THESE POWERS WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST NOTWfTHSTANDiNG YOUR SUBSEQUENT DISABIIITY OR INCAPACITY. 3. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE OR TERMINATE THIS DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY AT ANY TIME, 4. YOU HAVE NO DUTY TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS UNDER THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, BUT IF YOU DO UNDERTAKE AN ACTION, YOU HAVE THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF A FIDUCIARY AS TO THAT ACTIONS. YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK THE COUNSEL OF A CA�{FORNIA ATTORNEY. -1- ARTICLE I DECLARATI�NS 1.1 THIS DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUEN7 INCAPACIT' OF THE PRiNCIPAL. This is a durabie power of attorney under California law, Civil Code §2400-2407. 1_2 Effective date of this Power: ,14. ?0 � ( 1_3 Name and Address of Princiaa{: � ANDREW DAVID P.O. Box 166 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 The pronouns 1, Me, Mine, and Myself refer to the Principal. 1.4 I revoke all Powers of Attorney pertaining to financial powers which 4 may have previous{y given. 1.5 Aqpointment of Attornev-in-Fact: I appo+nt as my attorney-in-fact that person named below^ MARGARE7 L. DAVID, but if she should be unable to serve for any reason, then SUSAN D. GADDIS. But if she shoufd be unable to serve for any reason, then JOAN D. ZIMMERMAN and DtANE D. ULIBARRI shall serve together, but if one should be unabie to serve for any reason, then the remaining may serve alone. In case any attorney-in-fact should decline to act, such declination shall be made and can only be made in writing, duly acknowledged and recorded. l reserve the power and right to revoke the above appointments, or to substitute another person for any of the above appointments. The pronouns You, Your, and Yourself refer to the Attomey-in-�act. When signing on my behalf under this Power of Attorney, use this form under Caiifornia Civil Code g1095. "ANDREW DAVID bv: MARGARET L. DAVID , his Attornev-in-Fact." 1.6 Deleaation of Powers: I delegate to you the powers set forth in ARTICLE II. But, if I cross out or write through any part of this document and I put my initials opposite the crossout or writing, then, I cancel that part of this document. Your exercise of the delegated powers must be in a flduciary capaciiy for my benefit and on my behaif. At all times, California law govems this document. lf any part of this document is not valid, all other parts shaN remain valid. You are not iiable to me or to my successors when, in good faith, you act or do not act under this document. But, this freedom from liabifity does not apply if, as the resuit of your willful misconduct or gross negligence, you act or do not act. 7his Durable Power of Attorney starts upon my signing this document. -2- ARTICLE II DELEGATED POWER� As to any assets (a) registered in my name, or (b) held for my benefit, or (c}acquired for my benefit, I give you these powers subject to ¶1.5. (�) As to any certificate of deposit, cash equivalents, safe deposit box, bank checking, savings, or savings and loan account in my name or opened for my benefit - to open, withdraw from, deposit into, and close it; and to negotiate, endorse, or transfer any instrument affecting those accounts or items. (2) As to any promissory note receivable, secured or unsecured - to collect, compromise, endorse, borrow against, hypothecate, release, or reconvey that note and any related deed of trust. (3) As to any shares of stock, treasury bilis, treasury notes, bonds, or any documents or ins�ruments defined as securities under California law - to open accounts with stock brokers, cash or on margin, buy, sell, endorse, transfer, hypothecate, or borrow against them, and to vote these shares, bonds, or secunties for any purpose. (4) As to any real property or petsonal properry - to collect rents, disburse funds, hire professional property man�ers, lease to tenants, negotiate and renew leases, borrow against, renew any loan, seN any of t e property and sign any documents needed to carry out the safe or to carry out any transaction referred to in this item (4). (5) As to any other assets not referred to in items (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this ARTICLE II - 10 buy, sell, hold, borrow against, or dispose of, as needed, �n your}udgment, for my weffare and comfort. (6) As to my income taxes and other taxes -to sign my name, hire preparers, advocates, lawyers, and advisors, and to pay for their services from my funds, and to do whatever is needed to protect my assets from diminution by taxes for the years 1985 through 2059, as though I cou{d do those acts myself, The attomey in fact shall be able to make any and ail elections on tax returns and other documents and be abie to make any decision in regard to tax related matters that I couid make for myself. may7) To bu im my �ame those U.S. Government bonds referred to as "Flower Bonds" that be used t pay deaih taxes on my death. (8) To hire and pay for from my funds the services of professionaf advisors, including a firm whicF� you are a member, without limitations: physicians, accountants, lawyers, and investment counselors, for my welfare. (9) To transfer to the Trustee of a revocabie trust of which I am a Settlor (TNStor, or Granto() and a beneficiary, my assets or my interest in assets, or to create a revocab{e trust for my benefit and to fund it with my assets or interests in assets. Any revocable trust that is created may be designed to achieve a variery of tax benefits. The attorney in fact shall have the authority that.l would have to request distributions of assets from a revocabie trust, unless otherwise lim�ted by the revocable trust document. Notwithstanding any other possible language to the contrary in this document, the agent is speci�cally not granted the fofiowing powers. (a) To use the principal's assets for the agenYs own iegai obligations,including but not limiteci to suppo�t of the agenYs dependents; (b) To exercise any trustee powers under an irrevocable trust of which the agent is a Settlor and principal is a Trustee; and (c) To exercise incidents of ownership over any life insu�ance policieswhich the principal owns on the agent's life. _3_ (10) To apply far government and insurance benefits, to prosecute and defend legal actions, to arrange for transportation and travel. To partition community property, to create separate pcoperty for me, and to contract medicaf and dental care for me; m so doing the foregoing, to sign my name and represent me. (11) To sign and deliver a valid disclaimer under the Internal Revenue Code and the California Probate Code, when, in yourjudgment, my family's best interests would be served; to that end, to hire and to pay for legal and financial counsel to help you decide whether to file that disclaimer. �12) To borrow and to lend, secured or unsecured, for the purposes stated in this ART CLE II, and to pledge any of my assets for that borrowing. (13) If you sell or lend any of my assets or interests in assets, your judgments as to the terms of sale or loan is finaL (14) Youmay make (a) gifts of my assets or interests in assets to my spouse, my children, and other descendants and their spouses, and (b} gifts in your juclgment to charitable, scientific, reli ious or educational institutions according to my pattern of charitable giving over the past five �) years. You may make these gifts at any time or from time to time. You may make gifts to yourseif only if (a) you are my spouse or (b) if you are my descendant, and your siblings, if any, agree. You may consent to split gifts made by my spouse to third persons. You may make direct payments to the providers for tuition or medical care or both for my descendants or spouse. (15) To sign and deliver a deed that changes my property interest from or to any of these designations: Joint Tenancy, Community Property, Tenants-in-Common, and Separate Property. (16) To exercise any Special Power of Appointment i hoid. (17) To make such decisions, s�gn on my behalf, or to take such action as needed to accomplish the deferral of tax resulting from the marital deduction under the Internal Revenue Code. (1 B} To estabiish and contribute to IRA accounts and other employee benefits plans on the pnncipal's behalf, to select or change payment options and make elections under any 1RA or empioyee benefit plan in which the principal is a participant and to make "rollovers" of plan benefits mto other retirement plans or IRA accounts. ARTiCLE III POWERS YOU SHALL NOT HAVE YOU SHALL NOT HAVE ANY POWER Unless you are my spouse, you may not use my assets to pay for your legal obligations that include but are not limited to the support of your dependents (unless your dependents are issue of our marriage). ARTICLE iV DURATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY If I do not make an earlier revocation, all portions of this durable power of attorney shafl last for my entire life once these provisions start in accordance with the terms of this document. None of the following events shall terminate this durable power of attorney: -4- 1. Death of the agent. 2. The agenYs renunciation of the agency. 3. The agent's incapacity to act as agent. 4. A vacancy in the office of the agent. ARTICLE V MISCELLANEOUS 5_1 My heirs, successors, and assigns are bound by your acts under this document. 5.2 I recommend and urge you to confer with a Califomia lawye�before you enter a transactfon that under this Durable Power is not routine. 5.3 If a Court finds it necessary to appoint a conservator of my estate, I nominate as conserva�or of my estate and successor conservator of my estate those named below. MARGARET L. DAVID but if she should be unable to serve for any reason, then SUSAN D. GADDIS. But if she should be unable to serve for any reason, then JOAN D. ZIMMERMAN and DIANE D. ULIBARRI, 6ut if one shouid be unable to serve for any reason, then the �emaining shall serve alone. In case any conservator should deGine to act, such deGination shall be made and can only be made in writing, duly acknowledged and recorded. SIGNING After I read the above document, I, the Principal, sign this Durable Power of Attomey on the date shown below my signature. I understand (1) this document gives my attome -in-fact serious powers over my assets; and (2) the powers continue after I am incapacitated; and (3� I can revoke and cancel this document at any time. __.. PRINCIPAt'S NAME:� � ANDR DAVI SIGNATURE. � DATED: (/�.� �� , 2001, at AROyo Grande, Califomia. STAT OF.�RLIFORNIA ) ' )ss. COU 1JY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) , On `�-L � 7 � d �before me, V � !'��`/ 1�1�! �'7`�k ( , a Notary Pubfic in and for sra d State,personally appeared ANDREW DAVID personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of sa6sfa evidence to be ttie person whose name is subscribed to the wilhin instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed fhe same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, w the entiiy upon behaN of which fhe person acted, executed ihe insWment. WITNESS y hand and official sea1. NOTARY SEAL /�1 i/i-�.�'l�CAU4/� � `/• L KRIWINSKI NOTARY PUBUC Z � �` � sa w�b c# Iz65pq6 £ ca�fo,,,;o MvComm oWcpo �asA'IaY�� . -5- � PtiROYO ° c9 , INCOPPOFATED YZ f � m i� ,�u�. ,o. �e„ * c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,�C��, . � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PARKING REGU�ATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE VILLAGE, ALLOW CLUSTERING OF LOTS IN LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL "CLEAN-UP' AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 08-001) DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.56 (Parking and Loading Requirements) including parking standards for Barber Shops and Beauty Salons within the Village Core and Village Mixed Use (VCD & VMU) Zoning Districts; amending Chapter 16.32 (Residential Districts) regarding the clustering of lots in lower density residential neighborhoods; and amending chapters 16.04 (Definitions) and 16.20 (Subdivisions) for consistency with State law. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact at this time. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed several proposed amendments to Municipal Code Title 16, commonly referred to as the "Development Code", in order to consider potential solutions to land use issues that have recently come to staff's attention, as well as provide an opportunity to clean-up various Development Code sections for consistency with State law. The City Council introduced the proposed Ordinance on May 13, 2008. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Parkinq in the Villaqe In order to address specific problems identified by the Downtown Parking Advisory Board and potential disincentives within current parking standards, the proposed ordinance includes the following modifications: - ➢ Allowing for Conditional Use Permit processing of requested deviations from parking standards instead of variance applications to allow for consideration of shared offsite parking and/or alternative transit scenarios for new development. CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ➢ Reducing the parking requirement for restaurants and bars to the same standard of 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area that is publicly accessible and providing an exception for up to six chairs for outdoor seating. This modified parking requirement is intended to allow for design flexibility and enable existing or new restaurants and bars or similar uses to expand or relocate into the Village area. Such uses share common and public parking, both on-street and off-street, as well as utilize transit, bike and pedestrian access. This makes the current parking requirement for such uses more than adequate. Restaurant parking in pedestrian and non-pedestrian areas is a common issue in many cities. ➢ Increasing parking requirements for beauty salons by requiring one additional parking space for every three beauty stations above the 1 space per 300 sq. ft. requirement in order to adequately park these uses that have been identified to be under-parked. Parking for beauty salons is a common issue among cities trying to maintain an appropriate mix of uses and provide appropriate levels of parking in pedestrian friendly downtowns. ➢ Correcting or clarifying minor inconsistencies. Clusterinq of Residential Lots The Development Code allows the clustering of residential lots and deviations of various site development standards related to lot size through the planned unit development permit process (PUD) for most residential zoning districts including the Residential Hillside (RH), Single Family (SF), Village Residential(VR), Multi-family(MF) and Multi- family Apartment (MFA) zoning districts. PUD permits are not allowed in the Residential Estate (RE), Residential Rural (RR) and Residential Suburban (RS) districts. In 2006, an amendment to the Development Code allowed for decreased lot size in the RS district with conveyance of open space in perpetuity through discretionary action but without all the flexible provisions allowed through the PUD permit process. Recent land use applications have initiated discussion regarding the desirability of clustering lots on rural residential lands where amenities such as continuous open space or sensitive habitat may be preserved while still allowing efficient use of land to provide for housing. There are three residential zoning districts affected by this proposal: The RH, RR and RS districts. All of these districts are designated by the General Plan Land Use Element as Single Family Residential — Low Density (SFR-LD). The Ordinance includes allowing clustered development in the RS, RR and RH zoning districts when there is a need to preserve continuity in open space, protection of sensitive habitat or when clustering allows development to avoid steep slopes. Clustering would be provided through the PUD application in order to determine appropriate lot sizes, open space dedication and consideration of findings to maintain a rural character intended by the zoning and land use classification. Miscellaneous Provisions: Parcel Map Waivers and Definitions for Dav Care. CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 3 The Ordinance includes waivers of map requirements under certain circumstances outlined in Government Code Section 66428 (Subdivision Map Act). Requirements for parcel maps may be waived if the local agency allows such waivers by ordinance. This may be advantageous and provides significant cost savings in circumstances where parcel lines are adjusted or there is a land division for a public purpose such as the conveyance of land to or from public entities for infrastructure, schools, conservation or public buildings. The Ordinance also includes modification to definitions for family and adult daycare in order to provide clarification and consistency with state law. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the Ordinance; - Instruct staff to modify the Ordinance and reintroduce the Ordinance; - Do not adopt the Ordinance. - Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Advantages to the changes for parking in the Village include encouraging additional restaurant uses in the Village. Advantages of changes for residential clustering include a balance of goals related to housing, rural character, open space and resource protection. While all density allocations are maximum numbers, ultimate density is determined through the application process, including individual environmental review (16.32.030). This would enable permanent open space or sensitive habitat protection; however, the allowances provided by the PUD process do not require a reduction of lot size nor preclude conventional land subdivision. Similarly, the PUD process does not, in and of itself, guarantee an applicant the maximum density specified in the Development Code. DISADVANTAGES: Disadvantages to the changes for parking in the Village include the potential for making parking too lenient for restaurants and too stringent for beauty salons rather than allowing market forces to regulate the location, and abundance and concentration of uses. Disadvantages to the changes for lot clustering include a potential conflict with the General Plan Land Use Policy LU2-2, specifically LU2.2.2 which states the City "Accommodate the development of large lot conventional subdivisions (1du/1ac) within appropriate SFR-LD areas (zoned City RR). This may eventually render the few remaining 1-acre size lots in the RR district, and associated rural character given by such development, obsolete by allowing clustered development. However, no densities are proposed to be changed, and the Planning Commission found that rural character CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 08-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 4 remains better intact by the clustering of development away from steep slopes, oak groves or continuous open space. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that this project is categoricatly exempt per Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The required public hearing notice was published in The Tribune on May 2, 2008 and notices were sent out to affected owners and operators of barbedbeauty salons. Additional mailed notice was mailed to daycare businesses citywide and to all restaurants, bars, barber and beauty shops in the Village Commercial District and Village Mixed Use districts for Planning Commission meetings. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 08-001) AMENDING CHAPTER 16.56(PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS) INCLUDING PARKING STANDARDS FOR BARBER SHOPS AND BEAUTY SALONS WITHIN THE VILLAGE CORE AND VILLAGE MIXED USE(VCD& VMU) ZONING DISTRICTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 16.32 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) REGARDING THE CLUSTERING OF LOTS IN LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS;AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 16.04 (DEFINITIONS) AND 16.20 (SUBDIVISIONS) FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City ofArroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan which became effective on October 9, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary revisions from time to time to the Development Code and zoning map for consistency in accordance with Govemment Code Section 65860 and updating provisions based on new legislation and clarifications necessary for intemal code consistency; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held public hearings/public workshops on February 5, 2008; March 4, 2008; March 18, 2008; and April 15, 2008 and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code for the purposes of General Plan consistency and implementation of its goais and policies and clarifications necessary for the consistent administration of the Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became effective November 10, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary revisions to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Zoning Map for consistency, in accordance with Govemment Code Section 65860; and WHEREAS,the General Plan includes the Land Use and Economic Development Elements that include the following objectives and policies: Land Use Element Objective LU6 that requires "the historic Village Core area shail be sustained, enhanced and expanded as the symbolic, functional and unique business center of the City, with diverse mixed uses emphasizing pedestrian-oriented activities and providing for the needs of residents and tourists"; Policy LU6-5 that states the"Viliage Core Developments shall emphasize uses that contribute to the vitality of the whole, creating pedestrian traffic and interest,as outlined in the Design Guidelines for the Arroyo Grande Village"; Policy LU6-6 that states'The Village Core encourages the development of outdoor dining and other similar uses provided that they do not impede pedestrian use of the sidewalks"; Objective ED4 of the Economic Development Element that requires the City to "Protect and promote the overall commercial service and retail business sectors of the local economy; including Policy ED4-4"Maintain and enhance the Village Core as a focal point for civic and tourist activities"; and ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the General Plan includes the Land Use, Housing and Open Space and Conservation Elements that include objectives and policies including LU2-2"Accommodate the development of Residential Hillside cluster development and large lot conventional subdivisions in appropriate areas, classified as Single Family Residential Low Density; Housing Element A.1 'The City shali 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 ailocated for each income classification, within identified govemmental, market, economic and natural constraints" and "C/OS 1-1.4 "Locate structures, roads and grading on portions of a site so as to minimize visual impact. Locate developments below prominent ridgelines and hilltops such that they are not silhouetted against the sky," C/OS2 "Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to health,functioning ecosystem,"C/OS3"Plan for a well-maintained system of footpaths and non-vehicular trails that provide access to areas of non-urban environment"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: A. The proposed revision to the Municipal Code is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the general plan land use, housing, and conservation and open space elements and is necessary and desirable to implement to provisions of the Generai Plan. B. The proposed revision to the Municipal Code will not adversely affect the public health, safery, and welfare or resuit in an illogical land use pattern since the proposed changes allows the city to provide housing and protect open space and sensitive habitats. C. The proposed revision to the Municipal Code is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Introductory Provisions and Definitions Section 16.04, and Residential Districts 16.32. D. The proposed change revisions to Title 16 preserve the fabric of existing residential neighborhoods in the City, accommodates infill development and will not adversely affect the pubiic health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. E. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 satisfy the intent and purpose of the Development Code, specifically the intent of 16.32 (Residential Districts) and 16.44 (Special Districts) of the Municipal Code. F. The City has conducted an environmental review and has found that it can be seen with ceRainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance will have an effect on the environment and is categorically exempt per Section 15061 of the ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 CEQA Guidelines. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande,as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections set forth hereinbelow are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: a. Amend Section: 16.04.070(C); b. Amend Section 16.20.070.A; c. Amend Section A. (Residential Uses) in Table 16.32.040-A; d. Amend Table 16.32.050-A; e. Amend Notes to Tables 16.32.050-A and B; f. Amend Section 16.56.020.A.3; B., and C.; g. Amend (Commercial Uses) in the Chart contained in Section 16.56.060; h. Amend Section 16.56.080; i. Amend Section 16.56.100; j. Amend Section 16.56.140; k. Amend Subsections C.1.,2. and 3., D., and F. in Section 16.56.140 SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 5: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Determination. SECTION 6: 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 pubiished again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 7: This Ordinance shali take effect thirty(30) days after its adoption. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of . ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 1 EXHIBIT "A' EXHIBIT "A" Amend Section 16.04.070.C. (Definitions) to amend the following definitions: "Adult day care" means a day care facility providing care and supervision of adult ciients and includes Communitv-Based Dav Proqrams as defined in Title 17 CCR 54302. "Child Day-care center fiasiliEy" means private establishment for day time care of children ; and where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of the children is charged, including infant centers, nursery schools, pre-schools, extended dav-care and similar facilities. "Continuous Open Space" means a network of connected common oaen spaces and/or other conservation land that tvpicaliv extends alona or around a natural feature such as a creek oak woodland or wildlife travel corridor, or includes an area with siqnificant scenic historic archeoloqical, or cultural value, or arovides for public passive or active recreation such as traiis or similar linear facilities. Family Day Care Home, Large. "Large family day care home" means a home that regularly provides care, protection and supervision of twelve S12�children, or ua to 14 children if the criteria in Health and SafeN Code 1597.30 et. seq. are met, including children under aae ten (101 who reside at�e lae�in the providePs own home and includinq the assistant arovider's children under aqe ten (10), for periods of less than twenty-four (24) hours per day. Family Day Care Home, Small. "Small family day care home" means a home that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision of more than six (6) and up to ei ht 8 eF-fewe�children, without an additional adult attendant aursuant to Health and Safetv Code 1597.30 et. sea. . ' , for periods of less than twenty-four (24) hours per day. "Sensitive HabitaY' means a wetland riparian area, oak woodland or anv area in which plan or animal life or their habitats are either rare or esaeciallv valuable because of their saecial nature or role in an ecosvstem and which could be easilv disturbed or deqraded bv human activities and develoaments. Amend Section 16.20.070.A. Tentative parcel map A. Applicability. A tentative and final parcel map shall be filed and recorded for any land division subject to the Subdivision Map Act for which a tentative and final tract map is not otherwise required or if any of the following conditions prevail: 1. The land is divided into four or less parcels. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 EXHIBIT "A' 2. The whole parcel before division contains less than five acres; each parcel created by the division abuts upon a maintained public street or highway; and no dedication or improvements are required for the division. 3. Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than twenty (20) acres and each parcel has an approved access to a maintained public street or highway. 4. The land consists of a parcel or parcels of land having approved access to a public street or highway, is part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and is approved as to street alignment and width. 5. Each parcel created by the division has a gross area of forty (40) acres or more, or is not less than a quarter of a quarter section. 6. Parcel maas that are not in coniunction with re-zoninq or aeneral plan amendment applications mav be waived when reauested bv the applicant pursuant to Section 66428 of the Subdivision Mav Act for the followina: a. Divisions of real propertv or interests therein created bv eminent domain procedures, aartition action, or other similar actions as determined bv the CiN. b. Divisions of real oroqertv resultina from the convevance of land or anv interest therein to or from the Citv. public entities, or public utilities for a public qurpose, such as school sites, public buildin4 sites, or riqht-of-wav or easements for streets, sewers, utilities, drainaae, or other public facilities. c. The decision to waive the parcel maa reQUirement shall be made upon a findinq that the proaosed division of land complies with requirements as to lot area, ahvsical improvement and desiqn standards, floodwater drainaqe control, approoriate improved oublic roads, sanitarv disaosal facilities, water supplv availabilitv, utilitv installation, environmental protection, and other requirements of these requlations, other Citv ordinances, and the Subdivision Maq Act. d. A aarcel map waiver mav be conditioned to provide for the pavment of qark land dedication and anv other fees penerally aaalied to subdivision proiects. e. Such waiver automaticallv constitutes approval for the issuance of a certificate of compiiance as saecified in Section 66499.35 of the Subdivision Maa Act. When th�arcel map requirement has been waived, the Citv shall, within ninetv (90) davs and without further aaalication and proceedinqs, file the certificate of compliance and a map exhibit showinq the land division with the Countv Recorder. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 EXHIBIT "A' Amend Section A (Residential Uses) in Table 16.32.040-A Uses Permitted Within Residential Districts Legend P= Permitted MUP= Minor Use Permit PUD= Permitted Subject to Issuance of a Planned Unit Development Permit C = Permitted Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit NP = Not Permitted � �� USE RE RH RR RS � SF �2.4 ' MF lMFA�MFVH MHP ��, i �i _ -- ---- -- _._. _ _.....__. __ _... - A Residential Uses � -� - I -- I- '-- ` -�- '�---- � _I---. �1. Smgle-family P P P ' P P jMUP� Pb ` Pb NP NP detached (standard lot ( � � sizes) 2. Smail lot single- NP PUD A4R P1R �U PUD PU� NP NP NP ';family detached �� PUD PUD I { � I � 3. Single-family NP PUD NP NP PUD NP ' PUD' PUD NP NP attached (twin home, ( ��i � tripiex, fourplex) �� ;4. Condominium (air NP NP NP NP NP NP ' C I C C NP space) ��) I � � _.. . ..---- --- ----- ---- ----- ----- �.- -�-----r--- '5. Multiple-family NP' NP NP NP NP NP MUP (MUP P ( NP attached (2 - 4 units) � � �J--�-----� --I ; � I- ,. ----- — -- ..._: --._... ___._:...- -_._.:._ ----- ---._._ _._....--. 6 Mjltipl( family �NP �NP � NP NP NP ( NP C � C MUP NP ;attached 5 or more ;units ;7. Mobilehome C C C C C C C C C C ;subdivisions ��-'�� ;8. Mobilehome parks ��C � C ��C ��C ;�C -i � 9. Boarding/rooming NP NP NP NP NP NP C C C NP houses �� 10. Senior inde endent' NP NP NP NP NP NP C C � C NP 'living uses p ��C �� 11. Congregate care, NP NP NP NP NP NP 1 iassisted living ��I I ;12. Convalescent care NP NP NP NP NP i NP '��C NP ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 EXHIBIT "A' �y i USE ' RE RH RR RS SF 4a MF IMFA' MFVH MHP ---- -- --- - -- -- — _. - --- - - 13 Residential care � P � P � P � P � P ,� P P P P P facility (6 or fewer � persons) , ( i 14. Bed and breakfast NP C C C C C C C NP NP ;inns ��`�� 15. Second residential P P P P P ' P P P P P dwelling unit �� j �� 16. Small family day P . P P P �P � P P i P -P P 'care (6 jrfewer ��i P ( �i � children i Amend Table 16.32.050-A Residential Site Development Standards-- Single-Family Zones ; �R I RH RR RS SF VR i _� �perAgro sU cre) 0.4 0.67 1 A 2.5 4.5 4.5 j !density (DU's � ----- . ._.__--_ .:_____ . �2 Minimum � 92 500° 49,000 40,000 12,000 7 200 ( 6,750 j ibuilding sitea � {re�c,ed-IeE ; ;(Net area in sq. size ' 'ft.) new aAewed i isubdivisions wit# I j �� i ' i � �� ! I �} ') ( ; freduced minimum buildinq site � ; � area allowed with orovision to � ; i permanentiv preserve sensitive � � i habitat and/or oaen soace i � corridors and/or to avoid I � ; develoament of steea slopes ( I ; , ' and ridqelinesl , --._ _._:.._ ' ---�_.. --�- ---,- --..--- - ----- ---j 13 Minimum lot � 200 130 � 120 r 80' � 70' � 50' �width° new I ' � !subdivisions 'I. j j4. Minimum lot 250' � 200' 200' 100' 100' 100' � 'depth new �� I �subdivisions ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT "A' ; �E H RR RS SF 1 VR i --------- ------ �---- _ _.—__ . .�_._.._—__ ' _�—_._ _.------ '5 Minimum front 50' 35' 35' 25' 20' � 15' ;yard* i !New � �subdivisions of � ;5+ lots i ;Infill and Setbacks listed above or the average setback of structures to � !additions the street on either side and direcUy across block front for � � properties in the same district. � � 6. Minimum �30' � 10% of 10% of 5' one side, Infill = 5; ' S ' �interior side yard ;lot width lot width 10' other New �setback' � side (for lots subdivision � i < 12,000 sq. = 5' one i � ft. use SF) side, 10' I ; , other side � ;7. Minimum 30' ; 15% of 15% of 15' TS' 10' � �street side yard ' lot width lot width (setback` �� 8. Minir�— mum rear 50 40' 25' 20' 10' (1- i0' (1- yard setback' (For lots < story) 15' story) 12,000 sq. (2-story) � 15' (2- ; t j ft. use SF) story) � t9. MBXimum lot 35% 35% 35%0 30% (Fo� 40% 40% �coverage° ; lots <10,000 �� t i sq. ft. use � � ! i SF) i i10. Maximum 30' or 2 stories, whichever is less, 14' for accessory buildings. � �height for i ;buildings and i ;structures ? � _..- ------ ------ ------ __--___ .�_._._ ---------� _ . __._......_— j11, Minimum 20' ' 20' 6' 10' 10' � 10' j �distance �between building �(inciuding main � � jdwellings and � �accessory j , istructures)8 j i � Amend Notes to Tables 16.32.050-A and 8: Residential Site Development Standards * Infill development on a parcel within a previousiy approved project. Where the city has established specific setback requirements for single-family or multifamily residential parcels through the approval of a specific plan, subdivision map, planned unit development or other entitlement, those setbacks shali apply to infill development and additions within the approved project instead of the setbacks required by this title. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 6 EXHIBIT "A' a On sloping terrain, standards for�e4 lot size shall increase with increasing slope as provided in Table 16.20.050-A. ^ *'^^ � ^•°^ ° ��°' `.� `.!'° �'.-.- � y..... Chapter 16.56 PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS (IN PART) Amend Section 16.56.020.A.3., and B. A. General Requirements 3. For ali development other than a single-family residence, where it is not feasible to provide sufficient on-site parking on a parcel when an addition or enlargement of an existing building is proposed, approval of a vafiaflee conditional use permit application feques! shali be required for consideration of alternatives includinq, but not limited to, shared aarkinq or aublic transit. Where it is not feasible to provide sufficient on-site parking on a parcel when an addition or enlargement of an existing single-family residence is proposed, approval of a minor exception request shall be required. Concurrent processing of all related applications shall occur in accordance with Section 16.12.070 of this title. B. Village Parking and Business Improvement District. For the area within the boundaries of the parking and business improvement area for the viilage, off- street parking facilities or the payment of in-lieu fees, as established by resolution, shall be provided as follows: 1. Outdoor dining areas, limited to twenty-five (25) percent or less of the total gross square footage of the enclosed area of qross floor area accessible to the aubiic tkae use, shall be excluded from the requirements to provide off-street parking facilities or to pay in-lieu fees. For the purposes of calculating off-street parking requirements, outdoor dining area must be non-air-conditioned or heated and without wall enclosures. Any outdoor dining area in excess of twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross square footage of the enclosed area of rg oss floor area accessible to the aublic t#�e use shail be required to provide only the additional number of parking spaces for the incremental square footage over the twenty-five (25) percent. 2. Existing buildings that are remodeled or enlarged shall not be required to provide parking if the increase in the square footage is less than three hundred (300) square feet. If the addition is greater than this amount, or if it is the construction of a new building, off-street parking shall be required consistent with the following: a. Off-street parking facilities consistent with requirements of Section 16.56.060; or ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 7 EXHIBIT "A' b. Payment of an in-lieu fee based on the total number of parking spaces required by Section 16.56.060; c. A combination of off-street parking facilities and payment of an in-lieu fee may be permitted. Amend #3 in the chart contained in Section 16.56.060 Off-street parking requirements by land use. The following off-street parking requirements shall apply to all buildings erected and new or expanded uses. Where the total requirements result in a fractional number, a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be rounded to the higher whole number. For any use not specifically set forth in this section, the planning commission shall determine the amount of required parking based upon similar uses, or evidence of actual demand based on traffic engineering or planning data. The applicant shall provide the necessary data and background information. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS ---------_ _�_—____—_ — -- '1. RESIDENTIAL USES NOTE: Parking required for ' residential use in mixed use projects does not have to be covered. a. Single-family homes '!Conventional size lot 2 spaces per unit within an , enclosed garage. Small lot (PUD) 2 spaces per unit within an ' enclosed garage and 0.5 ' space/unit for visitor parking. ,_ __ __ _ --__ , ------- _..._._ ----- ------ .-- b Duplexes 2 space per unit within an enciosed garage and 1 uncovered space per unit. 'a Second residential units 1 uncovered space per unit. 'd. Townhouse and condo- miniums (Attached ownership � �units) RESIDENT AND VISITOR � PARKING ,_. _.....--- --.....-- ---: __� ------.�_ ---.._..----- _..------- Studio 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage. -------. _ . --- . --- ---------------- ------------- - ,1 bedroom 1 space per unit within an enclosed garage and .5 � uncovered spaces per unit for ' developments over four units. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 8 EXHIBIT "A' !2+ bedrooms� 2 spaces per unit within an enclosed garage and 0.5 ' uncovered space per unit for , developments over four units. ;e. Apartments and multifamily � dweliings (rental units) — . _.__.._._ . -------- _....._ ... _......_.. ----f--...._..---- --..._..— —----------. RESIDENT PARKING � Studio 1 covered space per unit. ;1 bedroom 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 ' uncovered space per unit for developments over four units. - .. . _......---._ . __.... _........_ ___ - ------------ ,------- 2+ bedrooms ' 2 covered spaces per unit and .5 �unit for developments over four units. f. Senior housing - independent ;living � RESIDENT PARKING: ,Studio 1 covered space per unit. ;1+ bedrooms � 1 covered space per unit. Ig. Senior housing--Assisted living 1 uncovered space per 3 beds and 1 space per employee on the ; largest work shift. !h. Mobilehome parks 2.5 uncovered spaces per unit. i. Large family day care facilities 1 uncovered space per staff person other than the homeowner ' in addition to the required parking for the residential building. 2. PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC ,r� USES � --- ------ a. Public buildings - administrative 1 parking space/150 sq. ft. of work space. 'b. Public and semi-public ' 1 parking space/5 fixed seats, or 1 !buildings - assembiy (including ' parking space/50 sq. ft. of floor auditoriums, theaters, lodges, ' area designed for public clubs, churches, mortuaries) assembly. _. . .--......_ ___. .------ _- --- -- -----------------. -- 'c Hospitals 1 space/bed and 1 space/doctor or employee on the largest shift. -- -- _�_ d. Convalescent hospitals ' 1 space/3 beds and 1 ' space/doctor or employee on the largest shift. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 9 EXHIBIT "A' e. Public utility buildings without 1 parking space/2 employees on :on-site offices the largest work shift. -______-- ------._ _______.__�--------�--- , ------__._--- f. Schools Grade schools, elementary, junior 1 parking'space/classroom and ;high schools office for faculty and employees. 'High schools, colieges 1 parking space/classroom and office for faculty members and employees, and 5 parking spaces/classroom for students. __.___._------ ---.__ _.�—_ ____ - Vocationai, business, trade ', 1 parking space/3 students of the schools maximum classroom capacity and 1 space/faculty, staff and employee. ;g. Child care facilities 1 parking space/employee or teacher and 1 space/5 children. ----_ _ __ _ ,�- — ------_ __:.--- ----_ _..._.__.: - !3 COMMERCIAL USES 'a. General retail, services, office ' 1 parking space/250 sq. ft. of and commercial gross floor area. b. General retail afld office, 1 parking space/300 sq. ft. of services, restaurants and bars gross floor area accessible to ,eRI� in the Viflage Core Downtown public (excludinq restrooms.l Up ';SVCD): Villaqe Mixed Use to six (6) chairs for outdoor '' V( MU)sea�efsia! - seatinq aermitted without additional parkinq. For beautv salons, one additional oarkinq saace required for everv 3 beautv stations exceedina the first three. c. Hotels and motels 1 parking space/unit, and 2 . ; parking spaces for the manager's office. ;d. Restaurants and bars (outside ' 1 parking space/100 sq. ft. of VCDNMU districfsJ 'public area (any area accessib/e ' by the public). ; Fasf food restaurant ' 1 parking space/75 ft. of public area (any area accessib/e by fhe public.) ----- . ......------ — -- --_ _:.....------ --— - ---.....__— e Outdoor sales and rental �parking space/2,000 sq. ft. open areas, including nurseries, auto, area for the first 10,000 sq. ft. 'RV, boaf sales then 1 space/5,000 sq. ft. over ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 10 EXHIBIT "A' 10,000 sq. ft. _ ; , Open area shall include any sa/es o�ce buf sha/l not include vehicle ',repair areas. The requirement for vehicle repair facilities sha/l be in �; addition to the spaces required for ' outdoor sales and rental areas. _ _ _--- - - - ----- .._------- ------ - - _ f. Gaso/ine seivice station 3 parking spaces/working bay, 'p/us 1 parking space%mployee on the largesf shift. g. Vehicle repair 1 parking space/450 sq. ft. of floor area. !h. Bowling alleys and billiard halls 5 parking spaces per lane and 2 � , spaces per billiard table 4. INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE USES � 'a. Warehouse and wholesale 1 parking space/800 sq. ft. of ' gross floor area, or 1 parking space/employee and 1 space/company vehicle, whichever is larger. ib. Manufacturing industrial 2 parking spaces/3 employees on � 'distribution centers the largest but not less than 1 , space/2,000 sq. ft. of area used 'for allowed uses. Amend Section 16.56.080 Motorcycle parking requirements. Motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided for all nonresidential uses at the following rates: A. Uses requiring more than twenty-five (25) spaces shall provide 1 designated area for motorcycle parking afea. B. Uses with more than one hundred (100) spaces shall provide one designated area for motorcycle parking afea for each er�e-k�adfed-(�99�twentv-five (25) required automobile parking spaces. C. Motorcycle parking areas required by this title shall count toward fulfilling automobile parking spaces at the rate of one parking space per motorcycle parking area. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 11 EXHIBIT "A' Amend Section 16.56.100 Access for off-street parking facilities. The location and design of all entrances and exits onto public rights-of-way shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer so as to +as�e ensure minimum interFerence with the traffic flow and adequate site clearance. 1. For residential parking, a garage or carport shall have an unobstructed paved access with a twelve (12) foot minimum width for single-family development, and a sixteen (16) foot (� minimum width for any development exceeding three units. 2. Parking areas for thirty (30) or more vehicles shall be provided wit# more than one separate driveways for entrance and exit, and shall provide designated walkways for pedestrian access. Amend Subsections C.1.,2, and 3., D., and F. in Section 16.56.140 Off- street parking structures. C. Design ^^�'a„a-�,=.� Standards. Design and paving standards shall be subject to the requirements of Section 16.56.070 of this chapter, in addition to the following: 1. All interior and exterior wall surfaces are to be treated or designed to resist graffiti. 2. All parking structures of thiRv (301 saaces or more, shall be serviced by a minimum of two vehicular access points for ingress and egress from the street to the structure. 3. The floor-to-ceiling height shail be a minimum of tea-F40� seven 7 feet. The vertical clearance shall be clearly posted at all entrances into the parking structure. D. Special Parking Types within Structures. 1. Handicapped Parking. Handicapped parking shall be provided on the street level and located in an uncovered area. The design and provision of handicapped parking is regulated by state requirements as set forth in Section 16.56.070. 2. Recreational Vehicles. For a parking structure where the vertical clearance is less than eleven feet, six inches (11.5 ft.), the required number of recreational vehicle parking spaces pursuant to Section 16.56.090 shall be provided at street level and located in an uncovered area. F. Security Within a Parking Structure. Security measures shall be incorporated into the design of all parking structures. A security plan showing all security measures including lighting, visibility into the structure, stairways, elevators, gates and fencing shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department, police ORDfNANCE NO. PAGE 92 EXHIBIT "A' department, and the planning department, prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit. 1. Lighting. a. Parking structures shall be well-illuminated to provide security. The lighting shall be a minimum uniformly distributed forty (40) foot- candles so that dark areas are not created. Fluorescent lighting shall be used whenever feasible. b. All stainvays and elevator lobbies shall be well-illuminated and, if possible, visible to the outside. 2. Open Frontage. Open frontage to streets and buildings should be provided on as many sides of a parking structure as practicaf to facilitate observation from passing patrol cars and the general public. 3. Monitoring. Any parking structure with more than twew�y--E2�-thirt 30 parking spaces shall be monitored by either an attendant or video monitors during the hours of operation. If the facility is not fo be utifized on a twenty-four (24) hour basis, it shall be secured to prohibit entry by both vehicles and pedestrians during hours of non-operation. 4. Additional Security. Other security measures including, but not limited to, security gates and fencing shall be incorporated into the design of parking structures as deemed necessary by the approval body. � pRROy� � c� � INCORPOR�TED yZ V m * �""" ,°, ,°„ * MEMORANDUM c9��c oaN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DOUG PERRIN, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND FACILITIES �,f, SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Senrices with Commercial Maintenance Services in the amount of $4,250 per four weeks and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total annual cost for custodial services will be $55,250. Sufficient funds have been allocated in the Bi-annual Budget for Government Buildings. BACKGROUND: On April 24, 2007, the City Council approved an Agreement for Contractor Services with Commercial Maintenance Services (CMS). The agreement expired April 24, 2008. CMS has provided satisfactory senrice, has been responsive to staff concems and is willing to continue the agreement at the current cost of $4,250 per four weeks. Approval of the amendment will extend the agreement to April 24, 2009. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation to amend the agreement with CommerEial Maintenance Services; - Do not approve staffs recommendation and direct staff to issue a request for proposals (RFP); - Provide Direction to staff ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The one year Agreement for Contractor Services with CMS expired April 24, 2008. CMS is willing to continue services to the City with no increase in exchange for an extension of the contract. If the City Council does not approve the amendment, an RFP will then be sent to local contractors. However, based upon prior bids, staff believes the cost will likely be higher. While staff has experienced some minor service level issues with the current contractor, they were originally contracted with when the prior low bidder was cancelled due to service level problems. Therefore, staff believes this contractor provides the best level of service for the cost involved. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES; Approval of the First Amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Services will allow uninterrupted custodial service at the same price that was submitted a year ago. DISADVANTAGES: By avoiding an RFP at this time, there is no way to verify that the current price is the lowest possible, although staff believes issuing an RFP would result in an increased cost. In addition, there are some maintenance needs that have been identified by staff that are not addressed in the current contract. However, staff believes this not an appropriate time to add items to the contract given the existing budget constraints. 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 Thursday, May 22, 2008. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. No public comments were received. Attachment: 1. First Amendment to Agreement for Contractor Services FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES (hereinafter referred to as the "First AmendmenY') is made and entered into this of May, 2008, by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ("City"), a municipal corporation, and COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, a Sole Proprietorship (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor"). WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement for Contractor Services ("Agreement") dated April 24, 2007, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, said Agreement expired on April 24, 2008; and WHEREAS, the parties have continued to operate under the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to revive and amend the Agreement to extend the term for one (1) additional year. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and su�ciency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 1 of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety as follows: This Agreement shail commence on April 25, 2007 and shall remain and continue in effect until April 24, 2009, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the day and year first set forth above. 1 CITY CONTRACTOR By: By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor Steve Steinberger Title: Attest: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney 2 Exhibit A '� AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of April 24, 2007, between Commercial Maintenance Service ("Contractor"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation ("City"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on April 25, 2007 and shall remain and continue in effect until April 24, 2008, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES � Contractor shall perForm the tasks described and comply with all terms and provisions set forth in Exhibit "A",. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. PERFORMANCE Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in proviiiing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement 4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION City's Parks Supervisor shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. Steve Steinberger shall represent Contractor in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT The City agrees to pay the Contractor in accordance with the payment rates and terms set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof; by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides othenvise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shail not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. Page 1 (b) in the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the-City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 5. 7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events (a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; (b) Sale of Contractor`s business; or (c) Assignment of this Agreement by Contractor without the consent of City. (d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1. 8. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR (a) The ContractoPs failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shail have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default (b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause to be served upon the Contractor a written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Contractor shalL• (a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the services to be performed by Contractor under this Agreement; (b) Keep itself fully infortned of all existing and proposed federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under fhis Agreement, any materials used in Contractor's Page 2 performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this Agreement; (c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to observe and comply with ail of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above; (d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions of this Agreement. (e) The City, and its officers, agents and empioyees, shall not be liabie at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this Section. 10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS (a) Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. (b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Contractor. With respect to computer files, Contractor shall make available to the City, at the Contractor's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computerfiles. 11. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnifieation for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Contractor's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Ciry and any and all of its o�cials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and Page 3 all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Contractor, its officers, agents, employees or subContractors (or any entity or individual that Contractor shall bear the legal liability thereo� in the performance of professional services under this agreement. (b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liabilitv. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, o�cials and agents from and against any Iiabiiity (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration ,proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any individual or entity for which Contractor is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subContractors of Contractor. (c) General Indemnification Provisions. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and every subContractor or any other person or entity involved by, for,with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this agreement: In the event Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Contractor agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Contractor and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section. 12. INSURANCE Contractor shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in fulL 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (a) Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent Contractor. The personnel perForming the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers; employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any 4ime or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. Page 4 (b) No empioyee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 14. UNDUEINFLUENCE Contractor declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande wiii receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Contractor, or from any officer, employee or agent of Contractor, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and ali remedies at law or in equity. 15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES No member, o�cer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public o�cial who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project during his/hertenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the project performed under this Agreement. 16. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (a) All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written authorization. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning ihe work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order sha�l not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (b) Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to Page 5 any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 17. NOTICES Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice: To City: City of Arroyo Grande Kevin Rocha, Parks Supervisor 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 To Contractor: Commercial Maintenance Service Steve Steinberger P.O Box 261 Nipomo, CA 93444 18. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, without the prior written consent of the City. 19. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into Page 6 this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 21. TIME City and Contractor agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement. 22. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL Contractor is bound by the contents of the City's Request for Proposal, Exhibit "D"; attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the proposal submitted by the Contractor, Exhibit "E", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City's Request for Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the ConsultanYs proposais. 23. CONSTRUCTION The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate. 24. AMENDMENTS Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinq and shail be made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement. . 25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. � Page 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF ARROYO GRA DE CONTRACTOR By: ` ' BY: 7ony Ferra , yor its: �u��. r l�l.-s Attest: (Title) �UlO�� Kelly Wet ore ity Clerk Approved As To Form: Ti thy J. 0 , City Attorney Page 8 EXHIBITA SCOPE OF WORK Page 9 FACILITY: Arroyo Grande Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department Elm Street Community Center and Preschool 1221 Ash Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and Mop Clean and disinfect toilets, sinks, counter tops, urinals Refill all dispensers Clean and disinfect receptacles Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Empty and reline Deodorize Water Fountains Clean and polish TWO DAYS PER WEEK: Vacuum carpeting Mop flooring WEEKLY: Clean and detail sinks and counter tops MONTHLY: Spot clean walls and partitions Spot clean entry doors and door glass Low dusting —sills, ledges, molding, ducts, radiators, desks, furniture, picture frames QUARTERLY: High dusting — lights, vents, fixtures TWICE PER YEAR: Deep renovate grout q , � FACILITY: Arroyo Grande Police Department 200 N. Halcyon Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Kitchen Sweep and mop Ciean and disinfect all sinks, counter tops and table Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Restrooms Sweep and Mop Clean and disinfect toilets, sinks, counter tops, urinals and showers Refill all dispensers , Clean glass Clean and disinfect receptacles Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Empty and reline Deodorize Water Fountains Clean and polish TWO DAYS PER WEEK: Vacuum all flooring Spot clean carpet Clean and disinfect all sinks and counter tops WEEKLY: Entrance Sweep and mop Spot clean entry windows and door glass Kitchen Clean stove top Walls and Partitions Spot clean q . 2 MONTHLY: High dusting Low dusting QUARTERLY: Scrub tile grout q • 3 FACILITY: Arroyo Grande Fire Department 140 Traffic Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 THREE DAYS A WEEK: Entrance Spot ciean glass Spot clean entry windows Offices and Conference Room Vacuum Empty trash Feather dust desktops Polish conference table Classroom Vacuum Dust Empty trash and reline trashcans Lounge Vacuum Empty trash and reline trashcans Kitchen Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect countertops and tabletops Polish stainless steel sinks Clean stovetop Clean face of all appliances Empty trash and reline trashcans Locker Room Vacuum Empty trash Water Fountains Clean and polish Restrooms Sweep and mop . Clean and disinfect countertops, toilets, sinks and showers Clean glass Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize q. y FACILITY: Arroyo Grande Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect all toilets, sinks, urinals, countertops and receptacies Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Empty and reline trashcans Deodorize WEEKLY: Entry Spot clean entry windows and door glass Flooring Dust mop Wet mop Conference Tables Polish weekly Kitchen Clean and detail Carpeted Flooring Vacuum Sinks and Counters Clean and disinfect MONTHLY: High dust q• 5 FACILITY: Arroyo Grande Woman's Club 211 Vernon Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop flooring Clean and disinfect toilets, sinks, urinals, receptacles Wipe down walls Clean glass Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Kitchen Clean and disinfect counters and stove top Wipe down refrigerator Clean oven Trash Empty trash Deodorize Flooring Dust mop MONTHLY: Spot clean wails and partitions Spot clean entry windows and door glass TWICE PER MONTH: Wet mop floors (Dates to be determined by Facility Coordinator) TWICE PER YEAR: Deep renovate grout `I � �O FACILITY: Arroyo Grande Corporate Yard 1375 Ash Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 MONDAY,WEDNESDAY, FRIDAY: Entrance Spot clean entrance windows Vacuum throw rugs Sweep and mop Offices Vacuum Clean chairs Dust window sills, desks, office equipment Empty trash and reline trashcans Conference Room Dust window sills Ciean chairs � Spot clean windows Sweep and mop Cleah and polish conference table Empty trash and reline trashcan Uniform Closet Area/Washroom . Sweep and mop flooring Clean and disinfect countertop and sink area Empty trash and reline trashcans Water Fountains Clean and polish Restrooms Sweep and mop men's/vacuum women's Clean and disinfect countertops, sinks and toilets Refill all paper products Empty trash and reline trashcans �• � FACILITY: Arroyo Grande City Hall, Engineering Department and Building & Life Safety Department 214, 208 & 200 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect all sinks, countertops, toilets and urinais Clean glass mirrors Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Take out daily Reline trashcans and deodorize WEEKLY: Dust all o�ces, windowsills, picture frames, baseboards Spot clean entrance windows and door glass Clean and disinfect all sinks and countertops Clean and descale drinking fountains Vacuum and mop all flooring MONTHLY: Spot clean walis and partitions High dusting —walls, vents, fixtures � • b FACILITY: Community Resource Center 910 Rancho Parkway Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 TWO DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect sink, countertop, toilet Clean glass mirror Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Empty, reline trashcans and deodorize Office Vacuum MONTHLY High and low dust q . q EXHiBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE Page 10 2006 BID PRICING SCHEDULE COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE WEEKLY MONTHLY CITY HALL $112.50 $450.00 ENGINEERING DEPT $56.25 $225.00 BUILDING 8 SAFETY � $56.25 $225.00 COUNCIL CHAMBERS $112.50 $450.00 E�M STREET $135.00 $540.00 CORP YARD $67.50 $270.00. WOMEN'S CLUB $135.00 $540.00 POUCE DEPT $270.00 $1,080.00 FIRE DEPT $67.50 $270.00 $1,012.50 ;4,050.00 QUOTE INCLUDES ALL MATERIALS (SPECIFIED IN BID), LABOR AND INSURANCE NEEDED TO PERFORM CONTRACT DUTIES. � � a- . EXHIBIT C INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Prior to fhe beginning of and throughout fhe duration of fhe Work, Contractor will maintain insurance in conforrnance with the requirements set forth below. Contractor will use exisfing coverage to comp/y with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth here, Contractor agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Contractor acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage �equired. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be available to City. Contractor shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance: Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. if Contractor owns no vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy described above. If Contractor or Contractor s employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Contractor shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by law with employers liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease. lnsurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are admitted carriers in the state Califomia and wifh an A.M. Bests rating ofA- orbetterand a minimum financial size VII. General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Contractor. Contractor and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Contractor. Page 11 1. Contractor ag�ees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liabifity coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Contractor also agrees to require ali Contractors, and subContractors to do likewise. 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Contractor, or Contractor's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Contractor agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require ail Contractors and subContractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has npt been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate sacalled "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any Contractor or subcontractor. 6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Contractor shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect Citys protection without City's prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Contractor's generai liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no . replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Contractor or deducted from sums due Contractor, at City option. 8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any cancellation of coverage. Contractor agrees to require its insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will "endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate. Page 12 9. It is acknowiedged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage required to be provided by Contractor or any subContractor, is intended to apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self insurance available to City. 10. Contractor agrees to ensure that subContractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requiremenis of this section. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subContractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 1 1. Contractor agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it , will not allow any Contractor, subContractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Contractor's existing coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At the time the City shail review options with the � Contractor, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverege, or other solutions. 12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Contractor ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Contractor, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increase benefit to City. 13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards perFormance of this Agreement. 14. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirements in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 15. Contractor will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. � Page 13 16. Contractor shali provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or repiaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Contractor's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration of the coverages. 17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Contractor under this agreement._Contractor expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents. 18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of ciarification only as it pertains to a given issue,. and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-indusive. 19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. 20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sectbns and provisions of ihis Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Section. 21. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 22. Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Contractor arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. Page 14 EXHIBIT D CITY'S REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Page 15 �� `�' P.O.Box 550 (xj?4�� _ 1221 Ash Street �J Arroyo Grandq CA 93421 Phonr.(80�4715474 PARKS AND RECREATION FAX:(80�A715479 &Mail:sgeity@arroyo�randaoq , NOTICE OF INVITATION TO BIDDERS SEP7EMBER 27, 2006 The City of Arroyo Grande is requesting bids for contract custodial services ior City- operated facilities. The contractor must fumish all supplies and labor necessary to pertorm alf related duties associated with this proposaL Proposals shall be sealed and on company letterhead with the envelope marked "Bid Proposal' Bid proposals will be accepted until 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 12, 2006. Please submit your sealed bid ta Keily Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services 214 E. Branch Street/ P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 On Friday, October 6, 2006, Parks Supervisor Kevin Rocha will conduct a pre-bid tour for bidding contractors of the proposed facilities. The tour will begin at the Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department, 1221 Ash Street. Please arrive at 10:00 a.m. Gluestions conceming bid proposals are to be directed to Daniel Hemandez, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities, at 473-5474, or Kevin Rocha, Parks Supervisor, at 473-5470. REQUIREMENT5: 1. Show evidence of liabiliry and Workers' Compensation Insurance; (Refer to enclosed sample copy of the Agreement for Contractor Services for amounts and further requirements.) 2. Obtain a City business license; ' 3. Provide a breakdown of costs based on duties assigned per the attached facility requirements; 4. Contractor is responsible for providing all cleaning suppties, paper products, trash bags, etc; 5. Contractuai employees are subject to a police background check. BID PROPOSAL MUST WCLUDE: 1. Written schedule of days and times specific facilities will be cleaned and maintained; 2. Name,address and phone number, 3. Three bcal references of current or previous clients; 4. Authorized signature. C:\Documents and SeHings\DPerrinlLocal SettingslTemporary Intemet Files10LK2�2006CuslodialServices bidnotice.doc l �Q� � . EXHIBlT E CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL Page 16 CMS Commercial Maintenance Services P.O. Box 261, Nipomo, Ca 934-0d (805) 714-2972 October 2006 Thank you for allowing Commercial Maintenance Services to present you with our maintenance service proposal. Cleanliness and the general appearance of your facilities are of significant importance. We feel confident that Commercial Maintenance Services can exceed your expeMations. As your service provider, we will pay special attention to: ■ Proper saniGzing and disinfecting of restrooms • Restocking of paper products and supplies in resvooms ■ Close attention to details in cleaning activities in all areas Thank you for your time and look forward to doing business with you. � � . Sincerely, � Steve J. Steinberger, Owner PO Box 261 Nipomo, CA 93444 Work/Cell#714-2972 Work References : Greg Deitrich—Supervisor C&D Aerospace 805-922-5995 Tom PeHy— Maintensoce Supervisor 805-922-3343 Santa Maria Airport Joseph Hinkins— Mainline Autobody 805-925-5119 Colleen Pyle Urgentcare Center 805-922-0561 � �oa— CMS ' Commercial Maintenance Sen...es P.O. Box 261, Nipomo, Ca 93444 (805) 714-2972. Contract Service Agreement Beginning on , 2006, Commercial Maintenance Services (CMS) will provide and perform for the CIieM the services outlined in the "Facility Cleaning Schedule", a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, in the azeas to be serviced. CMS will provide all proper safeguards and shall assume all risks incurred in pedorming its services hereunder. CM5 is covered by Commercial General Liability Insurance and Workmen's Compensation Insurance, required by the state of Califomia All insurance ceriificates will be provided to client prior to start data CMS is responsible for the direct supervision of its personnel through its designated representa6ve. Supervision is included in all aspects of contract. CMS agrees that the cleaning services to be provided hereunder shall be pedormed by qualified,carefiil and efiicient employees, with the best practices and highest standards. In exchange for performance of services hereunder the Client shall make payment to Commercisl Maintenance Services at the rate of S 4,050 (four thousand fifty) per month. First billing will be made on the first day of services and will be payable in 14 days. Subsequent billings and due dates wili be monthly (every four weeks). FoRy five (45) hours a week will be provided for above price(divided by three(3)employees). If either party in this contract fails to pedorm accordingly, the party claiming non- performance will send the other party written notice via certified mail explaining the non- performance. That party will have (15) fifteen days to remedy the non-performance. If the rion-performance cacuiot be coaected the party claiming non-performance may terminate this Agreement by sending the non-performing party a thirty (30) day wririen notice via registered mail. In witness whereof,parties have agreed to services to begin on the date mentioned above. Contract Start Date: Todays Date: Signed By: On behalf of Address: Signed By: Commercial Maintenance Services Address: P.O. Box 261,Nipomo, Ca 93444 ' I �� /�.. 2006 BID PRICING SCHEDULE COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE WEEKLY MONTHLY CITY HALL $112.50 $450.00 ENGINEERING DEPT $56.25 $225.00 BUILDING & SAFETY � $56.25 $225.00 COUNCIL CHAMBERS $112.50 $450.00 ELM STREET $135.00 $540.00 CORP YARD $67.50 $270.00 WOMEN'S CLUB $135.00 $540.00 POLICE DEPT $270.00 $1,080.00 FIRE DEPT $67.50 $270.00 $1,012.50 �4,050.00 QUOTE INCLUDES ALL MATERIALS (SPECIFIED IN BID), LABOR AND INSURANCE NEEDED TO PERFORM CONTRACT DUTIES. 1l0 �� A`NTENAN�E $ERdICE EDUI.E - COM�ERGIAL M �RIQAY pV�['�( SGH THUR�DAY WEDNESDA`l ��.r,�HA►-►� SUESDAY ��(HALL ENGINEERiNG DEPT N��N�AY CtT�HALL ENG►NEEAING DEPT g�1�DING d�PT CITY HALL BU11.D{NG DEP7 BERS COUNCIL CHAMB�RS ENGINEERING DEP'[ CouµCi`GHA� Cm(NA1-� ENGINEERING DEPY BUILDING DEP7 B�RS p��ES PERFORMED gV�LDING�E M�ERS COUNCIL�H� BE�EE�y TH�HOURS ENGINEERING DEPT �oUNGN.CHA DU'(1ES PERFORME� g 11 PM BUI�D111G DEPT a�EEN TµE NOURS pF 5 PM COUNCtiL CHAMB�RS DUtIES PERFaHOUR5 g ti1 PM p�'t1ES PEAFORMED BE,�EN ZµE pp 5 PM EMP DU'f�ES PERFOR�� B�EEN SHE HOURS pF 5 PM&�i PM CEN'�ER B��N TµE HOURS pF 5 PM&11 PM ELM ST REG #1 �� pM ELM ST RE��ENTER WOM�K�S �WB OF 5 PM� CEN7ER �g CLUB EI.M S'[ RE� WOMEN CORP YARD ELM SS REG CENTER W�MEK.g C4UB �►.NI St RE� ��NTER WOMEN'S��UB CORP YARD FORMED WOMEMS CLUB DU�ES Q� ��OU�S YARD p��Eg PERfORMED B�E�N Tt1 CORP OF 5 PM a ti 1 PM ��yJEEN'TNE HOURS DUTIES PERFORMED g 11 PM DU'T1ES PERFORMED B�rnEEN S}{E HOURS OF 5 PM � B�E��IE HOURS pF 5 PM 61 ti PM 6' �Mp ou�rtES p�RFOaMED pOIiCE DEPT � #� 8E'TWEEN jHE NOLRS OF 5 PM&11 PM OF 5 PM&11 PM POLIGE DEPT POU�E�EPt FIRE D�PT - (�'N�cE pOLtCE DEPY WEEKtY�u71ESl POI.ICE DEPt FIKE DB4'f- (�tiGE WEEKLY DU71ESl pU71E5 PERPOROURS �K`Y B�ryVEEN THE ri FiRE�EPT.• M� p�171E5 PEaFO DURS �F 5 PM&11 PM pEfiFORMED @E.�y,�EENj�EN DUTIE51 Du'f1ES g 11 PM BETNE�NTN6NQURS p�5PM TIAL � pUT1ES PERFONOURS af 5 PM��1.PM .rO P(�TEN BE.�,�EEN THE �P DUTIES PERFORMED pF 5 PM a 11 PM $CH�17ULE.SUB�EC+� 8H'NJ6EN�E HOURS g g?ATED� #3 pF 5 PM&ti 1 PM E�N TNE HO�R ED aE�TOR UPON AGREEMENT. ALLTASKS Wlld.BE PERFOND CCJN �uoNGE 6�'CW�EN GTY f. CMS Commercial Maintenance Services � P.O. Box 261, Nipomo, Ca 93444 (805) 714-2972 Additional information Cleaning Schedules All cleaning operations are generally performed after business hours and on weekends. All initial or special cleanings aze arranged to meet your scheduling requirements. Additional Services The following aze additional services of�'ered through Commercial Maintenance Services. • Carpet Cleaning • Upholstery Cleaning ■ Emergency cleaning(fire, flood,etc.) ■ Floor strepping and refinishing � Exterior Glass To arrange for any of the additional services listed above please contact Commercial Mainteriance Services. Additional Comments If CMS is pedorming janitoriai coneact serviccs in a1! locations a 10%discount W�II be given on all future floor and carpet renovation services after start date of this contract. l � � Rpr 19 07 03: 39p Katie Steinberser [805I 931 -0679 p. l CMS Commercial Maintenance Services P.O. Box 261, Nipomo, Ca 93444 (8�5) 774-2972 April 18,2007, Attention: Doug Pertin—Ciry of Arroyo Grande Interim Director of Parks &Faciliaes It has come to my attention that we have a small problem with the Cleaning Service Contract which I would lilcc to have addressed. I am being roquested to clean the Arroyo Crrande Community Resource Center whic6 was not included on the bid packet What I am proposing is an addifion $200.00 dollazs be added to the monthly billing. Por this increase I wiU be able to clean the Community Resource Center twice weekly. And in addition to that also increase service to the Fire Deparhnent to t}uee nights per week rather than one. T'his small increase in compensation should be enough to remedy these things wluch where overlooked. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please ca11 if you for see any pmblems that may arise. Sincerely, Steve Steinberger—Owner Ce[1 714-2972 �� l� T E pRROY� � c? � NICONGOR�TED 92 t1 m * ""' ��, ,�„ ' CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE c4��FOR��P CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, to consider the following item: 1. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC., DBA SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY SERVICE. The City Council will consider an Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection, Recycling, and Greenwaste Franchise Agreement for the collection and processing of residential and commercial solid waste, recycling, and greenwaste in the City. 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 item #1 is available by contacting the City Manager's Office at 473-5400. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. /s/ Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Publish 1 T, The Tribune, Friday, May 16, 2008 � PaROro a c,� � NICONVOAATED 92 u m * ""' 10. ,°„ * MEMORANDUM c4��FOR��P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER}�`+' v SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING AND GREENWASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DATE: MAY 27, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council continue the public hearing and consideration of the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection, Recycling and Greenwaste Franchise Agreement with South County Sanitary Service, Inc. until the June 10, 2008 meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be no financial impact to the City from postponement of this item. BACKGROUND: Representatives of South County Sanitary Service, Inc. have requested consideration of this item be postponed due to a conflict they have with another City Council meeting. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The only issue identified with regard to postponement was a concern by staff to ensure the Agreement is approved in time to obtain revenue that will be generated by the terms of the negotiation in this fiscal year. However, representatives from South County Sanitary Service, Inc. have agreed to modify the deadline for payment of negotiated fees in order to address this issue and postpone consideration of the item. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Continue the public hearing and consideration of the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Collection, Recycling and Greenwaste Franchise Agreement with South County Sanitary Service, Inc. until the June 10, 2008 meeting. - Provide staff other direction. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES Postponement of the item will enable representatives from South County Sanitary Service, Inc. to be present for the public hearing to respond to any questions or concerns the City Council may have. DISADVANTAGES No disadvantages of the proposed action have been identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was published in the Tribune on Friday, May 16, 2008. The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2008 and on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2008. RECEIVED MAY 2� 2008� ARROYO GRqNpE ��7'RATiVE8Eqy�g Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District 545 Main Street Suite B-1 Morro Bay, CA 93442 805-772-4391 May 23, 2008 The Honorable Tony Ferrara, Mayor City of Arroyo Grande 215 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM FOR THE CASTLEROCK PROJECT NEAR JAMES WAY Deaz Mayor Fe �/2�/ �^ J Thank you for providing the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the above-captioned project. We have maintained a long-standing interest in this project because of its potential effects on an important natural area within the City of Arroyo Grande and because of its proximity to Pismo Lake, an important wetland area which this District has long been involved with. We also continue to be interested because of the District's contract with the City to provide expertise in erosion and sediment control. We are pleased to see that the project has responded to a number of the issues raised in the past, but it appears that some further adjustment is still warranted to address continued impacts identified in the Addendum. When this area was firs[proposed for development in detail almost ten years ago, the City Council denied the project "without prejudice" and gave certain direction to the developer, Castlerock Homes, to avoid impacts to Meadow Creek and adjacent wetlands, oak woodlands, and the population of the endangered Pismo clarkia, which are all found there. While the current proposal for the site reduces those impacts, we.believe that more can be done to continue to reduce them and further protect the site. District Boazd Member and former Arroyo Grande Planning Commissioner Nanci Parker recendy sent a letter to the Commission and Council detailing some of these concems, which we incorporate herein by reference. We urge the Council to again direct the developer to"keep going" to achieve further reduction of impacts to a level acceptable to the community. Thank you. Sincerely, .��,��c-� Neil Havlik, President Board of Directors AG City From: cathy velardi [mrdrytr@sbcglobal.netJ Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 2:09 PM REC€IVED To: AG City MAY 2 71008 Subject; Castlerock application AAROYp GRANDE To the Arroyo Grande City Council: ADMINISTRAl1VE SERVICES and Steve Adams, City Manager Yesterday I watched a terrific display of life imitating art: The neighborhood Road Runner being pursued by a creature who was surely Wile E. Coyote through the Open Space Formerly Known as Tract 1998. For the fifth time since i've lived in the Highlands, Mr. Shetler is again bringing a ridiculous proposal before you. The questions of mitigation asked in his previous appearances have not yet been answered. How can he cut down even one mature oak tree when we, the people who have bought his homes, aren't permitted to cut saplings more than four inches in diameter? How is he permitted to build a road over Meadow Creek's unique wildlife habitat, cutting off access to water and free passage for deer and other residents of these wetlands? Aow can he be allowed to cheapen Rancho Grande with these condo like homes on tiny lots, reducing the value of every home in The Highlands?And given the current climate in the real estate market, who does he think will buy these homes, some of which will perch upon a steep hill while others will be down in a dank, humid, chilly hole. He must be daft to believe such units will sell when the new structures across La Canada on Rosemary Court have been sitting with their $1 million plus rpicetags for nearly a yeaz. � � I am not a NIMBY: my viewshed will not be affected by these homes (although my ears will be assaulted by the constant building noise) . My husband was a member of the Planning Commission in Ukiah, Mendocino County, and faced hard decisions. I covered the Board of Supervisors for the Mendocino Grapevine, and wrote about growth issues for nearly ten years in the '70s and '80s. And believe me, this development is not worth the trouble, legal, financial, and emotional, that it will eventually cause you. Let Wile E and the Roadrunner fight their battles in peace. Kathleen B. Velardi � � 593 Rosemary Lane Arroyo Grande 481-7891 � � Page 1 oT i Kelly Wetmore RECElYED �"LLY QFAR�nvn r,Ha��,E From: Douglas Tait[dougtaitQsbcglobal.net] �$�AY 2� PM G� 09 Sent: Tuesday, May 27,2008 3:56 PM To: Kelly Wetmore Cc: dougtai!@sbcglobal.net Subject: Last minute questions and concerns re:Tract 1998 Hi Kelly, After going through the staff report yesterday, I have come up with these ques6ons and concems that I will not have time to address at the meeting tonight. Could you get these to the members of city council for their review. • Thanks, Doug Tait Doug c : c�� c�� c�� -�-- ,��. ��,� 5,2�,2��$ Questions and concerns from staff report. For May 27, 2008 C.C. Meeting Staff report, page 3: The current project plans still require considerable engineering to address grading concerns. Staff report, page 6: Retaining wall height limited to 4 ft. However they may be terrace stacked to reach greater heights. . .how high can they go? Page 6, bottom paragraph: . . ."requires buildings and improvements to be located outside the drip line of oak trees." A good rule of thumb is to leave the tree's root protection zone (RPZ) undisturbed. This area, which is 1.5 times larger than the area from the trunk to the drip line, is the most critical to the oak. —from the CA Oak Foundation. Page 6, bottom: What are the "similar constraints" from the photo shown on p. 7 regarding custom residential development on Tract 1997? I do not believe there is a wetland/riparian constraint, Pismo clarkia constraint, and the lots on tract 1997 are much larger with much larger setbacks than the proposal on tract 1998. Page 7. Offsite emergency access. " . . .is important in providing great/y improved circulation to the surrounding neighborhood." Beside emergency fire circulation I am not sure what "improved circulation" is referring to? Page 8, water well. Potable water? Negative impacts to wetlands/riparian by using this well? The area within lot 16 (O.S. lot)for a possible future treatment facility and related infrastructure? New news to me! Impacts from treatment facility to the O.S.? HOA and long term mainUenforcement. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable per CEQA Section 15126.4(2). Top of page 10 is way off base! David Wolfe, at the May 6, 2008 P.C. meeting stated the "gully' is not a significant source of sediment and silt to Meadow Creek. Page 12, middle of first paragraph regarding the correct CEQA document: "In this case, no new significant effects resulted from the project revision from 36 Eo 15 unifs." When was the filling of the "gully" was first disclosed? For which alternative? In the RFSEIR Addendum Feb 2005 page 15, (which was denied on Dec. 13, 2005) it is mentioned for the reduced density development proposal (21 units). It is mentioned because in the reduced density proposal lots 11-16 were adjacent to the "gully" that is identified as riparian habitat. `The area would be filled and thus would not be subject to the riparian setback." However, no mention as to not be subject to steep slope constraint, is this a new mitigation? I believe the filling of the jurisdictional drainage, and thus not be subject to the steep slope constraint, may be a new significant environmental effect, (a major change) as defined on page 14. The RFSEIR 2"d Addendum is the first time this is mentioned in a CEQA document. Response from Rincon would be helpful. 1 Page 12, 3rd paragraph: "Importantly, the impact fo Pismo clarkia habitat has been reduced from a Class 1 impact to a C/ass ll impact. All known populations of Pismo clarkia and the 50-ff required buffer are avoided. . ." This needs verification as the map I will present does show an occurrence of Pismo clarkia that may be within the 50 ft. setback. Page 15: The oak mitigations are not correct? Deep rooted seedlings preferred at P.C. and advocated by Dave Ragan. Questions on Conditions of Approvai: #7 Special Permits required from various responsible agencies. Consider adding to list letter (e), "determination by DFG and/or Army Corps on jurisdictional status of riparian drainage proposed to be filled." #9(c): Environmental impacts at this area from proposed infrastructure? #11 Off site Improvements. Page 77 of 135. Wording is troublesomei "Prior to building permit issuance. . . applicanf shall construcf a 20 ft. all-weather emergency access road." That reads to me that the road will be constructed prior to the building permit. Tentative approval from the city council is not advised untii all permits and agreements are received. #13: "Construction of the public improvements shall be exempt from the requirements of the Design Manual." Public improvements to be exempt? #16: "All walls shall not exceed 4 feet in height." Walls can be terraced, stepped back at 2 ft. increments, and stacked to what max. height? #22: Provision in the CC+R's to allow the city to enforce the CC+R's. Does the city really want to get involved in enforcing HOA CC+R's? What city dept. will provide the enforcement? The police? Code enforcement? Impact on city staff? #28 Fuel Modification. 28ii: "100 foot clearance to be cut on the uphill slope connecting to the Sombrillo properties." The Sombrillo properties are on Tract 1834 east, not on the proposed site. Although this may be a good condition for fire safety, how is a COA, on another tract, act as a mitigation for the proposed project? If recommended for increased fire safety, why is the 100 ft. required downslope of the homes on Sombrillo, but no 100 ft. clearance downslope on the proposed lots of tract 1998? With a 100 ft. clearance will oak woodlands be negatively impacted off of Sombrillo? 2 #28iv: `S4fter Sept. 1St the middle meadow is to be mowed fo 4"in height." In the Draft Declaration of CC+R"S, Open Space Management Plan 11.0 Maintenance Schedule — the fuel modification for the Pismo clarkia protection zone is "mowing within identified boundaries to 6". What is the rationale for changing the mowing height from 6" to 4"? Does Pismo clarkia always set seed after Sept. 1S�? #51: `7'he applicanf shall clean the culvert that crosses La Canada." Who has been responsible to maintain that culvert for wildlife movement? I understand that this wildlife crossing has been choked with vegetation which thus acts as a barrier to wildlife movement. Questions from "Proiect Description. Dec. 2007. Vestinq Tentative Tract Map. Tract 1998." Under Project Submittal, page not listed: `: . . the filling of the gully resu/ts in a significant benefit that is two-fold. First it will create a solid foundation for the proposed improvements. . .Second if will cut off a consistent and natural erosion source of sediment and silt that contributes directly to Meadow Creek." The 2nd benefit has been dispelled in statements by David Wolfe and corrected in the minutes of the May 6, 2008 P.C. meeting. Add the recommendations from the Padre Associates memorandum regarding wildlife habitat and corridors. Also add the recommendations from David Wolfe's Wildlife Corridor and Movement Design Considerations to the COA's and / or mitigations. Page 47, 13.3 Tree Preservation. Concern with "Regulated Tree" meaning coastal live oaks that measure 12" at dbh. A property owner can cut, trim, prune, or remove a coast live oak that is under 12" at dbh? 11.0 Maintenance Schedule, p. 61. It needs to be asked of David Foote, David Wolfe, or Kevin Merck if they agree it is environmentally sound to prune or remove vegetation under oaks and within 10 feet of tree's canopy. And is it environmentally sound to remove the topmost layer of decomposed pine or leaf droppings in the oak woodland vegetation management zone as prescribed in the Maintenance Schedule? Isn't the preservation of an oak's understory species important, and the decomposition of organic matter important to the soil, etc.? As proposed, do 5 feet side yard setbacks provide useable yard space? Section 10 — Draft Educational Materials, Pet and Safety Management: Are the following measures enforceable? - access to the permanent open space is prohibited. - Individual property owners are responsible for ensuring domestic pets remain secure within the property boundaries, or on a leash. 3 - No domestic pets are allowed in the permanent open space. Cats and dogs found within the permanent open space shall be subject to impoundment by Animal Services. 4 E piiR0�0 � c? � INCONVORAiED 92 u ,°„ # ,nxv �o. ie�i * � CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 9��FORN�P CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, to consider the following item: 1. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001; APPLICANT: CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. The City Council will consider a revised application to subdivide a 26.9 acre parcel in the Rancho Grande Planned Development District 1.2 into 15 clustered single-family residential lots and one 22-acre permanently preserved open space parcel. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the previously certified revised final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was prepared. 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 item #1 is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. /s/ Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Publish 1 T, The Tribune, Friday, May 16, 2008 � pRROy� ° �� FINCONPORATEO 92 U m # du�v io. ien * c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO�� BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER'r� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001 (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRACT 1998) TO SUBDIVIDE A 26.9- ACRE PROPERTY INTO FIFTEEN (15) RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND A TWENTY-TWO (22) ACRE PERMANENTLY PRESERVED OPEN SPACE PARCEL DATE: MAY 27, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider Addendum No. 2 to the previously certified Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (RFSEIR) and project plans for the revised 15-lot subdivision and planned unit development. The Planning Commission recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001 to subdivide a 26.9-acre property into fifteen (15) residential lots and a twenty-two (22) acre permanently preserved open space parcel (the project) with the included CEQA and project findings, conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact at this time. BACKGROUND: The site is located within the approximate 465-acre Rancho Grande Planned Development 1.2 (Rancho Grande) and accessed by a proposed public street called Blossom Valley Road from La Canada at the north-west portion of the site. Surrounding land uses include low density residential (Easy Street area)to the north and portions of the Rancho Grande Planned Development on the remaining sides: the Las Jollas (Tract 1997) and the Highlands (Tract 1834 phases 1-4) residential subdivisions to the west; phase 5 of the Highlands to the east; and the Los Robles subdivision including the open space area commonly known as the James Way Habitat to the south. The site is currently vacant and includes a segment of an unnamed tributary that functions as the east fork of Meadow Creek. Site topography and vegetation consists of a riparian corridor, rolling grasslands and steeply sloped banks thick with native shrubs and oak trees. (Site plans are included in Exhibit "C" to the attached Resolution, including the applicants detailed project CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 2 description, studies, CC&Rs, draft open space and vegetation management documents and design manual.) � .,� , P ��# �'� , � - - ' ' � i N,� i ;, �,� : � o` � . P ..-.. �� . • � I : . .,:� .. ... i :d � '+� ' s r� . p t: � �_,t� � ' I. �� .�� !� �� 1��i` � � �N i U I I Y g � �p 4 I� � r �RRY I s _ '�li y;+a � h.s � �.- � I r� y� 4 � �� 1��' �.:.,7' �' w/"�,.1 � ?f�..'� s, '�p,�,� '�iz . �� Aa 5 . . . '"�L' g�,�'� '4 JAME f'4z��'�,nM�,..�T..�� 'i*,,;y � .; � Figure 1 Previous Public Hearinqs The Planning Commission considered a 21-unit project on May 3, June 7, September 20 and October 4, 2005 and recommended denial of the project as proposed, recognizing that the project, as revised to address environmental constraints identified in the SEIR, did not provide for mitigation to the fullest extent feasible and the findings as required by CEQA could not be met. In effect, the Planning Commission consensus specified that although the project was not able to avoid all significant impacts, it could be modified to more substantially reduce the magnitude of those impacts (Attachment 1- a.). On November 22, 2005 and December 13, 2005, the City Council considered a proposed 21 unit project on the 26-acre property at James Way and La Canada. Generally, discussion at the public hearings for the proposed 21 unit project focused on the configuration of proposed development and infrastructure and the resulting significant environmental effects. Concerns centered upon where the proposed project S:1Communify DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTMIVTTM O1-001(T1998)120081CC05D081CC SR 052708 Fnal.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27,2008 PAGE 3 met required mitigation as prescribed in the project EIR (see discussion below), particularly with respect to oak tree removal, riparian and wetland habitat and avoidance of a protected plant species known as Pismo clarkia. The mechanism and feasibility of long term site monitoring was also discussed (Attachment 1b). Ultimately, the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the proposed 21-unit project, without prejudice. Denial of a project without prejudice means that the applicant is able to modify the proposal considering the findings made by the City Council and return to the City Council for consideration of a modified project within one year and maintain the project's original vesting status. On December 13, 2006, the applicant submitted a revised project description for a 17-unit project addressing the concerns raised by the City Council (see applicant letter dated March 27, 2007 in Attachment 3). A pre-application was presented to the City Council on April 10, 2007 for the 17-unit project. The current proposal for 15 units (Exhibit "C") includes a revised design and lot reduction in response to specific City Council concerns expressed at the 2005 public hearing and more specifically, the 2007 pre-application hearing (Attachment 1c.). The project plans required considerable engineering re-design to address grading concerns. The Planning Commission reviewed the 15-lot revised project on May 6, 2008 (Attachment 1d). The Commission discussed project improvements due to the revised project design, chiefly the elimination of CEQA classified class I impacts, and the reduction of lots in environmental sensitive areas. The Commission's discussion included the proposal of "custom lots" that rely on the procedural and substantive requirements of the Design Manual compared to pre-designed tract homes; the sloped lot concept versus the terraced and retained flat pad design, and the remaining environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures. Concerns included the proposal to fill the gully at the northern portion of the site and potential resultant impacts to drainage and Meadow Creek; oak trees impacts and requirements due te steep slopes. The Commission voted 2-1 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. Rancho Grande Master Plan The development of Rancho Grande evolved from a concept of mixed residential and commercial uses in the middle of the 1970's and included several tracts of single family residential development at various densities, as well as town-homes proximate to commercial development at and adjoining the location of the current Five Cities Center. In 1978, the City approved a master development plan for Rancho Grande, Ordinance 186 C.S., indicating 394 residential units within the area of Tracts 1132 (134 lots), 1834 (220 lots) and 1998 (40 lots) and up to 133 residential units for the vicinity now known as Tracts 1994, 1997, and Parcels 10 and 11 for a total of 527 units (Attachment 2-a). In 1983, a Development Agreement was approved for Rancho Grande (expired in 1998) consistent with the Rancho Grande Master Plan (Attachment 2b). Subsequent development in Rancho Grande, excluding the remaining undeveloped portions (the project site and Parcels 10 and 11), has been generally consistent with the Rancho S:1Community DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTM1V77M 01-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708(nal.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTMIPUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 4 Grande Master Plan and the Master EIR that was prepared in 1990 for the Rancho Grande Master Plan. The majority of the Rancho Grande development occurred pursuant to the development agreement with a fifteen (15) year term that spanned from 1983 to 1998. ' � �� . TRACT 1998 II�°.;�, � �PARCEL 7 ATPS 2RAC(Zl65 � SAE.II!SWAYllABItAT CHOQkAN a w PARK 0 4 1 � � f?{ � : i Many environmental constraints have historically been associated with development of the project site. Preceding development plans for the project site included clustering of residences outside of riparian and oak woodland areas. Additionally, the Master EIR for the Rancho Grande Master Plan acknowledged the potential for significant environmental impacts in that a project specific EIR was required for this site. The biological sensitivity of the site has also been acknowledged by the project applicant in an alternative offered to the City during the environmental review process that included use of the project site as a public park and utilizing the Rancho Grande Park site for residential development. This "park swap" alternative was deemed infeasible by the City since Rancho Grande Park had historically been designated as a park, not a residential subdivision; the park plan included ball fields and other recreation characteristics inconsistent with the protection of sensitive habitat of the project site; and at the time the alternative was offered, the construction of Rancho Grande Park was fully funded, fully approved and imminent. Proiect Submittal and Vestinq Status S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTM�VTTM O1-001 (T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708 final.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 5 Previous projects submitted for this site have included 40 residential units and a road connection, Rosemary Lane, to phase 5 of Tract 1834 (The Highlands) that was submitted and deemed complete in 1998, put on hold and eventually replaced by a 40- unit project configuration without the Rosemary Lane connection that was submitted and deemed complete in 2001 (Case No. VTTM/PUD 01-001). Subsequent revisions voluntarily made by the applicant to address specific impact areas and concerns during initial environmental review included reducing the number of proposed lots to 36, which is the revision upon which the project Certified Final Revised Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) is based. Due to specific site constraints identified in the SEIR, the project was revised by the applicant to include 21-units, clustered in an attempt to avoid some environmental impacts. Attachment 2c includes a project history provided by the applicant. Since the project application was deemed complete in June of 2001, prior to adoption of the 2001 General Plan update (October 2001), it is to be processed under the 1990 General Plan, in accordance with State law. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Proiect Description The revised project consists of fifteen (15) proposed residential lots that are clustered along a proposed 24 - 32-ft. wide public street called Blossom Valley Road and one large open space lot. Proposed residential lots range in size from 7,200 sq. ft. (lots 5-9) to 22,802 sq. ft. (lot 12). The proposed open space lot is approximately 22 acres and comprises about 84% of the project site. The gross project density is .56 units/acre, less than but comparable to the maximum density allowed in the City's Rural Residential district (at 1 du/acre.) However, due to the clustered configuration and proposed lot sizes, the developed portion of the site is closer in character with the Single Family Residential district. While the 17-lot version included grading terraced lots with retaining walls, this project includes the alternative of "sloped" pads (lots with over a 2% cross slope, most if not all of proposed lots), enabling custom site and home designs subject to design review and approval instead of tract homes. The project is configured to avoid most areas of the site identified during environmental review as having potential significant impacts, including the riparian corridor, wetland areas, steep slopes, and large clusters of oak trees, but infringes into the 50 ft. riparian buffer by the culvert/bridge, portions of the road and portions of three lots (Second Addendum, Attachment 7b). A discussion of how the proposed project differs from the previous project descriptions evaluated in the SEIR and First Addendum, is included in the Second Addendum to the SEIR attached as Attachment 7b. Project modifications are also summarized below: S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTMIV7TMOf-001(T1998J120081CC0527081CC SR 052708(naLdoc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 6 Number open Range of Number of class I impacts requiring a Statement of of lots s ace lot sizes Overridin Considerations* Previous project 36 62% 5,500— Two-four: impact B-4 for Pismo clarkia and (evaluated in the 40,752 cumulative impact for Biological Resources; and SEIR) sq. ft. class II impact to biological habitat(riparian buffer) and slo e that become class I if not miti ated First Reduced 21 82% 7,740— Two-four: impact B-4 for Pismo clarkia and Density project 13,462 cumulative impact for Biological Resources; and (evaluated in the sq. ft. class II impact to biological habitat(riparian buffer) first Addendum and sio e that become class I if not miti ated. CurrentProject 15 84% 7,200— None (evaluated in the 22,802 Second Addendum "= Please refer to the discussion below under"Environmental Review" Planned Unit Development The proposed design manual is a component of the Planned Unit Development project description and is intended to regulate residential design consistent with design manuals approved for other Rancho Grande developments. A description of proposed variations in standards otherwise required for the PD 1.2 district allowed through the PUD process is included in Attachment 2d. Please refer to Attachment 2e for the draft Design Manual which contains detailed information to address other requirements in addition to architectural design, including standards and processes for landscaping (native and xeroscape), hardscape, fuel modification, fencing, erosion control, tree protection, lighting, and waste management. The draft Design Manual is revised and includes several restrictions (many in response to previous review); the "guaranteed building minimum size" provision is removed; a floor area ratio requirement of 35% (for reference the standard for the Single Family district is 40%); retaining wall height is limited to 4 ft.; and building height is limited where 50% of the building cannot exceed 16 ft. for flat pads or 20% for sloped pads. Additionally, the draft Design Manual would require final approval by the Community Development Director upon a recommendation by the Architectural Review Committee prior to final tract map recordation in order to incorporate all finalized mitigation and design requirements (refer to condition of approval 14 in Exhibit "B".) Condition of Approval No. 15 requires that garages are set back 20 ft. from the front property line instead of the proposed 10 ft. front yard setback. While the draft Design Manual does not specify dimensions for building envelopes, its does specify setbacks for each lot, requires buildings and improvements to be located outside the drip line of oak trees, and requires structures to be located outside areas of slopes in excess of 20%, effecting a building envelope for each lot. Below is a photo submitted by the applicant of custom residential development with similar constraints on Tract 1997. Attachment 6 includes additional written information from the applicant in response to questions raised at the May 6, 2008 Planning Commission hearing for the proposed design and includes additional photos and illustrations. S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTMIVTTM O1-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708(rnal.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 7 3 ��'�v tb �Y' �l W ) 5� E i� � i1 � • �� 56 � � � ;y��,., �,�� " YuY Wildlife Corridors It is important to note that the adjacent open space lot with oak woodland for Tract 1834 — phase V (The Highlands) functions as intended by the EIR for the Rancho Grande Master Plan to connect the project site's open space oak woodland and wildlife corridor (refer to Figure 1 above.) The other wildlife corridor is along the Meadow Creek Tributary from the southern portion of the site at James Way to the northern site boundary. Aside from the bridge/culvert and associated roadway near the crossing, development is proposed outside of a 50 ft. setback from the riparian corridor. Project Enhancements Previously, the project included significant impacts related to the Pismo clarkia and "cumulative biological resources". The current project design avoids the known populations (and a 50 ft. buffer) of Pismo clarkia and lessens the overall impacts to biological resources, reducing the anticipated impacts to a level less than significant. Although required findings do not include a statement of overriding considerations previously necessary to consider project approval, the project includes three components that are included for project feasibility in order to address project concerns expressed by the City Council (please refer to Special Conditions Nos. 9 through 13 in the draft conditions of approval, Exhibit "B" to the draft Resolution). These components include offsite improvements for an emergency access road and public trail, an enhanced riparian recovery plan to improve existing conditions, and dedication of the onsite well to offset project impacts to the City's domestic water supply. Offsite Emergency Access: Because the proposed development is configured at the northeastern site edge in order to avoid Pismo clarkia constraints and most riparian and oak woodland constraints, the length of the cul-de-sac of Blossom Valley Road is longer than that allowed by the Municipal Code. The proposed construction of the offsite emergency access road is 1) needed to implement adequate emergency access for the site; and 2) important in providing greatly improved circulation to the surrounding neighborhood to significantly upgrade the public health and safety in the project vicinity. The access route is proposed to be implemented via an 18-ft. decomposed granite all weather access road at the S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTNIIVTTM O1-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708 final.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 8 end of Lot 12 through part of the projecYs open space parcel (Lot 16) at the northeastern corner of the site, through the open space parcel of Tract 1834 and connecting to Hidden Oak Road at the Hidden Oak School Site. This access would also function as a pedestrian trail that is required by the 1990 General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and Rancho Grande Master Plan. An additional access/utility easement for an alternative emergency route is proposed between Lots 2 and 3 to the project boundary, enabling possible future connection to the Easy Street area for emergency access only. Water Well: the onsite well is proposed to be re-activated and dedicated to the City as a source of water to offset the approximately 8 — 10 acre feet from the project and potentially supply additional water for the City's domestic water supply either by connecting to the City's municipal supply or to irrigate Rancho Grande Park. Approximately 35 acre feet of water would offset water used to irrigate Rancho Grande Park. The well has a potential to contribute an estimated yield of 50 -60 acre feet of potable water which could be a considerable benefit to the City's efforts toward obtaining additional water resources. Two easement areas will be dedicated to the City: an area within Lot 1 including the existing well and for an area within Lot 16 (open space lot) near La Canada and proposed Blossom Valley Road for a possible future treatment faci4iry and related infrastructure. Riparian and Wetland Enhancement Plan: Required mitigation to adequately reduce project impacts are described in the SEIR and Second Addendum and will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, Exhibit "D".) Additionally, the applicant provided a comprehensive creek enhancement strategy to address problems of sedimentation and preserve the riparian and wildlife corridor, including native plantings throughout the project area. Staff Advisorv Committee The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the proposed project in October 2007 and in April 2008. Main concerns and items discussed included emergency access, road width, grading and drainage, slope constraints, the proposed tree impact and mitigation, parking, and easements for utilities, emergency access and pedestrian trails, and fuel modification. Staff also reviewed the proposed MMRP prepared by Rincon Consultants that is attached as Exhibit "E" and includes responsible entities and timelines for each required mitigation measure. HOA and Lonq Term Maintenance of Open Space Parcel Adequate maintenance for the 22-acre open space parcel including the pedestrian trail, (in addition to maintenance that would be required by the MMRP for the protection and enhancement of the riparian corridor, areas of wetland, and habitat for the endangered plant species, Pismo clarkia) were concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and City Council in their review of the SEIR. A homeowner's association (HOA) is the S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTNIIVTTM O1-001(T1998J120081CC0527081CC SR 052708�nal.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 9 mechanism for maintenance as included in Condition of Approval No. 24 in Exhibit "B". The HOA would be required to hire and pay a consultant(s) to perform all required maintenance activities and report to the City. Such a condition would be consistent with requirement No. 17 in Ordinance 186 (PD 1.2 Zoning approval) and reporting would help enforce common requirements for other tracts in Rancho Grande (eg. maintenance of the drainage basin south of the intersection of James Way and La Canada)]. Trees Sheets 5 and 6 of the project plans in Exhibit "C" include the preliminary tree plan, identifying all oak tree locations and for most, the diameter of the tree. There are an estimated 1,260 oak trees on site. Each plan revision has reduced the number of impacted oak trees. At the City Council pre-application hearing in April 2007, tree removal remained a primary concern expressed by the public and Council. The elimination of two additional units (from the 17 unit design) and realignment of the emergency access road and the revised grading design reduced proposed trees removals from 33 to 11 and includes the protection of several older growth oak trees. Additionally, eleven oak trees are proposed to be transplanted that are generally smaller in size and that have been identified as being better candidates for transplant success. The applicanYs project description�(Attachment 2a) includes additional discussion on this issue and a letter submitted by arborist Dave Regan is included in Attachment 5. The "Gullv" Proposed lots are primarily located in the vicinity of the gully located at the northern section of the project site. The revised project extends proposed development further along the alignment of the gully to the northeastern edge of the site in comparison with previous designs. The impacts of development within or near the gully were analyzed in the RFSEIR and in the Second Addendum in accordance with CEQA requirements. No new or more severe impacts (that were not already identified in the RFSEIR) were identified (refer to Environmental Review below.) Issues regarding filling and developing in the vicinity of the gully include the potential for impacts to jurisdictional waters, fill material and how filling and re-grading the area affects City requirements for development on steep slopes. Each of these issues is addressed by proposed conditions of approval and associated mitigation measures as follows: ➢ Jurisdictional waters: Although the erosion gully is not a blue line drainage, there are potentially jurisdictional areas subject to fill that would be subject to permit conditions from the US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game and RWQCB as part of Mitigation Measure B-2(a); ➢ Fill material and slopes: Fill material will be brought in from offsite and engineered according to California Building Code and City standards. Conditions of Approval Nos. 47-49 require that final grading plans receive additional recommendations for potential liquefaction and slope stability as well as review and recommendations by the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District. Mitigation measures prohibit development of slopes over 20% due to potential impacts identified in the RFSEIR (City threshold is 25%.) The proposed S:ICommunity Deve/opmentlPROJECTSITTN]IVTTM O1-001(T1998)120081CC05D081CC SR 052708 final.doc cirY couNCi� VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 10 development does include alteration of existing steep slopes due to the topography of the erosion gully. Additionally, the Addendum identified the vicinity of proposed lots as an "erosion gully" and as such, and by iYs location, as a potential source of sediment and silt to the Meadow Creek tributary from consistent and natural erosion; although it is unknown if the gully is fully stabilized today, the proposed development would modify and address onsite erosion form this source (Attachment 7b p. 35 impact G-3.) Other sources of erosion identified by the applicanYs biologist during the May 5, 2008 Planning Commission meeting include areas of the Meadow Creek tributary that are impacted by non-native Eucalyptus trees. Fire Safetv In addition to the offsite emergency access described above, Conditions of Approval Nos. 11 and 30 (Exhibit "B") include provisions for fire-sprinklers for each residential unit. These conditions address the high potential for wildland fires in the area and the Fire Department response time associated with this area. The draft Design Manual also specifies fire safe building materials and a detailed fuel modification plan. Applicabilitv of the 1990 General Plan and Development Code Staff has reviewed the project under the applicable 1990 General Plan standards and Development Code requirements. The project is consistent with Ordinance 186C.S. for the PD 1.2 district. General Plan (1990) Conservation and Open Space Policy No. 5.2 includes special review for the preservation of biotic resources and development adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats. The findings include this consideration in light of the project redesign, supplemental riparian enhancement plan and reduced level of impacts described in the Second Addendum. Architectural Review Committee The ARC considered proposed project layout design and the draft Design Manual for the project in August, 2004 and on May 5, 2008 (Attachment 4 includes meeting notes). The intent of the Design Manual is to provide general design criteria for the residential development by addressing building pad locations, building design, site improvements and landscaping. At both meetings the ARC discussed size of homes, , building around site constraints, including slope and trees, setbacks, design and color schemes in comparison with adjacent Rancho Grande tracts, water conservation, fencing and design review process. The ARC recommended approval, with the condition that the final design manual be submitted to the ARC for final review after tract approval and each home come to ARC for design review. ALTERNATIVES: Because the site lies within the PD 1.2 district, the City Council is the approving authority for the project. The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt a resolution approving the project; S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTMIVTTM O1-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708 final.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 11 - Modify and adopt a revised resolution approving the project; - Direct staff to revise findings and return with a resolution to deny the project; - Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: With the exception of Lots 10 and 11 near Noyes Road, the project as proposed will complete the Rancho Grande Planned Development at a density less than originally conceptualized but within the intent of the original plan of clustering single family residential homes to avoid site features such as trees, the creek and slopes and provide a large open space for the wildlife corridor connection and pedestrian connection from the James Way habitat to the County area to the north and northeast. The project provides housing and improves certain site conditions including the quality of habitat and reduced erosion for the tributary to Meadow Creek through the Riparian Enhancement Plan. Additionally, the dedication of the onsite well and the improved circulation provided by extension of the emergency access offsite each contribute significantly to public health and safety concerns community wide. DISADVANTAGES: The site is considered highly constrained by various environmental habitats, and although the project is substantially reduced in density, it does require tree removals, a creek crossing, reconstructing slopes, and locating housing in proximity to rare plant species. Additionally, though impacts to the existing wildlife corridors are considered less than significant, the size of these remaining passages is reduced. Although the Addendum discloses and explains the level of significance of all potential impacts, it is the ultimately, the independent judgment of the City Council that must find that the impacts are avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level, based upon the threshold criteria and substantial evidence in the SEIR/Addendum and record as a whole. 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, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared by ftincon Consultants and extends from the EIR prepared for Rancho Grande in 1991. A draft SEIR was circulated in February 2003 and then amended and re-circulated in November 2003 to evaluate a modified project design submitted by the applicant and clarification of the biological resources analysis. The City Council certified the Revised Final SEIR (RFSEIR) on April 13, 2004 (City Council Resolution and minutes are included in Attachment 9). The certified SEIR consists of the Revised Draft SEIR (Volumes I and II) and the Revised Final SEIR. The SEIR has been previously distributed and is on file at the Community Development Department, and the San Luis Obispo County Library. A First Addendum to the SEIR was previously prepared for the 21-unit project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPRWECTSITTMIVTTM O1-001 (T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708 final.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 12 potential environmental effects associated with the reduction in the number of proposed residential lots from thirty-six (36) to the proposed project configuration of 21-lots. For the current project, a Second Addendum was prepared to compare and evaluate impacts of the 15-unit project. CEQA Section 15164 requires an addendum when the changes do not involve new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the EIR. A decision making body must consider an addendum prior to making a decision on the project. In this case, no new significant effects resulted from the project revision from 36 to 15 units. Although there are no re-circulation requirements for an addendum, it was distributed for comment. For a discussion on the statement of significance required for impact evaluation under CEQA, (eg. Class I, II and III), please refer to the Addendum in Attachment 7b. The Second Addendum evaluates each project impact identified in the SEIR in comparison with the revised project. In all cases, the project impacts were reduced in magnitude by the project revisions, but often the classification of impact was not changed. For example, Impact B-3 concerning impacts to oak trees, describes a substantially reduced impact due to the reduced number of oak trees impacted, but it is still considered a Class II "significant but mitigable" impact requiring the same mitigation measures as those required for the previous 21-unit proposal. Importantly, the impact to Pismo clarkia habitat has been reduced from a Class I impact to a Class II impact, meaning that the project redesign and remaining mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. All known populations of Pismo clarkia and the 50-ft. required buffer are avoided by proposed development and mitigation measures are included to protect the population on a 22-acre permanently preserved open space parcel. Consequently, no project specific Class i impact remains that would require the City Council to make a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the project. The Second Addendum discusses the Cumulative Biological Resources Impact that was previously categorized as a Class I impact due to the projects contribution to the loss of wildlife foraging/breeding areas and the loss of Pismo clarkia (see pages 16- 32 specifically pg, 32 Attachment 7.) This impact is reduced to a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact for the project due to the overall reduction of impacts by the re-design. Notwithstanding the environmentally beneficial project redesign, many mitigation measures remain requirements as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in Exhibit "E". Two Class II impacts associated with the project (impacts B-2 and G-4) address effects on riparian and wetland habitat, and impacts from steep slopes, respectively. These impacts are identified in the SEIR as Class II impacts because measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant These measures include a 50-ft. buffer for the protection of riparian habitat (for impact B-2) and the avoidance of slopes greater than 20% (for impact G-4). The project redesign reduces impacts in both of these categories. Although the road remains partially within the riparian corridor the S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTNIIVTTM 01-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708(nal.doc CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 13 modification for a bridge/culvert at the creek crossing exceeds the openness ratio recommended in the EIR for wildlife crossings. Additionally, the road narrows to 24 ft. in areas adjacent to the riparian corridor in order to avoid additional oak trees (refer to Exhibit "A-3.) Removal of all lots from 50ft. riparian buffer for the main segment of the on site portion of the East Fork of Meadow Creek Tributary reduces impacts and follow recommendations in the SEIR and First Addendum. However, much of the proposed development is proposed in the vicinity of a drainage gully some of which may include jurisdictional waters. Some Portions of lots 2, 4 and 5 are within the area mapped as riparian/wetland constraint within the gully. It should be noted that this area is also located near underground drainage pipes coming from adjacent properties that have recently been capped. Lot 1 is also mentioned in the Addendum (Table 2, pg. 54), however it appears that the boundary of the lot also lies on the boundary of the mapped riparian buffec For impacts regarding slope, the project reduces impacts on the natural terrain of the project site and the primary remaining areas impacting slopes greater than 20% are in the vicinity of the incised gully proposed to be modified and filled. According to the Second Addendum, filling this gully would not result in any new impacts to wetlands or jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that were not previously identified in the RFSEIR. CEQA Findinqs: In accordance with CEQA regulations, the City, as the lead agency, must approve findings specific to identified impacts in addition to other findings required for approval of a tract map and planned unit development. The proposed findings are provided in Exhibit "A" to the attached Resolution. These findings are structured to include supportive evidence for each class of impact and mitigation identified for the project from the Revised Final SEIR and Second Addendum in two categories: ❖ Findings for impacts identified as insig�ificant (Class III); ❖ Findings for impacts identified as significant but mitigable (Class II); and The City also must make findings regarding rejected project alternatives when approving a project. There were eight alternatives considered in the SEIR and weighed against project objectives. The draft Resolution contains findings for project approval considering these alternatives. The applicant had re-designed the project in an attempt to both reduce and balance between conflicting impacts, primarily biological impacts affecting Pismo clarkia habitat, riparian/ wetland habitat and oak woodland habitat. It is important to make the distinction between "feasible mitigation measures" for each of these potential impacts. For Pismo clarkia, since it is a protected endangered and rare plant species and the feasibility of long-term mitigation (from translocating seeds for example) is unknown, the required mitigation is avoidance. For riparian and wetland habitat protection, the preferred alternative is avoidance. However, there are mitigation measures that, when implemented, do provide adequate protection and offset the proposed reduction of the S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTMIVTTM Of-001 (T1998J120081CC0527081CC SR 052708 final.dx CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 14 riparian buffer area. Additionally, the mitigation also provides potential enhancements to the riparian/wetland habitat (removing non-native and increasing native plant species, increasing cover of the aquatic bed and creekbanks, for example). Such mitigation for riparian/wetland impacts are expected to increase habitat values over existing conditions after implementation (Revised Draft SEIR section 4.2-20, Second Addendum, and Second Addendum Appendix—Attachment 7. ) The draft Resolution includes findings that would be necessary to approve the project with less than significant impacts (Section 4) and findings for those impacts that are significant or potentially significant, but determined to be mitigable (Section 5). ❖ Class II impact B-2, Pismo clarkia— The SEIR including the Addendums describe the extent of Pismo clarkia occurrences on the project site. Pismo clarkia is a federally listed Endangered and State-listed Rare plant species and, as such, requires avoidance as the appropriate mitigation measure. Although the project avoids the identified areas and buffers, the Mitigation described in the Second Addendum and the MMRP (Exhibit "D") prescribe requirements for long term protection of the plant on the project site. ❖ Class II impact cumulative biological impact— As disclosed in the Second Addendum, the proposed project represents a comparative reduction in site disturbance when compared to previous project proposals and as such, reduces the magnitude of project impacts. The cumulative effect is dependant upon other proposed and approved projects in the area. Due to the loss of wildlife, wildlife breeding habitat and Pismo clarlcia habitat that would occur as a result of the project, in combination with other expected development in the area, the cumulative impacts to biological resources are identified as a Class II impact. Proposed mitigation for impacts to riparian and wetland habitat have been addressed in a "Riparian and Wetland Enhancement Plan" submitted by the applicanYs consultants David Foote of FIRMA and biologist David Wolff and reviewed by the City's Consultant (Attachment 12). The plan describes the quality of habitat and proposes enhancements that would affect the long-term viability of the riparian/wetland habitat that may not be achieved if the project is denied. The Riparian and Wetland Mitigation Plan includes an analysis for a potential "functional equivalenY' in that habitat protection may be effected by additional work to improve the habitat value ensuring the creek corridor is "as good or better" than predevelopment condition. It appears to be an issue of quality of habitat versus quantity, although "adequate" riparian/wetland enhancement is also mitigation required in conjunction with the 50-ft. buffer. ❖ Class II impact Oak trees - S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTN11V7'TM 01-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708 final.dx CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 ' MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 15 Impacts to oak trees from the project are described in detail in the SEIR and Second Addendum (impact B-3) and draft findings. Of the estimated 1,260 Oak trees on site, 11 trees are proposed to be removed and mitigated; another 11 are proposed to be transplanted (an overall reduction of 170 impacted trees evaluated in the SEIR). The project generally avoids significant stands of oaks and oak woodland habitat. Mitigation for the 11 Oak tree removals includes planting 33 15-gal. Oaks trees, and 11 additional 1-gal. Oak trees. A 90% survival rate is required 5 years after mitigation tree planting, transplanting or planting of replacement trees. Mitigation measure B-3(a) requires a pre-construction survey and tree protection plan and Mitigation measure B-3(b) requires this plan to be re-evaluated prior to the approval of grading permits, since final tract approvals (including the incorporation of measures required by responsible agencies in issuance of necessary permits) and lot build-out may affect the tree mitigation. The mitigation required for the project exceeds standards included within the City's tree protection ordinance in accordance with the certified final SEIR. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: 65 Public Hearing Notices were sent to properties within 300 feet of the project site and to members of the public who requested notice and advertisements were placed in the Tribune on April 25, 2008 for the Planning Commission hearing and May 16, 2008 for the City Council hearing; the project site was posted in accordance with City policy for Planning Commission on April 24, 2008 and for City Council on May 15, 2008. Substantial public comment relating to the project occurred during the certification hearings for the SEIR in 2003 and 2004. Staff received six letters of comment prior to the Planning Commission which are included in Attachment 7c along with comment responses by the City's CEQA consultant Rincon Consultants. An additional two letters that were spec�c to the Addendum were received at the Planning Commission and also included in Attachment 7c along with consultant responses (D. Tait and N. Parker.) An additional six letters were received at the Planning Commission hearing communicating non- CEQA related concerns (Attachment 5). These concerns include the proposed lot sizes and clustered nature of development, issues with development of other tracts in Rancho Grande, drainage from adjacent properties and environmental issues including trees, drainage, and slopes. S:ICommunity DevelopmentlPROJECTSITTMIVTTM O1-001 (T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708(nal.dce CITY COUNCIL VTTM/PUD CASE NO. 01-001 MAY 27, 2008 PAGE 16 Exhibits and Attachments: Resolution Exhibits Exhibit A - CEQA Findings Exhibit B - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit C - Project Plans A 1- A9 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and project plans Exhibit D - Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachments 1. Minutes from meetings on previous project designs a. June 7, September 20, and October 4, 2005 Planning Commission public hearings b. Minutes from the November and December 2005 City Council hearings c. Minutes from the April 2007 City Council Pre-application meeting. d. Minutes from the May 6, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Applicant Project Description a. Appendix 1 - Ordinance 186 C.S. (Rancho Grande Master Plan) b. Appendix 2 - Ordinance 302 C.S. (Development Agreement [expired]) c. Sections 1.0 —4.0 project background summary d. Sections 5.0 — 8.0 Draft Open Space Easement, CCRs, Exceptions, Drainage study e. Sections 9.0 — 11.0 Draft Design Manual, Draft Educational Materials, Draft SWPPP 3. ApplicanYs Ietter to the City Council March 27, 2007 4. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of August 9, 2004 5. Public Comment letters received at or subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing of May 6, 2008. 6. Applicant letter... 7. CEQA documents a. Revised Final Subsequent EIR [Previously distributed and on file in the Administrative Services Department.] b. Draft Second Addendum to the Revised Final Subsequent EIR c. Response to comments specific to the Second Addendum. S:ICommunity DevelopmenflPR0.lECTSITTMIVTTM O1-001(T1998)120081CC0527081CC SR 052708�nal.doc RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01- 007 LOCATED AT JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA WHEREAS, the City Council, "City Council" of the City of Arroyo Grande "Cit�' adopted Resolution No. 3740 on April 13, 2004 certifying the Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-001 and Planned Unit Development 01-001 (the "projecY'); and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on May 3, 2005, June 7, 2005, September 20, 2005 and October 4, 2005 on a previous design of the project to subdivide a 26.9-acre property into twenty-one (21) residential lots and one twenty-two (22) acre open space lot and adopted Resolution No. 05-1977 recommending that the City Council deny the project, as then proposed; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande held duly noticed public hearings on November 22, 2005 and December 13, 2005, and after reviewing and considering the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, First Addendum to the certified SEIR, and all other information and documents that were part of the public record for the project, were unable to make required findings for approval and denied the project, without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 6, 2008 and recommended approval of the revised project to subdivide a 26.9-acre property into fifteen (15) residential lots and one twenty-two (22) acre open space parcel. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, staff report, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: a. The Ciry Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of the project will not have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment; and b. that all significant environmental effects identified in the FSEIR and all documents associated therewith have been reduced to an acceptable level in that all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially reduced as determined through the findings set forth herein; and RESOLUTION N0. PAGE 2 Required CEQA Findings are attached thereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Tentative Tract Map Findings: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent, and requirements of the 1990 General Plan, and the requirements of the Development Code and Planned Development district 1.2; 2. The site, as shown on the tentative tract map, is physically suitable for the type and proposed density because the development is clustered in such a way that ali necessary easements, parking, and open space can be provided; 3. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial damage to the natural environment, including fish, wildl'rfe or their habitat as the potential impacts have been adequately mitigated to the eutent feasible; 4. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is not likely to cause public health problems; 5. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed tentative tract map or that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public; 6. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements a prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code; 7. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the proposed tentative tract map to support project development. Planned Unit Development Findings 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives and programs of the 1990 General Plan; 2. That the site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking area, loading areas, landscaping, and other features required; 3. That the site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways; 4. That adequate public services exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 development; and that the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of such public services to properties in the vicinity so as to be a detriment to public health, safety or welfare; 5. That the proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, or the permitted use thereof, and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area; 6. That the improvements required, and the manner of development, adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site, including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire and slope hazards; 7. The proposed development, as conditioned, carries out the intent of the planned unit development provisions by providing a more e�cient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which could be achieved through the application of conventional development standards; 8. The proposed development complies with all applicable performance standards listed in Section 16.32.050.E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-001/Planned Unit Development 01-001, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "B"; based upon the project plans set forth in Exhibit "C° and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roil call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. Page 5 of 135 EXHIBIT "A" DRAFT CEQA FINDINGS For the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D. 01-001 Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that the environmental impacts of a project be examined and disclosed prior to approval of a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides the following guidance regarding findings: "(a) No public agency shall approve or cazry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1)Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (2)Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3)Specific economic,legal, social, technological, or other considerations,including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides the following additional guidance regazding a Statement of Overriding Considerarions: "(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,technological,or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determinulg whether to approve the project.If the specific economic,legal, social, technological, ar other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered"acceptable." (b)When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened,the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the futal EIR and/or other information in the record.The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record." Having received,reviewed and considered the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the VT"TM and P.U.D O1-001 Project,Revised FSEIR, and Addendum to the Revised FSEIR (SCH#2001081065) as well as all other informarion in the record of proceedings on this � Prepared by Rincon Consultants/or the City of Anoyo Gronde 5 RESOLUTION NO. Page 6 of 135 matter, the following Findings Regarding the Revised FSEIR for the VTTM and P.U.D. O1-001 Project (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 1.2 Document Format These Findings have been categorized into the following sections: 1) Section 1.0 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2) Secrion 2.0 provides a summary of the Project and overview of other discretionary actions required for the Project, and a statement of Project objectives. 3) Section 3.0 provides a summary of those activities that have preceded the consideration of the Findings for the Project as part of the environmental review process, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. 4) Section 4.0 sets forth findings regarding those potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Revised FSEIR,Addendum,and Second Addendum which the City has determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Project design features and/or Project conditions included in the MMI2P for the Project. 5) Section 5.0 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Revised FSEIR,Addendum,and Second Addendum which the City has determined can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposirion of mitigation measures included in the MIVIl2P for the Project. 6) Secrion 6.0 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Revised FSEIR and Addendum which will or which may result from the Project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. � Section 7.0 sets forth findings regarding growth inducement impacts. 8) Secrion 8.0 sets forth findings regarding altematives to the Project. 9) Section 9.0 contains findings regarding the NIIvIRP for the Project. 10) Section 10.0 contains other relevant findings adopted by the City with respect to the Project. The Findings set forth in each section herein are supported by findings and facts identified in the administrative record of the Project. 1.3 Custadian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions regarding the Project are located at the City of Arroyo Grande Plaru�ing Division and City Qerk's Office,214 E. Branch Street,Arroyo Grande,California, 93421. The City is the custodian of the admutistrative record for the Project. 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 Project Location The 26.6-acre site is located in the City of Arroyo Grande,within the southern portion of the County of San Luis Obispo. The subject site is located just northeast of the corner of James Way and La Canada in the northwestern portion of Arroyo Grande. The site is located north of U.S. Highway 101 and east of Oak Park Boulevard. Highway 101 generally bounds the northwestern Planned Developments on the south,with unincorporated area of the County on the north. The proposed main entrance to V'TTM 01-001 would cross the East Fork seasonal tributary to Meadow Creek bordering the westerly portion of the tract. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City o(Arroyo Grende 6 RESOLUTION NO. Page 7 of 135 The subject site is a proposed development phase of the lazger Rancho Grande Planned Development 1.2 of the 1990 General Plan. The Rancho Grande site occupies 464 acres consisting of a large portion of the northwestern section of the City of Arroyo Grande, on the northeast side of Highway 101. Adjoining the subject site are other Planned Development tracts within the Rancho Grande Project including;Tract 1834 to the north and west,Tract 1997 to the east, and Tract 1994 to the south. VTTM O1-001 itself is located towards the northeastern section of the greater Rancho Grande site. The City categorizes the entire Rancho Grande development site (which includes VTTM O1-001) as a Planned Development(PD 12) Zone. 2.2 Project Description This revised project is a second reduced density variation of the original project analyzed in the Revised Final SEIR. This new proposal is a single-family residential development consisting of 15 units on an approximate 26.6-acre site located near the northeast corner of the intersection of James Way and La Canada in the City of Arroyo Grande. The proposed residenrial units would be clustered in the northeasternmost portion of the site, accessible from one access road off La Canada. Overall, this second reduced density development proposal consists of 15 clustered residential lots and one open-space lot on 26.6 acres,with a gross density of 0.56 units per acre. The lots range in size from 7,200 to 22,302 square feet,with an average lot size of about 8,807 square feet. Approximately 22 acres (84 percent of the site)would remain in open space. Of the 15 residential lots proposed,none contain less than 7,200 square feet, the City's single-family subdivision m;n;mum lot area standard. Fourteen lots contain between 7,200 and 12,000 square feet, the conventional subdivision min;mum lot area for RS zones. One residential lot exceeds 12,000 square feet (Lot 12,at 22,802 square feet),the size normally applied to the RS development,not in a P.U.D. The second reduced density development proposal does not propose tenacing or retaining walls on lots,leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the lot owner. Because lot owners have discretion regarding site and home design,terracing and retaining walls may still occur on lots. Flat graded sites (under 2% slope) would be restricted to no more than 50 percent of roof height exceeding 16 feet while sloped graded sites (over 2% slope) would be restricted to a no more than 50 percent of roof height exceeding 20 feet. Compared to the original proposed project,the second reduced density development proposal places the majority of lots in the northeastem porrion of the property. This portion of the property contains a deeply incised erosion gully, the western edge of which begins near Lot 3 and the eastern edge of which extends beyond the eastern property line into adjacent open space. Under the second reduced density development proposal,this erosion gulley would be filled,resulting in a graded slope of less than 20% throughout this area. The erosion gulley is not a blue line drainage and likely developed due to modified runoff patterns from development of adjacent properties. This is evidenced by the expanding extent of the gulley toward the northwestern property line (toward existing development) through a series of eroded fingers. Filling of the gulley to allow for the proposed development would not only create slopes of less than 20%,but would also cut off a consistent erosion source of sed'unent and silt runoff that contributes directly toward Meadow Creek. Access would be provided via a cul-de-sac (Blossom Valley Road) extending off La Canada. The cul-de-sac would curve narth and then east from La Canada before terminating near the northeasternmost corner of the property. Road width would vary between 32 feet(at the site � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 7 RESOLUTION NO. Page 8 of 135 entrance and residential access azeas) and 24 feet(in the vicuuty of onsite weflands and Pismo Clarkia habitat). A secondary access road would extend from the end of the cul-de-sac for emergency use. 2.3 Discretionary Actions Project implementation may include,but is not limited to,the following discretionary actions by the City and Responsible Agencies having jurisdiction by law upon the project site and/or the resources wntained thereon: 1) Certification of the Environmental Impact Report 2) Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMI2P) 3) Approval of a Tract Subdivision Map in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act 4) Approval of a Planned Unit Development in accordance with the City of Anoyo Grande Development Code 5) Additional pernuts and approvals,including,but not limited to the following: a. Grading perxnits,building permiis,and street work permits b. NPDFS compliance review from the Regional Water Quality Control Boazd (RW�B) c. Section 404 Clean Water Act permit&om the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) d. Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB e. Section 1600 California Fish and Game Code Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Departrnent of Fish and Game(CDFG) f. Other ministerial permits/approvaLs and compliance reviews of inspections required for the Project. 2.4 Statement of Objectives The applicant's objective is to develop a clustered residential subdivision as stated in the project application. Another prunary objecrive is to preserve open space and natural resources to the extent possible. The proposal to construct 15 residenrial units (21 fewer than in the original project description) responds to identified impacts, required mirigation measures and alternatives described in the certified Revised Final SEIR, Addendum, and Second Addendum. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A comprehensive EIR for the entire Rancho Grande Subdivision was completed and adopted in January of 1991. The 1991 EIR covered most of the recent phased subdivisions of the Rancho Grande Subdivision(Tracts 1834, 1994 and 199'� with the exception of the subject property (VTTM and P.U.D. 01-001,formerly known as Tract 1998). On August 13,2001, a Notice of Prepararion(NOP) was distributed by the City of Arroyo Grande for the Vesting Tentative Map 01-001 and Planned Unit Development Project Subsequent EIR. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the Project,SCH#2001081065. The Draft SEIR is considered to be a follow up document for the aforemenrioned EIR prepared in 1991 for the Rancho Grande Planned Development 1.2 of the 1990 General Plan. Subsequent to the public review of the Norice of Prepararion,the City of Arroyo Grande internally reviewed"achninistrative° copies of the Draft EIR. Upon completion of the review, copies of the Draft EIR were forwarded to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies and interested groups and individuals, as required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087. � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City o/Arroyo Gronde 8 RESOLUTION NO. Page 9 of 135 The public review of the Draft SEIR began on February 21,2003 and ended on Apri17,2003. The Revised FSEIR includes a Response to Comments package,which presents all written comments received during the public review period of the Draft Subsequent EIR,and includes related changes made to the Draft SEIR. During the public review of the 2003 Draft SEIR,the City had requested that a new development alternative be analyzed along with several technical biological resource quesrions. As such,a Revised Draft SEIR was published with the new project alternative along with additional biological resource analysis. The Revised Draft SEIR included substantial new information not contained in either the February 2003 Draft SEIR or the Apri12003 Final SEIR,therefore the Revised Draft SEIR was recirculated for public review for an addiriona145-day period that began on December 1, 2003 and ended on January 14,2004. The Plamiutg Commission held a noticed public hearing to consider the Revised FSEIR on March 2,2004. Following the Planning Coinmission's review, the Plamiulg Commission formulated its recommendations regarding the Revised FSEIR, and forwarded those recommendations to the City CouncIl for consideration. The Plazn�ing Coinmission recommended certification of the Revised FSEIR. The City Council held a noticed public hearing on AprIl 13,2004 to consider the Revised FSEIR. At that hearing, the City Council considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the information presented in the Revised FSEIR and the record, and public comments and testimony received at the hearing and certified the Revised FSEIR In response to City CouncIl findings, the project applicant submitted a revised proposal which reduced development from 36 units to 21 units. This project,hereafter the"first reduced density development proposal," was evaluated in an Addendum to the Revised Final SEIR in February 2005 (hereafter refened to as"First Addendum"). Based upon the First Addendum findings and comments from Staff,advisory bodies, and the public, additional revisions were made and the project was resubmitted in March 2005. After public hearings,the City of Arroyo Grande was unable to make the mandatory findings and denied the first reduced density development proposal without prejudice on December 13,2005. A subsequent revised project was submitted in response to the findings for denial as described in City Council Resolution No.3892. The preliminary design for this second revision,which included 17 single-family units,was made available as a pre-application to the City Council in AprIl 2007 for its review and comments prior to a formal submittal. Based on comments provided by the City Council,the project was further revised in September 2007 to reduce the project to 15 total single- family units. This 15-unit project is the current proposal being analyzed herein, and will be referred to throughout this document as the"second reduced density development proposal." This CEQA document will also be referred to as the"Second Addendum," to clarify its relarionship to the previously-prepared First Addendum. 4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City finds,based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.0 of the Revised FSEIR, the Addendum to the Revised FSEIR, and the Second Addendum to the FSEIR, dated March 2008, that the following environmental effects of the Project are less than significant,and, therefore,no mitigation measures are required. The City hereby finds that project design features and/or project � Prepaied by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arioyo Gronde 9 RESOLUTION NO. Page 10 of 135 conditions have been identified and incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effect on the environment to a less than significant level. 4.1 Biological Resources 4.11 Less Than Significant Impact B-1. Development of the project would result in the removal of Annual Grassland and Coastal Scrub habitat. This is considered a Class III,less than significant impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Non-native grasses and other invasive,weedy species dominate the Annual Grassland habitat on the project site. Annual grasslands are not considered sensiflve plant communiries and this habitat type is common throughout the region. Likewise, Coastal Scrub habitat is not considered a sensitive plant community, as this habitat type is also wmmon throughout the region. Therefore,the loss of these vegetation types is not considered a significant unpact and no mitigation is required. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.2-19;Second Addendum page 16. 4.2 Cultural Resources 4.2.1 Less Than Significant Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in Class III, less than significant, cumulative cultural resources impacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Buildout of the proposed project in conjuncHon with other development in the City of Arroyo Grande has the potential to cumulatively impact archeological and h'vstorical resources. In addirion,all ground disturbances in potentially sensitive areas shall be monitored. This includes any potential use of the designated open space within the subject property that may involve ground disfizrbance activities. If any resources are encountered,work will stop until adequate measures are developed to mitigate the impacts. Therefore,no significant cumulative archeological impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project in conjunction with other projects in the area. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.3-7. 4.3 Geologic Resources 4.3.1 Less Than Significant Impact G-2. Seismic activity could produce sufficient ground shaking to result in liquefaction, seismically induced settlement and lateral spreading. On-site soils proposed for development of residential uses and other facilities are subject to the potenrial for liquefaction. However,as determined through on-site investigations,this potential is considered to be very low. This is considered a Class III, less than significant impact. � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Airoyo Grande 10 RESOLUTION NO. Page 11 of 135 Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code SecHon 21081(a) and State CEQA Guideline Secrion 15091(a),the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Liquefaction is a localized phenomenon induced by ground shaking and can result in slope and/or foundation failures with loss of bearing capacity. As previously mentioned, the results of the Earth Systems Pacific liquefaction analysis (2003) indicated that,with the proposed grading and existing groundwater condirions in the locarions of the test borings (refer to Appendix K),the potential for liquefaction is very low and, if it were to occur,would only occur in a thin zone just above the bedrock surface. The effects at the surface would be negligible and, as such,the risk of liquefaction-induced damage at the project site is considered acceptable per Tifle 14,Section 3721(a) of the California Code of Regulations. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.4-13;Second Addendum page 35. 4.3.2 Less Than Significant Cumulative Geologic Resources Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in Class III,less than significant, cumulative geologic resources impacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Buildout of pending and approved projects in the greater Arroyo Grande area would increase development in the region. Such development would alter landforms in the City and would expose new residents and property to seismic hazards that exist in the area. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to these cumulaiive impacts. However, grading and seismic issues would be addressed on a case-by- case basis to mitigate unpacts resulting from individual projects. Given that all projects would be required to adhere to seismic standards contained in the Uniforxn Building Code and City requirements pertaining to grading,less than significant cumulative geological impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project in conjunction with other projects in the area. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.4-18. 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.4.1 Less Than Significant Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in Class III, less than significant, cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterarions have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant env'uonmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Anoyo Grande 11 RESOLUTION NO. Page 12 of 135 Facts in Support of Finding—The proposed project,in combination with other planned developments in the City of Arroyo Grande and the surrounding area,would generally increase the impermeable surface area thereby increasing peak flood flows and the overall runoff volume. Increased 'urigation as the area builds out would further increase the overall volume of surface water runoff and rate of low flow during the dry season. Such changes in regional hydrology could potentially have significant cumulative effects on local flooding conditions if the drainage infrasiruciure for each individual project is not appropriately designed and constructed. Construction activity associated with cumulative development would increase sedimentation relating to grading and consiruction activiries. In addition,urban development would increase the concentration of pollutants such as silt, oil, grease, and trace metals that could adversely affect the water quality. However, all developments in the area aze required to design appropriate flood control systems and implement appropriate BMPs in accordance with the SWPPP and NPDES permit requirements. Although some increase in surface water runoff and surface water pollution could be anticipated, unplementation of applicable requirements on all developments in the area would be expected to reduce cumulative unpacts to less than significant. Reference-Kevised FSEIR page 4.5-11. 4.5 Land Use 4.5.1 Less Than Significant Impact LU-1. The project would not divide an established communiry, and would be considered compatible with surrounding residential land uses subject to conditions of approval. Impacts related to long-term compatibility would be Class III,less than significant. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The proposed project would be an example of infill development within the existing Rancho Grande PD 1.2. The surrounding land uses are residential,and the project would be consistent with the type and intensity of adjacent development. Although the site currently supports a remnant of open space within the clustered development part of the Planned Development,this open space would be consistent from a land use compatibility perspecrive. The project would not divide an established community. The project,as conditioned would be consistent with both the long- term plazlnutg and existing land uses within the area. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.6-2 and 4.6-3;Second Addendum page 45. 4.5.2 Less Than Significant Impact LU-3. Onsite construction activity would create temporary noise and air quality impacts due to the use of construction equipment and generation of fugitive dust. These effects could cause annoyance at neighboring properties. However,these unpacts would be temporary in nature,and are considered Class III, less than significant, given required implementation of standard mitigation measures required by City and APCD approvals. � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for t6e City of Arroyo Gronde 12 RESOLUTION NO. Page 13 of 135 Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The use of construction equipment during project construction would increase localized noise levels and generate fugitive dust that would result in a temporary reduction in local air quality. It is anricipated that construction acrivity would take place intermittenfly as development occurs. Construcrion acrivity may therefore cause temporary annoyance to immediately adjacent residential use. Most of the residences in neighboring tracts lie to the west and east of the subject site. The proposed project is set in the drainage of the East Fork of Meadow Creek and is generally lower in elevation compared to the surrounding buIlt environment. The topography, combined with the distance to these neighboring homes,would reduce potential short-term construcrion impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section of the 1991 EIR,San Luis Obispo County is in nonattainment for the California air quality standards for ozone,fugitive dust(particulate matter or PMlo) and sulfur dioxide. The construction proposed within the Rancho Grande PD 12 is expected to generate fugitive dust. The mitigation measures outlined in the 1991 EIR will reduce construction related PMio impacts to a less than significant level. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.6-4;Second Addendum pages 45-46. 4.5.3 Less Than Significant Cumulative Land Use Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in Class III,less than significant, cumulative land use unpacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding—Cumulative development throughout the greater Arroyo Grande area would gradually alter the area's rural character. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to this substantial change. Individual development projects in the region would have the potential to create compatibility conflicts relating to the interface of natural open space and new urban development. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.6-4. 4.6 Transportation/Traffic 4.61 Less Than Significant Impact T-2.The applicant has included a total of 60 off-street parking spots and 17 on-street parking spots for the proposed 15-unit residential project. The proposed parking would meet City parking standards and would result in Class III, less than significant, impacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Secrion 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 13 RESOLUTION NO. Page 14 of 135 incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-According to City standards,residential projects must provide two off-street parking spaces per single-family unit and visitor pazking. Therefore the proposed 15-unit project would result in a parking demand of 30 garage spaces plus visitor parking. The applicant has included a total of 60 off-street parking spots and 17 on-street parking spots for the proposed 15-unit residential project. Consequendy, proposed parking would satisfy City parking requirements,and impacts are considered less than significant. Reference-Revised FSEIR Addendum page 41 and Second Addendum pages 46-47. 4.7 Public Services 4.7.1 Less Than Significant Impact PS-1. Project construction has the potential to contribute to the Citywide cumulative increased demand for police protection services.However,since the project would not compromise response time goals or substantially affect the personnel,equipment or organization of the Police Department,Class III,less than significant impacts would result. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The current department ratio of number of Full-Tune Officers to population is currenfly approximately 1.6 Full-Time Officers per 1,000 residents (1.61: 1,000),which meeYs the department's goal. Based on a factor of 2.85 residents per unit,the 15 proposed residenrial lots would generate 43 new residents. The population increase would not result in a significant increase in the need for addirional police departrnent service. Sufficient staff varies from day-to-day depending on workload, and responding to additional service calls would not significantly compromise response time goals. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.8-2 and Second Addendum page 47. 49.2 Less Than Significant Impact PS-3. The project would generate an estimated total of 11 elementary,middle and high school students. The opening of Nipomo High School will assist in controlling the over-capacity of Arroyo Grande High School. As a result,students generated by the project would not significanfly impact the elementary,middle,or high school serving the project area because there will be sufficient capacity. Therefore,unpacts to schools in the project azea are considered Class III, less than significant, subject to standard school unpact fee payment for residential units. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid ar substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The majority of the residenrial development occurring in the district has come from the County of San Luis Obispo (53%). The City of Arroyo Grande has � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Anoyo Grande 14 RESOLUTION NO. Page 15 of 135 averaged 25% of the residential development. The LMiJSD utilizes shxdent yield factors of 0.7 per single-family detached unit for grades K-12 (Lucia Mar Unified School District- Developer Fee Study,March 2002). The Office of Public School Construction yield factors indicate that a total of ll shzdents will be generated from this project. The capacity for the Lucia Mar Unified School District(LMUSD)is based on Office of Public School Construction School Facility Program loading standards. The K-6 grade classrooms were loaded at 25 students per classroom and 7-12w grade classrooms were loaded at 27 students per classroom. The district currently exceeds its K-12� grade facility capacity of 9,163 students by 1,788 students. As illustrated above,all schools have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 15 new students resulting from the proposed project,pazticularly Ocean View Elementary,which would be 57% capacity with the students generated from the proposed project. As a condition of project approval,development fees mandated by State Law and assessed by the School District would contribute funding necessary for educational facilities to accommodate anticipated growth. No further mitigation measures are required. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.8-9 and 4.8-10;Second Addendum page 50-51. 4.7.3 Less Than Significant Impact PS�. The development of 15 single-family housing units would generate demand for parkland improvement. The project applicant would be required to pay improvement fees in the amount established by City Ordinance. With payment of these fees,the City would 'unprove sufficient parkland and open space to satisfy the City standazd of 4 acres of parkland and open space per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the project would result in Class III, less than significant,impacts related to park demand. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that project design features and/or project conditions have been incorporated into the Project which avoid or substanUally lessen the potentially significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Based on the City's factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit, the 15-unit project would be expected to generate approxunately 43 new residents. Based on the City's standard of 4 acres of parkland and open space per 1,000 residents,the project would generate a need for 0.17 acres included as part of prior Rancho Grande park site dedication in order to maintain acceptable pazkland to population ratios. The applicant is also required to pay a Recreation Impact Fee and Park Improvement Fee per City Resolution 3521 adopted in May of 2001 (prior to the proposed project being deemed complete in June of 2001). The resolution states that a person seeking to construct a residential development project shall pay a park unprovement fee of$573.08 per new resident generated by such development project. Acwrding to City policy,Single Family Detached development would contain approxunately 2.8 persons per unit. This would yield a fee of$1,604.63 per unit paid at the time of building permits. Upon compliance with this City resolution,the project would be consistent with City requirements related to park provision. State Quunby Act standards were met with the dedicaHon of the Rancho Grande Park. The project would result in a less than significant. � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grende 15 RESOLUTION NO. Page 16 of 135 Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.8-14 and Second Addendum page 51. 4.7.4 Less Than Significant Cumulative Public Services Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in Class III,less than significant, cumulative public services impacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding- Law Enforcement. Cumulative buildout of the area would not significanfly increase any demands on police protection services by adding 15 units with 43 new residents. It is anricipated that if needed,adequate police services would be developed to accommodate cumulative demand. Fire Protection, Cumulat}ve buildout of area would increase demands on fire protection services by adding residents and generating additional traffic that would hinder emergency response. Without increases in staffing and facilities correlating to these population increases, potentially significant impacts could occur. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to this impact. It is anticipated that adequate fire services would be developed to accommodate cumulative demand. Schools. Cumulative buildout of the area would increase enrollment in the LMiJSD. Including the proposed project,there are cunenfly 9 pending single-family residential subdivision projects within the project vicinity that could result in a total of 762 new residential units,all of which would be served by the LMUSD. In addition,there is one multi-family project consisting of 31 units in the project vicinity. The per unit student generation factors for the LMLTSD aze as follows: 0.4 (IC-6�grade),0.1 (7-8w grade),and 02(9-12w grade). If the proposed project were approved in addition to the cumulative projects in the project vicinity,about 545 new students would attend the local elementary,middle and high schooLs. The proposed project,in combination with cumulative projects in the vicinity,would potentially yield 311 new elementary school students,78 new middle school students and 156 new high school students. The students generated as a result of the proposed project and other cumulative projects would be spread out among the schools within the LMiJSD. It is possible that,with the addition of up to 545 new students to the District,some schools would exceed their operating capacities. Of the schools potentially unpacted by these projects,local high schools and middle schools would be affected the most severely due to their current enrollment and overall capacities. The proposed construction of the Hidden Oak Elementary School,just east of the subject property,would increase the District capacity for the addition of new K-6"� grade students,however it is on hold at this time. With the payment of required development fees,the potential increase in LMLTSD enrollment as a result of cumulative development would be less than significant. Parks and Recreation FacIliries. Cumulative buildout of the area would increase demands for recreational facilities by adding both residents and a daytime population. The proposed projecY would incrementally contribute to this increase in demand. However,upon payment of pazk � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Anoyo Grande 16 RESOLUTION NO. Page 17 of 135 improvement mitigarion fees,adequate park and open space land would exist to serve the demand generated by the proposed project,in combinarion with other cumulative projects in the vicinity. Less than significant cumulative open space,parks and recreation impacts would result. Refer to Impact LU-2 for a discussion of trail provisions,as they relate to land use compatibility. Solid Waste. Cumulative buildout of the area would increase solid waste generation,thereby reducing the lifespan of solid waste landfills serving the azea. The proposed project would contribute incrementally to the cumulative impact to landfill capacity. However,cumulative development in the azea would not be sufficient to require an expansion of the existing facilities. Therefore,the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than significant. Water. Development of the proposed project would require approxunately 8-10 acre feet of water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. Based on the dedication of an existing onsite water well with an estimated yield of 50-60 acre feet of potable water,incorporated into the project description; and all conditions of approval and mitigations measures (including provisions for water starage and delivery,water conservation design,fixtures and landscaping) imposed in the environmental review process for the project and for previous approvals associated with implementation of the Ranch Grande Master Plan,all unpacts to water resources are mitigated to less than significant. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.8-3,4.8-8,4.8-11,4.8-14,4.8-15, and 4.8-17; and City of Arroyo Grande: Resolution No. 2466-Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Grande Subdivision, 1991;Resolurion No. 2468-VT'TM 1994; Resolution No. 2469-VTTM 1997;Resolution No. 2467-VTTM 1834. 5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City finds,based upon the threshold criteria for significance presented in the Revised FSEIR, Addendum, and Second Addendum, that the following potentially significant environmental effects of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with feasible mirigation measures identified in the Revised FSEIR,Addendum,and Second Addendum and adopted by the City as conditions of project approval. No substanrial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the following impacts would,in fact, occur at levels that would necessitate a determination of significance. 5.1 Aesthetics 5.1.1 Potentially Significant Direct Impact AES-1.The clustering of the proposed residential units and preservation of open space would partially maintain the open space character of the site. However,the proposed development has the potential to alter the aesthetic character of the site vicinity through alteration of scenic vistas from public viewing locarions. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, unpact to the aestheric character of the area. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 17 RESOLUTION NO. Page 18 of 135 incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The project proposes 15 single-family residences,paved roadways, street lighting and landscaping on a currenfly undeveloped site. The proposed project is to be developed as a phase of the existing,464-acre (total) Rancho Grande PD 1.2. VTTM O1-001 subdivision improvements are anticipated to occur in a single phase. Individual homes will be constructed as lots are purchased. The proposed site improvements would be visible from several public viewing locations along James Way and La Canada,most notably from segments of James Way,which has been identified as a"potential" scenic road in the City's Existing Setting Report. In addition, the proposed 'unprovements would be visible from existing Rancho Grande single family residential subdivision homes to the northwest. james Way Viezushed. This road offers a scenic view of Newsome Ridge to the east(ridgeline above the site area), and in some higher locations, the Pacific Ocean to the west. The road runs east to west through the northwest porrion of the City,connecting Oak Park Road indirecfly with the older downtown areas. The view of the proposed project from this corridor would include:views of potential future residences of the project and its roadways, indigenous flora and oak trees which aids in providing visual screening of the site in the foreground, and natural scenery of oak woodlands and chaparral in the middleground and background. Residences within the existing Rancho Grande PD 1.2 are also visible from these viewpoints. Scenic views of the Newson ridgeline would generally be maintained. Addirionally,portions of the proposed 151ots would be visible within the natural geography of the site. Development within this area could conflict with this aspect of City policy. Vegetation located 'urunediately adjacent to James Way is comprised of similaz flora of Oak trees, native annual and perennial grasses, and riparian vegetation of the East Fork of Meadow Creek. The indigenous flora in the foreground frontage of the project site near the corner of James Way and Las Canada,with project landscaping,would eventually partially screen views of the proposed improvements. Therefore,the project would result in potentially significant impacts on views from this viewshed. Rancho Grande Tract 1834 Viewshed. Tract 1834 is located to the north of the proposed project site, and sits at a higher elevation. Views from Tract 1834 include:James Way corridor,the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve,Newsome Ridge,and oak woodlands surrounding the area. For the most part,viewpoints of the proposed project are located along the lower elevations of the southeastern portion of Tract 1834. Vesting Tentative Tract 01-001 Desipn Guidelines. The applicant for the proposed project has drafted design guidelines for the site. As was previously mentioned,the proposed project is considered a phase in the greater Rancho Grande PD 12. As such, it is necessary to consider the proposed project in the context of the rest of the neighboring development. Certain recommendations are made that help to ensure a general conformity exists betrveen the development and the natural environment. The intent of the design guidelines is to encourage planned improvements which aze visually compatible with the oak woodland, savanna, and hillside context of VTTM O1-001. Although the primary issues are summarized below,the wmplete guidelines are included in their entirety in Appendix I of the Revised FSEIR. The guidelines address the following topics: � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 18 RESOLUTION NO. Page 19 of 135 Site and Landscape Design- • Driveways and Garages: Slope consideration,avoid large areas of unpervious surfaces,construcrion in accordance with City standards and suggested paving materials. • Erosion Control: Suggested methods of erosion control on banks or slopes,use of plants for soil stabilization. • Fencing: M;nimization of view-obstructing fencing(taller than 3 feet),height requirements, approved fencing materials,fencing alternarives (landscaping). • Grading,Drainage and Soils: Requirements for drainage discharge,prevention of excess run-off,provisions to preserve top soil,mitigaHon for construction activifies within oak tree drip line,use of "grey-water". • Hardscape: Restriction on paving within oak tree driplines and adding sidewalks not originally planned in tract improvements,suggesrions on paving materials,use of landscaping to soften hazd edges. • Landscape and Irrigation: Timulg of landscaping after occupancy,landscape plans,planting design, "street tree" plans,use of drought tolerant plants, irrigation systems and schedules,water conservarion systems, recommended native plants. • Landscape Lighting: Lighting plans, glare reduction,lighting placement,electricity conservation. • Landscape Structures: Restriction on structure materials, prohibition of struciures in open space setbacks, restricrions regarding the placement of structures. • Maintenance: Provisions to ensure properly maintained homes and landscaping and to ensure that oak woodlands are not disturbed. • Miscellaneous Guidelines/Requirements: Property owners aze encouraged to respect the privacy of neighbors with regard to structures and/or equipment (decks, spa equipment,play equipment,etc.),to take advantage of existing oak trees far landscaping and are encouraged to include crime prevention measures. • Oak Tree Protection: This measure lists restrictions on the disturbance of existing oak trees including pruning, digging up, protection during construction activities and restrictions within oak tree driplines. • Setbacks: In general,setbacks shall be 5 or 10 feet on all sides. Other setback requirements involve open space easements and structures permitted in setbacks. • Screening: Outlines requirements regarding the screening of trash and other items or material intended for discarding or collection. • Site Art and Sculpture: Outlines prohibirions on large,bold or highly visible art. • Soils Test: States that property owners are encouraged to provide a soils engineering test prior to construcrion such as retaining walls or structural addirions. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Anoyo Gronde 19 RESOLUTION NO. Page 20 of 135 • Solar Energy Designs: Encourages the use of solar energy and requires the screening of piping and other equipment. • View Corridors: When locating structures or landscaping element. Impacts to neighboring views should be considered. • Water Efficiency: Encourages the use of grey water and low flow fixtures. Also encourages water efficiency and an overall water pressure of 70 psi or less. Architectural Guidelines- • Maximum Building Size: Establishes the criteria for the maximum allowable floor area for each lot. Building Massing,Form and Detail: Places restrictions on buIlding types,stained and/or etched glass, detached sriuctures,and plumbing in detached structures,and prohibits outdoor storage of recreational vehicles. • Building Security: States prohibitions against hollow doors, and any locking devices that may hinder emergency exiting. Also outlines uses of emergency and outdoor lighting. • Colors: This guideline states that light-colored roofs are prohibited and that earth-tone colors are preferred and should be used. • Community Development D'uector: The Community Development Director shall review the site plan,preliminary grading plan,lighting plan,elevations,colors and materials of proposed unprovements for "substantial compliance' with these Design Guidelines, tract mitigations and conditions of approval. • Detached Structures: These shall not exceed 14 feet in height above the average natural grade of their footprints. • Exposed Pole Supports: Supports for decks or other structures greater than four feet in height above finished grade are prohibited unless covered. • Exterior Products,Finishes and Materials: Provides an extensive list of approved roofing,paving and exterior finishing materials. • Fire Hazard Protection: Assures compliance with the City of Arroyo Grande Ordinance No. 394 C.S. Prohibits burning of constnxcrion materials and encourages the posting of the emergency phone number of the Fire Departrnent. • Fire Sprinkler Requirement: All houses shall be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems. • General Construction Conditions: Provides a list of appropriate measures to help ensure a safe and clean construction area and surrounding off-site unprovements. This guideline also helps to mutimize unpacts to neighboring residential units. • Grading: This provision helps to ensure that topsoil is preserved and that soIl erosion is minunized. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City ofArroyo Grande 20 RESOLUTION NO. Page 21 of 135 • Inspections During Construction: The City of Arroyo Grande will conduct inspections to monitor compliance with these Guidelines, as well as City codes and regulations. • Landscape Compliance: Landscaping must be approved under the requirements listed in the Design Guidelines. • Maximum Allowable Height: In addition to stating that the maximum allowable building height shall be 27 feet, this guideline provides ways in which the heights shall be measured as well as heights for walls and detached structures. • Mechanical Equipment and Utilities: This guideline outlines ways in which utility lines,flashing and any other mechanical and/or utility equipment are to be hidden and screened for noise and aestheric purposes. • Modificafions to the Approved Plans: No property owner shall make any modification to an approved plan without a separate submittal and approval by the City of Arroyo Grande. • Responsibilities of the Property Owner: Outlines owner responsibilities including all activities and/or omissions of consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and workmen. • Satellite Dish Antennas: These aze prohibited in front setbacks. Dish antennas are not to exceed 36 inches in diameter and are to be screened and are to comply with the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. • Seismic Design: All structures to be built shall conform to the seismic stipularions set forth in the 1991 EIR for the Rancho Grande Subdivision as well as the regulations of the Uniform Building Code. • Schedules: The use of schedules in the required plans (mentioned above) is encouraged. • Screening: Requires screening for the poles for decks,mechanical equipment, gas and electric meters and trash enclosures. • Solid Waste: Property owners are encouraged to separate wood byproducts from other construction waste and salvage for biomass conversion. • Water Efficiency: Outlines provisions for water conservation including: pressure reducing valves,low flow fixtures,use of grey water and the use of building designs to maximize water efficiency. Steeper Slope Alterations- In addition, slopes are a primary concern for development on the subject property. The applicanYs design guidelines do not address development on steep slopes outside of suggesting proper methods of erosion control. However, according to the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Chapter 16.20.050,building and grading activities are not permitted on slopes of 25% and greater. This could be considered an aesthetic impact as well as a grading unpact. Structures built higher up on the on-site slopes (directly proportional to the increased slope percentage)begin to encroach onto the viewsheds of surrounding neighborhoods. The upper reaches of these slopes are more visible to the � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/Wnts for the City of Arroyo Grande 21 RESOLUTION NO. Page 22 of 135 neighboring residences. Mitigation measures associated with this development code are stated in Secrion 4.4, Geologic Resources, of the Revised FSEIR, prohibiting development on slopes of 20% and greater. Although this mitigation measure is written to address geologic stability, the prohibition of development on these steep slopes also addresses the building of residential units higher up on the slope that are visible from public viewing areas in the neighborhoods to the northeast. Analysis. Because of the clustering of the proposed residential units and the preservation of open space,the project would partially maintain the rural visual character of the site. However, the proposed development has the potenrial to alter the aesthetic character of the site vicinity by changing the scenic views from public viewing locarions,and introducing community design elements that may be aesthetically inconsistent with the surrounding area. The City of Arroyo Grande maintains a policy of preserving the open character of lands throughout the eastern and nartheastern portions of the city and adjacent areas with emphasis on preservation of prominent slopes and ridgelines in hillside areas. Project impacts on steeper slopes are therefore considered potenflally significant. When compared to conventional single family residential developments in Suburban Residenrial(RS)land use designations, the proposed project would consist of a more clustered design. The RS land use designation provides a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per every 2.5 acres. VTTM O1-001 would,under the PD 121and use designation,maintain an average residential density of approximately 1.5 units per acre and exhibit more of a clustered appearance when compared to the RS designation. This proposed design would increase the urban feel of the clustered development area,however, the clustered design would maintain a reladvely larger amount of undeveloped natural open space that helps to preserve the rural aesthetic chazacter of the site. The second reduced density development proposal eliminates most terracing and retaining walls on lots,leaving custom sight and home design to the discrerion of the lot owner. According to the proposed Design Guidelines,the restricrion that no more than 50 percent of roof height exceed 16 feet(in the Revised Final SEIR and First Addendum) is applicable to flat graded sites (under 2% slope),while sloped graded sites (over 2% slope)would be restricted to a no more than 50 percent of roof height exceeding 20 feet. As shown in Figure 5,the overall visual unpact in these two cases would be sunilar. As a result,both scenarios in the Design Guidelines would address the second item under Mitigation Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.1 of the Revised FSEIR, and the analysis included in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference,the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the NIlVIl�P. A key considerafion in reducing visual impacts is to maintain public scenic views from the James Way and La Canada viewing corridors. Adherence to City regulatory requirements associated with its Development Code would reduce impacts to some extent. The applicant has proposed design guidelines that substantively address many aesthetic concerns, and would fizrther mitigate potential project impacts. Specifically,the applicant has proposed standards related to the following issues that would substanrively reduce potential visual impacts (see Appendix I of the EIR for full text of these guidelines): � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City o(Arroyo Grande 22 RESOLUTION NO. Page 23 of 135 • Fences. Restrictions on height,materials and placement; • Driveways and garages. alterative paving materials,placement; • Hardscape. limitations on paving; • Landscape and Irrigation. Specifies landscaping materials and extent of requirements; • On-Site Equipment. L'units the location and impacts to natural amenities; • Screening. Trash receptacles must be screened; • View corridors. Affects locaHon of structures and landscaping; • Architectural guidelines. Building materials,building heights,colors,massing, and exterior details. However,the applicant has proposed that some of the guidelines are required,while others are merely recommended. Modificarions to these guidelines are required to ensure that aesthetic unpacts would be less than significant. However, unpacts would remain significant without further mitigation. The following additional measures are required: Mitigation Measure AES-1(a) Modification of Applicant Design Guidelines.The following modifications to the applicanYs proposed design guidelines are required: • All proposed guidelines noted as recommendations (°G") shall be changed to requirements ("R"). Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.1-17 through 4.1-23;Second Addendum pages 14-15. 5.1.2 Potentially Significant Direct Impact AES-2. Introduction of light and glare associated with residential development would extend the area of night light across the currenfly undeveloped property, altering the nighttime sky and affecting residences adjacent to the site. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the Project:hat avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the env'uonment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Proposed project illuinmation would provide safety for residents, traffic movement,and crossings,wam of hazazds,and 'unprove security. The site is currenfly undeveloped with no light sources. No lighting plan has been submitted at this time. Despite its possible benefits;if the proposed project were to incorporate street lighting and/or residential lighting,the project would result in an adverse light unpact at night. Adjacent residential uses could be affected by such lights (including the headlights of vehicular traffic) related to the proposed project. Therefare,the project is considered to have a potentially significant but mitigable impact with regards to lighting. In addition, sources of glare that could affect nearby residences include building exterior materials and surface paving materials. Highly reflective fa�ade materials would be of pazricular concern. Building materials that have been identified for use in the proposed project include brick, stone,wood siding,board on board,board on battens, textured stucco, split face block, and combed or deep relief stucco finishes. In addition, all roofing materials shall not consist of reflecrive glazed tiles,tar and gravel, rock,fiberglass, metal or wood � Prepared by Rincon ConsulWnts for the City of Arroyo Grande 23 RESOLUTION NO. Page 24 of 135 shingles, or metal tiles. However, since a plan detailing the exact types of buIlding materials to be used on the exteriors of structures has not been submitted, the project is considered to have a potentially significant but mitigable unpact with regards glare. Mitigation Measures -Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.1 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigarion Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMIZP. The following exterior lighting mitigation measure is required, and shall be added to the design guidelines: Mitigation Measure AES-2(a):Exterior Lighting. Outdoor light poles on internal streets shall be pedestrian in scale,and shall not exceed ten(10)feet in height. Such lighting shall be designed to project downward and shall not create glare on adjacent properties. All lighting fixtures that are visible from surrounding residences shall be designed to fully contain direct glare on-site, and shall be hooded and shielded. Non-glare lighting shall be used throughout the proposed project. Exterior lighting shall be limited to security and safety purposes. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.1-23 and 4.1-24;Second Addendum page 16. 5.1.3 Potentially Significant Cumulative Aesthetic Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the aesthetic rural character of the site by converting an existing undeveloped area to an area with a suburban/residential appearance. Because the developed portions of Arroyo Grande generally e�ibit an urban character,unpacts are considered significant but mirigable. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-This project would be consistent with the 1990 General Plan land use designations for the site. However, cumulative development in the project vicinity would result in a significant cumulative loss of open space and would irrevocably alter the character of the area to an increasingly urban condition. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to this change in aesthetic character of the site and the surrounding areas. Mitigation Measures -Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Revised FSEIR,as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Implementation of Mirigation Measures AES-1(a) and AES-2(a) would reduce the projecYs contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.1-24;mitigation measures on Pages 4.1-22 aild 4.1-23. 5.2 Biological Resouxces 5.2.1 Potentially Significant Direct Impact B-2. Proposed project development would reduce the acreage of locally and regionally significant vegetation communiries, including Valley Foothill Riparian,Seasonal and Fresh Emergent Weflands,which may be considered jurisdictional by the California Depaztment of Fish and Game,Regional Water Quality Control Board,and/or U.S. Army � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants/or the City ofArroyo Grande 24 RESOLUTION NO. Page 25 of 135 Corps of Engineers. This is a Class II,significant but mitigable, impact Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterarions have been required in, or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Valley Foothill Riparian habitat areas are declining vegetation communities that have been largely converted to urban uses throughout central and southern California. These habitat types are recognized by DFG as Natural Communities of Special Concern. The past losses of riparian habitat in the region have resulted in a decline in the population of certain plant and wildlife species that are uniquely associated with this habitat type. Wetlands are protected on a federal and state level. The fill of wedands and waters of the U.S. is subject to a Section 404 pernzit under the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA). The recent Supreme Court S.W.AN.C.C. decision has resulted in isolated waters(unless interstate commerce is supported by the waters)being removed from the Corps regulatory authority. Since the potential wetland areas on the project site aze within or immediately adjacent to incised channels with evidence of an ordinary high water mazk,it is assumed that the S.W.A.N.C.C. decision has no effect on the amount of jurisdictional area located on the project site. Currendy,Califomia Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. allows an applicant to apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to allow nnpacts to state regulated biological resources such as alteration of a streambed for construction of a road crossing. Similazly,Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides permits for the placement of dredge or fill materiaLs into waters of the United States. It is the goal of the CEQA environmental review process to m;n;mize impacts to the extent feasible. Nevertheless,it must be recognized that the current laws would permit unpacts to biological resources,the extent to which midgation is needed can only be deternlined through the permitting process. The specific conditions of the permitting process would be determuled by the responsible regulatory agencies,following CEQA review. Implementation of the reduced density development project would reduce the loss of acreage of locally and regionally significant vegetation communities,including Valley Foothill Riparian, Seasonal and Fresh Emergent Weflands,which may be considered jurisdictional by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game,Regional Water Quality Control Boazd,and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Portions of L,ots 1,2,and certain roadways,would lie within the 50- foot setback set forth through mitigation measure B-2(a). Development of portions of the proposed roadways would occur within Valley Foothill Riparian and Seasonal Wefland habitat. Ind'uect impacts could occur to the vegetation as well as the structure of the habitat type within these areas due to nearby grading activities or bank modifications. Run-off from construction could have short-term significant impacts to onsite drainages. Silt, sed'unentation,or run-off from construction practices muld affect water quality in on-site drainages and in turn affect the species residing in or utilizing these areas. Refer to Section 4.5,Hydrology/Water Quality,of the Revised FSEIR for further discussion of impacts and miHgation relating to water quality. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 25 RESOLUTION NO. Page 26 of 135 Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mirigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the NIIvIlZP. Mitigation Measure B-2(a): Riparian and Wetland Protection. Implementation of the following measure would mitigate the loss of riparian/wedand habitat: 1. All wedand and riparian areas shall be avoided and building envelopes shall be located so that all riparian and wedand habitat is buffered from development (including grading)by a minimum 50-foot setback,or a functional equivalent ❑ measured from the top of the creek bank or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. 2. The riparian and wefland habitat area and minimum 50-foot buffer zone for preserved riparian/wefland areas shall be shown on all grading plans and shall be demarcated with highly visible construction fencing. 3. During construction activities,washing of concrete, paint,or equipment shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. Washing of such materials shall not be allowed near wefland and riparian resources. 4. As a condirion of the 50-foot setback,prunary on-site stormwater drainage shall not be allowed to enter the East Fork of Meadow Creek. In addition, the project applicant shall ensure that buffer azeas are revegetated using only plant species native to the region. Thereafter,it shall be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain the buffer vegetation. It shall also be the responsibility of the HOA to implement a weed abatement program in order to further ensure that non-native species be excluded &om riparian/wetland azeas. Public access to buffer areas shall be prohibited. Any back or front yards that abut buffer areas shall be fenced in order to avoid indirect impacts resulting from unrestricted access. The 50-foot setback should be measured from the top of the creek banlcs or the outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater. For residential lots that abut riparian areas,the setback should be measured to the property line of the proposed lot(s),not to future structures. There should be no private ownership of the riparian setback area and access by people and pets should be restricted. If unplementing the above measures is not physically, technologically,or economically feasible for construction of the project as proposed, then the following mitigation measures shall be implemented,which require the applicant to comply with Federal,State and local laws and regulations,and obtain the necessary pernuts from the appropriate resource agencies. In doing so,the peratitting agencies and the pernut conditions imposed upon the applicant will ensure that the habitats are left in a condition as good as,or better than,pre-construction conditions. The respective agencies are required to enforce any permit conditions. The mitigarion measures listed below are intended to provide examples of the requirements the applicant may have to implement as part of this compliance, and are not intended to assume or � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 26 RESOLUTION NO. Page 27 of 135 suggest precisely what the permitting agencies will require. Instead,they are examples of mirigation measures that have been provided as a result of experience with the resource agencies and typical permit conditions. 5. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,a water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and a Sireambed Alteration Agreement from the Califarnia Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code for any grading or fill activity within drainages and wetlands. It is recommended that the applicant contact these agencies prior to final plan submittal in order to incorporate any additional requirements into the project design. As part of the permitting process,the applicant would likely be required to provide a compensatory habitat crearion/restoration program to mirigate impacts to jurisdictional wetland and riparian areas. The mirigation components of such a program would be at the discretion of the applicable regulatory agenciea The program would be required to be written and 'unplemented by a qualified biologist, and could include the following components: i. Mitigation plantings for the loss of existing wetland and riparian habitat shall be located in the onsite drainages that are proposed to be modified or preserved as part of the proposed project to the fullest extent feasible. The compensatory program must provide a minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat values and functions to that unpacted. However,agency permitting may require a higher ratio. If onsite mitigation is not feasible, offsite options may be considered in accordance with the requirements of the agencies. ii. As part of the plan, the applicant shall prepare and submit for approval a mitigation-phasing plan to ensure that all restoration plantings are in place with sufficient irrigation prior to final inspection. iri. Mitigation plantings shall be with native riparian and wedand species kom locally collected stock. iv. Removal of native species in the creeks/drainages that are to be retained shall be prohibited. v. [THIS ITEM WAS DELETED,SINCE IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REVISED PROJECT] vi. Outlet struciures shall minimize disturbance to the natural drainage and avoid use of hard bank structures. Where erosion from outlet structures is a concern and bank stabilization must be utilized,bioengineering techniques (e.g.,fiber mats and rolls, willow wattling, and natural anchors) shall be used for bank retauung walls. If concrete must be used,then prefabricated crib wall construction shall be used rather than pouring concrete. Rock grouting shall only be used if no other feasible alternarive is available as determined by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments. vri. The drainage bottoms shall not be disturbed or altered by installation of any drain or outlet structure. Natural rocks imbedded in the stream bank shall be utilized as a base to tie in riprap if necessary; viii. A grease trap and/or silt basin shall be installed in all drop inlets closest to the creek to prevent oIl, silt and other debris from entering the creek. Such traps/basins shall be maintained and cleaned out every spring and fall to prevent � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City o(Arroyo Grande 27 RESOLUTION NO. Page 28 of 135 overflow situations and potential mosquito habitats from forming. The homeowners association shall be responsible for grease trap and/or silt basin maintenance activities;and ix. Construction envelopes shall be restricted to those areas shown on approved site Grading Plans in order to avoid impacts to narive vegetation and riparian/wetland habitats. Envelope boundaries shall be staked in the field. Approved construction envelopes shall be shown on all approved grading and building plans. The applicanYs Prelixninary Riparian&Wefland Mitigation Plan(see Appendix to the Addendum)includes several strategies intended to address impacts to riparian and wefland azeas. The plan was submitted to address the applicant's statement that the 50-ft. mitigation measure buffer is infeasible because it would require a reduction in project density of an additiona112 units. The plan includes strategies for a functional equivalent to the required buffer in order to provide mitigation to the extent feasible: • Bank revegetaHon • Wefland enhancement • Wefland creation . Riparian buffer revegetation • Eucalyptus removal from top of bank; and • Weed control within intact riparian corridor These strategies aze intended to address one or more aspects of Mitigarion Measure B-2(a), which described a series of requirements to protect weflands or riparian areas. Generally speaking, these measures appear to be consistent with many of the strategic goals of Mitigation Measure B-2(a). However, the applicanYs plan does not address the requirement to maintain a 50-foot setback from identified wedand or riparian resources. The applicant will be required to obtain a pernut from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;a water quality certification&om the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act;and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Depaztment of Fish and Game pwsuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code for any grading or fill activity within drainages and weflands. It may be possible that the agencies will accept the applicanYs mirigation strategy as being functionally equivalent to the 50-foot setback requirement described in the Revised Final SEIR for this project. However,without that assurance,the applicanYs prelunutary mitigation plan may not meet the requirements of Mirigation Measure B-2(a),because it does not include a 50-foot buffer setback as required by the City Council. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to contribute up to$30,000 to the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District to be used either solely,or in combination with other funding, to carry out tasks and objecrives of the Watershed Plan, adopted by the Pismo Lake Task Force on March 22,2004 (correspondence from Andre,Morris and Buttery to the City of Arroyo Grande,December 10, 2004). This is not intended as mitigation for impact B-2, however it is included because it provides a project benefit to consider in the formularion of a Statement of Overriding Considerarions. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.2-19 through 4.2-24;Second Addendum pages 16-23. � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grende 28 RESOLUTION NO. Page 29 of 135 5.2.2 Potentially Significant Direct Impact B-3.The proposed project would result would result in the removal of 11 native coast live oak trees, the transplanting of 12 native coast live oak trees,and the removal of associated habitat within Coastal Oak Woodland habitat onsite. This is considered a Class II,significanf but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Secrion 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterarions have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Removal and transplantation of Coastal Oak Woodland habitat is considered a significant unpact due to the long time-period necessary for these habitats to establish,and the relatively high quality of wildlife habitat that they provide. The proposed project would result in the removal of 11 native coast live oak trees,the transplanting of 12 narive coast live oak trees,and the removal of associated habitat within Coastal Oak Woodland habitat onsite. Although the transplanted trees are proposed to be transplanted onsite, a moderate survival rate is expected. Additionally,transplanting oak trees may not create oak woodland habitat with similar features to that removed, and requires many years to establish. Further,the Oak Woodland is serving as an important corridor for wildlife movements. Development of the site will fragment this wildlife corridor and alter wildlife movement within the site and also between adjacent open spaces. These impacts are considered to be Class II, significant but mitigable. The City of Arroyo Grande has established oak tree mirigation and protection measures. The guidelines set forth by the City require a tree planting fee at an amount set forth by the City Councfl. In lieu of said fee, and upon City approval, the developer shall be responsible for the purchase, planting,maintenance and replacement of such trees, if necessary. A security bond may be required, at an amount determined by the City,to ensure faithful performance. The bond may be held by the City far a maxunum of two years. T'he City may require a six foot tree planting easement on all or select subdivision streets. No trees may be removed unless a tree removal permit has been issued or for which a tree removal plan has not been approved by the City. A ininnnum 3:1 replacement ratio (trees replaced to trees lost) for oak trees two inches or more in diameter at grade is required. Although most of the proposed lots may be able to be developed while avoiding or m;n;m;�ing impacts to individual oaks,many lots contain oak trees and oak woodland habitat, and as such,the proposed project would result in direct and ind'uect impacts to numerous coast live oak trees. Specifically,nearly all of proposed Lots 13 through 15 are located in oak woodland habitat. Portions of Lots 7 through 12 and 21 also involve oak woodland areas. Because individual property owners may develop ar landscape their lots and remove or damage oak trees and/or oak woodland habitat,the inclusion of oak trees and oak woodland habitat in individual lots raises the likelihood of unpact to these resources. Therefore,Oak trees included within proposed lots shall be avoided or shall be miHgated according to the following mitigarion measures. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Revised FSEIR,as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City o/Arroyo Grende 29 RESOLUTION N0. Page 30 of 135 the MMRP. With imposifion of the following mitigarion measures,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure B-3(a): Pre-construction Survey and Tree Protection Plan. Prior to Tract Map Approval, an accurate map identifying and locating all existing onsite trees and all existing trees that are off-site but affected by the project shall be prepared by a certified azborist and submitted to the City. Such map shall also identify all existing trees that are proposed by the applicant for removal or destruction;and such trees shall be visibly marked forinspection. Oak trees and Oak Woodland habitat shall be avoided by adjusting or removing proposed lots to eliminate inclusion of oak trees. If avoidance of oak trees in not feasible,oak trees included within lots shall require mitigation. Each tree or group of trees designated to remain in place shall be protected by a five-foot fence enclosure, prior to the beguuung of construction.`The fence shall be wooden,chain link, or plastic barricade fencing. The location of the fence is normally at the dripline of the tree, but it may by adjusted or omitted with the City's written approval. In addition, the Community Development,Public Works and Pazks and Recreation Departments shall monitor conshuction activities and enforce an approved tree protection plan. No parking of vehicles or equipment,or storage of materials shall be permitted within the dripline of the trees designated to remain. In the event that underground utilities must be placed within the dripline of the trees to remain, the utilities shall be installed by auguring at 24 inches m;n;mum depth or by hand trenching. If roots over one inch in diameter are encountered, the roots shall be preserved without injury. No machine trenching within a tree's dripline shall be permitted,unless authorized, in writing,by the Parks and Recreation d'uector. To ensure protection of trees, a performance bond may be required, as acceptable to the City, in the amount of$1,500.00, or the value of each affected tree,whichever is greater. If no damage to protected trees has occurred,in the opinion of the certified arborist and the Parks and Recrearion Department,the bond shall be returned upon final building inspection. If damage to protected trees is determined to have occurred,the bond shall be held for three years and forfeited if,in the opinion of the certified arborist and the Parks and Recreation Department, permanent damage has occurred. Replacement plantings shall be at more than a 3:1 ratio and shall be m;n;mum 15-gallon sized nursery trees. Replacement and relocated trees shall be planted in a natural setting (not as landscaping) at the canopy/dripline edge of existing mature native oak trees;on north-facing slopes; within drainage swales (except when riparian habitat is present);where topsoil is present; and away from continuously wet areas (e.g.,lawns,irrigation azeas,landscaping, etc.), to create oak woodland habitat to the extent possible. A seasonally timed maintenance program and appropriate browse protection will be developed for all oak tree planting areas on the project site. A City approved qualified arborist/botanist shall be retained to monitor the acquisirion, installation, and maintenance of all oak trees to be replaced and relocated on the project site. Replacement and relocated trees shall be monitored and maintained by a qualified arborist/botanist for at least five years or until the trees have successfully established as determined by the City Parks and Recreation Director. Annual monitoring reports that evaluate oak tree survivability and vigor shall be prepared by the certified arborist and submitted the City. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tanfs for the City of Arroyo Grande 30 RESOLUTION NO. Page 31 of 135 All frees planted or relocated as mitigation shall have a 90% survival rate after five years. If the five year survival rate of trees planted or relocated as xnitigation is less than 90%,the number of trees required to reach 90% survival shall be replaced at a 1:1 rario. All replacement miHgation trees (trees planted to replace those that did not survive the five year period), shall in turn have a survival rate of 100% five years from date of planting. Tree monitoring and replacement shall continue until an overall five year,90% survival rate is reached for mirigation trees. Planted or relocated trees shall not be located as to adversely unpact on-site occurrences of Pismo clarkia. Mitigation Measure B-3(b): Subsequent Grading Plans and Tree Mitigation. Tree mirigation is based upon the Tree Mitigation Plan Map (Castlerock Development 1998), which may change depending on the futal approved project. Therefore, prior to the approval of grading permits,fulal impacts to trees on the project site shall be re-evaluated by a certified arborist and submitted to the City. Mirigation measures for any trees impacted by the final approved project shall be the same as presented in B-3(a). Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.2-24 through 4.2-27, and Second Addendum Pages 23-25. 5.2.3 PotenHally Significant Direct Impact B-4. Construction of the proposed project would impact Pismo clarkia,a Federally-listed Endangered and State-listed Rare plant species, occurring within the project site. This would be considered a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes ar alteraHons have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance Facts in Support of Finding-The original proposed project and the first reduced density development proposal would impact Pismo clarkia, a Federally-listed Endangered and State- listed Rare plant species occurring within the project site. Pismo clarkia occurrences can fluctuate onsite annually depending on the pattern of rainfall received. The site can support a Pismo clarkia population,which during some years appears to be more robust than during others. Mirigation outlined in the Revised Final SEIR and inmrporated into the First Addendum included Pismo clarkia avoidance,agency permit compliance, and completion of a worker education program. As noted in the Revised Final SEIR,unplementation of these measures would not reduce unpacts to a less than significant level unless avoidance is assured, and the impact for the original project was therefore listed as Class I, significant and unavoidnble. The first reduced density development proposal, as analyzed in the First Addendum,would similarly result in C1ass I,significant and unavoidable, impacts to Pismo clarkia. However, the second reduced density development proposal would avoid mapped occurrences of Pismo clarkia, as all development is located more than 50 feet&om the edge of the occurrences (refer to Figure 6). In fact, the nearest development(proposed span-culvert crossing the East Fork of Meadow Creek) would be located approximately 175 feet from the nearest mapped occunence. The nearest lot(Lot 15 would be located over 200 feet from the nearest mapped occurrence. Impacts would thus be considered significant buf mifigable (Class II). However,because development would still occur within the vicinity of roving Pismo clazkia populations,mitigation would still be required to ensure less than significant impacts. The area shown as"Established Pismo Clarkia Mitigarion Area' on the Tract 1998 Pismo Clarkia Distribution and Mitigarion Map (Padre Associates 2000) is considered to be � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Anoyo Grande 31 RESOLUTION NO. Page 32 of 135 marginally suitable habitat for Pismo clarkia. This area extends from the southem adjacent property onto the project site. Previous plantings show some success,but invasive non- native veldt grass currenfly occupies much of the proposed mitigation area. This grass commonly out-competes native species, and in a short time period could eliminate potential Pismo clarkia growth areas. Portions of this area may currenfly display habitat characteristics that are suitable for Pismo clarkia,however,the potential for a successful long-term population of Pismo clarkia is greatly reduced based on the presence of invasive species. Additionally,it is Rincori s understanding that the"Established Pismo Clarkia Mitigation Area' is a mirigation area from a previous project,and therefore does not constitute mitigation for the proposed project. Many times,native plant species with highly specialized niches are adversely affected by years of increased precipitation totals. Pismo clarkia appears to be one of those native species adversely affected through competition with weedy grasses and forbs during yeazs of higher rainfall totals. Additionally,Mediterranean plants have a wide variation of responses to the timing of the seasonal rainfall. For instance,many non-native annual species that compete with native species such as Pismo clarkia respond very well to early fall/winter rains,while others have specific ecological requirements that suppress seed germinafion until later in the growing season. Therefore, the amount of precipitation,as well as the seasonal timing of the rainfall, can affect Pismo clarkia's distribution and ability to compete with other plant species. It is also important to note that variarions in yearly rainfall totals affect annual plant species differenfly than rainfall totals affect habitat types. For example,the distribution of an annual plant species from year to year in a particular area is much mare a factor of rainfall totals than the distribution of an established azea of a particular habitat type. For instance,wefland and riparian vegetation occur in areas of increased water availability, and once established will typically encompass about the same surface area unless there is a consistent increase in annual rainfall. Sunilarly,unless there is a substantial reduetion in annual rainfall totals or water availability,established wedand and riparian vegetation can persist during dry periods. Conversely,native annual plant species such as Pismo clarkia appear to tolerate and tluive during years of lower average rainfall totals compared to the non-native annual grasses and forbs that can out-compete such species when annual precipitation values aze high. As such,the area covered by annual plant species can fluctuate naturally based on precipitation whereas established perennial vegetation and habitat types typically experience little surface area fluctuations unless consecutive years of either increased precipitaflon or drought aze experienced, or there is a catastrophic event or a micro-topographic change. Maps of Pismo clarkia distriburion on the subject property have been prepared from studies performed during 1998,2000, 2002, and 2003. A comparison of these four maps and an evaluarion of the corresponding precipitation data from the nearest weather station(Pismo Beach) for the years which the project site was studied show that during average or below average rainfall years Pismo clarkia did exceptionally well and was observed covering the largest porrion of the site. The map showing the most sporadic and non-contiguous occurrences of Pismo clarkia was prepazed from data collected in 1998. Of the four years of precipitation data compared, 1998 had the most spring rain (26.09 inches by May). During the year 2000,16.60 inches of rain had fallen by May,and the map produced by Padre Associates indicates a more contiguous Pismo clarkia occurrence. The map presented in this SEIR reflects data collected during 2002, and the corresponding precipitation through May of 2002 was 398 inches. Finally, during 2003, 6.11 inches of rain had fallen by May and the � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 32 RESOLUTION NO. Page 33 of 135 corresponding map produced by Althouse and Meade shows large contiguous Pismo clarkia populations,as well as other significant areas contauung Pismo clarkia on the project site that were not observed or mapped during the previous studies. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Mitigation Measure B-4(a): Pismo Clarkia Avoidance. 1. The Pismo clarkia occurrences and mulunum 50-foot buffer zone for preserved areas shall be shown on all grading plans and shall be demarcated with highly visible construction fencing. 2. Temporary fencing shall be installed around the Pismo clarkia occurrences prior to any construcrion activities,including ground disturbance or site grading. Protecfive fencing shall remain in place throughout the project construction period. Mitigation Measure B-4(b): [REMOVED,AS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS REVISED PROJECT] Mitigation Measure B-4(c):Worker Education Pro�am. Before any grading or construction activities commence, all personnel associated with the project shall attend a worker education program regarding the sensitive biological resources occurring in the project area(i.e.,Pismo clarkia and other biological resources susceptible to project related impacts). Specifics of this program shall include identification of Pismo clarkia and its habitat, and careful review of the mitigarion measures required to reduce impacts to this species. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors,their employers, and other personnel involved with construcrion of the project. The Community Development, Public Works and Building Departrnents shall be notified of the time that the applicant intends to hold this meeting. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.2-27 through 4.2-32; Addendum pages 18-22;Second Addendum pages 26-28. 5.2.4 Potentially Significant Direct Impact B-5. Project implementation would reduce the populations and available habitat of wildlife in general,including special-status species. Because of the known or potential presence of sensitive wildlife species on-site,the loss of wildlife habitat is considered a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Potential long-term unpacts to wildlife are related to construction activity and noise,and human presence. Specific impacts include the disruption of patterns of habitat use, displacement of individuals, disruption of breeding habits, disruprion of wildlife movements, and night lighting. Impacts to Wildlife in General. The vegetation changes associated with project development would reduce the acreage of the existing on-site vegetarion and would change the ability of � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 33 RESOLUTION NO. Page 34 of 135 the on-site plant communities to support wildlife populations, including sensitive species. In addition to the direct loss of habitat, project development would likely result in increased mortality to species that continue to utilize the project site after development due to domestic and feral animal predation and collecting, as well as arirition of unportant prey resources for wildlife in the remaining habitat. A wide variety of wildlife species could be adversely affected by the presence of lights from the proposed development. Noctumal species that rely on darkness to hunt or evade predators,including owls, nighthawks and rodents,would be affected. Certain species of aerial-foraging bats may be helped by night lighting because of their attractiveness to prey items such as flying insects. Refer to Section 4.1,Aesthetics, of the Revised FSEIR for further discussion of unpacts and mitigation relating to project lighting. Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife. The special-status species,if present on the project site,are likely to be unpacted by direct and ind'uect activities associated with project nnplementation. Development of the project site will remove potenrial raptor foraging/nesting habitat from the site. Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors. The entire site currendy acts as a wildlife corridor, facilitating wildlife movement from upland areas through the more urbanized downstream reaches of the Meadow Creek system. Although the construcUon of James Way and the surrounding phases of the Rancho Grande project, as well as increased rural residential development,has fragmented native habitat in the region,a sufficient movement corridor for common wildlife species such as black-tailed deer,coyotes, raccoons,rabbits,and opossums still remains. Proposed on-site roads and subsequent residential development would&agment habitats, thereby affecting wildlife movements. Barriers to movement such as roadways and subsequent residential development are disproportionately greater for small-sized animals, but even large maminal movements are affected by these features. Most of the unpact to larger animals is due to re-adjustment of home ranges,breeding territories,and foraging habits in response to changes in prey movements and general reduction in availability of prey. Studies of small mammal movements have shown that the presence of roadways would introduce a source of mortality not currently present on the site, i.e.,wildlife-vehicle interactions. Additionally, the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve is designated open space that is adjacent to the project site,which allows the project site to serve as a narrow corridor for wIldlife to traverse to larger areas of open and undeveloped habitat. The presence of the east fork of Meadow Creek, the seasonal water that it provides, and its continuance offsite in both northeastern and southwestern directions,increases the likelihood that the project site is an important local wildlife corridor. The onsite Oak Woodland habitat is also an unportant feature for wIldlife movement. Development of thE project site would alter current wildlife movement patterns,fragment and restrict the width of these wildlife corridors, as well as isolate the open space in the James Way Oak Habitat and WIldlife Preserve. Impacts Related to Invasive Non-Nafiae Sqecies. Project development would introduce or maintain non-narive anunals such as bullfrogs,house sparrows,European starlings, dogs, cats,Norway and black rats, and house mice to the project site. In addition,project development would introduce or maintain non-native invasive plants through landscaping � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 34 RESOLUTION NO. Page 35 of 135 of new residences/structures and streets. The introduction and/or continued presence of these species would direcfly and indirecfly unpact wildlife resources in several ways: 1)by out-competing native species for food;2)predation; 3) and habitat alteration. Traffic and pedestrians,for example,may alter habitat,particularly for ground-dwelling sensirive species such as the northern harrier,burrowing owl,and California horned lark that feed and/or nest on or near the ground. Project buildout may result in the spread of non-native plants through disturbance and escapes of ornamentals. This could potentially unpact wildlife, including sensitive species due to loss of food resources and cover. Although not a direct unpact to wildlife, the introduction of domesHc cats and dogs could create conflicts betcveen predators such as coyotes and domesric animals. Residents may kill such predators,with the possibility that other non-predator species could be affected. Impacts to Water Resources. The East Fork of Meadow Creek consists prunarily of an earthen bottom, suggesting that heavy sediment loads are pre-existing conditions in the watershed. However, adverse effects on the water quality of the east fork of Meadow Creek, the main channel of Meadow Creek,and several unnamed drainages,both on-site and downstream from the project site, could pose a risk to these habitats and the species that use them. Impacts to water quality could result from construction activities on the project site that create unstable soils or by construction materials. Potential risk comes from the following sources (a) fuels,hydraulic fluids,paints, solvents, and other chemicals; (b) increased sedimentarion could occur during and after construcrion; (c) roadways would become point sources for runoff into nearby creeks; (d) addilaonal pesticides,fertilizers,and herbicides would be introduced onto the site. Water polluted with silt and/or construction debris,or any of the above sources would travel downstream, potentially reaching the Pismo Lagoon. Because of the sensitivity of habitats associated with the oak woodland within the seasonal drainages and riparian habitat within the east fork of Meadow Creek, as well as their connection to downstream receptors, the introduction of sed'unents,fuels, oils, solvents, pesticides,fertilizers,herbicides,and az�iinal waste to these watercourses is considered a potentially significant impact. As discussed in Impact B-2(a),if impacts to riparian and wetland habitats are not avoided,then compliance with Sections 401 and 404 of the C1ean Water Act and Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code would be necessary. Compliance with these regulations would require that the onsite riparian and wetland habitats remain as good as or better than pre-construction conditions and any ixnpacts to water resources would be considered violation of these laws. Impacts to water quality are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5 of the Revised FSEIR and the mitigation measures in Impact H-1(a) indicate that compliance with the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System and therefore,implementafion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices to control ixnpacts to water quality onsite as well as down stream, including the Pismo lagoon,will be required. Refer to Section 4.5,Hydrology/Water Quality,of the Revised FSEIR for further discussion of unpacts and mirigation relating to water quality. Secondary biological unpacts can occur as a result of vegetation management requirements for the purpose of fire control and prevention. Section 4.8.2 Fire Protecfion, of the Revised FSEIR requires the applicant to develop a Fire/Vegetation Management Plan or Fuel Modification Plan for the site to reduce the site's current high fire hazard. The requirements as established state that 30 feet of adequate clearance from brush to structures must be maintained, and vegetation within this 30-foot zone must be stricdy irrigated and controlled. � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 35 RESOLUTION NO. Page 36 of 735 The SEIR further recommends that grasses shall be cut down to a length of 4 inches or less yeazly,or as required by the City of Arroyo Grande Fire Department. Vegetation management would potentially involve removal of some, if not all,native vegetation within 30 feet of a structure. The fuel modification plan as required could also involve trimm;ng oak trees that have branches of two inches in diameter or less within four to six feet of the ground. Trunming or removing shrubs within the oak tree canopy could also occur as a result of the fuel modification program. As long as the 50-foot riparian and Pismo clarkia setbacks are implemented,the required 30 feet of adequate clearance may be achieved without additional impacts to the onsite biological resources.The fuel modification program must be strategically unplemented, meaning patches of oak canopy and associated understory plants away from structures and outside of the fuel modification zones should be left intact. Appropriate low-fuel load native vegetation may be planted along the perimeters of the native habitat types and removal of highly combustible species can lessen unpacts from implementation of the fuel modification plan. The margin of the oak woodland and coastal scrub habitat types would potenrially be affected by the implementation of the fuel modificarion plan,which could affect animal use of the margins of these habitat types. However, the development of the site and associated human disturbances (i.e.: increased human presence,lighting,noise,etc.)would also likely deter animals from using the margins of the habitat. Removal of vegetation in these areas may also adversely affect Pismo clarkia plants. As detailed in an August 29,2000 memo&om Teresa McClish,mowing within areas of Pismo clarkia will occur where necessary according to the City Fire Department,but shall not take place until after Labor Day to ensure seeding of Pismo clarkia has occurred. Careful removal of understory woody brush within the Pismo clarkia preserve areas can also occur without adverse impacts to this species. Revegetation of the riparian setback/buffer zone as required in Impact B-2 should consist of appropriately selected low combusrible shrubs and herbaceous species native to the region to ensure the fuel load is not increased. These areas could also be irrigated to further reduce the fuel load and comply with requirements established in the fuel modification program. It is important to note that careful attention to implementing the fuel modification program would not adversely impact biological resources. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. With imposition of the following mitigation measures, impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure B-5(a): [REMOVED,AS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS REVISED PROJECT] Mitigation Measure B-5(b): Ground Disturbance Timing. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds including the ground-nesting northern harrier, or other birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,all initial ground disturbing acdvities and tree removal should be avoided from March 31 to September 15,unless a pre-construction survey for active nests within the lunits of grading is conducted by a qualified biologist at the site two weeks prior to any construction activities. If active nests are located,then all construction work must be � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 36 RESOLUTION NO. Page 37 of 135 conducted at least 50 to 250 feet from the nest until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site,as determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure B-5(c):Pet Brochure. The applicant shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and all HOA members about the unpacts associated with non-native anunals,especially cats and dogs, and other non-native animals to the project site; similarly,inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potenflal for coyotes to prey on domestic anunals. Mitigation Measure B-5(d):Night Lighting Standards. The following standards pertaiiwtg to night lighting shall be added to the projecYs design guidelines: • Night lighting of public areas shall be kept to the minunum necessary for safety and security purposes. • Exterior lighting within 100 feet of open space shall be shielded and aimed as needed to avoid spillover into open space areas. Decorative lighting shall be low intensity. Mitigation Measure B-5(e): Native Landscaping. In order to ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non-native plant and tree species into the vicuuty of the site,the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a City approved biologist. All invasive plant and tree species shall be removed from the landscaping plan. These include the following: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Trees Acacia spp. Wattle Populus fremontii Cottonwood Schinus molle Califomia Pepper Tree Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Tree Shrubs/Ground Covers Acacia redolens Wattle Arctostaphylos densiflora Sonoma manzanita Arctostaphylos densiflora McMinn manzanita Arctotheca calendula Cape weed Cotoneaster dammen Bearberry cotoneaster Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster Myoporum pacificum Myoporum Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum Pyracantha spp. Firethom � In addition,the following discusses concerns with other species that are present in the suggested plant list. If cottonwood trees are desired,black cottonwood(Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) shall be utilized. Manzanita species planted onsite shall be species that are local and regional narives. A specific species of Ceanothus shall be identified,because hybridization of certain species does occur. If creeping St.John's wort (Hyperricum caycinum) is planted it shall not be planted on peruneters of open space to lunit vegetative spread. The plant list identified Ciarkia spp.,however this needs to be specific Clarkia purpurea is recommended because it is known to occur in the azea. Mitigation Measure B-5(�:Wildlife Corridor Preservation. Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from Riparian and Wetland Habitats and by avoiding direct and indirect impacts to oak Woodland habitat. Refer to Mitigation Measure B-2(a),Riparian and Wefland Protection, setback values � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 37 RESOLUTION NO. Page 38 of 135 to allow for Riparian/Wefland corridor preservation, and to Mitigation Measure B-3(a) for oak tree avoidance and mitigation measures. Reference- Revised FSEIR pages 4.2-32 through 4.2-38;Second Addendum pages 29-31. 5.2.5 Potentially Significant Cumulative Biological Resources Impact. Development of the proposed project would contribute to cumulative biological impacts in the area. These unpacts would include the loss of wildlife foraging/breeding areas, and loss of Pismo clarkia. The cumularive effect of these impacts depends on the proxunity of other approved and proposed projects to the project under consideration. Due to the loss of wIldlife foraging habitat,breeding habitat,and Pismo clarkia that would occur as a result of project development,as proposed,in combination with other expected development in the area,cumularive unpacts to biological resources are considered significant but mitigable. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-As noted in the Revised Final SEIR,due to the loss of wildlife foraging habitat and breeding habitat and Pismo clarkia,the original proposed project would have resulted in C1ass I,significanf and unavoidable, cumulative impacts to biological resources. The first reduced density development proposal would have similarly resulted in Class I cumulative impacts,since it would simIlarly impact Pismo clarkia habitat. However, unpacts related to Pismo clarkia would be reduced from Class I,signiftcant and unavaidable, to Class II,significant but mitigable, under the second reduced density development proposal. Impacts related to wildlife foraging/breeding areas would similarly be reduced, as the second reduced density development proposal represents an overall reduction in residential density and site disturbance when compared to the original proposed project and the first reduced density development proposal. Mitigation Measures-Cumulative biological resource impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures B-2(a), B-3(a),B-3(b),B-4(a), B-4(c),B-5(b), B-5(c),B-5(d),& 5(e),and B-5(�,as discussed previously,would remain project requirements and would reduce unpacts to a less than significant level. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 4.2-38;Second Addendum pages 31-32. 5.3 Cultural Resources 5.3.1 Potentially Si�ificant Direct Impact CR-1. There is the potential that project construction will disturb previously unidentified buried archeological deposits and/or human remains. This is considered a Class II,significant but mirigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Secfion 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes ar alteraflons have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 38 RESOLUTION NO. Page 39 of 135 Facts in Support of Finding-Although there is a lack of on-site recorded archaeological resources,as well as off-site isolated artifacts, there is potential for buried archaeological deposits to occur within the project boundaries. Construcrion in areas not known to contain archaeological resources, may nevertheless affect previously unidentified resources, given the culiural sensitivity of the project site and its propensity for possible pre-historic human occupancy. This would be considered a potentially significant unpact unless mitigation is incorporated. As previously mentioned,the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Anoyo Grande General Plan(1990) makes specific reference to policy statements and implementation actions concerning measures to protect cultural resources for future generarions. Implementation of these standards would reduce project impacts related to cultural resources. Nevertheless,additional mirigation measures are required to ensure less than significant impacts on cultural resources. Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.3 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigarion Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. With unposirion of the following mitigation measure,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a): Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction,an orientarion meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing activities. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and d'uections as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. A qualified archaeologist and Narive American representative shall monitor all earth moving acrivities within narive soil. In the event that archaeological or historic arrifacts are encountered during project construction, all work in the vicinity (50 yards or greater, as determined by an archaeologist) of the find will be halted until such rime as a qualified azchaeologist evaluates the find and appropriate mirigation(e.g.,curation, preservation in place, etc.),if necessary, is implemented. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location, the following steps will be taken: I. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: A. The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has been contacted, and determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required, or B. Where the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: 1. The coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; 2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American; and � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 39 RESOLUTION NO. Page 40 of 135 3. The most likely descendent has had the opportunity to work with the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, on the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. II. Where the following conditions occur,the landowner or his authorized representatives shall repatriate the Native American human remains and associated grave items with appropriate dignity on the property in a locarion not subject to further subsurface disturbance. However, any such activity will be pursuant to the discretion of a Chumash representative if a descendent is either not identified or fafls to respond to notification. A. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notifiied by the commission. B. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation;or C. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Narive American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. III. Halt Work Order. If human remains are unearthed,State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disiurbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains aze detennined to be of Native American descent,the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.3-5 through 4.3-7;Second Addendum pages 32-34. 5.4 Geologic Resources 5.4.1 Potentially Significant Direct Impact G-1. Due to the presence of active faults in the vicinity, the project site and surrounding area is subject to strong ground shaking. Ground shaking has the potential to cause fill material to settle, de-stabilize slopes,and cause physical damage to structures, property,utiliries and road access. Ground shaking has the potential to cause injury and death to humans. This is considered a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The project site is located approximately 62 kilometers west of the San Andreas Fault, 25 kIlometers east of the Hosgri Fault,and approximately 3 kilometers north of the Wilmar Avenue Fault. The Hosgri Fault is capable of generating a Maxunum Credible Earthquake (MCE) of 6.9 to 7.5.The San Andreas Fault is capable of producing an MCE of 7.5 to 8.0. A seismic event of this magnitude on this fault is considered likely during the useful life of the proposed structures. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 40 RESOLUTION N0. Page 41 of 135 As was previously mentioned, probabilistic ground accelerations for the site should be considered along with ground shaking hazards. The CDMG Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California (1999)lists a 10% probability of experiencing 0.35-0.45 g peak horizontal ground acceleration within the next 50 years for the region. The site-specific engineering geological analysis done for the subject property outlines a probabilistic ground acceleration range of 0.078g-0.654g. It should be noted that the site, as well as much of southern California,will likely experience strong ground morion from future local and regional earthquakes. There is nothing unique about the project area that would make it subject to lugher ground motions than adjacent or nearby sites. Recent experience in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake indicates that certain cut/fill lots are subject to potential fill settlement and translation during strong ground shaking. Besides the direct physical damage to structures caused by the ground shaking and acceleration,marginally stable landslides, slopes,and inadequately compacted fill material could move and cause additional damage. Gas,water,and electrical lines can be ruptured during the ground shaking, or broken during movement of earth caused by the earthquake, which can jeopardize public safety. Impacts are potenrially significant. Mitigation Measures -Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference,the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. With imposition of the following mitigation measure,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure Gl(a): CBC Compliance. Above-ground structures shall be designed and built according to California BuIlding Code Seismic standards. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.4-11 and 4.4-12;Second Addendum page 34. 5.4.2 Potentially Si�ificant Direct Impact G-3.Soils at the site have the potential to present soil- related hazards (i.e., erosive or expansive soIls) to structures and roadwa;s on the project site and are considered C1ass II, significant but mitigable unpacts. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Secrion 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-ErosiUe Soils. Accarding to the Natural Resource Conservarion Service (NRCS) soils mapping for the project site,the areas proposed for residential development are underlain by Pismo-Rock outcrop complex (30-75% slopes) soils and Arnold loamy sand (5 to 15% slopes),which are characterized by high erosion potential. In addition, as seen in Table 4.4-1, the remauung on-site soils are also susceptible to erosion hazards. Structures and facilities constructed on these soils,as well as occupants of the proposed facilities, could be exposed to hazards related to erosion. As previously mentioned, the Earth Systems Pacific report(2003) indicated that surface soils, predominant soils at depth and the sandstone bedrock observed on-site are sandy and have very little cohesion and represent a high risk of erosion. Impacts are potenHally significant. � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 41 RESOLUTION NO. Page 42 of 135 Expansive Soils. An expansion index test was performed upon a sample of silty sand soil. The tested expansion index of the soil of zero places the soil in the very low expansion category. Soils in the general vicuuty,however, exhibit more expansive soils. Expansive soils tend to swell with moisture and shrink during the dry season. This cyclical change can stress and damage slabs and foundations if precautionary measures are not incorporated into the construction procedure. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4 of the Revised FSEIR,as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference,the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the NIMRP. With ixnposition of the following mitigation measures,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure G-3(a): Soils/Foundation Report. In order to avoid soil-related hazards, the individual lot owners and the project applicant shall provide soils/foundation reports that specifically identify expansive soils hazards as part of the application for Building Permit(s). To reduce the potenrial for foundation cracking,the reports may recommend that one or more of the following be considered during design of the project: 1. Use continuous deep footings (i.e.,embedment depth of 3 feet or more) and concrete slabs on grade with increased steel reinforcement together with a pre- wetting and long-term moisture control program within the active zone. 2. Removal of the highly expansive material and replacement with non-expansive import fill material. 3. The use of specifically designed drilled pier and grade beam system incorporating a structural concrete slab on grade supported approximately 6 inches above the expansive soils. 4. Chemical treatrnent with hydrated lime to reduce the expansion characteristics of the soils. Mitigation Measure G-3(b): Expansive Soil Damage. The expansion indices of individual lots should be determined on a lot-specific basis. In the event that expansive soils will underlie potenrial developments,the use of nonexpansive nnport or presaiuration of subslab soIls in areas where slabs will overlie expansive soils is recommended. If it is elected to use nonexpansive import,the thickness of nonexpansive material should be determined based upon the results of expansion index testing performed on individual lots. The unport shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a m;n;mum of 90 percent of maximum dry density until finished grade is reached. Mitigation Measure G-3(c): Grading and Erosion Control Plan. A grading and erosion control plan that m;n;mizes erosion, sedimentation and unstable slopes shall be prepared and unplemented by the project applicant or representative thereof, prior to final map recordation. It must include the following: a. Methods such as retention basins, drainage diversion structures, spot grading, sflt fencing/coordinated sediment trapping, straw bales, and sand bags shall be used to miniinize erosion on slopes and prevent siltation into the East Fork of Meadow Creek and its tributaries during grading and construcrion activities. b. Graded azeas shall be revegetated within 4 weeks of grading activities with deep- � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Anoyo Grande 42 RESOLUTION NO. Page 43 of 135 rooted, native, drought-tolerant species to minimi�e slope failure and erosion potential. If determined necessary by the Community Development Depaztment and Public Works Departrnent,irrigarion shall be provided. Geotextile binding fabrics shall be used if necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is established. c. After construction of tract improvements and until construction of individual homes, exposed areas shall be stabilized to prevent wind and water erosion, using methods approved by the City Community Development Department, Public Works and Building Deparhnents and APCD. These methods may include: topsoil is to be unported and spread on the ground surface in areas having soils that can be transported by the wind,and/or the mixing of the highly erosive sand with finer- grained materials (silt or clay) in sufficient quantiries to prevent its ability to be transported by wind. The topsoil or silt/clay mixhzre is to be used to stabilize the existing soil to prevent its ability to be transported by wind. As a minimum, six inches of topsoil or silt/clay/sand mixhxre is to be used to stabilize the wind-erodable soils. d. Where necessary, site preparation shall include the removal of all or a portion of the expansive soils at the building sites and replacement with compacted fill. e. Where necessary,construcrion on transitional lots shall include overexcavation to expose firm subgrade;use of post tension slabs in future structures, or other geologically acceptable method. f. Landscaped areas adjacent to structures shall be graded so that drainage is away from structures. g. Irrigation shall be controlled so that overwatering does not occur. An irrigation schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department and Public Works Departments prior to land use clearance for grading. h. Grading on slopes steeper than 51 shall be designed to m�n;*n;�e surface water runoff. i. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 shall be properly benched prior to placement of fill. j. Brow ditches and/or berms shall be constructed and maintained above all cut and fill slopes, respectively. k. Cut and fill benches shall be wnstructed at regular intervals. 1. Retaining walls shall be proposed as part of building construction to stabilize slopes where there is a 10-foot or greater difference in elevations between buildable lots. - m. The applicant shall limit excavation and grading to the dry season of the yeaz(typically AprIl 15 to November 1, allowing for variations in weather)unless a Community Development and Public Works Department approved erosion control plan is in place and all measures therein are in effect. n. The applicant shall post a performance bond as determined by and with the City and hire a qualified geologist or soils engineer prior to land use clearance for grading, and to ensure that erosion is controlled and mitigarion measures are properly implemented. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.4-13 through 4.4-16;Second Addendum pages 35-37. 5.4.3 Potentially Significant D'uect Impact G-4. The project site contains steep slopes and is underlain by the Pismo Formation and presents a moderate slope stability hazard. Landsliding has the potential to damage and destroy structures,roadways and other improvements as well as to deflect and block drainage channels,causing further damage and erosion. Soil slumping can damage or destroy structures and lead to erosion problems. These are considered Class II, significant, but mitigable impact. � Prepared by Rincon ConsW Wnts for the City ofAnoyo Grende 43 RESOLUTION NO. Page 44 of 135 Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Approximately 40% of the site consists of slopes greater than 25%. Altogether, approxunately 60% of the site consists of slopes greater than 15%. The project is underlain by the Pismo Formation and is characterized by a moderate slope stability hazard. Earth Systems Pacific has prepared an evaluation of liquefaction, slope stability and erosion potential for the subject property (refer to Appendix K of the Revised FSEIR). The objecfive of this study was to analyze the stability of the two slope conditions proposed within the tract. The geologic report prepared for the original proposed project and incorporated into the First Addendum (Earth Systems Pacific,January 2003) identified two critical areas of slope stability hazards on the property. The areas of potential slope instability include the banks along the East Fork of Meadow Creek and the cut slope originally proposed to be retained by stacked walls along the southeastern portion of the development. Previously proposed Lots 14 and 19 were specifically identified as occurring in these areas. The second reduced density development proposal does not include any development in this area, thereby avoiding the identified slope stability hazards. However,portions of the cunent proposal would still be located on relatively steep slopes.Specifically,porrions of Lots 1, 9, 10, ll,12, 13,and 15 would be located on slopes exceeding 20% (after filling of the gully; refer to Figure 6). The potential for destabilization or acrivation of mass wastage areas increases with an increase in the amount of proposed earthwork. This unpact is considered potentially significant for the proposed project. Debris flows typically form in response to local intense rainfall in steep swale areas that are filled with saturated,fine-grained soiLs. T'he project area, because of its relatively steep topography,is considered to have a moderate debris flow potential. Landslide impacts would be potentially significant. In addition to landslide hazards,chapter 16.20.050 of the City of Anoyo Grande Development Code states that no buIlding and/or grading shall be perntitted on slopes of 25% and greater. Portions of the proposed development conflict with this policy. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4 of the Revised FSEIR,as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference,the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. With imposition of the following mitigation measures,unpacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure G-4(a): [REMOVED, AS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS REVISED PROJEC'T] Mitigation Measure G-4(b): Development on Steep Slopes. As prescribed by Tide 16 of the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code,building and grading is not permitted on slopes of 25% and greater. Steep slopes (considered to be 20-25%) present a danger to landsliding,slope failure, sed'unentation of on-site drainages due to accelerated runoff and soil erosion. Because of the erosive qualities of the site, development shall be prohibited on slopes exceeding 20%. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Anoyo Grande 44 RESOLUTION NO. Page 45 of 135 Reference- Revised FSEIR pages 4.4-16 through 4.4-18;Second Addendum pages 37-39. 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 5.51 Potentially Significant Direct Impact H-1.During project construction, the soil surface would be subject to erosion and the downstream watershed would be subject to pollution. However, compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit would reduce these impacts to a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or inwrporated into,the project that avoid or substanrially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Regularions under the federal Clean Water Act and the State require that,for projects that would disiurb greater than five acres during construction (changing to a one-acre maximum in March of 2003), a National Pollutant Discharge Elimnlation System(NPDES) State General Construction Permit be obtained. The proposed development encompasses 27 acres, of which approximately 6 acres will be disturbed. Therefore a State Permit would apply to the development of the overall tract. The Permit requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains specific actions, termed Best Management Practices (BMPs),to control the discharge of pollutants,including sed'unent,into local surface water drainages. Refer to mitigarion measure B-2(a) in Section 42,Biological Resources, of the Revised FSEIR for an outline of the permitting protocol required when impacts to riparian and wetland habitat aze not avoided. Such impacts fall under the jurisdiction of agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game. In addition,a Notice of Intent (NOI) to perform work under the Permit must be filed with the State. Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference,the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. With imposition of the following mirigation measure,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure H-1(a):BMP Implementation During Construction. Best Management Practices shall be used during project implementarion,as part of the SWPPP. BMI's that could be used on the project site include: Pollutant Escape Deterrence • Prohibit on-site storage. Cover all other storage azeas including sofl piles,fuel and chemical depots. Protect exposed temporary materials from rain and wind with plasric sheets and temporary roofs. Pollutant Containment Areas • Locate all wnstruction-related equipment and related processes that contain or generate pollutants (i.e. fuel,lubricant and solvents,cement dust and slurry) in isolated areas with proper protection from escape. Locate the above-mentioned in secure areas, away � � Prepared by Rincon Consultants foi the City of Arroyo Grande 45 RESOLUTION NO. Page 46 of 135 from storm drains and gutters. Place the above-mentioned in bermed,plastic-Lined depressions to contain all materials within that site in the event of accidental release or spill. Pazk,fuel and clean all vehicles and equipment in one designated,contained area. Pollutant Detainment Methods • Protect downstream drainages from escaping pollutants by capturing sediment carried in runoff and preventing transport from the site. Examples of detauunent methods that retard movement of water and separate sed'unent and other contaminants are silt fences, hay bales,sand bags,berms,silt and debris basins. Erosion Control • Lazge projects should be scheduled into phases that allow for erosion control of smaller areas rather than a single,large exposed site. Vegetation should only be removed when necessary and immediately before grading. • Schedule excavation and grading work for dry weather. These activifles may be prohibited between the months of November and AprIl. • Slope stabilizers should be utilized. These include natural fiber erosion control blankets of varying densities according to specific slope/ site conditions. • Expedite the restoration of natural erosion control and reduce risk of slope failure by unmediately revegetating and irrigating until first one inch of rain. Revegetation should be completed no later than October 15t so vegetation has had a chance to stabilize the soil before the rains begin. • Reduce fugifive dust by wetting graded areas with an adequate yet conservative amount of water. Cease grading operations in high winds. Recycling/Disposal • Provide recycling facilities. Develop protocol far maintaining a clean site. This includes proper recycling of construction-related materials and equipment fluids (i.e.,concrete dust,cutting slurry,motor oil and lubricants). • Provide disposal facilities. Develop protocol for cleanup and disposal of small construction wastes (i.e., dry concrete). Hazardous Materials Identification and Response • Develop protocol for idenrifying risk operations and materials. Include protocol for identifying spilled-materials source, distribution;fate and transport of spilled materials. • Provide protocol for proper clean-up of equipment and construction materials, and disposal of spilled substances and associated cleanup materials. • Provide emergency response plan that includes contingencies for assembling response team and iinmediately notifying appropriate agencies. The actual BNIl's to be unplemented onsite would be developed as part of the SWPPP required for site construction. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.5-3 through 4.5-6;Second Addendum pages 39-41. 5.5.2 Potentially Significant Direct Impact H-2. High-velocity, debris-laden storm flows in East � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 46 RESOLUTION NO. Page 47 of 135 Fork Meadow Creek create potential for flooding and erosive undermining of proposed improvements in Tract O1-001. This impact is considered a Class II,significant buf mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-According to a Hawks and Associates peer-review of the drainage report prepazed by Castlerock Development for this site (May 6,1997),the post- project peak flow rate generated in a 100-year storm is 300 cfs. The existing 84-inch wide culvert under La Canada has the capacity to convey this flow without overtopping the road, but its unpact on upstream properties is unknown since it was not included in the hydraulic model submitted for review. Furthermore,blockage of this culvert by debris would pose a flood risk for some of the proposed properries. The existing 48-inch wide culvert under the proposed Street"C" is too small for the 100-year storm, causing flows to overtop the road. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5 of the Revised FSEIR,as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference,the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMI�P. With imposition of the following mitigation measures,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure H-2(a):Flood Protection Measures. The applicant shall implement flood protection measures addressing potential flood risks. These measures shall include: a. Development of a hydraulic model of East Fork Meadow Creek as it flows through the tract under proposed conditions.This model generates an expected water surface elevation used in determining the proper height of proposed building lots so as to avoid flooding during high-flow events. The culvert in La Canada under condirions of 50% blockage should be included in the model. The grading plan should ensure that proposed finish floor elevations are at least 1 foot above the modeled flood elevations. b. Design of"C" Street where it crosses the East Fork Meadow Creek such that the 100- year storm passes without overtopping the adjacent banks. c. A drainage maintenance plan drawn up to include regular culvert maintenance (especially during the rainy season) and removal of accumulated sediment and debris in the channel. The maintenance of intemal drainage features shall be the responsibility of either a Home Owners Associarion(HOA) or Maintenance District. The maintenance of a culvert or bridge within the East Fork of Meadow Creek shall be the responsibility of the HOA,unless accepted by the City. d. Design and installation of trash racks upstream of the culvert entrances to lessen the risk of debris blockage during large storm events. Mitigation Measure H-2(b): Streambank Vicinity Construction Guidelines. The applicant shall lunit grading and construction acdvities in the vicinity of the streambank according to the following guidelines so as to lessen the risk of streambank erosion and possible underm;n;ng of proposed struchxres. These guidelines shall include: a. Appropriate erosion control structures shall be included at the entrance and exit of the conveyance structure under"C" Street where it crosses the creek. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 47 , RESOLUTION NO. Page 48 of 135 b. All necessary environmental permits shall be applied for and complied with. These permits shall include,but are not limited to, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (Califomia Department of Fish and Game),Section 401 Permit(State Water Resources Control Board), and a Section 404 Permit(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.5-6 and 4.5-7;Second Addendum pages 41-42. 5.5.3 Potentially Significant Direct Impact H-3. Construction of roads,homes,and other structures will increase runoff amounts and velocities and block local drainage. This impact is considered a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Secrion 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-A drainage system is proposed to divert local drainage around and through the development and convey it to the creek. The impervious azeas created by the development will increase the volume and velocity of runoff,creating the potential for erosion where these flows are concentrated. Some of the proposed drainage system runs through individual lots,while the rest of the system is located on common property. A drainage system maintenance agreement will help assure that the system functions as intended. Nevertheless, prospective impacts are considered potentially significant. A technical issue that was identified as an impact for the original proposed project,regarding the design of the drainage system,has been modified in the project redesign to elimutate this impact. Thus,mitigation measure H-3(c),which was intended to address this issue, is no longer required. The detention basin downstream of Tracf O1-001 was originally designed to detain runoff from this and other tracts Within the Rancho Grande PD 1.2 that contribute runoff to East Fork Meadow Creek. As previously mentioned,Garing Taylor&Associates has updated their original(1991) survey of the James Way detention basin in a current report(December 17,2002). The report states that while the basin is currenfly functioning as designed,the basin would not be able to function properly with the addition of stormwater runoff from the proposed project. Without a properly functioning detention basin,increased runoff generated by the development could pose a flooding risk to downstream properties. This drainage winds its way through the City of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach and evenhxally ends up in the Pismo Marsh before finally dumping into the Pacific Ocean. If the drainage basin is not functioning as designed,it is possible that runoff generated on-site could add silt and other pollutants to downstream locations. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Secrion 4.5 of the Revised FSEIR,as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. With imposition of the following mirigation measures, impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure H-3(a): Adequate Detention. The downstream detenrion basin was analyzed in December of 2002 by Garing Taylor&Associates in order to determine if the basin is able to detain stormwater flows from the Rancho Grande PD 1.2 and release flows at rates equal to or less than pre-development conditions, as originally designed. The report � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 48 RESOLUTION NO. Page 49 of 135 states that the existing retardation basin can be used to capture silt from the storm runoff by over excavating the basin bottom below the lowest outlet elevation. As such,prior to tract improvements,the James Way detention basin shall be restored based on the current report by GTA (refer to Appendix J of the Revised FSEIR). According to the Conditions of Approval number 50 for the development of Tract 1834,the Homeowners' Association shall maintain the basin and other on-site drainage facilities. Mitigation Measure H-3(b):Drainage Plan. For tract-related and individual lot drainage, all runoff water from impervious areas shall be conveyed by surface or underground conduits, capable of conveying the 100-year event, to existing drainage channels. All runoff&om natural areas intercepted by proposed 'unprovements shall be captured and conveyed around or through developed areas by a drainage system capable of conveying the 100-year event. Erosion control structures shall be installed at all pipe ouflets and other places where drainage flows are concentrated. In addition, drainage shall be consistent with approved drainage plans that include: a. Locations and dimensions of all proposed drainage components; b. Amount of water that is captured by the drainage system at all entry points c. Amount of water discharged by the drainage system at ouflets. Mitigation Measure H-3(c): [REMOVED, AS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS REVISED PROJECT Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.5-7 through 4.5-9;Second Addendum pages 42-43. 5.5.4 Potentially Significant D'uect Impact H-4. The proposed project could reduce the quality of surface water flowing to offsite drainage facilities because of the change in land use from open space to residential homes. This is considered a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code SecUon 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterarions have been required in,or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding- Development of the site with residential homes would add impermeable surfaces such as rooftops, patios and sidewalks, and other surfaces such as roads, and driveways that would accumulate deposits of oil, grease, and other vehicle fluids and hydrocarbons. Traces of heavy metals deposited on streets and parking areas from automobiles and/or fall out of airborne contaminants are also common urban surface water pollutants. During storms these deposits would be washed into and through the drainage systems,Pismo Lagoon and ultimately to the ocean. The project would also introduce landscaping and associated maintenance chemicals such as fertilizers,pesticides, and herbicides. Irrigation and storms could wash some of these landscape chemicals into and through local drainage systems and into Pismo Lagoon. Urban runoff can have a variety of deleterious effects. Oil and grease contain a number of hydrocarbon compounds, some of which are toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations. Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and copper are the most common metals found in urban storm water runoff. These metals can be toxic to aquaric organisms, and have the potential to contaminate drinking water supplies. Nutrients from fertilizers including nitrogen and phosphorous can result in excessive or accelerated growth of � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 49 RESOLUTION NO. Page 50 of 135 vegetation or algae,resulting in oxygen depletion and additional unpaired uses of water. Bacteria in water can lead to asphyxiation or suffocation of aquatic aniinals in the receiving waters downstream. Therefore,impacts to surface water quality aze considered potenrially significant. Mitigation Measures-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.5 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMRI'. With unposition of the following mirigation measure,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure H-4(a): Storm Water Management Plan. A plan that incorporates BMPs for the long-term operation of the site shall be developed and implemented by the applicant to minimi�e the amount of pollutants that are washed from the site. The plan shall be developed in cooperation with the City of Arroyo Grande and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Conirol Board. Examples of BMPs listed below which apply to the development of the site may be included in the plan: Educarion • Stencil all storm drains inlets and post signs along channeLs to discourage dumping by informulg the public that water flows to the ocean. • Provide educational flyers to each new building unit regarding toxic chemicals and alternatives for fertilizers,pesricides,cleaiung solutions and automotive and paint products. • Provide educational flyers to each new building unit regarding proper disposal of hazardous waste and automotive waste. Source Reducrion/Recycling • Development of an integrated pest management program for landscaped azeas of the project. These areas would include slope-stabilizarion landscaping, and residential area landscaping. Integrated pest management emphasizes the use of biological,physical, and culiural controls rather than chemical controls. Examples include use of insect resistant cultivars,manual weed control,use of established thresholds for pesricide and herbicide application,use of chemical cantrols that begin preferentially with dehydrating dusts, insecticidal soaps,boric acid powder,horticultural oils, and pyrethrin-based insecticides. Cleaning/Maintenance • Routine cleaning of streets, parking lots and storm drains. Regular maintenance and cleaning of catch basins, and detention basins by a HOA. Structural Treatment Methods • The proposed catch basins should be designed for storm water quality control purposes in accordance with the California BMP's Handbook. The catch basins would have fossil filter inserts or be designed with a native soIl or sand bottom topped by a minimum of six inches of float rock covered by a chicken wire grate. Water leaves the sand bottom catch basin via an underground reinforced concrete pipe covered by a catch basin trap that prevents floatable material from entering into the discharge pipe. Oil and grease floats, and so would be captured by the trap. Heavy organic material, sediment and rubber would fall to the bottom of the pit and also would not be discharged through the pipe. After the storm water drains from the catch basin,natural biological action degrades the organic materials contained in the trap. This serves to effectively reduce the amount of � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 50 RESOLUTION NO. Page 51 of 135 pollufants that would otherwise enter the creek. • Vegetated swales may be incorporated in the site layout to be used as a stormwater quality management technique. • Maintenance of the catch basins and vegetated swales would be required to eliminate the potential for odor problems, provision of mosquito habitat, and to prevent clogging. Incorporation of the appropriate BMP's along with a maintenance and operation plan would reduce the amount of current and potential future pollutants discharged into the creek and protect against failure of the system. In addition,the applicant has prepared a"Riparian and Wetland Enhancement Plan",which is intended as an enhancement plan for the rehabilitation of Meadow Creek along the portion of Meadow Creek that passes through Tract O1-001. This is included as an Appendix to the Addendum. This approach will provide an additional degree of mitigarion. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to contribute up to$30,000 to the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District to be used either solely,or in combination with other funding, to carry out tasks and objectives of the Watershed Plan, adopted by the Pismo Lake Task Force on March 22,2004 (correspondence from Andre, Morris and Buttery to the City of Arroyo Grande,December 10,2004). The applicant aLso proposes to dedicate to the City's use an existing well located on the project site. This well was drilled in 1992 and used to provide construction water for the Rancho Grande Subdivision. A well test has been prepared, and the well is located outside the Santa Maria Ground Water Basin, and thus is not subject to an adjudicated agreement arising from water use within this basin. This additional water source could be used for municipal use, which in pazt can reduce potential unpacts with respect to water quality (correspondence from Andre,Morris and Buttery to the City of Arroyo Grande,December 10, 2004). These contributions are not intended as mitigation for impact H-4, as they are included because they provide a project benefit to consider in the formulation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Nonetheless,these contributions do provide a nexus in their potential to reduce impacts to water qual;ty. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.5-9 through 4.5-11;Second Addendum pages 43-45. 5.6 Land Use 5.61 Potentially Significant D'uect Impact LU-2.The project would partially replace an informal open space area with development. This could hinder the achievement of a coherent open space network for off-road trails and wIldlife migration that makes use of the existing drainage system. Impacts are considered Class II,significant but mitigabie. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Secrion 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes ar alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-This proposed project would subdivide the property into 15 residenrial lots and one open space lot, access roads,and related site unprovements. All non- � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 51 RESOLUTION NO. Page 52 of 135 developed lands would be placed in an open space easement. Open space areas would total approximately 84 percent of the site. The remaining approximately 16 percent of the site would be comprised of residential lots,intemal roads and miscellaneous improvements. Most of the proposed development would be located on the more level portions of the site. The steeper slopes and the area inunediately adjacent to the creek would be the primary open space areas. There is public access through the site via a trail and emergency access provision from a point near La Canada and James way,via Blossom Valley Road,and extending to the Hidden Oaks School Site. This access is consistent with the Rancho Grande Master Plan. Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.6 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. With imposition of the following mitigation measure, impacts aze less than significant. Mitigation Measure LU-2(a):Trail Access. The proposed project shall include provisions for improved multi-purpose (pedestrian,bicycles and equestrian) public trails access. The trail easements shall be situated to allow access along the general alignment of the East Fork of Meadow Creek and the on-site drainage tributary and oak woodland extending to the east to connect to the Hidden Oaks school site, such that it supports any potenrial effort at citywide recreational and circularion trail access along open space and drainage areas. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.6-3 and 4.6-4;Second Addendum page 45. 5.7 Transportation/Traffic 5.7.1 Potentially Significant Direct Impact T-1.Development of the project would result in the addition of 210 average daily trips, l7 A.M. peak hour trips, and 21 P.M. peak hour trips to the study-area roadways and intersections. The proposed project alone would not result in exceedances of roadway or intersecrion LOS standards. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-All of the signalized study-area intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods with Existing+ Project traffic. The all-way stop controlled Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection would continue to operate in the LOS D range during the P.M.peak hour period. The project would add 2 trips to this location during the P.M. peak hour period. This would add traffic to an intersection currently functioning below City thresholds. As such,this impact would be considered potentially significant. It should be noted that direct access to the project would be provided via the Rosemary Lane (Street°C')connection to La Canada Street. Rosemary Lane is proposed as a 32-foot wide roadway. Given the existing and forecast traffic volumes on La Caz�ada Street,the new intersection of Rosemary Lane would operate with m;nimal delay and accommodate traffic entering and exiting the project site. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 52 RESOLUTION NO. Page 53 of 135 Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.7 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incarporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMIZP. With unposirion of the following mitigarion measure,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure T-1(a): Fair Share Traffic Mitigation Fees. The City of Arroyo Grande Capital Improvement Program includes a project to install traffic signals at the intersection of Camino Mercado/West Branch Street. The project applicant shall provide fair share traffic mitigarion fees to install traffic signals. With the installafion of traffic signals,the intersection would operate acceptably in the LOS B range with Existing+ Project and Cumulative+ Project traffic volumes. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.7-8 through 4.7-15;Second Addendum page 46. 5.7.2 Potentially Significant Direct Impact T-3.Development of the project would result in the addition of 210 average daily trips,l7 A.M. peak hour trips, and 21 P.M. peak hour trips to the study-area roadways and intersections under cumulative conditions. This would result in exceedances of intersection LOS standards at the Camino Mercado/W. Branch Street intersection. Class II,significant but mitigable, impacts would result. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environxnental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The operational characteristics of the study-azea intersections were analyzed based on the Cumulative+Project traffic volumes. The signalized study-area intersections will continue to operate acceptably at LOS C or better with Cumulative+Project traffic volumes. However,the cumularive traffic would degrade the operation of the stop-sign controlled intersection at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street to LOS E during the A.M. peak hour period and to LOS F during the P.M.peak hour period intersection. This would be considered a Class II,significant but mirigable, impact. Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 49 of the Revised FSEIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measure is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. With the unplementation of Mirigation Measure T-1(a), less than significant unpacts would result. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.7-16 through 4.7-21;Second Addendum pages 46-47. 5.8 Public Services 5.8.1 Potentially Significant Direct Impact PS-2.The proposed project will result in an increased demand for fire protection services in an area characterized as having a high fire hazard. This would be considered a Class II,significant but mitigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterarions have been required in, or � Prepared by Rincon Consul Wnts for the City of Arroyo Gronde 53 RESOLUTION NO. Page 54 of 135 incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The proposed project would generate a population of approxunately 60 residents served by the Fire Department. However, the corresponding increase in calls would not appreciably increase response times, and would not generally result in the need for additional fire department staff or equipment. The current response times to the project area (five minutes) would be maintained with the development of the proposed project(Chief,Terry Fibich, Arroyo Grande Fire Departrnent,Phone Conversation, June 2002). However, the site's steep slopes,flash fuels and canyons,combined with residential development,will create a potential fire problem. This could increase the service requirements of the Arroyo Grande Fire Department and the mutual aid organizations. There is aLso threat to structures from areas that remain as open space. A vegetation management plan in conjunction with applicable city tree ordinances should be incorporated in the CC&R's to address the vegetation (fire fuels) issue, as well as wildlife habitat and aesthetic issues. A Landscape Development Standards and Fire Management Plan shall be approved by the City Fire Chief prior to development of VTTM O1-001. Vegetation should be evaluated on an annual basis to determule the threat of fire and potential damage to siructures, and determine what course of action should be taken to reduce the fire threat. In the event of fire,fire suppression resources would be concerned with the safety of residents and slructures. Therefore, Arroyo Grande Fire Departrnent would be stationing fire suppression resources near threatened structures. The development should provide for an adequate circulation system around critical structures and parts of the property to allow reasonable access to fire crews. Existing fire flow requirements state that each unit has at least 1250 gpm/ unit,plus 500 gpm/each additional level, plus 500 gpm for wood siding. These requirements must meet fire flow needs of the 15-unit development. Water lines in the area are eight inches and considered adequate for projected fire flow, subject to project improvements. There is aLso a fire threat to proposed structures such that a vegetarion management abatement plan, in conjunction with applicable city tree preservation ordinances,would be required. The project applicant would be required to comply with the most recent Uniform Fire Code and 'unplement City fire protection standards as a condition of project approval. California Resource Code 4219 requires clearance of flaminable vegetation for a distance of 30 to 100 feet around a structure located in a fire hazard area. In addition, emergency water supplies must meet fire flow requirements including installation of fire hydrants, access road widths of at least 20 feet,use of all-weather road surfaces,road surfaces with a load capacity of at least 20 tons,non-skid surfaces on roads at any grade exceeding 12%,maxunum dead- end road lengths of no more than 1,320 feet, provision of a 10-foot fuel break to each side of roads and driveways,provision of an automatic sprinlcler system where buildings have more . than one story and an upper story is occupied, and maintenance of trees and vegetarion neaz structures. Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMIZP. With unposition of the following mirigation measures,impacts are less than significant. � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grende 54 RESOLUTION NO. Page 55 of 735 Mitigation Measure PS-2(a):Fire/Vegetation Management Plan. The applicant shall develop a vegetation management plan and/ar fuel modificarion plan for the site. The following fuel modification specifications are required: • The plan must set forth requirements to assure ongoing protection of all structures and roads,both prior to and after lot sales. • The plan shall require 30 feet of adequate clearance from brush to structures throughout the development. • On-site occupants shall not clear vegetation outside designated clearance area boundaries in order to limit impacts to native habitat. • Fire resistant landscaping that is compatible with surrounding sensitive native species should be used throughout the project site. • Vegetarion within the first 30 feet of all structures must be stricfly irrigated and controlled,with specific shrub species eliminated. No conifer(except Monterey pine, single specunen), eucalyptus,juniper,cypress,pampas grass,acacia,or palm trees should be allowed within the 30-foot zone. Coastal live oak(Quercus sp.),California sycamore, Toyon and shrubs/trees approved by the City Fire Departrnent will be acceptable within the 30-foot zone. • The plan shall outline fuel modifiication specifications such as: - Grasses shall be cut down to a length of 4 inches or less yearly,or as required by the City of Arroyo Grande Fire Departrnent. - Shrubs under oaks and within 10 feet of tree canopies shall be pruned to reduce volume and no shrub shall be removed without the approval of the HOA design committee. - Oak tree limbs to be considered for removal shall be less than 2 inches in diameter within 4 feet of the ground. Branches must be chipped for mulch and left on site. - Trees with grass growing beneath may not need pruning unless the limbs touch the ground. Then,allowable size branches shall be removed to provide clearance. - Trees and shrubs beneath or adjacent to the canopy shall likewise have limbs 2 inches or less removed until clearance is achieved between canopy and shrubs. - If shrubs occur within open areas outside a 10-foot zone around trees,they shall remain in their existing form. Some shrubs in this area may be indicated in the field to be thinned. - Removal of larger tree lunbs over 2 inches in diameter which pose a hazard or are within 4 feet of vertical clearance zone must be approved by an arborist (all work on and around existing oak trees shall conform to the condirions of the City of Arroyo � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the Cify of Amoyo Grende 55 RESOLUTION NO. Page 56 of 135 Grande Community Tree Ordinance 431. All prunutg of oak trees shall be supervised by a certified arborist using ISA approved pruning standards. All fuel modifications shall be consistent with mitigation measure B-4(a) (Pismo Clazkia Avoidance). • The Fire/Vegetation Management Plan must clearly state exacfly what management practices must be accomplished, date of annual compliance, and responsibility for cost of compliance. • The plan must also include a Wildland Emergency Response checklist(approved by City of Arroyo Grande Fire Departrnent) to be made available to all residents. Mitigation Measure PS-2(b): Road Widths,Lengths,and Fire Hydrants. Road widths, lengths, and c'uculation,as well as the placement of fire hydrants shall be designed with the guidance of the Arroyo Grande Fire Department. A road system that allows unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during emergencies shall be provided. Specifically, the following measures are required: • Project roads must be an all weather surface at least 20 feet in width,unobstructed by parking. Cul-de-sacs and turnouts must be to Fire Departrnent standards. If the roads are to be a private system,there must be on-going,legally binding provisions in effect to maintain the roads to Fire Departrnent required levels. • Road grades on all roads shall not exceed 16%, per the Uniform Fire Code. • House numbers and street signs shall be lighted to City standards so that emergency vehicles including police and ambulances can locate residences in the event of any emergency. • All fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the unposed loads of 20 tons at 25 mph,and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabiliries. Mitigation Measure PS-2(c): Struciural Safeguards. Stringent structural safeguards that would reduce the need for rapid response of first alarm fire resources will be required. In general,this would require the use of construction materials that could survive a wildland fire. It would also include installation of fire sprinklers on any lots accessed by roads that are less than 32 feet curb-to-curb. Houses located on flag lots or those accessed by driveways steeper than 15% shall be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems, and be subject to approval and testing by the Fire Chief. As currently required by the City of Arroyo Grande Fire Code (Section 902.2.1),it is expected that a fire truck could enter the proposed subdivision for 75 feet from the center-line of the cross Mirabel Lane and maintain a reasonable response time. From that point,the fire truck would have a 150-foot radius (the approximate length of their water hose) of fire protection. Any unit outside of that radius, according to the Fire Code,must be designed with a sprinkler system. The following features would be required: • Sprinkler Systems. If 50-foot vegetation management zones are not employed,the perimeter structures within the fire hazard area must have exterior exposure sprinkler � Piepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 56 RESOLUTION NO. Page 57 of 135 systems separately applied, per NFPA 13. In addition,residential units that lie outside of the fire truck protection radius (a 150-foot radius azound a fire truck pazked 75 feet in from the entrance of a subdivision) shall be designed with fire protection sprinkler systems approved by the Fire Chief. • Minimum Class B Roofs. Due to the proxunity of the project site to a High Hazard Fire Severity area, all structures in the proposed development should have at the minimum Class B roofs to mitigate the fire threat. • Design of Accessory Features. Decks, gazebos,patio covers,fences,etc.must not overhang slopes and must be one-hour fire retardant construction. Front doors should be solid core,mulimally 13/a inch thick. Gazage doors should be noncombustible. • Yard Characteristics. Vegetarion growing on fences should be prevented. • Power Lines. All new power lines will be installed underground in order to prevent fires caused by arcing wires. The applicant proposes to dedicate tcvo emergency fire access routes leading to sunounding lands. These are shown on the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map. One goes southeasterly to Tract 1834 and onto the school property, while the other goes northeasterly to the Ing property. The applicant will dedicate easements to the benefit of the public for fire access along these routes,and will design and construct road improvements to the property boundary for the school property access. As to the access route leading to the school property,the applicant will also provide an engineering evaluation and construct that portion of the road which crosses Tract 1834 and the school property up to where the existing road is located on the school property(letter from Andre,Morris and Buttery to the City of Arroyo Grande,dated December 10,2004 and subsequent correspondence). This action will unplement mitigation. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.8-4 through 4.8-8: Second Addendum pages 47-50. 5.8.2 Potentially Significant D'uect Impact PS-5.The proposed project would generate approxunately 57 tons of solid waste per year. The solid waste disposal services and landfill that serve the project site would have adequate capacity to accommodate the waste generated by the project. However,the project would result in the use of pazt of the limited remaining capacity of the landfill. Therefore,solid waste generation would be considered a Class II,significant but mirigable impact. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-Solid waste generation is a function of the number of homes, household size,and per capita waste production. Construction activities and new residents generated by the proposed project would produce solid waste beyond existing condirions. Following the initiation of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element,an estimated 0.95 tons of solid waste is generated per resident per year (Tom Martin,Confroller,South County Sanitary Service,Inc,Phone Conversation,June 2002). Based on a factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit,the 15-unit project would be expected to generate approximately 43 new � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Anoyo Grande 57 RESOLUTION NO. Page 58 of 135 � residents. In 1999,the City of Arroyo Grande initiated a recycling program,which decreased the amount of solid waste generated per household.It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 57 tons of solid waste per year.The amount of solid waste generated would represent a small percentage of the permitted daily waste acceptance and remauung capacity at the landfill. The proposed project would not require the development of additional solid waste systems or services,as the current infrastructure is capable of handling the projected solid waste generarion(Tom Martin,Controller,South County Sanitary Service, Inc.,Phone Conversation,June 2002). In addition, the project site is located near an existing garbage collection route and would only require the current service to make 21 more stops to provide service to the project site,resulting in a less than significant unpact for long-term occupancy service. Project implementarion would not result in any change to service in the area or any significant changes to the disposal operations. The proposed project would not create the need for any special solid waste disposal handling and would therefore comply with all statues and regulations related to solid waste. However,project construction and occupancy would accelerate use of the remaining Cold Canyon Landfill capacity, which would be considered a potenrially significant impact. Mitigation Measure-Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8 of the Revised FSEIR, as augmented by the analysis in the Second Addendum,which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMIZP. With unposition of the following mitigation measures,impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure PS-5(a): Construction Solid Waste Minimization. During the construction phases of the project, the following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce solid waste generarion to the maxunum extent feasible: • Prior to construction,the contractor will arrange for construction recycling service with a waste collection provider. Roll-off bins for the collection of recoverable construction materials will be located onsite. The applicant, or authorized agent thereof, shall arrange for pick-up of recycled materials with a waste collection provider or shall transport recycled materials to the appropriate service center. Wood, concrete,drywall,metal, cardboard,asphalt, soil,and land clearing debris may all be recycled. • The contractor will designate a person to monitor recycling efforts and collect receipts for roll-off bins and/ar construction waste recycling. All subcontractors will be informed of the recycling plan, including which materials are to be source-separated and placed in proper bins. • The contractor will use recycled materials in construction wherever feasible. • The above construction waste recycling measures will be incorporated into the construction specifications for the contractar. Mitigation Measure PS-5(b): Occupancy Solid Waste Minimization. During the long-term occupancy phase of the project,the following mitigation measures will be unplemented to reduce solid waste generation to the maxunum extent feasible. � Prepared by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grende 58 RESOLUTION NO. Page 59 of 135 Gardenin�Waste: The following mitigafion measures will be the responsibility of the applicant. • During landscape design,trees will be selected for the appropriate size and scale to reduce pruning waste over the long-term. • Slow-growing, drought-tolerant plants will be included in the landscape plan. Drought- tolerant plants require less pruning and generate less long-term pruning waste, require less water, and require less fertilizer than faster growing plants. • On-site space will be allocated for a compost area to serve the residential development. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 4.8-15 through 4.8-17;Second Addendum pages 51-52. 6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE No impacts have been identified for this revised project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. 7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR: "Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either direcfly or indirecdy, in the surrounding environment." 71 Economic Growth Direct Impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to economic growth. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The proposed project involves private residential development and does not include any commercial or industrial development. Therefore,other than short- term residential wnstruction,it would not d'uecfly generate jobs or economic activity. Based on a factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit,the 15-unit project would be expected to generate approximately 43 residents. The estimated 43 residents that would be added on the project site would incrementally increase activity in nearby retail establishxnents and may generate demand for such services as landscaping, gardening,and home cleaning and maintenance. However,the population that would be generated by the proposed project constitutes approxunately one-sixth of one percent of the population of the City of Arroyo Grande Plaiuwlg Area,which was estimated to contain a popularion of approxunately 15,851 (Census 2000,U.S Census Bureau). Project residents are expected to draw on existing retail and commercial services already available in the area rather than inducing new service � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 59 RESOLUTION NO. Page 60 of 135 providers to relocate to the area. As a result,no significant physical effects are expected to result from economic growth generated by the proposed project:The project is expected to have minor beneficial economic effects on local retailers and service providers. Reference-Revised FSEIR page 6-1. 7.2 Population Growth Direct Impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to population growth. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a),the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The proposed project involves the development of 21 single- family residences. Based on a factor of 2.85 persons per residence,this number of new homes would direcfly increase the population of the City of Arroyo Grande by 60 people. This population increase represents only a&action of one percent of the current Arroyo Grande Plamling Area population. The environmental areas with the greatest potential to be affected by population growth are regional concerns such as water supply,air quality,and traffic. The project does not propose development greater than what was anticipated in the 1991 EIR,so impacts with respect to these issues are not anticipated to be greater than what was previously studied. Nevertheless, this SEIR includes a traffic analysis,which confirms that the proposed project would result in less than significant cumulative traffic impacts on regional roadways. Because the proposed project is consistent with the project buildout has been anticipated in the regional air quality plamlulg for the preparation of the County's Qean Air Plan(CAP). Therefore,the project would not have a significant effect on regional air quality.The city utilizes water from the Lopez Reservoir and the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin and service to the project would not result in the need to secure new water supplies from elsewhere in the region: Impacts related to the provision of water aze considered less than signiEicant. Because population growth direcfly associated with the project would not significanfly affect regional resources, direct growth inducing impacts are not considered significant. The proposed project is a phase of the larger Rancho Grande Planned Development 2.1. The Rancho Grande site occupies 464 acres consisting of a large portion of the northwestern secrion of the City of Arroyo Grande, on the northeast side of Highway 101. Although the project would not substantially affect the overall city population, it involves the conversion of a currently undeveloped nahzral area. The subject property is an integral part of the Rancho Grande Planned Development 2.1. Planned Development 2.1 surrounds the subject property and neighboring developments are located within similar PD land use designafions. Consequently, the proposed infill project does not induce growth to rural locations at the perimeter of the city lunits. If altemafive residential developments were to occur,the impacts would depend upon the location and magnitude of such developments,although the types of impacts would likely be similar to those of the proposed project. Envirorunental areas that could experience significant effects if similar development were to occur elsewhere in the vicuuty include impacts on � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 60 RESOLUTION NO. Page 61 of 135 agriculfiue,biological resources,and aesthetics. Such impacts would be addressed on a case- by-case basis as alternative development projects aze proposed. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 6-1 and 6-2. 7.3 Removals of Obstacles to Growth Direct Impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to removals of obstacles to growth. Finding-Pursuant to Public Resources Code Secrion 20181(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on the environment to below a level of significance. Facts in Support of Finding-The project site is zoned and designated under the 1991 City General Plan as an integral part of PD1.2 originally proposed to accommodate up to 40 dwelling units. Because the project site is currently not developed with residential uses,it would require the extension of urban infrastructure to serve proposed development. However,the site is completed surrounded by existing development,which already has utilities drainage and roadway infrastructure in place. The potential for growth-inducing impacts is discussed fiirther below. Utiliries and Road Extensions. Access to the project site would be provided from a short extension of 32-foot wide road extending off La Canada,with an additional secondary access off La Canada for emergency use. The site is completely surrounded by development,and the development of internal utilities and roadways would not result in peripheral growth-inducing impacts. Draina e�Infrastructure. The proposed project includes new drainage infrastructure to handle the increase in stormwater flow that would be created by on-site development. New facilities are anticipated to be sized to meet only the needs of proposed development. Reference-Revised FSEIR pages 6-2 and 6-3. 8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because an EIR was completed for the project,the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project, evaluating whether these alternatives could avoid or substanrially lessen the environmental effects while achieving most of the project objectives. In rejecting the alternatives, the City has examined the objectives of the Project and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet those objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets these objectives with the least environmental unpact. The specific objectives associated with the development of the project are as follows: • To construct a residential development that includes up to 36 units within the Rancho Grande Master Plan; • To preserve open space and natural resources to the extent possible The Second Reduced Density Development Proposal of 151ots evaluated in the Addendum to the Revised FSEIR is superior to the Project as originally proposed and to the eight Alternative Projects � Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 61 RESOLUTION NO. Page 62 of 135 ("Alternarive 1, "Alternative 2;' etc.) that were evaluated in the EIR, for the reasons discussed below. When compared to the Second Reduced Density Development Proposal(Revised Project) examined in the Second Addendum, each Alternarive project described below is infeasible. The following alternarives were addressed in the Revised FSEIR: • Originally Proposed Project • Alternative 1: No Project • Alternative 2: Noyes Road Site • Alternative 3: Reconfigured Project • Alternative 4: Reduced Project • Alternarive 5: Modified Reconfigured Project • Alternative 6: Modified Reduced Project • Alternative 7: Buffered Reconfigured Project • Altemative 8: Pismo Clazkia Avoidance Alternarive In addirion, a Reduced Density Development Alternative was analyzed in the First Addendum to the Revised FSEIR. Originally Proposed Project Description:Tlus option is sunilar to the project as modified (Reduced Density Development Proposal),but differs in that it would include 15 additional residential units when compared to the Revised Project. As described in the Revised Final SEIR, the Originally Proposed Project was a single-family residential development,consisting of 36 units and a 16.5-acre open space lot located on the same,26.6-acre site. The Originally Proposed Project featured a residential development density of 1.34 units/acre,compared to 1.27 units/acre with the project. Although the Originally Proposed Project and the project share similar internal access footprints,the overall increase in development density with the Originally Proposed Project contributes to a smaller amount of undeveloped open space (62% of the site, compared to 83% with the Reduced Density Development Proposal. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal,social, technological,or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: The Originally Proposed Project is infeasible when compazed to the Reduced Density Development Proposal,for the reasons set forth below. The revised project has fewer impacts and a better design. The Originally Proposed Project contained substantially less open space than the project. Due to the 15-unit increase in development density, unplementation of the Originally Proposed Project would result in greater unpacts related to per capita unpacts such as land use,iraffic,and public services,when compared to the project. In addifion, the increased number of residential units would result in greater unpacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternarive would also result in greater aesthetic impacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disturbance with this alternative would result in increased unpacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality,when compared to the project. Reference: Revised FSEIR and Addendum Section 4,et. seq. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arioyo Grande 62 RESOLUTION NO. Page 63 of 135 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Description:This option assumes that the project is not implemented, and that the site remains in its current undeveloped state. If the proposed project were not constructed,it is assumed that the azeas of the project site proposed for development and open space (26.6 acres) would be evaluated relative to the 2001 General Plan and that future opportunities for development would be limited to the prescribed maxunum of five units. The No Project Alternarive would not preclude future proposed development including possible amendments to existing land use designation. This site is zoned and designated under the 1990 General Plan as Planned Development(PD 1.2). Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social, technological,or other considerations make this alternarive infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Under the No Project altemative, the project site would remain as is. This alternarive would not provide any permanent open space benefits, or housing supply benefits, and limited economic benefits. In addition,none of the project objectives would be met. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 8.1. Alternative 2: Noyes Road Site Description: This alternative envisions residential planned unit development of a greater magnitude than the proposed project on a 53-acre site located along the east edge of Noyes Road, northwest of the proposed project site. The Noyes Road site (also known as Parcels 10 and 11) assumes consideration for development according to the 2001 General Plan,which allows a maximum of 35 units,which represents 15 more units than the project. The Noyes Road site is also undeveloped and has the same land use designation as the proposed project(PD 1.2). Potential planned unit residential development would likely change due to the fact that the alternate site is larger than the proposed site and has different environmental constraints. Overall, development characteristics would be different. The site is prunarIly comprised of oak woodland and riparian vegetation associated with Meadow Creek,which runs parallel to Noyes Road along the western boarder of the site. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social,tecluiological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the 15-unit increase in development density, implementation of this alternative would result in greater impacts related to per capita impacts such as land use,traffic, and public services,when compared to the Reduced Density Development Proposal. In addition, the increased number of residential units would result in greater impacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternative would also result in greater aesthetic impacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disturbance with this alternative would result in increased impacts to biological resources,cultural resources,and hydrology and � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 63 RESOLUTION NO. Page 64 of 135 water quality,when compared to the Reduced Density Development Proposal. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 6.2. Altemative 3: Reconfigured Project Description:This scenario analyzes an alternate site plan for the project. The overall development potential of this alternative would be increased when compared to the proposed project. The main difference between the proposed project and this alternative is that this alternative would remove proposed Lot 32 along with Lots 16-25 and relocate a total of six of the lots to the northeastern portion of the subject property. Five lots would be removed as a result of this altemative providing for a total of 31 proposed lots in the reconfigured project altemative. This redesign addresses the primary biological and slope stability impacts associated with the proposed project. These issues include unpacts to Valley Foothill Ripazian,Seasonal and Fresh Emergent Weflands and Oak Woodland habitats. In addition,Lots 16-25 present the greatest impacts to the largest concentration of Pismo clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata)found on-site (refer to Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Revised FSEIR). The aforementioned lots would be relocated in the northeastern portion of the site. This would avoid the undisturbed wedands at the northernmost corner of the property and the weflands rurutulg parallel to the northeastern property boundary. This configuration also avoids areas of established oak woodland and steep slopes (those of a 25% slope and greater). This reconfigured project alternative was schemarically designed to avoid environmental constraints to the extent possible. These constraints include jurisdictional drainages, riparian and wefland areas, oak woodlands,Pismo clarkia occurrences and slopes greater than 25%. As a result of this altemative,Street D would span the jurisdictional drainage that traverses the site from east to west in the northern portion of the subject property,m;n;m;zing d'uect impacts to the drainage. As compared to the Second Reduced Density Development, this alternative would include 16 additional lots. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternarive infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the 16-unit increase in development density, implementation of this alternative would result in greater impacts related to per capita impacts such as land use,traffic,and public services, when compared to the Second Reduced Density Development ProposaL In addition, the increased number of residential units would result in greater unpacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternative would also result in greater aestheric unpacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disturbance with this alternative would result in increased 'unpacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality,when compared to the Reduced Density Development Proposal. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 8.3. � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 64 RESOLUTION NO. Page 65 of 135 Alternative 4: Reduced Project Description:This scenario analyzes a 26-unit alternative to the proposed project. The overall development potential of this alternarive would be slightly increased compazed to the proposed project. The main difference between the proposed project and this altemative is that this alternative would reduce the number of lots from 36 to 26 by elimulation of Lots 17-25 and Lot 32 for the purpose of avoiding direct impacts to biological resources and mitigating hydrology/water quality and slope stability impacts. The proposed change in the total number of lots would not alter or extend on-site roads. Street D,which provides access to the lots to be removed as a result of this alternative, also provides access to the proposed residential units along its northern edge including Lots 7-15 and would therefore remain in place. Lot number 16 would remain in place along the cul-de-sac at the end of Street D. Otherwise,the remaining lots would remain the same size as those shown in the proposed project. The general configurarion and clustering of the individual lots under this alternative would be altered and would therefore require City approval for redesign elements. As compared to the Second Reduced Density Development,this alternaflve would include 11 additional lots. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social, technological,or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the 11-unit increase in development density, unplementation of this alternative would result in greater unpacts related to per capita unpacts such as land use, traffic, and public services,when compared to the Second Reduced Density Development Proposal. In addition, the increased number of residenHal units would result in greater unpacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This altemative would also result in greater aesthetic unpacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disturbance with this alternative would result in increased impacts to biological resources,cultural resources,and hydrology and water quality,when compared to the Reduced Density Development Proposal. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 8.4. :Alternative 5: Modified/Reconfigured Project Description:This scenario analyzes an alternate site plan for the project,a modification of what was examined as Alternative 3 in the DSEIR. The purpose of this alternarive is to reduce unpacts that would otherwise be experienced with either the proposed project or Alternarive 3. The overall development potential of this alternative would be slightly increased when compared to the proposed project. The main difference betcveen the proposed project and this alternarive is that this alternarive would remove proposed Lots 16-36 and relocate a total of six of the lots to the northeastern portion of the subject property. Fourteen lots would be removed as a result of this alternative providing for a total of 22 proposed lots (including the open space parcel) in the Modified Reconfigured Project Alternative. � Prepaied by Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande 65 RESOLUTION NO. Page 66 of 135 The lois to be reconfigured would essentially follow the same pattern as described in Section 8.3,Alternative 3:Reconfigured Project, of the DSEIR. As described in Alternative 3,Lot number 16 would be relocated directly adjacent to Lot 15,on the narthern side of the internal access road called"Street D". Street D would be extended to the east and provide access to Lots 17-21. In addition,Lots 16 and 17 would be reduced in size to conform to the size of Lots 1&21. Lots 1-15 would remain in their current locations. This alternarive reconfigures the residenrial and emergency access road,Street D,within VTTM O1-001 to conform to the new configuration of lots and reserved open space. The southwest leg of Street D would be eluninated. Street D would provide access to the reconfigured Lots 16 (on the north side) through 21 (along the south side) and finally terminate in a cul-de-sac that would provide access to Lots 17-20. The size of the relocated lots would remain relatively commensurate with Lots 5-15, along the north side of Street D. The general configuration and clustering of the individual lots under this alternarive would be altered through relocation and would therefore require revised map and P.U.D. applications and City approval for redesign elements. This configuration addresses the primary biological and slope stability constraints associated with the proposed project. These constraints include jurisdictional drainages, riparian and wedand areas,oak woodlands, Pismo clarkia occurrences and slopes greater than 25%. As a result of this altemative,Street D would span the jurisdictional drainage that traverses the site from east to west in the northern portion of the subject property,muumizing direct unpacts to the drainage. The aforementioned lots would be relocated in the northeastem porrion of the site. This would avoid.the undisturbed wedands at the northernmost corner of the property and the wetlands nunung parallel to the northeastem property boundary. This configurarion also avoids areas of established oak woodland and steep slopes (those of a 25% slope and greater). Along with avoiding sensirive riparian,wefland and oak woodland habitats,this alternative is designed to avoid impacts to on-site occurrences of Pismo clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata). Proposed Lots 17-33 present the greatest impacts to the largest concentration of Pismo clarkia found on-site. As discussed in Secrion 4.2, Biological Itesources, of the FSEIR, Pismo clarkia is a federally-listed endangered,state-listed rare, and CNPS List 1B species. Through the removal and relocation of the lots along the south side of Street"D",the Modified Reconfigured Project would avoid, to the extent possible, impacts discussed in Impact B-4 of the FSEIR. As compared to the Second Reduced Density Development, this altemative would include 7 addiHonal lots. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal,social, technological,or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Secrion 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the 7-unit increase in development density, unplementation of this alternative would result in greater unpacts related to per capita impacts such as land use, traffic, and public services,when compared to the Second Reduced Densiry Development Proposal. In addition, the increased number of residential units would result in greater unpacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternative would also result in greater aesthetic impacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disturbance with this � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 66 RESOLUTION NO. Page 67 of 135 alternative would potentially result in increased impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality,when compared to the Second Reduced Density Development Proposal. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 8.5. AlternaHve 6: Modified Reduced Project Description:This scenario analyzes a Modified Reduced Project Altemative to the proposed project,a variation of what was examined as Altemative 4 in the DSEIR. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce impacts that would otherwise be experienced with either the proposed project or Altemative 4. The overall development potential of this altemafive would be reduced compared to the proposed project. The main difference between the proposed project and this altemative is that this alternative would reduce the number of lots from 36 to 16 by elimination of Lots 17-36 for the purpose of avoiding direct impacts to biological resources and mitigating hydrology/water quality and slope stability unpacts. The proposed reducrion in the total number of lots would reduce the on-site circularion by elimination of the southwest leg of Street D. Lot number 16 would remain in place along the cul-de-sac at the end of Street D. Otherwise, the remaining lots would remain the same size as those shown in the proposed project. The general configuration and clustering of the individual lots under this alternarive would be altered and would therefore require VTTM/P.U.D. 01-001 revised map applicafions and City approval for redesign elements. As compared to the Second Reduced Density Development,this alternative would include 1 additional lot. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social, technological,or other considerations make this alternafive infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the 1-unit increase in development density, implementarion of this alternative would result in greater unpacts related to per capita impacts such as land use,traffic,and public services,when compared to the Second Reduced Density Development Proposal. In addition, the increased number of residential units would result in greater unpacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternative would also result in greater aesthetic unpacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disfixrbance with this alternative would potentially result in increased impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality,when compared to the Second Reduced Density Development Proposal. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 6.6. Alternative 7: Buffered Reconfigured Project Description:This scenario analyzes a Buffered Reconfigured Project Alternative that would restrict development from any area within an idenlified mitigation,which are 50-foot setbacks from riparian areas,weflands,or Pismo clarkia occurrences. This alternative would also � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Anoyo Grande 67 RESOLUTION NO. Page 68 of 135 elimutate lots that are clearly within identified Oak Woodlands. By elunulating development within these sensitive areas,and within identified mitigation setbacks,this altemafive more d'uecfly responds to the impacts identified in the DSEIR. Depending on lot sizes and the actual lot reconfiguration,this alternative could accommodate an estimated 5-141ots,total. One possible reconfiguration that addresses these changes is shown in Figure 8-6,which shows 14 residential lots. In addition to what was described in Alternative 6,this would be accomplished as follows: • Eliminate Lots 1 and 5,which are in oak woodland areas; • E1unulate Lot 6,which is paztially within an oak woodland and the 50-foot setback from a ripariazl area; • Reconfigure the main roadway access to the site to riparian and Pismo clarkia setbacks, which has the effect of moving the roadway generally away from the steeper slopes on the southern portion of the site; • Reconfigure Lots 7-15,and reduce the total number in this area from 9 to 8,to respond the reconfigured main road,and to the riparian setback along the creek. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social, technological,or other considerarions make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative was designed specifically to m;n;m;ze biological and geological impacts identified with the project and ouflined in Section 4.0 of the Revised FSEIR and the Addendum. Due to the 1-to 10-unit reduction in development density,implementation of this alternarive would result in reduced 'unpacts related to per capita impacts such as land use,traffic, and public services,when compared to the project. In addition,the reduced number of residential units would result in reduced 'unpacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternative would also result in reduced aesthetic unpacts due to the decreased development intensity on the site. The smaller amount of site disturbance with this alternative would result in reduced 'unpacts to biological resources,cultural resources and hydrolog�and water quality,when compared to the originally proposed pro�ect Hacveyer,�niplenne#ttahartof fihss""'�lt�maiive�votiidaiot , ,. � satisfy'the project applicariE's°ecarioiTUC"alijG,ctive nf p'r`iividing'`sufficiertf„z"esid�riiial units on th'e'site_ Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 8.7. Alternative S: Pismo Clazkia Avoidance Description:This scenario analyzes an alternate site plan for the project,which is a modification of the development alternaHves examined in the FSEIR. This alternative was proposed by the project applicant as a means of reducing some of the unpacts that would otherwise be experienced with unplementation of either the proposed project or the other alternarives. As with the proposed project,the overall development potential of this altemative would accommodate 36 residential lots. The main difference between the proposed project and this altemative is that this alternative proposes the relocation of Lots 16-36 to the northeastern portion of the site. In addition,Street D would be extended in order to accommodate the � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arioyo Grande 68 RESOLUTION NO. Page 69 of 135 relocation of the proposed lots. This alternaHve would include a modified access configuration designed in response to Fire Department concerns to include secondary access to the site. In each case, the concept would be to wnstruct an 18-foot wide gravel roadway to the site boundary,where it would be possible to extend off site in cooperation with neighboring property owners to Easy Street. The precise configuration of this secondary access has not yet been determined. Along with the relocation of Lots 16-36 and the extension of Street D,the total lot azea coverage would be reduced.As is listed under the Lot Suirunary table included on Figure 8-7,this development alternative proposes a more uniform lot area distribution with parcels ranging from approximately 5,500 to 9,500 sguare feet(compared to the proposed project which proposes five lazger lots ranging from approximately 12,500 to 44,800 square feet). In addition, this project alternative would not include the portion of Street D west of the intersection with Street C,which was shown for the proposed project,and would have provided access to Lots 28-36.This alternative would support all of the relocated lots through the extension of Street D to the northeast,which would iurn to the southeast(along the property boundary)and end in a cul-de-sac. The western portion of the site,which would have supported Lots 28-36 under the proposed project,would remain in open space. This configuration is intended to address the primary biological and geologic constraints associated with the proposed project. These constraints include jurisdictional drainages, riparian and wefland areas, oak woodlands,Pismo clarkia occurrences and slopes greater than 25%. As a result of this alternative,the relocated lots would require the filling of the jurisdictional drainage that traverses the site from east to west in the northern portion of the subject property. The general configuration and clustering of the individual lots under this alternative would be altered through relocation and would therefore require revised map and P.U.D. applications and City approval for redesign elements. As compared to the Second Reduced Density Development, this alternative would include 21 additional lots. Alternate Tract Access Variarion. This is a variation of the Pismo Clarkia tivoidance Alternative described above, and was also suggested by the project applicant. Its key difference is a modified access configuration included from La Canada to respond to Fire Department concerns to reduce overall cul-de-sac lengths included in the tract. The access road would cross the East Fork of Meadow Creek east of the crossing shown for the proposed project,connecting to Street D betcveen Lots 13 and 15. Although this variation of Alternative 8 would reduce the length of onsite cul-de-sacs,the new access road would result in the following impacts if it were implemented: • Riparian Habitat Impacts. The revised accessway would impact approximately 350 feet of riparian habitat by traversing approxunately parallel to the creek for approximately 200 feet and then crossing the East Fork of Meadow Creek. Both the proposed project and the Pismo Clarkia Avoidance Alternative would also cross the East Fork of Meadow Creek,but would do so perpendicular to the creek through a much narrower boundary of riparian vegetation that has already been disturbed as an existing site access route. � Prepared 6y Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 69 RESOLUTION NO. Page 70 of 135 • Geotechnical/Slope StabiliYp Impacts. The revised accessway would parallel the creek on its potentially unstable northern bank. The precise effects have not been determined,but because the modified access road would be located with 25 feet of the creek bank for about 200 feet, it can be surmised that substanrial bank stabilizaHon and streambed alteration would be needed to ensure site safety. In addirion, the new road would make a difficult right-hand turn across the creek,which would require an extensive bridge structure of lengthy culvert. These actions could further exacerbate the potential impacts to riparian habitat described above. The magnitude of these potential unpacts would be considered "fatal flaws' that potentially outweigh any potential benefit in reducing onsite cul-de-sac lengths through access redesign. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the 21-unit increase in development density, implementation of this alternative would result in greater impacts related to per capita unpacts such as land use,traffic, and public services,when compared to the Second Reduced Density Development. In addition, the increased number of residential units would result in greater impacts related to the exposure of site occupants to geologic hazards. This alternative would also result in greater aesthetic unpacts due to the increased development intensity on the site. The increased amount of site disturbance with this alternarive would result in increased 'vnpacts to biological resources,cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality,when compared to the project. In addition,the new access road with this alternative would result in increased impacts related to riparian habitat and slope stability compared to the Second Reduced Development Proposal. Reference: Revised FSEIR Section 8.8. First Reduced Density Development Proposal Description:This scenario analyzes an alternate site plan for the project,which is a modification of the development alternatives examined in the FSEIR. This alternarive was proposed by the project applicant as a means of reducing some of the impacts that would otherwise be experienced with implementation of either the proposed project or the other alternatives. As with the proposed project,the overall development potential of this alternative would accommodate 21 residential lots. This alternative would include a modified access configuration designed in response to Fire Department concerns to include secondary access to the site. Finding: The City finds that specific economic,legal, social,technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. [Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)]. Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would result in impacts sunilar to the originally proposed project,but these unpacts would generally be of a lesser magnihxde. Class I � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 70 RESOLUTION NO. Page 71 of 135 unpacts would still remain with respect to Pismo Qarkia. Reference: First Addendum. 9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when making findings required by Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code,the Lead Agency approving a project shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval,in order to ensure compliance with project implementation and to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby finds that: 1) A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MNIItP) has been prepared for the Project, and the mitigation measures therein are made a condition of project approval. The MMI2I'is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record or proceedings for the Project. 2) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementaUon of mitigation. The City will serve as the overall MMRP coordinator. The applicant will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all Project mitigarion measures are complied with. Mitigation measures are programmed to occur at, or prior to, the following milestones: • Prior to final map recordation approval. These measures apply to tract-wide measures that would be reviewed at the rime of tract map review. These include tract-wide design mitigation and access improvements. • Prior to issuance of grading permits. These are measures that need to be undertaken before earth moving activifles begin. These measures include items such as including pertinent design details in the Project plans. • Prior to issuance of building permits. These measures are those that need to occur during site grading and preparation,but prior to construction of proposed structures. They include monitoring the consiruction site for the proper unplementation of dust and emission controls. • Prior to compleHon of construction. These measures apply to Project components that would go into effect at completion of the Project construction phase,including items such as management or monitoring plans. In order for the plan to be available for use at comple6on of each Project component, it will need to be prepared and completed before construction of the component is finished. • Following construction/during operarion of the project. These are active measures that will commence upon compledon of the various construction phases and, in most cases,will continue through the life of the project. • Prior to occupancy or final inspection of the development. Connecting each of the mitigation measures to these milestones will integrate miflgation � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 71 RESOLUTION NO. Page 72 of 135 monitoring into existing City processes, as encouraged by CEQA. In each instance, implementation of the mitigation measure will be accomplished in parallel with another activity associated with the Project. 3) The MMRP prepared for the Project has been adopted concurrenfly with these Findings. The MMRP meets the requirements of Section 21021.6 of the Public Resources Code. The City will use the MMIZP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The MMI2P will remain available for public review during the compliance period. 10.0 OTHER FINDINGS The City hereby finds as follows: 1) The foregoing statements are true and correct; 2) The City is the "Lead Agency' for the Project evaluated in the Revised FSEIR and independently reviewed and analyzed in the DSEIR,Revised DSEIR,Revised FSEIR,First Addendum, and Second Addendum,for the Project; 3) The Notice of Preparation of the DSEIR was circulated for public review. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency's specific responsibilities; 4) The public review period for the DSEIR was for 45 days between February 21, 2003 and April 7,2003. The public review period for the Revised DSEIR was for 45 days between December 1, 2003 and January 14, 2004. The DSEIR, Revised DSEIR and appendices were available for public review during those time periods,respectively. A Notice of Completion and copies of the DSEIR and Revised DSEIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse,and notices of availability of the DSEIR and Revised DSEIR were published by the City. The DSEIR and Revised DSEIR were available for review at the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Plaza,Arroyo Grande,California,93438. 5) The Revised DSEIR,Revised FSEIR, First Addendum, and Second Addendum were completed in compliance with CEQA; 6) The Revised FSEIR,First Addendum, and Second Addendum reflect the City's independent judgment; 7) The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Revised DSEIR. In accordance with CEQA,the City prepared writEen responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Revised FSEIR provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such wmments add significant new information to the Revised DSEIR regarding adverse environmental unpacta The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints,including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Revised FSEIR, Addendum, and Second Addendum. S) The City finds that the Revised FSEIR, Addendum,and Second Addendum provide objecrive information to assist the decisionmakers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies,private organizations,and individuals the opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period; Prepared 6y Rincon Consu/tants for the City of Arroyo Grande r �Z RESOLUTION NO. Page 73 of 135 9) The Revised FSEIR,Addendum, and Second Addendum evaluated the following direct and cumulative impacts: (1) agricultural resources; (2)biological resources; (3) cultural resources; (4) geologic resources; (5) hydrology and water quality; (6) land use; (� transportation/traffir, (8) public services; and (9) growth inducing unpacts. Addirionally,the Revised FSEIR,Addendum,and Second Addendum considered, in sepazate sections, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth inducing unpacts of the Project, as well as a reasonable range of project alternarives. All of the significant environmental impacts of the Project were identified in the Revised FSEIR; 10) The MNIIZP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the Revised FSEIR,First Addendum, and Second Addendum and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable; 11) The MMIZP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the unplementation of mirigation; the City will serve as the MMRP Coordinator; 12) In determ;n;ng whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA,the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2; 13) The impacts of the Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the Revised FSEIR, First Addendum, and Second Addendum; 14) The City made no decisions related to approval of the Project prior to the uutial certificarion of the Revised FSEIR by the City Council. The City also did not commit to a definite course of action with respect to the Project prior to the uutial certification of the Revised FSEIR by the City Council. 15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Revised FSEIR, First Addendum, and Second Addendum are and have been avaflable upon request at all times at the offices of the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Depariment,the custodians of record for such documents or other materials; 16) The responses to the comments on the Revised DSEIR,which are contained in the Revised FSEIR,clarify and amplify the analysis in the Revised DSEIR; 1'� Having reviewed the informarion contained in the Revised DSEIR,Revised FSEIR,First Addendum,and Second Addendum, and in the administrative record,the City finds that there in no new significant informaHon regarding adverse environmental impacts of the Project in the Revised FSEIR,First Addendum, and Second Addendum, and finds that recirculation of the Revised DSEIR is not required; and 18) Having received, reviewed and considered all information and documents in the Revised FSEIR,First Addendum,and Second Addendum, as well as all other informadon in the record of proceedings on this matter, these Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. P�epared by Rincon ConsulWnts for the City of Arroyo Grande � 73 RESOLUTION NO. Page 74 of 135 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001 GENERAL CONDITIONS This approval authorizes the subdivision of a 26.9-acre property into 15 clustered residential lots ranging in size from 7,200 sq. ft. to 22,802 sq. ft., and one open space lot consisting of 22 acres (Lot 16). 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-001 and Planned Unit Development 01-001. 3. This vesting tentative tract map approval shall automatically expire on , 2010 unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 16.12.140 of the Development Code. 4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the vesting tentative tract map presented to the City Council at the meeting of and marked Exhibit"C" except as modified by these conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall, as a condition of approval of this vesting tentative tract map application, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its present or former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 66474.9, which are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in fulL 6. A Revised Final SEIR has been certified for this project. A Second Addendum to the SEIR was prepared, a copy of which is attached hereto and includes mitigation measures applicable to the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project is attached hereto in Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. Mitigations stated in the MMRP shall be implemented as conditions of project approval and shall be monitored by appropriate City departments and other responsible agencies as indicated in Exhibit "D". The Developer shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. Other monitoring and RESOLUTION NO. Page 75 of 135 reporting shall occur as required by the measures described in Exhibit "D" and consistent with conditions described below. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL CONDITIONS 7. SPECIAL PERMITS - The following list of permits are required from various responsible agencies: a. Biological Opinion and Take PermiUConcurrence letter; US Fish and Wildlife Service; prior to issuance of Grading Permit b. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); Regional Water Quality Control Board; prior to issuance of Grading Permit c. Section 404 permit; Army Corps of Engineers; prior to issuance of Grading Permit d. Streambed Alteration Agreement; California Department of Fish and Game; prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING — Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant of the building permit for the lot, shall pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to one percent of the estimated value of new construction for all units within the development as computed for building permit purposes in accordance with the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance in effect on June 14, 2001; the date the application for this project was determined complete. The applicant shall ensure that all lot owners are aware of this requirement prior to purchase. 9. WELL DEDICATION AND EASEMENT. Within ninety (90) days of tentative tract map approval, and by separate written instrument, subject to the prior written approval of the City Attorney, the applicant shall offer to dedicate to City: a) The existing water well ("well") located in Lot 1, including existing well infrastructure and appurtenances located within the well easement described in subsection b) below; and b) An easement 16 feet wide and 25 feet deep along La Canada to include the existing well for the purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the well; c) An easement 30 feet wide and 40 feet deep on Lot 16 along La Canada and south of Blossom Valley Road for the purposes of placing additional infrastructure to extract, treat, store and transport water from the well to the City's water distribution system; d) The applicant may reserve from the dedication the right to use untreated water from this well for construction of the subdivision improvements and residences. This right to use water for construction purposes shall terminate upon issuance of a notice of completion for the last residence in the project, or five years after final tract map approval, which ever is earlier. Applicant, for itself and for the HOA, may reserve the right to use water from this well for establishment and maintenance of common area landscaping, including landscaping that is required by the RESOLUTION NO. Page 76 of 135 MMRP. This right to use water for landscaping purposes shall terminate upon successful completion of the landscaping, mitigation and restoration requirements of the MMRP. e) �n accordance with subsection d) above, the applicant, for itself, its successors in interest to the residential lots and for the HOA shall: i.) use any and all well water on and within the boundaries of the subdivision site; ii.) be subject to all City conservation measures, restrictions, rules, regulations and laws relating to water use. fl The size, location and configuration of the easement and the placement of equipment shall not unreasonably interfere or detract from the development of the lot on which the well will be located. g) The existing storage tanks will either be removed entirely by the applicant, or moved by the applicant to a location on the project site approved by the City that does not interfere with use and enjoyment of the residential subdivision lots. h) Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with pumping, treating, transporting and using well water reserved in subsection d) above, including the provision of electrical power to the existing well; the applicant is not responsible for any other utilities or equipment, including treatment equipment. 10.OPEN SPACE EASEMENT - Concurrent with recordation of the final map, a permanent open space agreement for Lot 16 shall be recorded on the property consistent with the MMRP. Said easement shall be in favor of the public and the City and shall prohibit all structures, grazing, grading, filling or vegetation removal except fire prevention consistent with the MMRP, and except as may be required for City-approved trails, drainage facilities or other City-approved infrastructure. Said easement shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney. 11.ACCESS EASEMENTS — Prior to and/or in concurrence with the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall record emergency and pedestrian access easements to the City: a. Emergency and pedestrian access along the eighteen (18) foot and twenty (20) foot wide all weather decomposed granite access road and path extending from "Blossom Valley Road" through the open space property of the project (Lot 16) and the open space property (Lot 224) of Tract 1834 Phase V, through the Lucia Mar School District Hidden Oaks School Site connecting to Hidden Oak Road or alternative alignment approved by the Director of Fire and Building, Community Development Director and acceptable to the City Council. b. Twenty (20) foot emergency access and public water, public sewer and public utility from "Blossom Valley Road" between Lots 2 and 3 to the northeast property boundary. RESOLUTION NO. Page 77 of 135 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS- Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall obtain all applicable permits and agreements and shall construct a 20 foot all-weather emergency access road and trail from "Blossom Valley Road", through the open space property of the project (Lot 16) and the open space property (Lot 224) of Tract 1834 Phase V, through the Lucia Mar School District Hidden Oaks School Site connecting to Hidden Oak Road or an alternative alignment as approved by the Director of Fire and Building and the Community Development Director that is considered in substantial conformance to the project plans in Exhibit "C". Road and trail maintenance shall be the responsibility of the HOA and a cost and schedule provisions shall be included in the CC&Rs. 12.RIPARIAN AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN — Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall develop and pay all costs associated with the implementation and establishment of the riparian and wetland mitigation plan (Appendix "A" to the Second Addendum to the SEIR) consistent with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan and California Department of Fish and Game regulations. Long-term implementation and monitoring shall be implemented in accordance with the MMRP. 13. DESIGN MANUAL STANDARDS — Conformance with the Design Manual shall be a requirement of any construction in the project. Construction of the public improvements shall be exempt from the requirements of the Design Manual. This requirement shall be explicitly incorporated into the tract CC&R's and shall be recorded with each lot. The CC&R's shall incorporate the Design Manual ("Manual") by reference. a. Prior to Building Permit issuance, a Design Review application shall be submitted for final review of the project Design Guideline Manual by the Architectural Review Committee for a recommendation to the Community Development Director. The following modifications shall be made to the Manual (Exhibit G): i. The front setback for garages is 20 feet. ii. All updated requirements from the California Building Code shall be reflected in the document, including seismic requirements in Design Manual Section 3.34. b. Prior to Building Permit issuance, a Design Review application shall be submitted for each proposed residence to determine consistency with the approved Design Guideline Manual for the project. The Community Development Director shall refer an application to the Architectural Review Committee for consideration and recommendation. Submittal requirements shall include a site plan, building elevations, landscape plan, color and materials board, and any other material needed to determine design consistency, as determined RESOLUTION NO. Page 78 of 135 by the Community Development Director or the Architectural Review Committee. NOISE • 14.Construction shall be limited to beiween the hours of 7am and 7pm Monday through Friday; and beiween 8am and 5pm on Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday. DEVELOPMENT CODE 15.Development shall conform to the Single Family (SF) zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. 16.All walls shall not exceed four feet (4') in height; All fences shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, unless otherwise approved with a (Minor Use Permit)/Minor Exception application for consideration of adjacent grade. 17.The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20, "Land Divisions". 18.The developer shall comply with those portions of the Development Code Chapter 16.64, "Dedications, Fees and Reservations" that were in effect on June 14, 2001, the date that the application for this project was determined complete. 19.Due to the environmental constraints identified in the SEIR, the following uses and only said uses, may be permitted on the lots in this subdivision: a) Single family dwellings, not more than one per lot. b) Gardening in compliance w/ landscape provisions in the approved Design Manual. c) Home occupations subject to provisions of the Municipal Code. d) Other uses or structures considered accessory to single family houses except that no tennis courts, second residential units ("Granny units") or detached guest houses shall be allowed. Swimming pools may be allowed with a Minor Use PermiUPlot Plan Review and subject to requirements in Section 16.52.200. e) Outdoor storage of recreational vehicles or boats is prohibited. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT 20.A11 walis, including screening and retaining walls, shall be compatible with the approved plans, Design Manual and Development Code Standards. RESOLUTION NO. Page 79 of 135 21. Perimeter project fencing and interior habitat fencing shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and MMRP in Exhibit "D". showing all perimeter fences and/or walls. Temporary interior habitat protection fencing may be constructed in accordance with approved plans and the MMRP to remain in place through the course of construction at which time permanent fencing shall be installed. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL MAP 22.To ensure that all common areas and facilities are adequately maintained within the subdivision (including, but not limited to, the open space parcels, pedestrian trail, and drainage facilities), the applicant shall provide a provision in the CC&Rs to allow the City to enforce CC&Rs and to require the HOA to hire a biologist or qualified environmental consultant, approved by the City, to conduct mitigation and maintenance monitoring and submit bi-annual reports to the City's Community Development Department consistent with the MMRP. The requirements of the HOA shall commence upon completion of subdivision improvements according to the terms of the subdivision improvement agreement required as condition 106. 23.A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall be consistent with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and the project Design Manual. The landscaping plan shall include the following for all public street frontages and common landscaped areas: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: (1) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; (2) Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan; (3) All slopes 2:1 or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon mesh or equivalent material; and (4) An automated irrigation system. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 24.A11 fencing shall be installed shall be compatible with the approved plans, Design Manual and MMRP. RESOLUTION NO. Page 80 of 135 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 25.The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the projecYs Tree Mitigation Plan consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program except that the applicant shall use locally raised oak tree seedlings placed in deep root tubes in place of fifteen (15) gallon mitigation trees. Any and all potentially impacted trees as determined by a certified arborist, shall require a tree removal permit. if determined feasible by a certified arborist and Director of Parks and Recreation, the final grading plan shall include provisions to protect and prevent impacts to existing Tree No. 1128 as shown on the plans in Exhibit "C". 26. Linear root barriers shall be used for street trees to protect the sidewalks. 27.All street front trees shall be 24-inch box and shall be located a minimum of hnro (2) trees for every seventy-five feet (75') of street frontage but may vary in accordance with the preservation of existing trees onsite. BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS FUEL MODIFICATION 28.The following fuel modification requirements shall be reflected in the Vegetation Management Plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure PS-2 as specified in the MMRP. i. Annual perimeter cuts of (40') forty feet in width with vegetation down to below (2") inches in height are to be cleared surrounding the tract by the standard date of May 25. ii. A (100') hundred-foot clearance is to be cut with vegetation below (2") inches in height on the uphill slope connecting to the Sombrillo properties. iii. The Oak trees located on the hillside of Sombrillo are to have ladder fuels trimmed (4') feet in height from ground level. iv. After September 15�. the middle meadow portion of lot 16 is to be mowed to (4") inches in height. CBC/CFC 29.The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. FIRE LANES 30.All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS 32.Project shall have a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a RESOLUTION NO. Page 81 of 135 duration of 2 hours. 33.Prior to bringing combustibles on site, fire hydrants shall be installed 300 feet apart, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards or alternate provisions or locations shall be approved by the Fire Chief. FIRE SPRINKLERS 34.A11 units must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. ABANDONMENT/NON-CONFORMING 35.Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non- conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. OTHER PERMITS 36.Prior to final map approval, the City Council must authorize any change in the use of the on-site water well and the County Health Department approval is required for well abandonmenUconversion. The applicant shall be entitled to use on-site water well per condition No 9. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS All Public Works Department conditions of approvai as listed below are to be complied with prior to recording the map, unless specifically noted otherwise. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 37.The applicant shall install a City benchmark monument at the north east corner of La Canada and Blossom Valley Road in accordance with City standards. 38.The applicant will terminate the water main with a fire hydrant. 39.The applicant shall install an air-vac relief valve at the high point of the water main. 40.Install fire hydrants to Public Works and Building and Fire Department requirements. RESOLUTION NO. Page 82 of 135 41.The applicant shall pay an impact fee for the proportionate share of impacts to the following Capital Improvement Projects: a. EI Camino Real Upgrade, b. Walnut Street Upgrade. 42.The applicant shall submit the following in regards to the clear-span culvert: a. Structural calculations for review and approval, b. Foundation calculations for review and approval, c. Hydraulic calculations for review and approval. 43.Streets within the project shall be constructed as follows: a. 32 feet street width from curb to curb, b. Parking on one side of the street, c. Concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the street, d. Sidewalk on the northeasterly side of the street containing parking, e. 40 feet wide right-of-way, f. 25 mile per hour design speed. 44.Streets within the project where a 24 ft. road width is noted on the tentative map shall be constructed as follows: a. 24 feet street width from curb to curb; b. Concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the street; c. Sidewalk on the northeasterly side of the street; d. 40 feet wide right-of-way; e. 25 mile per hour design speed. 45.Install new concrete curb and gutter across the project frontage of La Canada. 46.Install a decomposed granite walking path behind the curb and gutter along La Canada. 47.Submit an addendum to the slope stability and liquefaction analysis to analyze the current lot configuration. 48.The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the project soils engineer for conformance to the recommendations within the slope stability and liquefaction analysis. 49.The project grading, drainage and erosion control plans are to be reviewed by the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District. The applicant shall reimburse the City for this review. 50.A homeowners association shall privately maintain all drainage improvements conveying storm drainage from undeveloped portions of the RESOLUTION NO. Page 83 of 135 project site. The maintenance of these facilities shall be outlined in the CC&R's. 51.The applicant shall clean the culvert that crosses La Canada. 52.The applicant shall clean the culvert outlet from the drop inlet that crosses La Canada. GENER,4L CONDITIONS 53.CIean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or as directed by the Director of Community Development or the Director of Public Works. 54.Perform construction activities requiring City inspection during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. excluding City holidays) The developer or contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance outside of these hours as allowed by local ordinance, unless an emergency arises or approved by the Director of Public Works. The City may hold the developer or contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these hours. 55.Prior to placing the final map on the City Council Agenda, the following items shall be submitted and approved: a. Final map signed, b. Improvement Securities, c. Fees paid, d. Inspection agreement signed, e. Subdivision improvement agreement signed, f. Tax certificate, g. Project CC&R's approved by the City Attorney and Director of Public Works. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 56.A11 project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 57.Submit four (4) full-size paper copies and one (1) full-size mylar copy of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction. 58.Submit record (as-built) drawinys prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City. One (1) set of mylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required. 59.The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department: RESOLUTION NO. Page 84 of 135 a. Grading, drainage and erosion control, b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk, c. Public utilities, d. Water and sewer, e. Landscaping and irrigation (prepared by a Landscape Architect), f. Any other improvements as required by the Director of Public Works. 60.The site plan shall include the following: a. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys, b. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals, c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures, d. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property, e. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas, f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. 61.Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets, utilities and retaining walls. 62.Any landscape and irrigation within the public right of way require plans that shall be approved by the Public Works, Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. WATER 63.The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: a. Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing off-site high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation; OR, b. The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of. $5,945.95 per acre-foot. 64.Each parcel shall have separate water meters. Duplex service lines shall be used if feasible. 65.Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. A fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters. The meter sizes shall be noted on the individual lot improvement plans when a building permit application is submitted for construction of the residence. RESOLUTION NO. Page 85 of 135 66.Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. SEWER 67.A11 new sewer mains must be a minimum diameter of 8". 68.A11 new sewer mains must have a minimum slope of 0.5%. 69.Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. 70.A11 sewer laterals within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2%. 71.A11 sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. 72.Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the developmenYs impact to District facilities. PUBLIC UTILITIES 73.Underground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the Development Code. 74.Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving. 75.Submit all improvement plans to the public utility companies for approval and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 76.Submit the Final Map to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 77.The public utility plans shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and comment. STREETS 78.Obtain approval from the Director of Public Works prior to excavating in any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director of Public Works shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal. 79.A11 trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned and filled with epoxy. 80.A11 street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. RESOLUTION NO. Page 86 of 135 81.Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test and traffic index of 6:5, but shall not be less than 3" of asphalt and 6" of Class II AB. 82.Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal any roads in the project that are dedicated to the City prior to acceptance by the City may be required as directed by the Director of Public Works. 83.The horizontal and vertical curves shall meet all applicable Caltrans standards. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 84.Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Director of Public Works. 85.Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 86.install deep root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. GRADING 87.Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance. 88.Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Director of Public Works for walis not constructed per City standards. DRAINAGE 89.A11 drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. 90.A11 drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan. 91.The project is in Drainage Zone "B" and allows storm water runoff to be directed to the creek. 92.Submit detailed drainage calculations for all drainage facilities to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. EROSION CONTROL 93.Submit an erosion control plan for review and approval prior to issuing a grading permit. 94.Provide a WDID No. from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to issuance of a grading permit. RESOLUTION NO. Page 87 of 135 DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 95.A11 easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing. 96.Abandonment of public streets and public easements shall be listed on the final map in accordance with Section 66499.20 of the Subdivision Map Act. 97.Street tree planting and maintenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all street right of ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet beyond the right of way, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered by public utility easements. 98.A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. 99.Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the map, or other separate document approved by the City, for the following: a. Drainage easements where for the outlet of the drain line. These easements shall be a minimum of 15' wide, b. Sewer easements over the emergency access road over lot 3, c. Water easements over the emergency access road over lot 3, d. Emergency access easements as shown on the tentative map. These easements shall be a minimum of 20' wide. e. Well easements as determined by the Director of Public Works in accordance with Condition of approval No. 9. P�RMITS 100. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to perForming any of the following: a. Performing work in the City right of way, b. Staging work in the City right of way, c. Stockpiling material in the City right of way, d. Storing equipment in the City right of way. 101. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site. FEES 102. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due. 103. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval: RESOLUTION NO. Page 88 of 135 a. Map check fee b. Plan check fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. c. Plan check fee for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. d. Permit fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. e. inspection fee of subdivision or public works construction plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. AGREEMENTS 104. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 105. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The subdivision agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City. 106. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for maintenance of all commonly held areas. The CC&R's shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and the Director of Public Works. IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES 107. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code Section 16.68.090, improvement Securities. 108. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by the Director of Public Works. 109. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost estimate approved by the Director of Public Works: a. Faithful Performance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements, b. Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements, c. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. d. Monumentation: 100°/a of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. This financial security may be waived if the developer's surveyor submits to the Director of Public Works a letter assuring that all monumentation has been set. RESOLUTION NO. Page 89 of 135 OTHER DOCUMENTATION 110. Tax Certificate: The applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. The applicant may be required to bond for any unpaid taxes or liens against the property. 111. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to checking the map. 112. Subdivision Guarantee: A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works with the final submittal of the Map. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT 113. The Final Map shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval satisfied. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 114. All utilities shall be operational. 115. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non-essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities, may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Director of Public Works. EXHISIT C � - RESO NO. ' PAGE 90 OF 135 -< . . . . ' � v 4 � . K � � S � � . . � . . ' . . � $ � } � � 'a � �� _ � . ' �� t��Y��`� u � _ . � . . . � . . ��,�t�1+�� _ , , ,�� ;� a ��t�,' !! ; . � . � . . � ro + � . �la"�� . � +� s � � f �� . . . . r� �¢ �� t �§ �` � �1�� . � . . . . . . �$�iF �y�� ai �b 5 �x+ ° 0.- Q � �� g �$ � �[ —'" � g<:� �� s_ � b � eC V� � � � � _ O � � � U M � � W a^,,�as� W � � � Q � w , � �. R � , Q�� F— � (,� �� > � � • H� ° � �' l� �-" 0 �` .� ...� Oe � � . � � f . m Q � . U� . y 1 � . . . . - . � � 0 Z Q �� W V rTl �a ' t; � F� r I � � � (� E—' � � � � j� � ,� ��' �� _ , ¢ �= s . � � . . � �gp��4��i��§3� ��g� . . . . . . � . . . .� � � . . ��'��s ��;$� Y��d�� z i�� . . . (A C� �� o�s�� .�oa_ .a_�.. ��.�_ LU Q � � � � > � � � � � � § . . � �� . � � �, v � � s a � �. � � ' �� , p�a3 gs ��1 ��S �k�� pa �.a� �ES� aa 6 @�� l� ��x , , ��"�� a 33 ��x�3 �� ,/. l /, � .mna,o�a n��4 er�� 9 vva.��v' n��a 'i�i, l:° �,"': ,, , 1 �`✓/- , � � � �; �� f r— ��- --_-- ..��; '� `;�'t\ ��`�' 111\:1��\� ti%.\� ^ � s s e � '�\•F...��'� t• \\ \ ,\' � - . � � a � �.��.11d ' �\ v': • � —z ^ g ^ � 6� ; � i� a`\,r H,IFI' ,. ` ' �•.�, \ 5''1�; " ,�. �R V ��r ��u{��Q•�'�r> ii� � . ��i 1 � . \ ,'�$ a � < Pi x6 a �1�9� �� 0� 1 ' `' � �„�'��l �� t `-c�o , . � $ i �� cl g� `\ � '_ //��f�\\\ � � . ♦ � �l�\� � �\ .�. _ .cC-4]K y �. gg � QaY . � ... „ftl�/1��\� �...� �� : �`. c> z '_! 3E �•.��:`,��. '','�� /�, i�t{` 'j�� a � � ��•�� 4t\1.�� \ t °�r'o o ' 4 � '� .`,\�1'�• .��`-.�,'i„';��i:itl� - �. 1Ul ti�.�.; i'�� 4� ��a<°m [ �' .; ' ♦\1`. `..•,\( ` y^- . _ ��. . t � 1 .¢ �♦ , .{ ' I��y� g¢ ._____ , ♦� � ir t s � �� f 14� ,� s ��.\'., � � � \\� �'ii/� � � � ' { '. .•1'. � \ \ t\.♦ �. . � i4 � �1 � .i �`tf . �\1 � e M `�7 V��'� y��~ �,/� � �� - S� ' � 1 �/)t�'lii {11 `?o.; i e r � �� ; 1�. � i� -'� � �� `� �� "- �� V Iw�V� II �,: �i��t S LL til " � ..� .' �\� 1-�R `� - t z � a � 1 t t �' t6e#pEY �3t O „� �1 I t>> t� � i �.� �� `, , ��..�_ � �.�;�� ,, � �-i.` �:.: �' i� � ;i� 3�i��'�� Z N i �.;i(-,� ��'., • .r � f�,r'•: -�%=��:,,�_ i;�r� �„. ,� �� s�a��, p9 q{ rn pVV � i !% \ � �J`` - ! Df ' � '- ''` '_ -��;�_. '!': �;r �g � 1 % � . 'f 1 . 1 Ie �\ � ��. , � � l` �} �f� r.i i�=�=-��i;/�=��_- '� t � r��d9�pE; Q W y ', =, 3�1�'t \��•� , i �,, ; ,N,d i�,��',Uu,J,:� .._.,. �,:s=l.,,,;, 53�.� 3:� 9i cAC7 �.l `1� ��.... ��4 .,j � ��t,�� . i! ,4; L,k(;ii'iii9%�1�� , n t5p�p� ! 3a� rv Q �: \ \ q �,l i3 !j!17tidy�rr/'; _ . ;� . �J� �t.i�.. W � 'X �5ti5� �� ./ ./ �� i �'T� � i� � i(lj f ..l� .r,//./:.�i i - �"�•'. j � � g i LL � \;.•.� ,,�j� ' \\ \ 1. \\,`'�' !� l ,i,?r'i (�;l�7�f,)(��j/i� ,ii`:�'�-�'�`-��,i:"S "'�f!°��`�� .� // �. h pIi 1� , jfll� i 1',i / �.r. � "�;�'� f" �� `�� - \ }Ill ' J�Kt•pflr::✓iilf'�/ii�i:.. il� �i' � � � S61i�J��$8�r{� ':r ' \ \ . ;i�k- p,; i•� .. �. '`��- ,' � \ ,i, i " \\\ 'O � ,�.t� i. �i�z'IYi�i64nyH� � : � �\ �.,: s,"''.>.' � l� �• I. � �:..;;:54*f,<?q,rri..r��iii'.i-..'7:i,'"� y�g65 $ ¢� :�i.. i \ �\ i , . /i yJ��'!.� r..�F 5,%':'• i i/� .�..`..% ! � eA � �C:>?''�f;iV� .��`l il,, 1j�:��;!,:��:i�!�!;;;;i��"t�i:pi'��:".ii"!`�iNi�viji:��ri��:,:;== g�Z i •'1 � , q ��.111 ; \ � l 11 � i / � �1�//�� j;�". �� ,�iii � • �2i/.'� ' �� :ela`4.� '10 �� 111 � i� ir �l .� ! «� .i ��. � '7ii�i i: �:j Ey 3 J ! �� hi f •� � � /„ � J i E4 / i, .i i(/'/.ii: e : d H i'III�{I� , . � }1 � li�. .�� iiiii'i:i/i�4 .i�;.d/.� i�,i� � i, �S -: •ii,�. > � �'G�� {��' 1� '\ � �� tii`�l ,r;i.',ip��/��ii/,a��,i/:lN9.�:/�r(U1lA:��j�G.•,�ii�':'i=i. �!{ ; 'A� a � � I \ !,! �/ !: :�:. 'a 1 t 11�1`Ib1! �i/i �%�.f't��h��i((�i�(;��{/ � %':��'� � � � 15�I 11 lp1 I II I �y/{(fEit 1 t ! ( i /�! /i,i i.�-� i ` i ��s�lif� �l�;�n � � �,� � 1, "� U 1 � i.� �HIJ �/1�/:�� t I tl it ./ i . 1 1�� IS�4wI111 �1yd41i�fFl III � i_ /Nft/! !i/ /, !y.p�y' `Yt�,.x� y� Il�{,11��`'��l��l��i\�,,11'�,S\�}�,\,�\`�'.1`\.4+i11�{�\uti�1�''�\�li�.'"�i]'S�1��1(I{t1'jri{��I!�', y . � �;'' k�,. 1 i i .� � . .� �.�^a�. 1 4 l �r.'r„R,ry3g; . ;11�,�114i1\}�,`SIti��P�.iHi��i�\��;:�:\��'��@2�S`'a�\�.5'��11��1`.;�15tY��1�'IIi i � � �t✓lr��f. u 1> > Nlf � �>�i: �'� �� 11 \�,� t��iV•�±1 � v .I��P'� �'l`v� �II{� Y��11��11�� il�� .�\ \�� *l�'�+t�� i\ �t\i��}VII�`,1t4�� ! �1 �� ' C � 'llii ��i��ll�{�1\,\`r:�y� ��i��1;�i��.a��p�lA1�`i1��1\t�t11 fAZ�^� � Nrl.� ' I 11 I ! I11{ � i � � �y t V/ � �ri�i"i l/ \ II�I i4��lj�j{�'B$."1" �:�;\\�i�l�� ii��i��G�kq;�le�`!11j�}��Villjd7 � �Q �„�ti,.ti.J. j J ` i�:ir'�r� � ..-� �� . 'ilt 11i4�j�lti�}�`�11.,`�;i3��ii� ''`Il�l�tf��(it{��n�'�ii(�f�+l��i;17(� �E` � / 7�, � tfi��t„i°y!`�1� �� ifl�l`Il�.`�i`\•.`''�-�'�`� .��1�1��I�4�;6!1)�:��d�\�i��l',\'t��,�C��Uj��i,i��l��tl{ . � . r/n !� �i �,��p �1�\�'•.'•.��., \� �4144A� �\�\11\/\\�ilyt\li �\1i �f4.. �' � (��`� r!��`l�l , � �el {\\`\��`\'.,�� j I}I(��1�� . �\�,�\ld\titt�t��Y�u�� 1\�111��t`�\� � � ��_� !��`.,�`. % .`� k�`�`.,,;\„�.111�,4�1tf1�1,��,,�:?l;`t`1��.,•:\\:t��.`4�1�:�,�ill��j!�I�f�' � . �� f � ;'' � 'll� \\\l�t�� 1{ I��Ir�� \ �\•\t ,�\��y�1� 1��1{�{��i� t � i� y1�.j�� .�\1�'y\\1�;��' ��1�t��`P1 ��\�� .hl'�y,�4�s'��l�t� � L"� 1�� i \�,�� ,�� ti��{ll�i��i��l �A it��A�. ��il�yt{��'�'{til�l�i c� � \�\ �6}�111, 1�� Iif}1�:��1':�,:q��a��\ �,��,;�}„'�1'0.��Pu�t��4�� . "✓ , . �� 1 1 l��Ill��\��I��y�1�i��t��lj��r3'�//�r��f.��(t�� UC . �" '• \ i 1\ � � I / � �i . � fit ��1�� t ii � � �r�/,��7p16�� €' - i r �I� l li: AV i A��Iqts��$iv;•��..�, y i� . � 4 \' � \\ ! r /�/,��ii.�yji ni �y . il i�� : Jji�ti \��. p� t � tl�jl�t�s�i1/ � ysl'vffi�:4iy,i�/� .m 9 l pti�.�',�/� � il` \� �� { ` �i 1 iVlUf: i��i..l,�y%jr;�;'!id��'�'_�" . . � � C �• �� VAV � INiI��p�i�rAr//i4:�,� �i�� . . �' �� ,��gi; �A s t i�I l��i�(�� ;'F�� ,� � �� Q, ! lH� �� \ E`N �il l�' ii�� r , ■ 9-i-� 1�l �il1 � � �� 11�� 1�'t{�� 1�� i Yfl P i( �lyl \'� . `��111 i . '�� '�-t�' ! t �.�.-�''� . ':) Nrar�r,r-� �.I�l�� '�Illl��i��l�l`� '�. it�ry�(j,��,�1.��1�i . � 1 � ��t � ~ . � I��'��ti�� It� ��t \ �� ; � �! l ti�, �� }�;`,�;�,;'«'��d�� ,��;4;``;�`: ==� �p ` �( � „t. ' `e lj` i i��'i �\ �"\\:i,r��'�)�lit �1�s��'\\\:I''/'I�. ' W ' . � ° lI U� � ..�, i �ty/(,fl;�� \ � i� `._ � I � ! � 1 I�/� ��`.' ��:�{il�%6`��'��.�� \\ '.� . � . . � '�' I i fr�-' �\~ �,�`,�,�1d��,��.��'� r�"(/ �'/ I �1 \\ �•''..\�i� � � ,.'li,{I `��n� � � ` � I� r �{�� '"� \�`��i:�::::`��;1} - ';�' � . �� d r � l \ �� \��t;,.�r' _- ' �� ,i ' ,�{� , � �` �s ..,�,>j�;,i��.�ti; �t.� �<� � ` I 4�1 f '`�'��,1 � �'� �It�C.�(v�ti?��:�,�i�:� , �� I r �ti. i � ,;. � ��!�, L 1 l r �'�'� ��` '��` �;��a �: �J�t�� is_: � )1 s,i �.�� ,,�,r��.� „� , �: I� �� \��,.y� �t \ `� \ �.'v}-�.Z ��: ->,:..- 4/ .�`�\N� �1 \. �\,� 0\"\�'��'':�, 7 � 1 �� \\ 1 1\ \�\i\'�.�t t�� .:i� 'l�' q � ' 9'y� gS q e3;� �. �r,� 1 \`��' \ �1 t �c;..� `.` ,��" g tF 2� 4! 4 � g ��+ { 9 �si � 1MSVEW W�C 1�514V �� 1 1 ' �i 11��4� 1'i,— i _t i � � i! 6 ! °` ' k''n v,�`�� i i �;�,i,��„�i�,�', . ` ' � 3� �g 1 $' �� :a;� e4 ��i�� 3 �6 � � �•{{��y$� �gt,:y \\\�� 1 � '�.�� Ir / l, N �� y� �Sy�Y� Y y�9 Ea. � 4 ��9 y 4 � �Y�a� �@��y�� i � 4� �� 1� *` w s � r�� '� y g s ''a 3 � a ° ; p y" ,\U ,\�• �� • � � I\ Y l �` � r- � �•t Be • 9� c p�(�e�yig }� �i � s3e Y 8 e9 M �. \\� � i,��t��l�.i�rl)�'`ti�\�: i ��aflCy�9Etp�e�j �i a�� 3�45 �p� ;s � � � � �y`��P� ; � I\� \ ..�.�� S 4 l:��///�'� 1 i � sqF��,9�jd8 a �"�g �� Cta� Ci�� B� ° ■ Y y< \ 1 /� i' p � � �� $ � �`\\ ��_� ! !L:!,.i .` ,� �39] ' } �!tF�i ��3@�9�l� ri. y i ,��e°s� ' �3 �i�i // '� . �.��c�'� �.✓ ♦• �i � ��C�•�¢�q °��9��5��q �`£�{��'spg��p��B4� �a°yg��4��pg�8�pgg�� ypI�B�j,��°p $6�pe�g 3[ �9�`e'� S d F4F1��9S�Q ��i� � // I 1\� ,y' G � . . ai9 if9iY.x afi xEe 96.9'�Bx Y • 9.sa g i s � s 6�a s. .� � // I � � �'i �� ii � . . �. �, � . �, � �/ � �� .� _.. . � . . ` .n` ,� ], - � �,, � i �.i'�i�7 � , �'` �� _ �� f _< .. . .. .. . � p �`�` � �S, � �� r ` � . . � ¢ ; � „� � . ♦\ � ` S _�._ C�� -� ` � �� :. i� ' \ z i� � � �� r 1 � � 1 l� l � �� i � . ,....' 1y � ' Z p ' ¢ � \ � I .z,dr � � � @. }� � �<!-; . ` ` - i ;; � `, S � +f k ~-� `� ,��,' ~`,y � �> ��' " � � q��i�� ,`t Z rn $� . � � ; r� � � � � � x � ' ��;�\,' �� ` . ? � ;v,,,`. � t yg��g.�y� � O W � - ��//� �(�� " � i ' g � �� i �"V�`�"'��g�' 1N17 Q � �� 0. � . : . ./ , / : �l��f � l � �Ty��eEiip��}y�.��t:� (� d �, .� -'// \ � d �. " . �f % �..i �I' i—� ) �* r s � /V 4 � �x / x 4T � �'i I i� . Yt,,d�{�t��*R s� � ' . 9q �`, ``.. ' :� �� tia� J / � �' .�� i i' � lS'*'• � � , !� � �1 t� ��, � � II t S�� I t � / ��' � i � 3 �f � � �i$� / � 1 I / i �—` i j� , � (� � ``3$ ( 1l Iy�,� � � + ; J ( j f ; �� C� �� .Cag�� { / t ` 1 \.. (� j � i ! � ! ! � ,/� s °"k�5� , �� . \ \ I J � it J ! / � � '?1� � � j ' p � � / , ! 1 1 r 1 t i � / � �� -�i s I � i � t$ / ! � ( i1f1 J� f / � � � � � �i � � � � ( ' rl �4� �t J1 � ! � !/� ! t/ I j� l��. �r/l i'J 4 f9 ��('\1 ..� �;'�' �f r / !f� i / /I 1 / p ; t� l' / � ` . � � l ��l; L 1� �� ! � j � / t��! ! / ! r � 1 '� / : �, � i i�`� � t t ` { i i i 7 i 1 1 1 /� 1 � � , �� , , � „ ti , � , , , � a � , , , , � ' � t t �� ` ` � t � . �'` . �, ` 1� �, t � � `� �` � � �+ � �� , $�'� y �l� ,t ��` � t �` �.�.`.\` l` i y, ti ' ��:� i. �.� � _�`_EV� /� .~ r+� 11 i �.t ` ` `\i`,\\\`` �`\`\\ \\Y\\�` , 5 ,j` ' /� 3q ' � ` i \ �\\ � �� \i l � s 11 i \ { J� � `� �� 1 t� i l�� 1 1 �� \ \ �` � �� t j i �/ � 1 E e § � � � i � �`` 7� 1' 14 f . f �1 v ♦ � 1 { 1 f t I � i . � . QZR:� � 1 1 ( 1 I � 1 ( ) ! } L9 J j 1 `� 1 1 � 1 � ! 1 ( L \ / \ ! � � .�,�� t )�V� �� y 1 � tr � � ",i. �� /�r`� � �1 � f �� ` �� cy, �1 � � �� > >, t\1\�„ �1�� - . �. . �II�_7j � �t i � �`a �� \��). � ,� �� `� \��,;��, � i.��, � � ' � �-� i l � � � a �t, y, ,��` \ i\ �� `\��j `� , A . ,�� '` "' � � 4� \ l�i� � � � jti�� 1 r�� i � ti T. � � t�y� \ � � y i ( � � � � �'��!! �� i:'y ` � . y \� � �� ` `� , ` � ,�t 1 1 f � � � - . r , , , � t ,� � ,, ,,,, , s� t � � , 0 ; ,�/, r � , I � � y� � � � �\ � J � % ; / !� t� i ,� � � � i f � l. r� s� �� `1 4 � � i + ��ir�JJ 1=-�—� ` � �}�s t � � + � � t � � µ� ��(0 `' di ~i t 1 1 �#/Jt � r ff} ).• [i� t�{ �`,� . . . 1 1�.�'�, '�� 1 r � . ,� �t t j � ( I 1 1� i `� 1�.� • .5 ��g - � \K�a \ �'� � � t t�— t : �K��,�, 3�� t� i� �� i i i �� >> 1 � i� � `} l � Gl\ '`�, `. ; � � t;� t � �` �� . . •.t.; 1�Isiri�t` ;:: ,: —. , � � i t i��`�, �� ` '— < ;, ^ .. :..:e��i�'s� , `�}� 1 � + ' ' , , 4 ` Vf �� ; �� . � � � ; l '' � �, � t��.�� ' �� `, ti; ' a � i v�' � t�' � , � �'� . — I � � t �id ��t�s � �y 't1!,M ;� � t i � t i � ` r�� w o- �,�, 8� ,i3�� v t > > � � � �,�'� � � I � : 4 ' .� � t 1i .,`. f 1 � q � N �� \` l a � .'` /9 a � � 8 ;::.� � .��1 � �i� �``\ \ ,` ` ,' „1 � ' . . � ' 1 + ) 4 ( � 'It � �� v�Si ��' l � � `„� �,, � , , , l �I_ � di � � � � '�(` ,�'- �"� 1 �+ il� , 't1 '\ }+ h \` �\ , \�.;_` � $ .� T• � � i�5 �y� �� , ` ' 11� \,� �`� �� `��``� 1 �� } � �SD�ag � 9�g �9 N �� ¢'YLgg` � ' �i�`^ � � � � � � � � ��2��c� g� L��# �� 3} }� Z �� 4'�' "�} 9 �. �� 5 �� s� � W� x�� y �5E � g i `! � 6'§!■� �� ,� ` � �'��5��ffi ��gg�p��1�� e t E q�+o°g � � � � ` t� 1 �i � .� Z 2p�igva Y ��y &q4� +e � i G 5f�j F�`gY{ �: �� b ��\; , \` 1' �v��/i.'�. � . . . 4 gp�i�,°is'C�b �.ii g �x9 F4' �i � �YY e�s9494g !. ��`�,�\� � \ 1 (y�.' :' a 5�'g��a��g�Y�np 4��?q� �,�� a��}'y�d6�S `T �� `i � �/�. � o �ia s 4b i� � �d� � , � �� ' � ��Z 3�� 7�Sib f i Q" ,/ .i / ° t� i .l� . >; , �'',�' � . ; � � j� ' ` ° ,�' q � �� ;% �.�l_..� ii�' � �`',4 � •� 3 �I j 1 v (1� �� \ 1 . 1 � \•\��• S , `� � i w� 4� �r ;` `` ��„��\:/y'..`�;•,�1�11��\,�`��1�"�'� • \�\ . _ � ° �6 \ \•• 1�,`tiY 1\1 1 n � . � y ('L'� � � , '`�` � ` • + ` \ �Y '. . � = E� �n� ` t \b r^��,�'� ��,t % `, ; m �.� . , ;`�'.`,�,�� Z o d � � ' �•�� ' _ 45'4� ` ` �� `� ` . '4 � / �1 t �`;�� ' . ; U � U , ��`t1 >i�Y�l\ ��11',�,"� I � � � �11't 60 6 ' '�`• • , . ✓ / ��` r y�� ,t��q�� € � k; i `�.. . ` ,} = �' - , Yw }� �� ao< p . ,a ; �„ \,�` .; �� ,' ,� � �)fi� t �� ap d L ��1 `� � �A - y� . � � C�j •L�I�i r• 1 ,,!-,i.�� 1 �P ` � � S. ' a .� f 1 1; II � ,,i 1 2 y p � —_M � i i '�) � •-L' '4+ � .j`i � � y io' i }I'$� � �ii �i� U S A � � 1`1 � � L ` �. T.�.. ` � i � .�3 � � yy I��i � � ��t� 9f � �i i�-�� f� '+� t� .`� �; ��P' : i'i r � �j6ppF 6��Y( 1 LL ��.rT�, �� - �'•' �� ' �t�� /t� H �� i {4@SP��C�� J�� /� � �'a^� � � ' i�/' ,� . �r�?��a;�ii�� !i C 1 °�' Q � r y , � , ,�; , �' -� ,�,,,, ,. q��g� i�� g� � ��,�-,- �� `• �Z'/ ' 4' �� t l�' �d' ,,«� ,fi'�'F��'l - ' r �' �•��i��el! s tl. Z m �� ' � \ ,.��,!��J' f:/� , ' '�� { i�,;�"�''��'rr�,��l: �� r . . �f39��i��g O w � l�`� ��;,: . �� •. �»' rF� '��, , '�'.�--�I` '��a��'';��.'��,t�^`��-�'"="" �� 6s�i$;B�4�i�E� g � a � � 4,, -.\� � � ' '.,d,; ;��' ,l�'rxi;d��;�� -"=: �y ti... ,;, "'. _�:1 ib,.. {:, y�;;,,.<;;;i•' ,y�;,, f,v j� , ,,,: F; _,s%=',;, ;� �;',';;, �;,;,,, ,�•�'�x�;.. � � = �� 25 7!�1{` �� l��P�i .- � ,,,�y� '"„� %� ./,?`%•�,', l 9 �i iP • � v�i!'�f.'�' 'i'� tq 'ut3@�jj il;l il�' �?`�.e`�-. ,-`,�' :,�,I,j�, ..�. „ „ ,.:,��'v",?!`,v:•,. �� y� t f °�;i' ,:�� , �f�ii�,ys` i�.;:;' �+ �a ! ! (i x� � �� i#4.' �'; f'.' �j�>�R� � � u� - -It� M1W�� /` `� 4 '�� n�� .'i,i� � �6 : J�aE ��-�) � Or '- � � I �{�i i�[;��tn li� � �ui'� III . I 'U i�� i � � ��ASi � - �. i ` � ��•i��v �iiii �� . ��,,,,,� ,,�i'�'� ,__ . .,, „y'A, �.:��,l, �� (, '"'1,:, ; t� � , �. '„ ��1 ',,. i� . -_+.Y�� ..�T=�� i- ` ��. ' � � nr�i,L:��F ��i r i �'.,1,'.: .;G.�:4'% .�5,�.'�:`l: • ,�,'.�� i �� ;��0'�5 � ` ��;�i'�iir� �3 �.q � � .Y S • �P� �� : , st, ,tk ;rl�') i . ��i, � � � �,,, „�� `�`�l 4�; I', ' j 11 � H f ' I�i r t 1 y . } � �iI♦ � � I �� '0.\ �Ill,l1�11� 1 i i � /''� Y 1 r C� { 1 II � � �11�1��1�� I 1,�.7,;%i..�':�%;i41 ," �` �� i �{"i"'{�i'��' 1, "'��'l�,`,+� . � � � ii y � �� , � � w� ° �,�I �� '+�i � �� y7'�. � � �� n z-x� ; : .��-- , . � k; '� j�T✓�� 1' , � �� (�a.� � E_ ��'`�} �l 9aP . � � 1 �i i � i,� ��"�� il�' �'� � � WsS� 'Y i�.pyl� ��F . � ;;�. ,� �, �! ,r ::-; �,; W g$ %Y..}5, � k'(}[ t r ��,``:i �� '^;��,��ii'�• e ZS � " �`,� c� �i � :';',;,;;;; ' � ��; ��- �.,;:;,� . ,�, .,:::::....::: .�, a � ,-:t,,., , �,;�'� �;,� ti`,�,,,".`. � . ��"�: „^ „ .;";,,.., � Q Z-.g 1. �. � � . . y'n��'� �tpi�inniy:��' ;q�L ,,;,.�, �' . .1•;�'� I ' :.. ,�„ �. � w ' �i,� . ,;`� , , `�,; „�, r;, , ;,,�.�„ym�� „ a I �.�� , �,•� _ . ,,;, '1�., , ,,:,,,,�..�;,,�.:, , , , , ,` � ,, , . , , , , ,,,,; � '� i � 4^ i �� ib ti ryn.n` a ` J '� �i �'��p ` � '' �i�' y �� F�, � p � �\ 1 �.�1 i 11 , { � I l�t ,�,i� .1�",♦ B�fry�.�� Y Si l, k � i`;a �' � `,;; i' ,` � r � � t �.�� ''d � s � � � +{� . f9 � �`' � �� `ii`` � ��i� � i '�� w �iri' q � �� t �l , �T''�� i ;':' � ;, � � � "��$ � � ,,;• ,.� ; 'k �� j '�'.-x ;;' ' ; �,i�,;'� 4�� .,�,f��'"; :.��if' � �¢°g �� ' ��s�".� � ,fi'� ;�`�`, i `;1: k � ��q, .�' Q o u� � � '�� r s�:,' � � � � � f �+.��,X;t- " @� w �� f � � � '� o rh � �:' €a a }�": � �f f ,. ' ` . ` .� � �_..1r`i 1�%` '•�� '� ' _ ��, ��!,;,,;y��,' � �i t F • �1:{ \ �M � '1j�y�t�. . MMYGPI0. �1 4 �� :\ \ � A \'M � . �t.r..�->....�L.� ' � � � �'��L'P 4` �: _�,� �• ��'� �� .�i�. �1 � . i.t: :� ;;.. � : � 4 g ;"�;; � j ,' ; =,-.41';':,Z' �� ti,��`�" "� ��' ,, ,�'� � � i � , � � � �r � � , 1 �� 1�� r �� 'fi� ,B a � _. � '� �� . d �4y �, i I S ��,' ,. � �,��`,,�'�. �;j�—'1' w 9; g � '1 I 1 1 r� � - � N � P � � i I ' ' ry�i� ��7 / ` � r� � � �z t8 `� �; I �;�! ._ , '. , , ��,�� f�� _�a.�! � �� . � li I �:i '+1 1�.,., ,�.S,ii,,��. �lT.�€: � i �,�j w �� Y � . ; ' '��' �r �'� ,�'� :; �`v ' -� ;� w s !' e e � �' �I � 11( �€�'k � t`• � �:;y l��`;, ;�r " B��g E9 € 6 � �� .`y� y �v , ��j � r Qg f . . li I ji!' t�� .' 1�ijt�.;�2i'�i��`�, a1�:,` '�[� pSS p9 � � . , ' i��.� , • � 3'��•,`` , `.:R�'� ��a— ��• ? i ,�� I 'i;� ��, , i , , ll i ,�., ^ . )(�'i • ;),'��'`j' ; � :�;��lt .j4t: " a � f., 1: e �.a== � _. �'� � �I�;i,'�€'�t t '� � , �� `u�� -,a,�: g � ° , 1 ' �;;,, � ; , ' , ! )�/ �, , ,V ,'�;� e} � y � � I t IA\T1CM M/.�\ ,1 I I � 1 1 ' 1, 3� ,1�41 �1 \\11 \t � � • �e p � y I ' . 1:�t, ' 1 1, � � `, � � ` 1 � 11 LR 7 �� a f � t R /\�\,\\ �i`.1� 11��lt 1� \ 11 �� a, i{�, , �� 1��1� `YZ"=1��\ U' P i � � � ,�'\,•\ `�;,``` > >� . '� �.�� : : � p p gi v�i ei� \� � . l �� i � .i 0 p f F{ e 7 �Y7p 0 Q• , a yY ,�� .. �\ \� '\, :` ,�...,y:�`1 'i ! Y i l L� 1 OPi6� iG� r' . . • .% . � � l8�.�.3 � . ' t��'� � ,i'v �� N 66i3i � -:' �\4, f;;... �" ;; ;- - ;�� \ :��' ,i'', ' V � � ;i i��' '' �r� ira��rii��,��o�a��on►�aa�� }�,,�.;. . ��_��g�►�i��'��r►r��i�i��►��k9�� ►na � c►�rsl�A��AIIAI�I��,�1��'�� y�� ,�e�� tu��t►r��o�aan , . � PF i i 4 L 5 „ �� 1��,��y� � � � ��ihr�'�r��r�►��i0 . . . �000�Ed�6E � t��.��:�t�ccecc�ECC��cccc�Eat��:Q��E@o�E��a��a��cE��,��c��* � � �"r��i"►�►"r"r�i�r�i�i�i�i'i��i�i��r��i�r�rrr�rr►►r%;r�'��►r ao« �� n�m�m°tm��mn��o��mnmmnn ��a�� • ��aeEe�.� 11111N11N,111111t��i s ��.� �� B � �Ea��€��E� . s� y��i�� '�'��i�'��r�� e� , �� H � , . N111111111N11INi111N1i1 r ' , ��9��q�F�,�E�m�� 1111111111 � ,�� '� ��► .� � ��a��a��ad��d �E�EEeE��E�66�� i , ��i�i��r�►�t��i�i�r��i�i�� .�pa '� fie��,�8��a��e�' 1�� + �� . . �,CQG4:EE�3�3�9dC aCV�G�� 1'�� 4�1��1�i��`i��.��a�� ` 1111111111►11�1��1��1��111111111111�111111111�111111111 �. L'_��?��3F��E��`��C.�ad�.�� ;4��aas�aane��ao��aq��€�ea� ��rr ��»�.�E�� ,��,�0��, ��ti►�,a'�'�""��'�'� ,�� 4�� w,rr00��w�w� �� r"r��►��i'�r��ir , . , � � ., ; . � mmi��►r��r►��a��m�rr�mn��i �� , aa�a� , �� G . . 1 1 , ��n ti��d � �r'�►r�i�r�r�, F �, �9a��EE��!��e 5ce��a��F��¢'Fy�1 111111 t1��a3�� r �„ � �� ►►��w►a,r��i��a��fi��E�a�e�a�raaE��a.a��6�. � �t �� 5�5��, , ,� �� ,�� ►ir�rti� � • • � a�n�mnim�a►��iu�►►n;n��}==��ra�4��r�� . E��a��y��e�eeaa��ee� tQn�.��jf t t�"? .� „�1l.�� '� aa�,1 11111 a . � � +�, t��t.�.... s��nao��nm�m��r��►�,�tiir��m�� Z »��0��r��a�y�j��EEe� �� 1�� +�� 11 � � � `II`�1► �iti �, "�''��11`�;•."C6+�a�1:��Et6�a3:��a�.�6� k16C.�k ,�t��11� = C11114tllllilllll,�t�t�� ti� , r �q, � � .'��►►rr��rr��r�� r►��►r��a►��r��.�. r � ry �►�mm�u�rmu�r�nn� , pp� �� "��r�►ii�r�p��►�i"r"r�� ►� �.� � � �� '�3��86��b��[�3��a�� t��►� , �� . F �}'-{,�, ��e��.,��q��p"��!❑a�q�p��o e��a��3 qp , , �� „rr�r��►r�i."rr►�;r��it . . ��Ee ��rmmm�ru�� .. ►�� r��w � .,^� '�YLG��"ti s1��`YYM�i Cr�ltiY�1444�0��Q��E��4J�'1��i��4QY��dG��tLY �� - - � _ �U.� ,d� . ,t�FF�Et�s't , , . ��tA� eL6LC�Z�LLtE�E€E�E��.��3�C y� 1�b�►1 , 111►111111N111111111_11�It11111111��111111111 � � �� , � �,��E��EC�:��3:Lttt�� 1 �� ;a��i4�rr�y�r0��rr�r��iE��i��e�� ; ' r �i'��r .. « ��e6��33d EE�E�tE�dE��k�@a�a��d�3�EE ��1��, �1�1�1�t�A1 �� 1l ��t��rr�►w�r�►�rr��"rrr�,��"r�r� ��M� E��rrrrZ:,. . .�� , ' � , �E��.�r6�`��a�59 ,�d r��r, � � � ��,� �,89a��1��0C�tGEL .. � , �. � ��„�,,,,, � �� 5 � %��r r►rrr►� a��e�� , ��a`��AOaaoaac�s� ��'�� , ��►r� , �a��r �E��{�[ �, �, ��.�� r��r�mmnnn�;��nnn��am�+►►►un►�i�n►�u��, . j��.��C � � p �111� 1 �11�� '1'11�'i�►��u,Hr�C��t��:.�n��h��t1."� ��w��„ y �1��'��H111 LG�IY�YYIIY`��lY�\\�,��Y��t �� a Y - ��►+ tib � ��t �ir��rr��i��'�r�w��rr��r�r.��r� �� EaCC�. 11h111111111111111111111��1;��11111��1111111111111111 � �� :;��5��.��6�. l (:NI1111 g �rwr�• . �� y�'�HB��a��c��Eti�.�� .e. �,• �e«�rE�: � �a�,��f��x� ,ti a �ai�@��cd��3`��H�� :::.��a.5.e �`,� �� kA� �,Ksa��j �C66C fi;�5 �� ,. �11��a��p�'� � H�44.rY��1�1��k�\��V{�� E��4fi�� " ' ��1`� ..��.��a ��►�I�ySklyti °� r � :Ei��E��d��'�E��`�aa4��. ! r..:��„y�� 11111111111111111�111111I1N11111��111111111111F �,,��e9Fc E ,.�,�_� . �E66� �lllllliltl�i�►�� "�A�►�y�4��r�w'ti��r , � ,y�{a ��,;��cE�,.E t.w��a:E�.�.�t.,�.4�L.�. 4 M�11 �IA 4 �'111r��y. , r, . �11��a «��«��a.��,, ��L � -, �a ��tL��E��zE��a��4E6dttE��B�e�i � I P� CR � f a��`7��V1�� E` ,, ,sa - '��'�"'��rr�r��'��'rr�rZ��r"��►rr�r ��, c►��mir�»nrrinu��iuna��m►r��►i��iir�m w 6 � � �, ��d�� d�d ��, :a og�9��E'��t�3�:E�a�'��6n��e��65��:9�7"��7�ne��€ rr�r�r`�0 ►r�w w ` . � a � u �I��u��'1''t��C�l ��*�4.aF��^t��'��d ,� ;` b " ` k,��l{�u :, ;bd� `ltc��tG��?CC�:��E.3"�:�:►E:ti6:G�;�6G@��G�`��'��y,9�e�€��Qu�9 . e44��••"�' _ — ,.: , _ . ; .. _ . , ._..... .. .. ,_ : , _ a — � � " � , �,�N f �s � , ,�'� � ��: „ � � . , „ � � � `; � .'.�, c�'�. ' ja .w , '`' a,5�'��_. . t�� s: x �,.a..�! �" � .��:r � r . � Sf � A �� k �� 1 �.2 �rt iy,. yq.5'J%.�1\ `f l '*�fS6 �� F'.�'�`? *.. t � . / ,. �qzyaua�50-) xi ^..,e� ' k�g�x3` � 8 x a : 9 � �`t � a�_.�� ' , 1 3��wn�:. .��<'.sti +s �'�'ks,y �t, �'� � �k,., � � 't^,�. . _ fe � � ' �a�� i4 � � � +y.� � � o n � � �M1 �p � , " (,�- .� �,�� 00.A0 "•�l_ $ f t�'IS.Y , Y y tt k � � � q '� > 4 � 1 .. w�A✓ l�� I � . � l F � �,z� 3 �jj� � � '(� � y ' �� IL.�,..��:�i� ti . '' 3,�s $i�3� tx �I `�� ` � \ �� -v.3-9'�! �.� � y A'v i+p 6 F:�� a 1 l `a' .�.,�.'y - ,� k I I': A f I 2 +M1 , f.:.. ��....7..e. ', °T � . � A '�J � �, _ I , .S t� ^ i� 5 ! .� �� , �t �aa � y�^ �— � ' av � � • .� t ' °a �( ��}. f `' •n` Ti�R .d' °'� '� � _� � � �"2 R. � � .. �. � ! 's ��'�" n =''' � �t �k � ~ � 1 I': \1 ..I I !�^I.ti �� -�".. ��-� � � � „ � � a, ,��,�arf� +.� x�+ �. F a�� I , `. � i '� ^� �� , . �� ,�;s��; ey,�`z'�.-` y� �w; . �7 � �� F,,, r� �; . � .y� �r3��^ � �� f�� C��- a n. � � �:% , V�a »�5;� � f.,` '�'"'' ^�' ' -..t�„� �� n � � �, @. �. v �.*��. � � � ?F,�' t � �� r �u�a,� I I^. A t I I .5 '. I I: A S I � y�a � � �`f . a F =i t� � � �; +�,; :� � `. �y,�c� � � t,�o��1'�k� �xa�� ^'��s..-• � � �iYi �"'i�' y�; ;"i�is. +�'<r;ev �`, '�yyt,� • yy � ^�3 '" 'r. ��y �>; � ,."r xr�'xy aa ` . . . � J ;�ifbq1FP�� .�`y� r � :. .� r,�n ...�� . . � • . �*LW��LW�W�LI �� tl•� . . �y .�.1M ...+ ' . � � �.��d�l.� . . . . ..�..... • . . . 4,�, ]a" < � �-+: <N.�fi�:�i${�u�lHJ�I��(Ij�i.7 � e i i:.:i .�; .�:.e �,yC'"j�y� � �� • • • • Y �A��e •� � , ��i�� g� , . �� ' s . / ji ' '�Y �r , ;#` , q /'• � AR6� B� � ° ° �. �/�. .J � �� .� �_�� , $3�� . � � �,- %��t� � • ° ° � �, � } A{ � � i � sa�� . : � � ; .�� . . , � 6 ;1�, 1----_1-` ` � _ t ��q� $zs,��—" i ��oN 'O :� ��"i�«� � � �4�� mo , `�o � O ' ; � � � A __� � ; 1__ �� /; �. � j � i:�� / ,` n l ,, ;�� i�� \ �e4 e y'd� `,j�, � \Y 4i i w,`\ \Vi Q � �� '!� � � � r� � � 1 � � � t ' �� ♦t —r �`� i 1 � L_— . ,�. �� , � � , 1, � � � � , � �✓„ s�' � � � � �. � � p,r'�'�.K S'�5.. � O� ` `J4'� � n H , ~` o� � ::^, � � �.� \ a ^"�� `,� t'�^: r'i �� ,i:;` .� �� ',,,,.a�'2�� „ ±-' ;='''-ti � 1 �� ".y' • �; `, .. . �a= .i `�\ i,. "`. �,�n .( �� i � N"'�f -i' ', ` � • .6 �� :;:r " > " �' ... .�c, ,N, , •, �: . R` . � , �6�. t ,,, ,, �, ,,, ,: ,� :.,; �,, , \� y:;.0 P :�� . 3 �- . '," ��\,3' �� I d� �M w� ,� �`\ �� --- � � �� '� � � `�7 � / / C \�✓ `� �. .` 6. � �� x� y� �� G �d �'w�� , l%°`�l"�,� . 3`� ��[(� � �1 JO 8V -] yn �A�y� �� -J9 :�, i�i'i �1(" � 7 0�37\, °�en �K" vM nsNw �K �p�• x,��`: ��'T,.�y�({%ft��i��. J .Owl a �� •J ��..pll� "24�..�-'.�.�— �jy ;; p � . . ` `,+ .w�","�r" w+�q..�^w ��...33�°°-- . � 'i1#�?!ti!f`.:r«i:�=i:;�.�� r��tf ^+� . o�' �.,.�a?�" ' +'A n�. r �'/ _ 11 �t Ig\"� ' . :.... .� -� l r�� r+e�w."��+r+� "'"„ep�� ifl+ '\�'itt —jij /i'=.'iiL��ri�lil; id . r� • . �f� �� .'..�,. ^_., r : i�,,� fiil`� p. •• . [l1`\" �'_�':.//i:-:-� ir-i r / .w�+ ��+s�„�"�� 'N 1111 lt�� tl".�'.��I ' ' /.';ii'iJ• . �'^...+.�w5�* � � � i ?i�� 111 \ �� -�._�: / i � . �t } 5 %' �, / � � ��, . .N1, : � �. r��t� � f �ll�� tr� }�} �� f /� : � � o�"�'••..,."�S"+�.°� b�- '�r '!�!��r�!/t��f��'l.t �! : II !�I1 �i � ,��'� ��i(T�'4l��1{t5� . 7 1��1��.yr,++ . y '� �� ' �a,y��"...'.� 1 ��/ rrl�� f� �ill�ii� � � � iyyili{ I�y � ��flil� �li�Es��.�A1� , � � "ay l II I '�i!'�� 4 �. - � �lt �: . � t 1. .rCi r ._�� /A �/�! ' �t� lt�� 111 l��•A� l � � . . :� °�.5rv. � d . , ��,"r��" V '` � ♦ ' . p� �!(,�t, �I:'t ii�U��.��`� /> �1'� �� ; .�ro. �� ,Sal ti ',l��r� �`� � � � 1 �' _.i� ��'�i / ili � ' i { 1 � V7�t�.��l,i,}�l�l� il 'i�ll�ll ��ik:. .�:�::,• `;`� oaz � �t'�e��c�'�.,`�' . �� A �� ;��'. � ,� � ��..� t ��=,.;�,,.t i'��'rj: f� �� I i 1 ��}��`�I�W1 IR1� ' �1�'�� ti' �A��;. ��\�i�Fn °°��'r�° �. �� < V A t. � V �� \ti � i r � r t ( � i f 1 JY " ' 1 1 l 1 � : t �! � i � . i7 i t>/"_� . � �� , '��\if � �� '� �� '. 11 � �/�iic J' tlfl � i ( If � � � ir � �;t � �4 � � �it ��7��y\�l�51�1� ��. A� �i��„� .i� � �P �. � � � • . � 1� . 11l�l�/ . �� i 1 4 1 1 � 1 � � � 1 ( ��'� • � i V 1 l j 11�1 � �, �"� . "e`,\1\\��S . � \ .\�� \�.` � .�Ji/jil.:'/i� \1C: � � � 1 � I ' ( : i 1 d� � / � t � ♦ \ ;b 1 I 1 i \ ♦ �` , _,� �\c}ci�,\ \� \ \ . � \ \ � .. �..` � i� r//� �vi� � i i � � { { � r 1 F�..�.. ♦\ \ �. \- y '1 \ / Jr / � 1 I 1 f � . � \` � � '- ,« ' `. 1 .A . ti`'- � i�r� ,i r�� p _tl i 7 1 � 1 1 1 t t � 1 ly �� L �� \Ki��A' � lA`,�.� ��., `� .` l'i/iY�i/� i .'��py{� i � 1 V� 111 �� 1y,�^�+ VA 1a � . . `). . yt � �1Cd��;iiA�� V A�� •�� 6��l�%� I {I.�t i ',11 � � ( } 1 ' / .�\4yl, l.i-1-'�� , � � 1 . �j �. .. � ; /l / I 11 i � \ I � } Y' , � � ' i � \ 1 � ,1 �\� \ � ♦ . � ••. ' l.r � l - � " =\\\1`,1 0 +. , + ��\� � '. ., � �♦ �. ,`.��,.../�/ry% � ifi�l. � 1\ � ;1�� 1\�t` t\ dl:�l�:�\`:� �� 1 \ �i � —__t� � i�. ��1 l \ � 1 �� \� ��1` \\\\'�' i d�ll\•i�_��...�..�-c, "_ �J.Jr,�l��< < 1i1'I{l� 1 . . � �1 li1� t1 .,1� ! ,f�,��S�l�. . . . . i� � ii�..�'Y ' ' ___'__ .�--i%Y� � '�t��k��l�+� �J 1�.� � l 1�' _,�, �i. �\•��+ `(:�\ �� °�� . . . I �i - — �— ` - "'� � � � �@�I:N;l�P�i~ �T+ ` ��,�''\1��. � �� •��1\,�.,-�:1.� .. . . - � � � — — '.� � Iq1�1g11,1 ; � �t �� 11 � 11 { '�\`•. t� . . . . . . . Y—�r ' ! ^ 't�� ' �,p�M6�r ��f��'I� i! ��',\�� 4 �\ . . � . _•__ � [ r�„n,v.rr°" ,lt�Rj ��i�dl� �'1�`1,1 . � o i 1 n i� � . � � .�?""^ 1�� .�'V 1 li'�ad�,�U� � „ .,r, . . . . . •�.� � / � �--'� i /�`��C�jb`1[r �`,\�� _�yp � myr��'�� / � . . . � � � . - .. .��f'q� e •T'+ �`�� `��A !. ��IFC"wqy� ��• I 'iT�%/�llSJlj � - � t �..t. rny++pW+ � t '/.r . . � . � . "—`' f: „�,�.� • � .,,�,{,�,q .,: ' u"s"' i�, r�i;�r,i� �, _ .Ii`1 ,+,L i f . . i � 1 r �' . � . . . . i . � �y� �yf s,,'.' _ �\ � . . . t / �{'i�` � �. r' �1� '�,.� . . ' � y�, JL i . � � . . � . . �,< `I'!qy 1!�lkl , ^ �� 4 !,{i��•� �'•.�T. r s � 1/1�� i�./s�` �j(��Q . . . . . , s -_ . . � , ��K+�u�itiu�^;�, �.e��"� ,�y'�� : .f J'1/�1'" ��t�� ,�(, � �'� 1 ..\',' ` �y�,y,,�''s,.,ky '�<�`_� ��/.% 1) � r �t 11tr. �t ` " � . � � � �i' �� - ' V' y .. ii n g �_''�` ° L r 7, 1 . o SJ . ,�n, i/ � i/�ov��ar��r '�`.c�-�_=�-�: ° d � • . ��, �f`�,t..'fl/ z � Ij f,�//! f'4/.� . �y, . ti �L. r 'I �� _ l�j� ' . � . 8ll�[ i � y�f� � . ��4 �f�� . "�; , �"'� '��'ii � �.� � r '� g,S1.9S[�dl� 'V;�V�u�P}l�� 4 �tl � � « �'m -m'„ ✓r -�t„'2;�t'�w � . «�•.,,' ^M�i,,hj'I�, . M rr .'�H . ��r`�� . . . � �w^� . � .�,t.i�,�;{j vNl �5" . .�. . SF , � . � . ,� �1 . ,11� l�, . . �'xnoY't"��,�� , � '�.1 t ��il �{ I{ � � � � �j,�'i� . � ', �� +�`� � � ' � �I�� , j ��`�Q ��i`w��.i��;'k � . � ��Q �t.,i;r,;t'��1 -r';c �`�� 4 „ dL`.D��' � � � '� � � � � �� RESOLUTION NO. Page 99 of 135 , EXHIBIT "D" DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment(Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report(RFSEIR)Second Addendum,specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition,a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the Mirigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP). In order to implement this MMRP,the City of Arroyo Grande shall designate a Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Coordinator ("Coordinator'). The coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project are complied with during project implementation. Further,the coordinator will distribute copies of the MMRP to those responsible agencies identified in the MMRP,which have partial or full responsibility for unplementing certain measures. Failure of a responsible agency to implement a mitigation measure shall not in any way prevent the lead agency from implementing the proposed project. It should be noted that several previous CEQA documents have been prepared for other portions of the Rancho Grande subdivision. These previous CEQA documents did not specifically address the project site. The comprehensive EIR for the entire subdivision adopted in January 1991 covered most of the recent phased subdivisions of the Rancho Grande Subdivision(Tracts 1834, 1994 and 199'� with the exception of the subject property (VTTM and P.U.D. O1-001,formerly known as Tract 1998). The SEIR is considered a follow up document to the 1991 EIR,but the mitigarion measures contained in the 1991 EIR would not apply to the proposed project. Therefore,the mitigaHon measures included in the previous CEQA documents are not included in this MMRP. T'he following table shall be used as the Coordinator's checklist to determine compliance with required mitigation measures. � Prepared by Rincon Consultants for the City of Arroyo Grande 99 RESOLU710N NO. Page 100 of 135 Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of pction Required When Monkoring Monitoring Agency or Approval to Occur Frequency pa Initial Date Comments AESTHET/CS AES-1(a)Modification of Applicant The applicant shali Review design Review design AGCDD,AGBD Design Guidelines.The following submit the design guidelines prior to guidelines modifications to the applicant's proposed guidelines subjed to final map once. Site design guidelines are required: the review and recordation. Verify inspect for approval of AGCDD. compliance prior to compliance . All proposed guidelines noted as This requirement final inspection. once. recommendations("G")shall be shall be noted on changed to requirements("R"). trad improvement and buildin lans. AES-2(a) Exterior Lighting. Outdoor light The applicant shall Review lighting Review plans AGCDD, AGBD poles on internal streets shall be pedestrian submit the lighting plans prior to final once. Site in scale,and shall not exceed ten (10)feet in p�an subject to the map recordation(for inspect for height and in accordance with standards set review and approval street lights)or compliance bv PG&E for maintenance. Such lighting of AGCDD. building pertnit once. shall be designed to pro�ect downward and approval (individual shall not create glare on adjacent properties. e�Aerior lighting). All iighting fi�Rures that are visible from Verify compliance surroundi�g residences shali be designed to with approved plans fully contain direct gla�e on-site, and shall be prior to final hooded and shielded. Non-glare lighting inspection. shall be used throughout the proposed project. Exterior lighting shall be limited to securit and safet ur oses. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B-2(a) Riparian and Wetland Protection. The applicant shall Review permits Review permits AGGDD, Implementation of the following measure submit the agency- prior to tract map once. Site AGBD, would mitigate the loss of riparianhvetiand approved wetland recordation. Site inspect as AGPWD, habitat: compensaHon plan inspect throughout necessary USACE, and a copy of the all phases of during RWQCB, 1. If feasible,all wetland and riparian areas USACE permit, development to construction. CDFG shall be avoided and building envelopes RWQCB 401 water ensure compliance shall be located so that all riparia�and quality certification, with all habitat wetland habitat is buffered from and CDFG restoration development(inctuding grading)by a Streambed measures. minimum 50-foot setback measured from Alteration the top of the creek bank or the outer Agreement or edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is �at an ermit s notn reater. Key. AGBD-Arroyo Grende Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Districl AGCDD-Arroyo GranGe Communily Development Department RWQCB Reg o a�Wa eSQuality ontrol eoard AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department CDFG—Califomia Department of Fish and Game AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department City of Ar'royo Giande � ,00 RESOLUTION NO. Page 101 of 135 Responsible Mitigation Measure/Condition of When Monitoring Monitoring Compliance Verification Approval Action Required to Occur Frequency A9ency or Pa Initial Date Comments required to AGCDD, 2. The riparian and wetland habitat area AGBD,and and minimum 50-foot buffer zone for AGPWD for review preserved riparian/wetland areas shall and approval. All be shown on all grading plans and shall aspects of the plan be demarcated with highly visible shall be construction fencing. implemented as approved. 3. During construction activities,washing of concrete, paint,or equipment shall occur onty in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. Washing of such materials shall not be allowed near wetland and riparian resources. 4. As a condition of the 50-foot setback, primary on-site stormwater drainage shall not be allowed to enter the East Fork of Meadow Creek. in addition,the projed applicant shall ensure that buffer areas are revegetated using only plant species native to the region. Thereafter, it shall be the responsibiiity of the HOA to maintain the buffer vegetation. It shall also be the responsibility of the HOA to implement a weed abatement program in order to further ensure that non-native species be excluded from riparian/wetland areas. Public access to buffer areas shall be prohibited. Any back or front yards that abut buffer areas shall be fenced in order to avoid indirect impacts resulting from unrestrided access. The 50-foot setback should be measured from the top of the creek banks or the outer ed e of ri arian Key: . AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCOD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation DepaAment CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 101 RESOLUTION NO. Page 102 of 135 Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of qction Required When Monitoring Monitoring Agency or Approval to Occur Frequency pa Initial Date Comments vegetation,whichever is greater. For residential lots that abut ripa�ian areas, the setback should be measured to the property line of the proposed lot(s), not to future structures: There should be no private ownership of the riparian setback area and access by people and pets should be restricted. If implementing the above measu�es is not physically,technologically, or economically feasible for construction of the project as proposed,then the following mitigation measures shall be implemented,which require the applicant to comply with Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate resource agencies. In doing so,the permitting agencies and the permit conditions imposed upon the applicant will ensure that the habitats are left in a condition as good as, or better than, pre-construction conditions. The respective agencies are required to enforce any permit conditions. The mitigation measures listed below are intended to provide examples of the requirements the applicant may have to implement as part of this compliance, and are not intended to assume or suggest precisely what the permitting agencies will require. Instead,they are examples of mitigation measures that have been provided as a result of experience with the resource agencies and typical permit conditions. �Responds to City Council request to clarily nparian setback requirements and the feasibilit of miti ation Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Distrid AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Army Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Depadment CDFG—Cafifornia DepaAment of Fish aad Game City of Arroyo Carande � 102 ComP�iancg Verification ReS�nsible Gomrnents Mo��orin9 A9Pa y�� 1n�Wa� �ate R�S�LUTION35�' hen Manitorin9 F�quen�Y Pa9� 103 of W ta D��ur A��on Req�ired reiCondKion o� ��ga��n MApp�OVal measures� 5. The aDP�A[mY�O'rp5�1 o ghe Clefanm the U.S. e�ron 4� �fication pursuantto SWater QuatitYQuaity Control Re9 water A o��wate� S��Qn 9rom�e �CB)P��'�ant ioand a gperd(R`N Wa1er Act, from qp1 oi tbe Clean reemen She Califo nAatDePa�e t of F~she se4� entto5ecbonG��ode oi the Ca fornia Fish en ryi��'thin for anY 9�adi d Wet�a^a. It�s tact draina9e5 a ed 1ha1 the aPPlicant c0r' mend rior 10 final p�a� recoma�nc1es p rale anY,e� �e��na��n ordet to�nco�P° subm �fequ�rements into the Pro� addi1�o� design. rm�ttin9 Drocess,the ps pa�niwoU d tikely be reQurted io apP�� ompensatory�mtt 1 mi�igate P��v�6onj2storavon P Wetia+�d and ro crea urisdictironal ation i[nP��s tareas. The md�g �m would ��mP��ents oi suchof h�e aFPlicable pe at the d+scretion The p�ogr and re9u1a1aY eQuUCed q�I�{e�d b olo9ist, Would be imP�ementen bude ihe foltoWrng a�d could ��ontro�� r --� SVw1 comp°^ents, ptr Ponu�o �itY of Ar ayo G�O� S{pr ihe loss of �ountY atwn P�anCm9 rian ApCD-sa�$�ArtnY G°rps of En9'��ol Board i. Miti9 We�tand and r�P? uSA�E- te�Quality e 11 be locat��n 1ho osed R�gional Wa nt of Fish and�em existin8 �4CB- habitat sha eS that a�e ¢nt �alifornia DeDa� o�site d2i�8 guildin9�Pe� v oP�^enit�Pa��' COFG'" . AGBD•P�Arf oyo�a�e��1 cuW°�pa��PaAme�t 103 KeY�� CDD• Grande P Ry��eation AGpWp-prro0y�Grande Parks and .�oaD- RESOLUTION NO. Page 104 of 135 Responsible Compiiance Verification When Monitoring Monitorin q enc or 9 Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Action Required to Occur Frequency 9Pa y Initial Date Comments Approval to be modified or preserved as part of the proposed pro}ect to the fulfeste�Aentfeasible. The compensatory program must provide a minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat values and functions to that impacted. However,agency permitling may require a higher ratio. If onsite mitigation is not feasible,offsite options may be considered in accordance with the requirements of the agencie�nt ii. As parl of the plan,the app' shall prepate and submit for approval a mitigation-phasing plan to ensure lhat all resroration plantings are in place with sufficient lrrigation prior to final inspection. iii. Mitigation plantings shall be with native riparian and wetland species from localry coNected stock. iv. Removal of native species in the creeksldrainages that are to be retained shall be prohibited. v. Outlet struclures sha11 minimize disturbance to tfie naturat drainage and avoid use of hard bank strudures. Whe�e erosion from outfet structures is a concem and bank stabilization must be utilized, bioengineering techniques(e.g.. fiber mats and rolls,willow wattling, and natu�al anchors)shall be used for bank relaining walis. tf concrete must be used,then prefabricated crib walf construction shall te used ratherthan pouring concrete. Rock grouting shall only be used if no other feasibVe altemative is available as determined b the artment APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution CoaVOI Distnc Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grende Building Dep USACE-U.S.ArmY Corps of Engineers AGCDD-Arroyo Grende Community Development Department RWQ�B�Regional Water Qualiry Control Board q�pN/p-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department CDFG-Cal'rfornia Department of Fish and Game C�ty of Arroyo Grende AGPRD-Arcoyo Grande Padcs and Recreation Department � 104 RESOLUTION NO. Page 105 of 135 Mitigation Measure/Condition of When Monitoring Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Action Required to Occur Frequency Agency or Pa Initial Date Comments City's Community Development and Public Works Departments. vi. The drainage bottoms shall not be disturbed or altered by installation of any drain or outlet structure. Natural rocks imbedded in the stream bank shall be utilized as a base to tie in riprap if necessary; vii. A grease trap and/or silt basin shall be installed in all drop inlets closest to the creek to prevent oil, silt and other debris from entering the creek. Such traps/basins shall be maintained and cleaned out every spring and fall to prevent overflow situations and potential mosquito habitats from forming. Public Works shall be responsible for maintenance adivities of grease traps and/or silt basins that convey water runoff from the street. The homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance activities of grease traps and/or silt basins which convey stormwater runoff from undeveloped portions of the site around the developed portions of the site;and viii. Construction envelopes shall be restricted to those areas shown on approved site Grading Plans in order to avoid impacts to native vegelation and riparianlwetland habitats. Envelope boundaries shall be staked in the field. Approved construction envelopes shall be shown on all approved radin and buildin lans; and Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo CountyAir Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Army Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RW�CB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Departmenl of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 105 RESOLUTION NO. Page 106 of 135 Responsible Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Action Required When Monitoring Monitoring p9ency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequency pa Initial Date Comments B-3(a) Pre-construction Survey and Tree The applicant shall Review tree survey, Review tree AGCDD, Protection Plan. Prior to Final Tract Map conduct tree tree map and tree protection pian AGPRD, Approval,a revised accurate map identifying survey, submit tree protection plan,and once. Colled AGPWD and locating all existing onsite trees and all map and tree collect performance performance existing trees that are off-site but affected by protection plan to bond prior to tract bond once. the project shall be prepared by a certified AGCDD. Post map approval. Site inspect as arborist and submitted to the City. Such perfortnance bond. Verify compliance necessary map shall also identify all existing trees that Implement tree during and following during and are proposed by the applicant for removal or protection plan construction. following destruction,and such trees shall be visibly during and following Review tree construction. marked for inspection. construction. replacement Review tree monitoring reports replacement Oak trees and Oak Woodland habitat shall annually. monitoring be avoided by adjusting or removing reports proposed lots to eliminate inclusion of oak annually. trees. If avoidance of oak trees in not feasible,oak trees included within lots shall require mitigation. Each tree or group of trees designated to remain in place shall be proteded by a five- foot fence enclosure, prior to the beginning of construction.The fence shall be wooden, chain link,or plastic barricade fencing. The location of the fence is normally at the dripline of the tree, but it may by adjusted or omitted with the City's wririen approval. �n addition,the Community Development, Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments shall monitor construction activities and enforce an approved tree protection plan. No parking of vehicles or equipmeni,or storage of materials shall be permitted within the dripline of the trees designated to remain. In the event that underground utilities must be placed within the dripline of lhe trees to remain,the utilities shall be installed by auguring at 24 inches minimum depth or by hand trenching. If roots over one inch in diameter are Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grende Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Army Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Giande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 106 RESOLUTION NO. Page 107 of 135 Responsible Mitigation MeasurelCondition of pction Required When Monitoring Monitoring p9ency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequency Pa Initial Date Comments encountered,the roots shall be preserved without injury. No machine trenching within a tree's dripline shall be permitted, unless authorized, in writing, by the Parks and Recreation director. To ensure protection of trees,a performance bond may be required,as acceptable to the City, in the amount of$1,500.00,or the value of each affected tree,whichever is greater. If no damage to protected trees has occurred, in the opinion of the certified arborist and the Parks and Recreation Department,the bond shall be returned upon final building inspeclion. If damage to protected trees is determined to have occurred,the bond shall be held for three years and forfeited if, in the opinion of the certified arborist and the Parks and Recreation Department, permanent damage has occurred. Replacement olantinqs shall be at more than a 4 1 ratio and shall be locallv raised seedlinas in deeo root tubes. Replacement and relocated trees shall be planted in a natural setting(not as landscaping)at the canopy/dripline edge of existing mature native oak trees; on north-facing slopes; within drainage swales(except when riparian habitat is present);where topsoil is present; and away from continuously wet areas (e.g., lawns, irrigation areas, landscaping, etc.), to create oak woodland habitat to the extent possible. A seasonally timed maintenance program and appropriate browse protection will be developed for all oak tree planting areas on the project site. A City approved qualified arborist/botanist shall be retained to monitor the ac uisition, installation, and Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—Cal'rfornia Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grende 107 RESOLUTION N0. Page 108 of 135 Responsible Mitigation Measure/Condition of pction Required When Monitoring Monitoring p9ency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequeacy pa Initial Date Comments maintenance of all oak trees to be replaced and relocated on the project site. Replacement and relocated trees shall be monitored and maintained by a qualified arborist/botanist for at least five years or until the trees have successfully established as detertnined by the City Parks and Recreation Director. Annual monitoring reports that evaluate oak tree survivability and vigor shall be prepared by the ceRified arborist and submitted the City. All trees planted or relocated as mitigation shall have a 90%survival rate after five years. If the five year survivai rate of trees planted or relocated as mitigation is less than 90%,the number of trees required to reach 90°/a survival shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. AII replacement mitigation trees(trees planted to replace those that did not survive the five year period), shall in turn have a survival rate oi 100%five years from date of planting.Tree monitoring and replacement shall continue until an overall five year,90% survival rate is reached for mitigation trees. Planted or relocated trees shall not be located as to adversely impact on-site occurrences of Pismo clarkia. B3(b) Subsequent Grading Plans and The applicant shall Verify that the tree Review tree AGCDD, Tree Mitigation. Tree mitigation is based submit a final tree report and tree protection plan AGPRD, upon the Tree Mitigation Plan Map repoR and tree protection plan are once. Site AGPWD (Castlerock Development 1998),which may protection plan adequate prior to inspect as change depending on the final approved prepared by a i.ity- tract map approval. necessary project. Therefore, prior to the approval of approved arborist or Verify compliance during and grading permits,final impacts to trees on the biologist that during and following following project site shall be re-evaluated by a includes the construction. construction. certified arborist and submitted to the City. species,quantity, Review tree Review tree Mitigation Measures for any trees impacted and status (live, replacement replacement b the final a roved ro'ect shall be the dead,diseased, monitorin re orts monitorin Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo Counry Air Pollution Conlrol District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Communiry Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers � AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWoCB—Regional Water Quality Controi Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—Cal'rfornia Department of Fish and Game � Ciry of Arroyo Grande 108 RESOLUSION NO. Page 109 of 135 Responsib{e Compliance Verification When Monitoring Monitoring pyency or Comments Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Action Required to Occur Frequency pa Initial Date Approval reports same as presented in 63(a). etc.)of native trees annuafly. a�nually. to be removed prior to initiation of the proposed project. This report shall also identify the final number of replacement trees utilizing the City's replacement ratio identified above. All aspects of the plans shall be implemented as approved. Priorto site occupancy, trees shail be planted,fenced, and appropriately irri ated. AGCDD, g.4(a) pismo Clarkia Avoidance. The applicant shall Review avoidance Review AGPWD, 1. The Pismo clarkia occurrences and submit for approval measures prior to avoidance minimum 25-foot buffer zone for that the Pismo tract map approval. measures once. AGPRD, Site inspect USFWS,CDFG preserved areas shatl be shown on all clarkia occurrences eval ate thetsite for once prior to grading plans and shall be demarcated have been �mpliance prior to construction and with highly visible construction fenci�g. appropriately as necessary fenced. and during construction. during Z. Temporary fencing shaU be installed cpnstn�ction. around the Pismo ciarlcia occurrences prior to any consirud�on activities, including ground disturbance or site grading. Protective fencing shall remain in place throughout the project AGCDD, construction eriod. Once. g.q�c) Worker Education Program. Conduct worker Prior to AGPWD Before any grading or consiruction activities education program commencement of commence,all personnel associated with the and distribute fact 90 sltruction. project shall attend a worker education sheet. Notify ro ram re ardin the sensitive biolo ical AGCDD and Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building DepaRment APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Coatrol DisVict USACE-U.S.ArmY Corps of Ern,7meers AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community DeveloAment Departmenl RWQCB-Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPW�•Arroyo Grande Public Works Department CDFG-Cafifomia Department of Fish and Game City of ArroyD Gr2nde AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department � ,09 RESOLUTION NO. Page 110 of 135 Mitigation MeasurelCondition of When Monitoring Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Action Required to Occur Frequency Agency or Pa Initial Date Comments resources occurring in the project area (i.e., AGPWD in advance Pismo clarkia and other biological resources of ineeting. susceptible to project related impacts). Specifics of this program shall include identification of Pismo clarkia and its habitat, and careful review of the mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to this species. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors,their employers,and other personnel involved with construction of the project.The Community Development, Public Works and Building Departments shal�be notified of the time that the applicant intends to hold this meetin . B-5(b) Ground Disturbance Timing. In The applicant shall Review survey Review survey AGCDD order to avoid impacts to nesting birds submit the results of results prior to results once. including the ground-nesting northern the above surveys, issuance of grading Site inspect as harrier,or other birds proteded under the as applicable,for permits. Site necessary Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all initial ground approval by the inspect as during disturbing activities and tree removal should AGCDD. AGCDD necessary during construction. be avoided from March 31 to September 15, to check plans for construction. unless a pre-construction survey for active compliance with nests within the limits of grading is any mitigation conducted by a qualified biologist al the site measures two weeks prior to any construction recommended by activities. If active nests are located,then all the surveys and site construction work must be conducted at inspect during least 50 to 250 feet from the nest until the construction. adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site, as determined by a qualified biolo isl. B-5(c) Pet Brochure. The applicant shall The applicant shall Review information Once. AGCDD prepare a brochure that informs prospective draft a notice prior to occupancy homebuyers and all HOA members about indicating the above clearance. The the impacts associated with non-native information, subjed applicant shall animals, especially cats and dogs,and other to approval by develop a package non-native animals to the ro ect site; AGCDD. of information to be Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RW�CB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—Cal'rfornia Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 110 Compliance Ver�fication R�p°nsible Comme°� REgpLUT10N NQ' Monitarin9 A9eocy o� �nitiai Date Page 111 of 135 Whe�Pllonttor�n9 uency Part preG Repuired to Occur ond+�ion of pction to home sure�C pro�ided rylitiga�on MAFptO�al buYers,obtam buYer ebuYe�s and Signalures a+en inform poteNial hom otes app�opriatthat theY similarry, rs of the Potentiat for coy indicating a11 HOA membe receN�the to prey°n domestic animaVs. packa9e_°f informauon,and provide�GGODed fo�m to A �ertiicate ofn�of OccuPe��y{O�each pGCDD Review P�ans unit. lans prior Site Review P °��once. tica��Sh°II to fmal maP , insP The aPP � h�n9 S�te S��dards. The Su�it a �9 roval bY clearan�• h�n9 lan for aPP inspe�°��eon of N�yht�ig inin9t0n�gM �,CD�• g.5ld) �ojecYs design he A a(�er�menifor foticr+nn9 Siandaradde�to 1he p pGCDD shall check d��elop light�n9 Shalt be lans and site �amplia�� yuidelines'. Shallbe nsPe�for ofpubiicareas for iiance� � Night lightinminimum ne�ssa+Y comR kept to the riry P��°Ses. safety and secu w1�.��pp feet�f��n AGCDD. E�erior lightin9 aimed as Review P�ans AGpRD ' Sp��shatl be shiel'dodernoio oPen Si1e �o�d sp shali Review�andscaP��g once, �� needed to a pecorative lighbn9 �Shail ��an Qrior to fina� �nsp� • Tne a4P�� Site sPace ateas. tta�t apPfOVaanihs be low intensit • in9: In order to Supmit a 1ng p�n for �nsP�s�x m ative 1-andscaP does not IandscaP a�er�pmPlebon of 8-5181 N ro ect landscap�ng�ant and tree AGC D and v�°pmenr So� ensure that p 1 _na(ive p f�na� th8 de inVoduce invas�ve n� o{the sde,lh nd pGPRD. 7he plan �omplian� sp�ies'mto the viciniry reviswed a in9 plan sha11 be biolo9ist All �han9es shall be tand pVe bY ��ty aPP�pVe�,es shal!be �y�o�ded wilh the a aPP lant and tree SPe in9 plan. These final m�P 1removed from the IandscaP A��polWCwn Controi D�strid the iotlowin9 o Counry oi ArroY°Gro�� include COMMON NA�E Oti�sP � CitY SC�ENTIFIC NAM� 1e �SACE��e o�a Wa er<1ua�i ffF�a�Gama W att �yPyAment RNIQCB-R 9 a�tment Treess pepa�nent �y��fomia�p qcaaa s ' vetopmeent CDFG` . prtoY�Grande 6uildinmu�ity DeP?� GB9� Grande Com, o�s e a��n1 KeY'� A COD•AROY� �ande Pubhc W creation D F 111 AG a� Re AG�p-ArroYo G�ande P s and RESOLUTION NO. Page 112 of 135 Responsible Mitigation MeasurelCondition of pction Required When Monitoring Monitoring Agency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequency pa Initial Date Comments Populus fremonGi Cottonwood Schinusmolle CaliforniaPepper Tree Schinusterebinthi(olius BrazilianPepper Tree ShrubslGround Covers. � Acsciaredolens Wattle Arctostaphylos densiflora Sonoma manzanita Arctostaphylosdensillora McMinnmanzanita Arctofheca ralernlula Cape weed Cororreasferdammen Bearberry coroneaster Cotoneasterspp. Cotoneaster Myoporum pacificum Myoporum Myoporum parv,folium Myoporum Pyracantha spp. Firethom � In addition,the following discusses concerns with other species that are present in the suggested plant list. If cottonwood trees are desired, black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa)shall be utilized. Manzanita species planted onsite shall be species that are local and regional natives. A specific species of Ceanothus shall be identified, because hybridization of certain species does occur. If creeping St. John's wort(Hypenicum caycinum) is planted it shall not be planted on perimeters of open space to limit vegetative spread. The plant list identified Clarkia spp., however this needs to be specific. Clarkia purpurea is recommended because it is known to occur in the area. Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 112 RESOLUTION NO. Page 113 of 135 Responsible Mitigation MeasurelCondition of pction Required When Monitoring Monitoring p9ency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequency Pa Initial Date Comments B-5(� Wildlife Corridor Preservation. Preservation oi the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from Riparian and Wetland Habitats and by Refer to Mitigation Measure B-2(a), Riparian and Wetland Protection, setback values to allow for RiparianNVeNand corridor avoiding direct and indirect impacts to oak p�servation, and to Mitigation Measure B-3(a)for oak tree avoidance and mitigafion measures. Woodland habitat. Refer to Mitigation Measure B-2(a), Riparian and Wetland Protection, setback values to allow for RiparianNVetland corridor preservation, and to Mitigation Measure B-3(a)for oak tree avoidance and miti ation measures. CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-7(a) Archaeological Resource Conduct orientation Throughout Site inspect as AGCDD, Construction Monitoring.At the meeting, monitor construction of each necessary AGPWD, commencement of project construction, an construction for project phase. during AGBD orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeological construction. archaeologist for construction workers resources. associated with earth disturbing adivities. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and diredions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. A qualified archaeologist and Native American representative shall monitor all eaRh moving adivities within native soil. Alternativelv a Phase II archaeoloaical survev shall be conducted and recommendations mav be considered for implementation throuah this MMRP. In the event that archaeological or historic artifacts are encountered during project construction,all work in the vicinity(50 yards or greater,as determined by an archaeolo ist of the find will be halted until Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grende Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD•Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Anoyo Grande 113 RESOLUTION NO. Page 114 of 135 Responsible Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action Required When Monitoring Monitoring Agency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequency Pa Initial Date Comments such time as a qualified archaeologist evaluates the find and appropriate mitigation (e.g.,curation,preservation in place, etc.), if necessary, is implemented. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location,the following steps will be taken: I. There shall be no fuRher excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: A. The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has been contacted, and determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required, or B. Where the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: 1. The coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; 2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American;and 3. The most likely descendent has had the oppoRunity to work with the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work,on the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Distrid AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Army Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 114 RESOLUTION NO. Page 115 of 135 Responsible Mitigation Measure/Condition of When Monitoring Monitoring Compliance Verification Approval Action Required to Occur Frequency Agency or Pa Initial Date Comments Section 5097.98. II. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representatives shall repatriate the Native American human remains and associated grave items with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. However, any such activity will be pursuant to the discretion of a ' Chumash representative if a descendent is either not idenf�ied or fails to respond to notification. A. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. B. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation;or C. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent,and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. III, Halt Work Order. If human remains are unearthed,State Health and Safety Code Sedion 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the Count Coroner has Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Army Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—Cal'rfornia Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Gronde 115 RESOLUTION N0. page 116 of 'l35 Responsible ComP��ance Verrfication Monitorin9 pgency or Date Comments yyhen Monitoring pa Initial uired Frequency ation MeasurelCondition of Action Req ta Occur Mitig Approva� made the necessary findings as 10 origin and dispositio�1OUn 5p97 98P�b��c Resources Code� the remains are determine�te�roner Native American descehe NaUve AGBD has 24 hours to notify Review p�ans American Herita e Commission. �'na�P�Q�ect p�ans Review plans p�o� once.Site GEOLOC+IC RESOURCES �ound to issoanc�of i�s��y as �.q�a� CBC Comp��ance. Above-g Submitted to AGBD building perm±ts. ne�sary ned an Code shall have a note � rior to struclures shall be desig {ans Site inspe P dU��g$nd according to California 8uifding printed on the p occupa��Y {opowing which specify CB� ��earance• ��stNCtion. Se+smic standards. Seismic standards for all strudures. Building plens subm+tted in an app�lr,ation for a 8vilding Permit shalt inc{ude documentation that these standards are met.F+nal prole�t plans shall be submitted which inc4ude the requi�ed design Review Plans AGPWD, S cifica6ons. AGPWD shall �. S�e AGBP The app��nt shall review and app�ove ort, In order notity AGPW� inspec�as G-3{a) SoilslFoundation Rep S ec�c the methods to n�;�ary Iicant shall regarding P avoid sails related du��g to avoid soii-related h�a�aP�?�ndividua mettwds fo avoid hazards(inc�uding {of owners and the p 1 soils relatad �pnstrucUOn. provide sol�s�foundatwn reports thal hazards and the foundation ex ansive soifs hazards design)p�or to Specifical�Y identify�t on for Suilding imp�ement issuance of B��d�Rg as part of the app oteMial for aPp�pved methods• permit(s).�o reduce 1he p o�s mgY permils. Bul�ding inspec�o�shall foundation crackin9,the rep make site recommend that one�5 9�of the p�o,l�n9 be considered durin9 qpCD-San Luis ObisP�C°u^H Air PalWtion Control District USACE-U.S.ArtnY Co�s oi En9ineers dment R io�al W ater clua�rtY�ontrol eoercl Arroyo Development Depadment RWQCB- eg City of Arroyo Grande AGBD- Grande BuUding�Pa �a��ornia DePertme^�at Fish and Game Key: pGCDD-A«°Y°�rende Communib a�ment CDFG- AGPNID.ArroYa Grande Public Wo�s Dep Grande Parks and Recreatwn Department AGPRO-Arroyo 116 � RESOLUTION NO. Page 117 of 135 Mitigation Measure/Condition of When Monitoring Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Action Required to Occur Frequency A9ency or Pa Initial Date Comments 1. Use continuous deep footings(i.e., inspections to embedment depth of 3 feet or more) assure and concrete slabs on grade with implementation of increased steel reinforcement together approved plans. with a pre-wetting and long-term Grading inspectors moisture control program within the shall monitor active zone. technical aspects of 2. Removal of the high�y expansive the grading material and replacement with non- activities expansive import fill material. 3. The use of specifically designed drilled pier and grade beam system incorporating a strudural concrete slab on grade supported approximately 6 inches above the expansive soils. 4. Chemical treatment with hydrated lime to reduce the expansion charaderistics of the soils. G3(b) Expansive Soil Damage. The The applicant shall AGPWD shall Review plans AGPWD, expansion indices of individual lots should be notify AGPWD review and approve once. Sde AGBP determined on a lot-specific basis. In the regarding specific the methods to insped as event that expansive soils will underlie methods to avoid avoid soils related necessary potential developments,the use of soils related prior to issuance of during nonexpansive import or presaturation of hazards and Building Permits. construction. subslab soils in areas where slabs will implement Site inspect to overlie expansive soils is recommended. If it approved methods. assure is elected to use nonexpansive import,ihe impiementation of thickness of nonexpansive material should approved plans. be determined based upon the results of Grading inspectors expansion index testing performed on shall monitor individual lots. The import shall be placed in technical aspects of lifts not exceeding 12 inches and compacted the grading to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry activities. densit until finished rade is reached. G-3(c) Grading and Erosion Control Plan. The grading and Review plans prior Review plans AGPWD, A grading and erosion control plan that erosion control plan to issuance of once. Site AGBP minimizes erosion,sedimentation and shall be submitted grading permits. inspect as unstable slopes shall be prepared and for review and Site inspect to necessary im lemented b the ro'ect a licant or a roval to assure durin Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Oepartment USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—Cal'rfomia Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 117 RESOLUTION NO. Page 118 of 135 Mitigation Measure/Condition of When Monitoring Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Action Required to Occur Frequency Agency or Pa Initial Date Comments representative thereof, prior to final map AGPWD. This implementation of construction. recordation. It must include the following: condition shall be approved plans. noted on grading Grading inspectors a. Methods such as retention basins, plans. The shall monitor drainage diversion structures,spot applicant shall notify technical aspects of grading,silt fencing/coordinated City permit the grading sediment lrapping,straw bales,and compliance prior to activities. sand bags shall be used to minimize commencement of erosion on slopes and prevent siltation gradi�g. into the East Fork of Meadow Creek and its tributaries during grading and Building inspectors construction activities. shall make site b. Graded areas shall be revegetated inspections to within 4 weeks of grading activities with assure deep-rooted, native,drought-tolerant implementation of species to minimize slope failure and approved plans. erosion potential. If determined Grading inspedors necessary by the Community shall monitor Development Department and Public techniral aspeds of Works Department, irrigation shall be the grading provided. Geotextile binding fabrics adivities. shall be used if necessary to hold slope soils until vegetation is established. c. After construction of tract improvements and until construction of individual homes,exposed areas shall be stabilized to prevent wind and water erosion,using methods approved by the City Community Development Department, Public Works and Building DepaRments and APCD. These methods may include:topsoil is to be imported and spread on the ground surface in areas having soils that can be transported by the wind,and/or the mixing of the highly erosive sand with fner-grained materials(silt or clay) in sufficient quantities to prevent its ability to be transpoRed by wind. The topsoil or silUcla mixture is to be used to Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Departmenl USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grande 118 RESOLUTfON NO. Page 119 of 135 Responsible Compliance Verification When Monitoring Monitoring Agenc or Comments Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Action Required to Occur Frequency pa y Initial Date Approvai stabilize the existing soil to prevent its abillty to be iransported by wind. As a minimum,six inches of lopsoil or silUclaylsand mixture is to be used to stabilize the wind-erodable soils. d. Where necessary,site preparation shall inciude the removal of a!I or a portion of the expansive soils at the building sites and replacement with compacted fill. e, Where necessary,construction on transitional lots shall include overexcavation to expose firtn subgrade;use of post tension slabs in future siruclures,or other geologirally acceptabfe method. f. Landscaped areas adjacent to structures shall be graded so that drainage is away from structures. g. Irrigation shafl be controlled so that overv+atering does not occu�. M irrigation schedufe shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community DevelopmeM Department and Public Works Deparlments prior to la�td use dearance for grading. h. Grading on slopes steeper than 5:1 shall be designed to min+mize surface wate�runoff. i. Fills pfaced on slopes steeper than 5:1 shall be properly benched prior to placement of fill. j. Brow ditches and/or berms shall be constructed and maintained above all cut and fill sbpes, respecfively. k. Cut and fill benches shal{be constructed at regular intervals. I. Retaining Walls shall be pfoposed as part of building construction to stahilize slopes where there is a 10-foot o� reater difference in elevations between APCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Coatrol District Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building DepaAment USACE—U.S.Army Corps of E�gineers AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department RWQCB—Regional Watet Quality Control Board - AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Pubiic Works Department CDFG—Califomia Department of Fish and Game City of Anoyo Grande AGPRD•Arroyo Grande Parks a�d Recreation Department � 119 RESOLUTION NO. Page 120 of 135 Responsible Mitigation MeasurelCondition of When Monitoring Monitoring Compliance Verification Action Required to Occur Fre uenc Agency or Approval q y pa Initial Date Comments buildable lots. m. The applicant shall limit excavation and grading to the dry season of the year (typically April 15 to November 1, allowing for variations in weather) unless a Community Development and Public Works DepaRment approved erosion control plan is in place and all measures therein are in effect. n. The applicant shall post a performance bond as determined by and with the City and hire a Community Development Department and Public Works Department-qualified geologist or soils engineer prior to land use clearance for grading,and to ensure that erosion is controlled and mitigation measures are properly implemented. The applicant shall post a performance bond as determined by and with the City and hire a qualifed geologist or soils engineer prior to land use clearance for grading,and to ensure that erosion is controlled and mitigation measures are ro er1 im lemented. G-4(b) Development on Steep Slopes. As Refrain from During construction, As necessary AGPWD prescribed by Title 16 of the City of Arroyo development on prior to occupancy during and Grande Development Code, buiiding and slopes exceeding clearance. following grading is not permitted on slopes of 25% 20°/a. construction. and greatec Steep slopes(considered to be 20-25%)present a danger to landsliding, slope failure,sedimentation of on-site drainages due to accelerated runoff and soil erosion. Because of the erosive qualities of the site,site improvement shall be prohibited on slo es exceedin 20%. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY H-1(a) BMP Implementation During The applicant shall Review SWPPP Review pertnit AGPWD Construction. Best Mana ement obtain an NPDES and NPDES ermit once. Site Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grende Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grende 120 Comp��anCe vet�fication ReSponsible �omments REgOLUj10� N�� onitor�n9 Mp°�O�n9 A9Pa�Y°r lnitial Date page 12� of 135 yVhen M FrequancY pccur ondition of pction Requ�red to foVa1 of �S��S easurelC m � priorto aPP necessary M�tigation M roval ttact imP durin9 APp permit and�S and rovemen �nst ion. plaots tor tracl rucC durin9 Project SwPPP Pe�m�t grading and map shall be us�of�he S`NPPP• Practices the P measures. �e�ordat�on. Sde imPlementaGon,as P Sed on rojsct insPe�as gMps that could be necess��`during s�g'include'. �anstruc��on. e Deterren�e Cover all pollutant Escap ��cluding soil � prohibit on-se areas g oYs. ot�er storag hemi�yt dep piles,fuel and c raN m�terials protec�e%p°sed tempo asUc sheels irom rain and wind W�tn� and lemporary rpOfs. poputant Conta�°ment Areas Locate all�°nslru�ioo-related e4u�pmenl and related processes that • in or generate po��utanls��'ent conta and solvents.�em fuel.lubricant �n�solated a�ea�o�te dust and slurry) f�om escaP rolecCwn areas, PfOPer P entioned in secure�efs the aboom Storm drains and 9 ed, awaY ,neMioned in be��It place 1he above- vent p�ast�alined dep�eat s te in the e �nateria�sw+thinm ��, park, of acx�dental rea��ehl��es and fuel and ctean designa�ed, eQU�pmentln one contained a�ea. nt Methods �{rom ppilutant Qetainme d�a}nag protect dow�n`�a�ts by�Pturm9 � escap��9 p rried in runoff��ds��e sediment cafans��{rom the S�at prevex�b�9 en1 melhod ExamP�es of detainm ater and o Counly Air Po1luNon Gontrol Dlstrwt o Gr n retard moveme�t°f w ineers nd othe� APCD-Sa^Luis ObisP��$of E�9 ��ty of AnoY Sepatate sed�men s�fen�es,ha USACE-�S A�y Concro�Soard Contamina(rtS a� �QGB-Re9wn�1 Water QM of Fisb and G�me uiWin9�ePartme� nt Depe�ment Califomia Depa�' p,ps�oyo Grande B u��,pe�eloP�e�� CDF�' AGB Grande Comm Q kg cep nt KeY'� A�DD-AA�oYo Gtande Publs a d R�reafwn DePa�� 121 AGP`�+��"ArroY°G{ande Patk AGPRD- R�ponsible Comp�+ance Verification RESOLU710N 1'��• �ommen� Page 122 of 135 Nlonitorin9 Agency or Initiai Date WhBn Monitoring pYequeocy Pa Re uired to O��u� ation MeasurelCond�t'On of pction q Mitig App�oval bales, sand ba95,berms,sitt and debris basins. Erosion Contro� should be scheduled . Large proj�s iMo phases that allow for eroslon �qntrol of sme�XeQSed sftetVe9e�tion sing�e,large p should only be removed Whe^�fore necessarY and immediately grading. radin9 . . Schedule exV?eather.These activities work for dry may�p��hibited belv+een the monihs of November and Ap , g�ope stabilizers should be ulilized. ontrol blankelsaof vary ng dens ties ��di�g to specific slopef s�e conditions. � EXpedile the restoration of nalura erosion control amdne�aie�y Sk of S{ope failure bY until first revegelating and�«�981ie ation shoutd one l�ch of raln.Reveg ober be�;pmpleted no tater than��nce to �st So vegetation has had a c1'�a stabilize the sa��before the rains hegin, wetting Reduce f�9't�'de dust by � graded areas with an adequate yet conserv QU e�at ons in hi9h wg�ds ease grading P Recycling��SPosal cfin facilities. Develop . Provide recy 9 a clean site. protocol for maintaim fecyc��R9°f County Ah P°��'�ion Control Distrid This inc{udes Pro� APCD-San Luis ObisCo�s ot Engineers p G ^8f de construcGon-�elated materials and USA�E_U,S.ArmY Gontrot eoard �i�o{qrroy De a�lment ent Depadment RWqpg_Re9ional Wate�Quality Building P �t ot F�sh and Game AGB�-A°oyoGrande pevelopm Cal'6omiaDePa�'^� Key q�{oyo Grande CommunitY e�ment CDFG— AGCD�- �,�ande Pubtic W°�5 Dep a�rnent AGPW�'Artoyo Py�s and Recreation�P �22 AGpRp.Arroye Grande RESOLUTION NO• Page 123 of 135 Ftesponsidle Comp��ance Verification When Monitoring Monitoring pgency or Comments Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Action Required to Occur FTe9Uen�y pa Initial Date ppproval equipment fluids(i.e.,concrete dust, cutting slurry,motor oil and lubricants). . Provide disposaf facilities. Develop protocol for cleanup and disposal ot small construction wastes(i.e.,dry concrete). Hazardous Materials Identification and Response . Develop protocol for identifying risk operations and materials. Include protocol for identifying spilled-materials source,distribution; fate and transpoR of spilled materials. . Prov+de protocol for proper clean-up of equipment and construdion materials, and disposal of spilled substances and associated cleanup materials. . Provide emergency response plan that includes contingencies for assembling response team and immediately notityin9 aPProPriate agencies. The aclual BMPs to be implemented onsite would be developed as part of the SWPPP Site inspect AGPW� re uired for site construction. licant shall Prior to map o��P�T�o H_Z(a) Flood Protection Measures. The submithe hydraulic recordation, ma recordation applicant shall implement flood protection ��S�ct to verity all and as measures addressing potential flood risks. gCade�g andeV1�d AGPWD shall site n�ssary These meas�res shall i�clude: drainage pfan to the flood protection followin9 satisfactton of ineasures have AGPWD. Public been implemented. conshuction. a. Devefopment of a hydraulic model of East Fork Meadow Creek as it flows Works shall be through the tract under proposed responsible for conditions.This model generaies an expeded water surface elevation used activities draina e in determinin the ro er hei ht of APCD-San Luis Obispo Gounty Air Pollution Control Districf Key: AGBD-lvroyo Grande Buildin9 DeP�rtment USACE-U.S.ArmY Corps of Engineers RW4CB-Re9�ona1 Water Quality Control 8oard Cjty of Ar�oyo Grande AGCDD-A«oy o G aniide Publ c WorkDs DepartmentOepartment CDFG—Caliiornia Department of Fish and Game AGPWD- Y AGPRO-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Departmen 123 r Compliance verif+cauon ReB�nsible Comments RESQLUTION ND• p,�o�itoring A9Pa y°� tnitial Date page 12�of 135 When Monitorin9 preGue^�y uired to Occur surelCondition of Action�eQ M��gation MApprO�al iacili6es th ff f�veY lots so as to avoicl �ter runo tn�s�eet. '�he proposedbuild+n�9gh_�oW evenls. The „ome�ers durin9 u�der conditions flooding sha��be �a�ada be included�n association culve��n�a e shou{d Should res4onsible fo� oF 5p°!o blocka9 �adirti9 Pian the model.me g maintenance ensu�e thal q�°P°Sed fi1+fo�bove ihe a��v�hes of least drainage fap��r�es elevalions�o�e1e��ti�n5� Road Which conveY mOde�n o9 glosso valleY Wa�er runof� ^� it crosses b pesiger1y��„ S�reet)`��feek such that �rQm undeveloP?d �i°�asi Fo�Meadow Without po�ons of the s�1e the E ear storm passes the 100-Y ad� nl banks. around the ace drawn uP devefoped P��iOns ove�opp�ng tha ntenance P�an of ine site. p draina}e m ular cuNe�maintenance c �ainY to include t aurin9 the Sed ment and (esp�1°Ity m�laled ha�n��. The m�intenance removal the� shall be t�'e �yepris in e f�tures e O�ers of intema�dra�� Hom responsib�l�tY�OA�enMa�tenan� o{y culver� pssociation l �ast Fork o� pistricl. 1h�m or pridge'�ithm the pAeadow Creek sha11 be the resP°nsibility of th�itY OA,unless AGPWD, ted bY me ot trash fa�ks Revie`r+p�� CDFG, yccePn and inslallabo� entrances to �mits Srte USA�E� d pesig culve� e duriMJ Review Pe once_ RWQGB uFstream of the s blockag 1°�sary e risk of debri The apPlicantessarY g or t°iss�an�o �latsen W events. struct+on obtaln a11 ne� , e rading n e stormbank�icinity Co� . �ading subm�t a PWD shall site durin9 Stream perm�s' ring �nstiucC�on A H-2tbl , licznt shall lv cl�of radin9 insP�t du The app_. rev�sed 9 . ��stru�lion to Guidelm�• ��vd�es in 1he follow�n9 plan si�ow��9backs, that sll andconstructiona�ording��ehf�$ko; veriN bank m��mum it detailed 5 are the slream as to�essen� a�d Sub�n setaad� �strict and possible Tnese ns of roads observed and �a�� 9Uideli bank etosion des�9 ,Nalls o County Air Po��1°n Conlrol 0 stteam of proP°sed structures. ObisP meers Cin,ot ArroYo G ��nin9 end�elain�n pPCD-San��A�Y�oips of�n9 �ntrol Boa� unde Sna��indude: u.S. . ate�Qua��Y . Game guidelines RWqG6�Re9wnal W a�eM of F�sh and � prroY°o G�a d Comm�u^�5 pBpaAmea aAme�nt p9FG-�al'Aomia DeP AGBD- prroY ubt�c W DeR 124 KeY' AGCDD- Ar�oyQ G1ande Pa'�5 and Rec�atw� AGP`1`ro"ArroY AGPRD' �omplian�e�erifica�on Comments Regponsible pate LVT10N N�. N1onilorin9 A9Pa Y�r Initial pa��125 of 135 uired Whet p��uorin9 prequen�Y con of A�fion Req �nsUUC��on is MeBSUre� dition out as tion e salisfacuon ot �rried �'�`ga APPfO�al �AG�p. designed. ion control struerand APProp°ate e�d atthe entranc ��der i1 a9en�ies a. ��clude structure PermhaVe additionat shall b ihe��veYan� creek. may exit o 1�ere�t crosses the ermits pe�it and ^��gVee environmental?iedv+�th. Ssary monitorinents. b. AN nece I�ed for and�°m but are no� reQUirem sha11 be aPP�s Shallbed ARe{atjp° These P8� tream ent of lans AGPWD iimited t en(�alitornia�e 40A Pe�rt�it Review P A9reem gection ' oard), �, Site Fish and�amee'SOUrces��ts�ArmY Review P�enis P�ior uirem �yquirem �nsped as er R 4 perm�t� ents and e w��on 40 plan reQ �tted uance of �sarY sha��be Subm 101� its. �o� 5 of En ineers aRa YZed�n the Ppli�nt for t�din9 Perm n unn9 ntion. The t val 9 �ns�llafro �suuciio n. AdeQUate Qe�basin TaY��r& a d aPQ Review lities ro H.3(a1 detention bY the AGPWp• of detention fad d�,�'stteam f 20Q2 bY dete mine if the basin prior 10 occuPa^� pecembe�° from the 1nslallatw feql�ies �earan�. pssociates eta p Sto mWalet flows flpws at detention �ed ��ancho��rande PD L2 and releasB re-deVeloPment Shall he Peect al to or less than P, ned. feP°� bY the p�ol The er tnally des�g basin�n appticant p lans. �a�es ea� as°�+0 , retardation runoN epp�oved P �nd+i�ons, gX�st�n9 the storm s��es that the ture silt t ba.n��om below be used to�vaEm9 the p,s euch,P�ior 10 byove�es o�Heteleva6o�, Wey rovements,the�esto��pasede a.X ihe loW lract imP a$in�bY GTA(refer to ApP�o�al pG�� {hyecuRe a{eP� di{�ons of APP Review p�a'� 10 the C�n ent of Tract �S��ors gite �� 50 for the develoAS ociation sha�� onc� num eowne� siledraina9e Grading .�5 as the Hom r on- ans Shall mondor oi 1834, d othe �e dra�na9e 1�tted technica�aSPects �y�ssaN m the basin an �,t�laled and Sha1t be subm durit�9 m�inta �or� the 9�ad�� WD iaciiitiesO��na�piae�all Nnoff water from fo�rgview and a��Ues. AGP �sVUd ion� H.3lb� GonveY�bY AGQWp pn0�10_ shalt ensure ° � f Y I loi dra��a9 � able of o Cou�iy Ai�PolWtion C rdrol D ist individua areas shall� duits,�p . of red�n uis ObisP �� G� • o Arro o G� � imPerywosunder9round�ent,t°gXistm9 issuance AP�p San� p,m+Y�o�Ps°�a��i Y Contro�B°a�e ce a ear from natural �SAGE-�S' iooalWater Q nd Gam SuC�2 100-Y Rgg eot of Fish e conveNn9the�e1s.A1�runoff anment afiment RWaCB- dtaina e chan CDF�-�al'Aornia DePa� a Grande Buildinm�ty peveioP�en�p KeY AGCD p rA�roYo�rand Pa�cs a�otR°�aao^pePaAment 125 AGP�'�p paroyo Grande _ onsible ComR��ance Verificat�o^ �ESOLUT��N NO. ReSP Date Comments Page q26 of 135 Monitoring pgency or �nqtial When Monitori�9 F��ue�cy Pa pction Rgq uired to Oc�u� ation Meag°reiConditian of �nsta��atioa of M��9 App�oval dra�na9e faalities �oposed imp�ovements perm�ts. A�� mponents of ths �io�to issuance of ted by P �VeyeCy y�pund o� drainage P�an shall puitd�ng Pe��ts. areas inlerc tuY�and� a drainage lemented shall be cap d areas bY �e�mP h devsiope nvey the 10�-Yea� p�ior to issua�Ce°f throu9 able of co �ng occuPan�Y Pe"�iis. System cap laces event.ETOSion coetoU�e s and othealP ��statled a�a��P P ntrated.�n wvhere dreinage flows are cor�istent with addition,d�ainage shal��e GO. aPp�pved dreinage P�ans that mclude: Locallons and d+me components; a. proD��d drainag tured by the ints lans AGPW� b. Amount of water that is�P lan Pn��to Revi�S e draina98 SYstem at a{I ente b the Review P redin9 once. � qmount of water a�t outlets. The apP��nt shall �S$uance of g ��Sp�t as draina e s stem gment Plan.A subm�llhe slorm r�its. S�e necessa'y Storm`l'�ater Mana9for the WBter management Pe�as�ecessa�Y d��ng a� H-'«a) oratesBMP GPWD. durin98�follovrin9 following plan that�ncorp �icant plan to A ��. tong-�erm ope�tio�of the sde S the apP �rr,tnici�' developed and imp�emented by to min�m�ze ihe amount of pollutants that are from the site. The p�an shall he washed o eration wilh the CitY of develop��GO p CenVa�Coast prroyo Grande and the Control Board. Regional W�e�Quality ExamPles of Bmenllof thebs t maY1be aRP Y ro the develop �an: induded in the p Education d�a�ns inlets urage st . Stencil a11 storm ub�i�thai ns a1on9�annels to disco sig �nform�n9lhe p dumP�n9 by water flows to tQna�flye�s to each new . Provida edu� arding toxic chemicals building unit reg solutio�s and a County Air PaIWCwn Gontrol Dlslnc and altematclean ng e�'I1Zers, Sa��uis ObisCo�s af Eng+neers �shcides, aint roducts. APCD- �.5.AcmY Co�1rol BoaN Ci�,af ArroY� G�tlde a�omptive and . USACE- �on��Wate�QualilY artment ent Depa��nt R�ryQ�g-Re9 �ent of Fish and Game Arroya Grande Building�eP �ve�oPm CDFG-Cafifomia Depa AGBD� ArroY��rende GammunitY peAart�ent nt Key' AGCDD• Public War� AGPWp"�fOY°Grande Re��alionDepartm� �26 pGPRD.prroY�Grande Pa�ks aM1 GomP6an�8�eti�'cation ResPp°sible Gomments Np. Monitor�n9 pgPa Y or �nitial 9ate R�SD�V?ION35 When Mon�,aring f�uencY Page 127 of to pccur acion Mppp�o��a°ndition af A�tion Req�ired M��9 educational flye�s t eed�sposal � Provide unit re9ardin9 p�automotive buildin9 Waste and of hazard°us waste. �lin9 Sou�y Rsduc6onl ReOy rated Pest ed pevetop�'ent PfO9�d These a eas w°uld � mana9e"' role� lands�pin9. a�eas of 1he e stabitizaaon ing� �a�dres denC�a�atea landscaP rated pesc mana9em ica� 1emD as�Zend cuKural coEX�pleser py,ys�cGahemlcal co[�rols. . �ul6vars, than o{�nsed ressto{established include�� ontrol,u� erbicide Eor peof cherri cal co manual weed nVO�s threshoids W�th aPpli�lto�p�eferenYtn��icidal soaPs, 4nat be9 , dusts, �o;IS,and dehydra[�n9owder hortcdesre boric aad P Sed'�n� pyrethnn-� Ma�dean n9 ets,Pa n e gance Gleanin9� oR 9�ar m Routme u � and s1o�draoi catch basins,and and clean�basins bY e H�A deten6o" Structural 72a 5ed�a h pas ns sh�ul�o 1ro1 water q�a�+�`t � The proP��or storm With�e caich designed rdan� ;strict PurPoses m eccs Nandbook. �ontrot O rr Y s A�f pollution aVy iossil filter inset�s o Ci�of A o o Gran' Californ�a BMP� ��o�Sand b�po Goun�' Would h native so o�Six A�p.San Luis� �o�y,pf En9�^ee�s basins ,,�itb a minimum CoMrot gGam b¢desig�¢d gACE-�S.A ater Q rt+� ��h8 of floal roGk cA�ered b DeR e� ment DePadrt�nt Fl`1dQG�Ga rfo n aaDeFe�ent af Fish and a� Buildln9 eveloP A��p.P�Ar ya Glande Gommun o*pePa��aAme^t 127 KeY'� pGCDD ArroY°Gra�e Peb�a d Recreation�P A�'�p_ArroY°Grande RESOLUTION NO. Page 128 of 135 Responsible Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Action Required When Monitoring Monitoring Agency or Compliance Verification Approval to Occur Frequency Pa Initial Date Comments chicken wire grate. Water leaves the sand bottom catch basin via an underground reinforced concrete pipe covered by a catch basin trap that prevents floatable material from entering into the discharge pipe. Oil and grease floats,and so would be captured by the trap. Heavy organic material,sediment and rubber would fall lo the bottom of the pit and also would not be discharged through the pipe. After the storm water drains from the catch basin, natural biological action degrades the organic materials contained in the trap. This serves to effectively reduce the amount of pollutants that would othenvise enter the creek. . Vegetated swales may be incorporated in the site layout to be used as a stormwater quality management technique. • Maintenance of the catch basins and vegetated swales would be required to eliminate the potential for odor problems, provision of mosquito habitat, and to prevent clogging. Incorporation of the appropriate BMP's along with a maintenance and operation plan would reduce the amount of current and potential future pollutants discharged into the creek and protect against failure of the s stem. LAND USE LU-2(a)Trail Access. The proposed project The applicant Review plans prior Review plans AGCDD shall include provisions for public trails shall indicate trail to final map once. Site access. The trail easements shall be easements on site recordation. inspect once. situated to allow access along the general plans and Verify compliance alignment of the East Fork of Meadow Creek im lement trail rior to i55uance Key: AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Distrid AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development Department USACE—U.S.Artny Corps of Engineers AGPWD-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department CDFG—Cal'rfornia Department of Fish and Game � City of Arroyo Grende 128 Co�p+`ance Ver�i'ication Resp�nsihle �omme^ts RESflLUT10N ND• Menitoring AgencY°� �nitial Date Required Whet Oc itorin9 F�uency Pa page 129 of 135 �ur MQasurelCondi�ion of A�tio� i�din9 o{bu IJIiti9acion APptOVal a�ess. perm�ts. site d�a'nage tri ea�o�nnecl t° pGCDD. ynd the on- to the such that it Revi�fee Woodtand e�e�ding ool site, t ide trail AGPw �dden Oaks sch at c�Y'N fge Payment Ray�t°nc�- t upotenUs�ace draina e areas r10N Review{1na1 maP �s anY P pND CIRC�LA iicant shall Pdor to Review traff+� TRANSPORTATION TheaPP re�rdation. S�qnalso+��. access a�o�Feeg� P�ovide fees ction Traffic Miti9. Review�°nstn� pair Share Ral adeQu�te�o pay ro� c signals T.1�al rande�ap lica of traffl , rojeofto nCs P me City of ArroY�G �ncludes p. the aPP far She P�ior to�ssuance of a t Pro9ram �ntersec[ion �ta shate pUildin9 De�its. ImP�pVemen nals at the anch Sueet. The intersectlon install tra{��c si9 est B fair share Sig�aliza11On NlercadoNd Tovide �ons��uon of the �amino li�n�Shall P. �als. Shall project app �o mstalt tra$�Iss he traff�c signals ro��d pGGDD,AGBD Va��m�t�gation feesOf traf��S�9 tably�n�e g�apP lans �nstaNati°� �ate a�eP occu�P RBVie`N P �Nith the ton�a�td oPe +Prolect �ans. ians Pnor o�¢_ Site intersect e W�th Cumu�ative RevieW P ha11 iQ final maP inspe�°nc�. LOS 8�an9 8 �i�ant s VQ�umes. The Pp ��ordaGon. �erifY tpUBW� SERViCES submit pians fo`oval rior to hon ManaBement ynd app �ompliance P PS•21a1 F�a�l��,an1 sriall develoP a revthe A occuP rroY� ancY nt p�an and(or fuel bY F�re clearance. Plan. The pa^a9e� Grande �ich ve9etation m "fhe follo uired tie��rnenl. modiflcat!on p�an foehificatons are reQ orate their odification sp �nCO� enda�a�s� f�e�m uirements�o �ecom+� fu�� The plan must set fo�h{�pt all inctuding � assure on9°in9 Drotect�ih P�ior to and modifi�t�on roads, Specificar°ns. stNCtures and 0 fget of after lot sales. uire 3 brush to , The plan S�`eVarance ftom ment. adequale� hQUt the develoP struClures 1hTO�g On-Site occuPants 5 eagignat a ar � vege1aCwn o�tside d �n Qrder to ciearan�area b°�ndaries a�s to nabve habilat. Control D'�strict Ilmit+mP �nq that is p�ountY Air Po11u1ion �i�Qf ArroY°G�� qdin9�nsitive ppCO-San Lu�s Ob�sCorps of En9jpeere . Fire resislanwi h surcaou used U S.A""Y ua1'dY�Ontrot eoard �mpatibte puld be �� f F�sh and Game cies sh RWQC6..Re9io�a1 Waa�ment o native s CDFG-Gal'rfor"ia DeP o Grande Bui�dmg��a�V8 eloP�1ent Dapa�°t AGBD_ArroY p��a�de Com`c�°NrtY e a�{ment KeY'. ��OY °RecDreation DePa�ment 129 pGC9D- ArroYo Grande Pub S and AG�.ArroY°Grande Pa� rv��VlY IYV. Page 930 of 135 Mitfgafion Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitorin to Occur g Monitoring Responsible throughout the project site. Compliance Verfication • Vegetation within the first 30 feet of al! F��4�ency A9ency or structures must be strictty irrigated and Pa �nitial Date controtletl, wfth specific shrub species CoRlments eliminated. No conifer(except Monterey pine, single spy��me�� eucalyptus,juniper,cypress, pampas grass, acacia,or palm trees should be allowed W(thin the 30-foot zone. Coasfa!live oak(Quercus sp.}, Califomia sycamore,Toyon and shrubsttrees approved by the City Fire Department will be acceptable within [he 30-foot zone. • The plan shall outline fuel motlification specifications such as: - Grasses shall be cut down to a length of 4 inches or less yearly, or as required by fhe City of Arroyo Grande Fire Department. - Shrubs under oaks and wtthin 10 feef of tree canopies shall be pruned to reduce volume antl no shrub shall be removed without the approval of the Hpq design committee. � Oak tree limbs to be considered for removal shall be less than 2 inches in diameter within 4 feet of ihe ground. Branches musi be chfpp� for mu)ch and left on site. � Trees With grass growing beneath may not need pruning unless the limbs touch ihe ground. Then, a��°'xable size brenches shall be removed to provide clearance. - Trees and shrubs beneath or adjacent to the canopy shall likewise have iimbs 2 inches or tess KeY' AGB�•Arroyo Grande Building Department AGCOD-Arroyo Grande Co AGPWD•qrca o mmunify Developmeot pepartment AP��'San Luis Obis AGPRD-qrroyo Grantle pa bfic Vyprks Department USqCE- Po County Air Pollutbn C rks and R �Q�B U.S.Army�o�s of Engineers antrol District � ecreation Departmenf Regional Water CDFG-�aq�or��a� 4uality Control goard partment of Fish and Game 130 City of Arroyo C,,�nde RES�LUTION ��• Responsible Comp��anceVerification page 131 of 135 Date Comme�� MonitoMng qgency o{ �nitial When Monito�ing prequency Pa Wlitigation MeasureiCondition Qf Action Req uired to Occur ppproval removed until clearance 1S achieved between canopY and shrubs. en areas . If shtubs 10 foot zh°ne around outside a sha11 remain in their trees,they Some shcubs in thls ezistin9 form_ area may be indicated in the flel a by thinned, er hee I+mbs over 2 Removal of larg ose a �nches in diameter whicl�p hazard or are wiihin 4 feet of vertica��earaan a bor s(a�l wbork approved by oak t�ees on and around o the�conditions of shall conf°rtn o Gra�de the C�tY of Attoy 43�. �ommuniiyo�oa�rees shell be qp pruning a Ce��fied arborist supervised by roved A�u^ing using�SA app standards. AVI fuet mQd+ficat�ons shaU be c.onsistent W+th rr,itigation measure B-d(a)(Q�smo��a��a Avoidance). The FireNe9e�aUon Management P1an • must dearfY state exactly what management practices must be accomP�'shed,date°ons bility for cost comp��an��and resp of comp��ance. wi��and . The P�an mUftes(wnselchecklist Emergen�Y Cit of A«oYo Grande Fire Reviz++ �ns AGCDD,AGBD tapproved by Y Depar�ment)to be made availab�e to a ��cant sha11 RevieW lans ��°� and Fire The a o Couaty A��PO��n Control Oistrict residenis. ths, APCD San Luis Ob15Gorps of En9+^eers PS-2 b Road Widtfis,�n U.S.A�+*�Y o Grande p¢ adment USACE- �pnal Water�uatd Control Board ��Y o�prroy Y Develop�+�ent Depa+tment RWq�g-Re9 a��nt of Fish and Game AGBD-Arr°Y°Grand ae�mmun Y y�meM CDFG-CaYifomia Dep Key= qGCDD-Arroyo G a public Wo�les Dep. a�ymeni AGPW�-Arroyo Grande Rg��yatwn DeP 131 AGPRD-A�roYo Grande Parlcs and s Compliance Verifl�tian Responsible Comments R�S�LVS101'� r10. �on�totin9 A9encY°r Initial Date of 135 �en Monitorin9 Freyuency Part Pa9g 132 utt8d toOccur site of A�tion Req on�� Condition fi�a�map inspe�O��' M�igation�APp�OVal ;tp recardation. Verify surei to subm lans f�<<oval ��ar to and aPP comPlian�p lengths,a�d bY the Arroyo occupancy Road W�dths, ,a�rnent of flre Hydrants• We��as the p uidance ��gnde F��e clearance. ned with the 9 Depe�ment which circulatio Sha11 be des�9 aAment A hydranls o�tande F��e�ep ire ��prporate m?�� pnoy unhindered F d�r�n9 tecommg�da��s, of the that a11oWS verin9 �oa�ay �oadsystem maaeu Specifically• pepa�ment access a�d �nctudin ad�ua�g emer9encies shall he P�OV��ed•uired: desi9n� the 4ollowing measures are reQ Site access,and�e P�a�ymenl of fire t must be an a��Weather lhrouqho� fe�in w�d1h. hYdrants prole��oads 5120 �ul�e-sacs the Site � sudace at 1ea a�ing unobs�ruded bY p 10 F�te ust be �f the roads afe and lurnoen�a�dards. �si be �to be Private SY b,n�i 9 Pro�p ire in on-9°in9��a��ta n�roads to D P�ment reQ�ired level shall not Road 9rades°ea(he�i orm Fire � eXCeed 16°!0,P be�s and street signs shatl Code that ' H�US hted to City standards 5� olice be 1�9 vehides including�idences emet9e0� q locale bulan�s� ency, and a event of anY emer9 in the a�ss roads and qGGD��AC'B� qll fire aPParatus desi9ned and � drivewaYs shall be o�the imPpSe hail be Review P� s suPP m h,and s structura� n mainta�ned to rovide Revie+r+ �ior 10 0��, VerdY tons at 25 p as to P e of 20 Surfa SO Where aPProP°ate, Saie9�erds p oanm�p S ce loads ce Provided with a in ca aGiti[�es. stN�iural of kuildin9 uards, Str+n9ent atl of the shall be issuance insped{or a��.wealher drn afeg �ards �s. VeriN g��ctura�S outd redu�me safeq, �cted perm lor to fire deP compl�ance p mai�te�aoce a p5-21�) �e �ards that w Rev+e�` �ra��, 9 of first alarm graRh�cal Y and ancy. nece�sa ' ntro�DisM� struc� ra �d response eneral,ihis on 9�ad�ng occuP uired. In 9 �onstru�ion plans. maintenance as pir Pollutwn Co �n� need for Wilt be�� sUUCGon Cour�Y of ArroY°G resources of co� fire. li Measures shall be Luis Ob�s�oreg af E�9��eers CitY Woutd req�iB the use Nive a,Mldland APCD-Sa�S.A�'�'Y Control Boa� e mater+als lhat�°°Id su pf fire �pualuY , m lude iastaVlauon USACE- Re9ronal Wate e�oi Fsh and Ga eot nt RWQCB' WouVd als0 inC Q 8uildin9 QepepeveloW�1eBn�P CDFG-Galifomia DePa art� AGBD•AttoY�o��de CommuWorks 4ep?dm ydment Key' pGC00-A«OY Q�fande Public RecreaUon�p 132 A�PW� prroYo Giande Parks and AGPR�� RESOLUTION NO. Page 133 of 135 Responsible Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of pction Required �en Monitoring Monitoring Agency or Approval to Occur Frequency Pa Initial Date Comments sprinklers on any lots accessed by roads ihat installed prior to necessary. are less than 32 feet curb-to-curb. Houses occupancy, and be located on flag lots or those accessed by maintained driveways steeper than 15% shall be regularly by the wnstructed wilh automatic fire sprinkler applicants as systems,and be subject to approval and applicable. lesting by the Fire Chief. As wrrently required by the City of Arroyo Grande Fire Code(Section 902.2.1),it is expected that a f re truck could enter the proposed subdivision for 75 feet from the center-line of the cross street and maintain a reasonable response time. From that point,the fire truck would have a 150-foot radius(the approximate length of their water hose) of fire protection. Any unit outside of that radius,according to the Fire Code,must be designed with a sprinkler system. The following features would be required: . Spnnkler Systems. If 50-foot vegetation management zones are not employed, fhe perimeter structures within the fire hazard area must have eMerior exposure sprinkler systems separately applied,per NFPA 13. In addition, residential units that lie outside of the fire truck protection radius(a 150-foot radius around a fire truck parked 75 feet in from the entrance of a subdivision) shall be designed with fire protedion sprinkler systems approved by the Fire Chief. . Minimum Class B Roofs., Due to the proximiry of the project site ro a High Hazard Fire Severity area, all struclures in the proposed development should have at the minimum Class B roofs to miti ate the fire threat. Key: AGBD-Artoyo Grende Building Department APCD-San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District AGCDD-Arroyo Grande Community Development DepaKment RWQCB Reg o al WateSQual ry Control Board AGPV`1D-Arroyo Grande Public Works Department CDFG—Catrfornia Department of Fish and Game AGPRD-Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department City ofAlroyo Grande � 133 RESOLU710N N�• Pa�e �gq o{ 135 Responsible Compliance Verification When Monitoring AAonttoring pgency or Comments Mitigation App�QYaCondition of Action Required to Occur Frequenty pa Initial Date Design of Accessory Features. Decks, � gazebos,pado covers,fences,etc.must not overhang slopes and must be one- hour fire retardant construcfon. Front doors should be soiie a��Shouid�be s/.inch ihick. Garag noncombustible. etation � yarcl Characteristics. v� revented. growin9 an fe�ces shouf�dNbe I'p eS w11i . Power Lines. All new p a� AGCDD, be instaffed underground in order ro once. Site AGPW�' revent fires caused b arcin wires. The applicant shafl Review plan prior to Re'�e'^'� A�BD submit a issuance of building inspec!as PS-5{a) Gonstruction Solid Waste �m�{S_ Verify mitigation Construction Solid � �iance during �ecessary Minimization. During the construction Waste Minimization comp during phases of the project,the following construction. measures wiil be implemented to reduce p�yn to AGCDD, construcrion, solid waste generation to the maximum A�pWD,and e�tent feasible: AGSD for review and implemeni the . Prior to construction,the contractor will Plan during arrange for construct+on recyclinrovider. construction. service with a waste collection p Roll-off hins for ihe coAection of recoverable construction mat��?�s�Wil! be located onsNe. The aPP authorized agent the�eof,shall arrange for pick-up of recyded materials with a wasie co��ed�on provider or shall iransport recycled materials to the appropriate service centec Wood, conc�ete,dryWe��metal,cardboard, asphalt,soil,and land clearing debris may al!be recycled. erson . The contractor will designate a p rec pts forrollGO'ff b ns anaroa co�� construdion waste recycling. All subcontraclan,ncl dennfWhich mate�als APCD San Luis Obispo County Ai�PolWtion Control Oistrict rec clin s af Eng�neers USACE-U.S.A�Y�o� Key. AGBD-Arroyo Grande Building Deparlment Re ional Water QuaV'd Control Board RWQCB- 9 Y AGCDD- y Development DepartmeM ��y of Arroyo Grende Arro o Grande Cummun'rty CDFG-California DepadmeM of F+sh and Game AG�D qrroyo G[ande Pa�ks and Re Deatioo DePattment AGPRD- Y 134 r liance Verificat+o� R�P°nsible ComP �omme°�' Np, Monitorin9 pgPa Y or Ini�ia► Date RESD�V'�1ON35 hen�o�itorin9 pre4�8°�Y Pa�e 135 of W �r on ReQuired to Occ MeaSUrelCondition of A�� N6tigation APPrO�a� Source_�parated and p�aced ?�pCOpeC pins. Ce�ycled 1he cAnusctor will use �ereVer nstru�ion AGCD0. � maiedals�n�0 recy�lin9 Review Pla� pGP�^�p� The abo�e��SirucSon o�ted into the lan prior to pGBD feasible. on�e, Will be in�� fof the nt shall o�upa^cy � measures 5qtions Yhe apPlica �nslrucGon SPep haSe. subm�e a SoUd e�t clearan�' golid Waste Minim�Zatio Qf�e Was Mana98m �ntraccor. ancY .term o��pancY P sures �am tAGP�1` , 4�0up the lon9 ng miti9auc,e puri�9 �he folloW+ to red �naieas ble. A�p�BD for P�oject, �eme�e max�mU e� will be imP m r�v;ew. 9yneraCion to�' �he tollowing m'a9h8� Nlaste'. {bihty Gardenin �11 be�he resp�ns measu�es aPPlicant. S will be purin9�foSCaPePPr`pnat�ZOVerthe � runm9 Waste select sca�e�Q reduce P t �an�s long-term drou9��"totera� e plan• Slow-9r0`B1n�'d in the Iaods�P � will be include �a�ts reUuue�ie(m proughl-toleraenerete 1ess�Wa er,and prunin9 was e feQuire an faster 9�O�n9 eQU re tess feNtizer th p�si e spa�Wi0 he e��heares de�tial � compost area 10 s develo ment. Uution Controi Distr�c� is o Counb Air P°rs City of Anoy��'�0� AP�� Sx U S AttnY porDs Q�1�Y�nlrof Board USA�E' Ry�wnal W ate nt of Fish and Game a[tme� nt DePa�'ent DQ�B�yldom�a DeP��trt� AGBD-A�r�Ott�°Yp�Gr nde P bmDwprDeDeP�ent �nt K�� AG�O.A�roYo G{ande Pa�a nd Re��eabo�peRa�^ �35 nr.PR�•ArroY PLANNING COMMISSION qTl'ACHMENT 1a MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 . ' 111. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (Continued from Mey . 3, 2005 meeting) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NOS. 01-001 _AND LOT LINE . ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-002; APPLICANT: — CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION -JAMES WAYAND LA CANADA. � Commissioner Tait recused himself from this item; as he owns�property within 500 feet of the sife. ` Ms. McClish'presented a short oral review of the staff report from the May 3, 2005 meeting for continued consideration of the 21-unit subdivision and ciustered residential deVelopment on approximately 26.9 acres, including a 22-acre open space parcel, and � �eview an addendum to the projecYs certified Revised Final'_Su6sequent Environmental Impact Reporf (RFSEIR). In conclusion, Ms. McClish described the proposed buffer. areas for the Pismo Ciarkia.and the wildlife corridor, reminded the Commission that if ` they recorrimend approval a "s4atement of overriding considerations" is necessary because the Class 4 impacts of the project include the Pismo Clarkia and the cumulative :, impact biological resources that were considered in tHe certified EIR: Staff replied to guestions from Commissioner Parker. ,. . . ;:. . , ... , ' '• ' Ms. McClish stated the ravine between lots.13 & 14 includes some oak trees ` proposed to be removed; the f nal grading plans will be worked out with the final •:'`map approval; ie the amount of fill expected to be used, the applicant will . '_ answer this , . : ; ; . _ . . ,:. �. . ' M.s: McClish sta.ed the°$1,500 per tree bond is included.as part of the City's tree : ordinance and the applicant must.ensu�e that all the conditions of approval are . "adhered to; at present there is no specific .fine for tree removal, but there is code ,*� enforcement: ; . , . >: . . ,g , _ • � Ms. McClish and Mr. Devens confirmed the grade of the emergency access road. � � , r ,� � '� ; Mr.„Devens..explained that the water runoff.would eventually be con4eyed . : ' �-t , ' ; �' througFi the City's storm water,system`and.'explained ttiaf tFie steeper portions of � ` ;the site.would. be indenfed into the hill (there would be a slight trough just east of V r " lot 13) >:: �. `:: � �`�", ; . . ;: ,: � P : Ms, McClish stafed that no records of the well and pump,,beh�nd 634 Aselmo, c �� *� � A� r � had be n found. Mr. Strong stated that�ie t oug t is was,a pnvafe wel( �. , ��:� { ��'t =�. � � • °' Ms� McClish stated�that the HOA would be responsible for maintenance of the � ' "` �` ' trail (unless�a maintenance district was formed) and the conditions would mclude �i v� t � � Y ? r.� ,� G ,�� { a reporting provis�on � y" , a �t 1 c�C S" : 3 �i '3 e� r� i`zkY�+..�c�Yii�Nj. p EC,wc ,�,�aa ' � .� '..,' ��-.� � -. �^ 's . �Lt r? vp�> +a'+x . az,.. . . . . ... . ., . '�.. ,�xi-tN'.?,,J''�+ �-"0 �}i u �_ ; i' � ` Staff repl�ed to questions from Commissioner Fellows _- s, , � � „ � � � `cf�#x�.zE. . . � .� . . ' . +, t-..- :._ . r. . - � v ,,� r��;<, , � • Mr. Devens stated staff would like tlie�applicant to do another test or,ihe exisfing ' r i� �f ' ��, on-si4e well as the iron and rriagnesium levels.seemed_excessively high;they did � � `? .� �,��`� �` '�`'� hot have informafion on the quanfity Commissioner Fellows stated they would : ° � � *� � '�" F'�`` need to know this informafion . : . �. � '. z',;..., . `. ,�' '' , ,. _ '" t �r� � � • Mr`. Sfrong re the emergency access �oad and the connection to Hidden Oaks ` t ry�;`�'��`'�`ti��;x�"�} �� x�' school site: the trail beside tiie northeast edge of the 'site into tfie schooLwas '{°";<,��;��`�'�=�SS'��`.�� reviewed by the School District and the Fire Depattment end determmed to be an t 3� �'a' <" K �r ' ti t.w S� <�ry� � ✓ F � �.:#'� t v�' �: . i:;n 4{k>tY'l'�,�.ri°"3�"t a'f.a.'� ''rc � 7rt� �3� a � �:.e ,��'i a�+`�'� t :_ '�- :. '� :��. r�4�b�k �4 f� � . . £:. ,. :; " ' .i.' . �. ' ..q ` .Q'�.'� h d. -J�. . I. . . .:, ...� � . " .�'r .. . . . .. .,a . � . . . . , ... . . , . .� ._ . �. . , . . � �, i . PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 � • MINU7ES ' SUNE 7, 2005 appropriate conceptual alignment despite the fact that the school is no; anticipated to be buift for at least 5 to 10 years. • Ms. McClish confirmed�that the author of Exhibit 'A' (CEQA Findings: "Statement of Overriding Considerations") was Rincon and written in March or April 2005. Commissioner Fellows stafed he would like to see author and date on Exhibits in future. • Ms. McClish re feasibility as it applies to acceptance or denial of a project and the "map of constraints": The map demonstrates the considerable constraints that were determined to be applicable for this particulac site; avoiding one of the constraints may be feasible, but completely avoiding everythins essentialiy leaves no deveiopable land; the applicant does feel that they have addressed many of the mitigation measures that were identified in the EtR, but whether there are additional modifications that could a.chieve mitigation to the extent feasibie is what is taking piace now; Ms. McClish referred to Public Rescurces Code Section 21081(a)(3) fQr findings related to infeasible mitigation measures;. when a project is proposed the environmental review is done, all the findings considered and everything in the record has to be looked at and weighed against the project. Staff repfied to questions from Commissioner Brown. • Ms. McClish read from the project's addendum to clarify the performaoce bond ` for oak krees. Commissioner Brown stafed that the.performance bond language shouid be speiled out•before the project sta�ts;� it should cover all possible affected frees and the bond not released until fhe end of consfruction. Ms. � McClish explained that there are a total of 70 oak trees proposed to be removed and mitigated at the minimum ratio ofi 3:1 and an additional 100 oak trees proposed to be transplanted and replaced if they don't survive; the $1500 bond (or value of the tree) is a minimum cost and can be changed; all the mitigations required for 1he site are put into a monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP); at this time it is important to identify what is on the site and if the project goesforward all the conditions satisfied priorto construction. CommissionerBrown statedhe was not comfortable leaving if untii affer Planning Commission and City Council's appruval of the project. • __._. •—Ms.McElisk�-re-er�vironmental-eonstraints-stated-tha�mosYof-the-c�rrstraints— would stiil be there with a 25-foot buffec � Chair Brown opened the hearing to public comment. Dennis Law,Andre, Morris and Buttery on behalf of Castlerock, stated he wou{d answer ��rti�c�f Commissiorrquestionsatthe eRd�f-pubii��6rrten�n� iL ndee Alt ouse would�--� also be able to answer some of the q�testions regarding Pismo Clarkia. Re the issue of feasibility: Environmental impacts (through the CEQA process) should not be looked at in isolation; other valid policies in the law such as provision of housing, social and ; economic considerations that a housing project has to offer (concept embedded into i „ , . _ . . , ; � - - . __.. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 � � MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 CEQA) should be considered; the feasibility consideration involves balancing of interests. Commissioner Parker's questions to Mr. Law: • What do you know about the weil just outside Castlerock's fence? Mr. Law stated he was aware that it was there, but did not know anything about its function, purpose or impact and that it was not Castlerock's. • Djd he know about the "Caution" sign on the gate? Mr. Law stated he did not know about this sign. Commissioner Brown's questions to Mr. Law: • Re the economic considerations of a housing project, when the General Plan Update was being reviewed by the City we were told by experts that housing revenue was neutral. What are the economic considerations you are referring to with this project? Mr. Law: the economic considerations are project specific and related to the project developer; the public policy to provide housing is not founded on the economic wealth of the entities in which the housing is located but is incorporated into State statutes; local agencies need to consider this need in their planning decisions. • What type of housing are you intending to provide and does this 5t within the legislation that the State requires we consider? Mr. Law stated that their housing is designed to fit all economical levels. In answer to Commissioner's questions regarding performance bonds, Mr. Law � explained that a performance bond comes into being after a developer's agreement is entered into and after approval of the final map; a $300,000 bond should provide more than adequate security to make sure the developer does what he is supposed to do; the CEQA process really works when it is done early enough, but if you require overly. specific details (such as in terms of each tree) it can work.against the process;flexibility is needed for the protection of the trees; there will be another opportunity to check the trees with the final map. Rohe�L6roy�rnsor�653_Asiloru�ged-1h�Gomc�issien--to-re6om+nend=denia{-o�t#�e-- proposed development as submitted, based on the fact that it violates all of the certified mitigation measures stipulated and approved by City Council for this property; he then described the two measures that were stipulated in the SEIR re the Pismo Clarkia and the cumulative negative impacts to biological resources on the site; described the two conditions of approval (mandated mitigations) stipulated by a majority.of the Council, 1) --- t#�e-setbask ef-50 fee�fro�Pismo�larkia;anc�2�the-minimam-setback-of5Qfeetfrorrr-- -- all riparian areas (inciuding wetlands and the riparian area bordering Meadow Creek); stated that the applicant's proposed mitigations try to get around the requirements of ' City CounciL Don Dirkse 636 Asilo, stated he was not in favor of the development, as oaks would be ' chopped down end wetlands covered over, the natural springs that feed the wetiands _ would.be affected; there.should never be compromise on enVironmental treasures. . PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 • � Ella Honevcutt, 560 Oakhill Road; stated concern with the oak trees and asked if the protection for these trees had been spelled out; the Rancho Grande oak, tree repiacement should have been audited over the last 20 years and suggested video taping the existing trees so they would not be lost. The Commission took a 15-minute break. Lindee Althouse, consultant for Castlerock fo� Pismo Clarkia, in reply.to a question from Commissioner Keen, stated Pismo Clarkia was last surveyed two years ago and that in drought years there was actually more Pismo Clarkia growing. In a discussion with Commissioner Parker, Ms. Althouse explained the conditions in which Pismo Clarkia best thrives; the boundaries of Clarkia habitat onsite, the effect of grading and development in the vicinity of Clarkia, and current techniques of Clarkia protection. Answers from consultants to Commissioner Fellow's questions: • Kevin Merke stated there were some discrepancies in the percentages, but the 4% taking of Pismo Clarkia is a correct figure. • Ms. Althouse explained the protection was being recommended so the taking of a few scattered Pismo; Clarkia population would oot have a negative long term � impact.on the persistence.of Pismo Clarkia; there.had been no Pismo Clarkia in the mitigation planting site; she would like to give some different treatment to encourage growth of seeds; explained the germination of the Pismo Clarkia. " Answers to Commissioner Brown's questions: � . Ms.Althouse explained her expertise and work history with Pismo Clarkia; stated she is considered by the County to be one of their experts on Pismo Clarkia; then wenf on to describe the optimum conditions for the survival of Pismo Clarkia; explained how the funding for the study had evolved and that she was optimistic that the recovery of Pismo Clarkia could be successful at this site. • Ms. Althouse explained that they had been given a 25-foot setback to work with. She stated she understood there may be some take in the area that the City �sk��-foF-i�t#�e-:SA-feo�-seEba�a�c�#�ia�sor�e-e�#H�laflguage-was-awitterr— before fhe SEIR was certified with the 50 feet • Ms. Althouse explained why modifications of the performance standards may be required; 1) due to unusual sequence of rainfalls, and 2) their experience from what they had learned: • Ms. Althouse agreed that their research is not directly a mitigation, but that they - kirrg-ta a ds f e recovery o tfiis su species en ancemen o ismo : Clarkia); she agreed with Commissioner Brown that avoidance is a true mitigation, but if the site was left undisturbed she was not sure the Pismo Clarkia would stay with all the g�ass that would take over the site; oak woodland needs a . 1 lot of protection. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 . MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 ln answer to a question from Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Merke stated that animals will migrate through a culvert depending on the size and whether there is light atthe end of the culvert. • In answer to a question from Commissioner Parker; Ms. Althouse explained that the . "average of 25 feeY' distance from the Pismo Clarkia is to keep the permanent change in the landscape away from the Pismo Clarkia; that a straight line is not as important as criteria. David Foote, Firma answered further questions from the Commission: • The height of a culvert is critical for getting an adequate opening for light; 7 feet should be more than adequate, which is half the length of the one downstream. • Re the weli immediately upstream of site and the concern that it may be drawing off water: If the well is functioning it is at a considerable depth and. would impact the site. ' in reply to a question from Commissioner Parker re the Castlerock well, Mc Foote stated the springs that are creating a wet surface (near lot 8) are moving along at a very shallow level along the plain of the rock. In reply to a question from Commission. Fellows, Mr. Foote said they were not aware of ` any wildlife moving atong the culvert near James Way and confirmed that it is big enough for predominant mammals in the area to move through. • Commission Parker stated the barbed wire near the culvert needs to be removed. In reply to questions from.Commissioner Brown, Mr. Foote explained their success rate on past projects they had been involved with; how they measured their success rate; ,stated that other agencies would be folluwing up on their performance alsa Commissioner Brown said he would like some sort of a performance guarantee. Mr. Foote suggested that a condition could be included ta address this or the City could retain an environmental monitor that would be paid for by the develo�er• �ommissioner Brown asked if Mr. Foote if he agreed that lot 9 and lots 18-21 have the most affect on the riparian resource? Mr. Foote agreed. Mr. Foote answered questions from Commissioner Parker. • Weed control after the initiai five-year period wouid be taken cate of by the HOA __a�danclud€din the-CyC&-R's-fo�maintena�+c�pro�isieRSttaereafter. - • Explained how the removal of eucalyptus trees in zone 1 and zone 2 would take place and.that the HOA would manage the stumps in the future (to remain in . zone 2). • A siyned rail fence will be erected like in other areas of Rancho Grande,to keep people out of the areas to be protected. ' PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 ' MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 9:00 pm. Mr. Strong, suggested that Item III.C. Historical Resource Committee, be deferred to the next regular meeting or subsequent date due to the time. The Commission unanimously agreed with a 5/0 voice consent. In answer to Commissioner Parker, Kevin Merke, Plant Biologist, consultant for Rincon, stated that he had seen success rate on specimen trees being transplanted and that it was best to plant onsite, contiguous to existing oaks. Commissioner Brown asked about the recovery of transplanted oaks where the canopies had been trimmed. Mr. Merke responded that the recovery of the canopy of transplanted oaks may take as much as 10-15 years. Commissioner Brown re staff report, page 10, asked if reducing lots 3 & 17 (almost entirely covered with oak woodland habitat) and in his opinion lots 14-17 (almost entirely covered in oaks) would significantly reduce cumulative biological impacts and the oak tree impact. Mr. Merke agreed that itwould. Mr. Law then answered questions from Commissioner Brown regarding environmental monitoring and how it could be organized, who would be financially responsible and how it could be enforced. The City would be put as a beneficiary in CC&R's, City held financially not responsible, HOA must pay and this is a strong economic hammer. Commissioner Fellows asked for staff to comment on how maintenance districts versus ' HOA's could work for the environmentai monitoring. Mr. Strong explained how a combination of both could work for the Ciiy for the environmental monitoring and stated that perFormance guarantees could be worked into the HOA. Commissioner Brown and Parker then had further questions for Ms. Althouse regarding maintenance and protection of the Pismo Clarkia, clarification on the calculations for the : funding anC clarification on the calculations in the tables regarding the 4% "take" (of the P--is�.,o-d!ar ' Tabte--2-did-sheinFSer�e inconsistencies because in 2002 the road went through the patches identified by Rincon, butwhen they did their research the road did not go througFi the patches. 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated that due to the late hour the Commission should consider — 'rniing-agenda-iterjrll��Plot PlarrReview-Cas�No:05=00�Pac�$rothers—INr— Strong state,d that if they wished to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. then there would not be time to get to this item; he would have preferred this item to be fieard tonight or continuance considered earlier in the agenda; this item is a single lot construction project, had not ; been heard yet but had been continued twice. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 ' MINUTES JUNE 7, 2005 A discussion then ensued with stafif and the Commission on agenda management. Mr. Strong suggested that a separate workshop be scheduled so that staff and the Commission could discuss '•agenda management. The Commission unanimously agreed. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows io continue item 111.8. to the next regufar meeting of June 21, 2005, that it be placed first on the agenda and that item III.A. be continued to the meeting of July 5, 20�5 and be placed second on the agenda. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner's Keen, Fellows, Parker and Chair 8rown NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tait ABSENT: None it was noted that Commissioner Tait and Commissioner Keen would not be present at the next regular meeting. 1V. NON-PUBLIC HEARING 1TEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. In response to a question from Commis oner Parker, Mr. Strong gave an update on the sign at Baja Fresh. - : VI. PLANNWG COMMISSION IT MS AND COMMENTS: None. . VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT DIREC70R COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong said he would•lik to have a workshop with the Commission, staff and the pubtic regarding manageme of the agenda in the near future. VIII. TENTATNE AGE DA ITEMS FOR THE JUNE 21, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOJRNME : .The meeting was a ourned at 10:00 p.m. - . -- ATTEST: . LYN RE RDON-SMITH TIM BROWN, CHAIR ' SECRE�TARY'TO THE COMMISSION • PLANNING COMMISSION _ _ PAGE 2 � ANNOTATEDAGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 A. CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7, 2005 MEETING: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE N0. 01-001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-002 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998); APPLICANT - TAOS HOLDING CORPORATIONlCASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION - NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. . Ms. McClish presented the staff report for continued consideration of a residential subdivision for twenty-one (21) clustered lots end one (1) open space parcel on approximately 26.6 acres. Ms. McClish then highlighted the specific CEQA findings that related to issues of concern in accordance with the discussion from June 7, 2005 meeting and that were contained in Exhibit'A' of the June 7 staff report: • Impact B2-for Biological Resources • Impact 63- related to Oak Tree Removal • Impact B4 - Pismo Clarkia • Statement of Overriding Considerations . Additionaliy, minor revisions were made to Exhibit 'D' the Conditions of Approval, recommended by staff and discussed with the applicant. Accordingly, there are proposed minor changes to Exhibit'E', the Mitigation, Monitoring & Reporting Program. The recommendation from the June 7, 2005 hearing is that the Commission consider the CEQA findings in both Exhibit 'A" (d�aft findings forthe Resolution) and the fndings in the Resolution for the Vesting TPntative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development and direct staff regarding any modifications for a recommendation to City Council on the project. ` Chair Brown announced that the City Attorney, Tim Carmel was present. Commission Parker asked staff for clarification on the foliowing: • Exhibit D, (Conditions of Approval) Page 2, the affordable housing in-lieu fee requirement. Ms. McClish: This projecf will consist of single-family residential unifs and is only su6ject fo pay an in-lieu fee (per the 1990 General Pian). • Exhibit D, Page 14, City inspection of required improvement. What construction wo�ld rPq��irP thic9 Mr nPVP��• a��and all rnnstrusti�n astivitie�tbis �c-,�u— standard agreement that grants us access fo the site during consfruction. • Page 75, No. 121, all irriprovements shall be fully constructed and accepted tiy City? Mr. Devens: All improvements fhat the City will own, such as water, sewer etc. shall be inspected before the last 10% of the units is accepted. • Page 13, No. 96, shali submit a document regarding the effectiyeness of the unauthorized drain line installed on the northeast boundary of the property. Ms. McClish: This was induded to make sure there woufd be no impacts from this drain line with this project. ' • Page 19, Mitigations Measures, conditions of approval, on this addendum "a Native American shail monitor all activity", but it has been crossed out. Ms. McClish: A , ! change is being p�oposed to require a Phase 71 information testing prcgram to give mo�e information regarding potential areas of-impact and additional. recommendafions _of which� fhe applicanf is subject and. which still may include PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 � ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 having a Native American present at all earth moving activities. At a minimum there would be an archeologist present at all times. Chair Brown opened the hearing for public comment. Dennis Law, attorney for Castlerock Development, stated a concern that the collective impact of al► the mitigation measures would result in no project and this would be a finding of infeasibility related to project objectives; explained his statement at June 7, 2003 meeting on the requirements of State law regarding housing units that cross all economic lines. Commissioner Fellows asked to see the map of the 25-foot setbacks compared to the 50- foot setbacks. Ms. McClish said she would address this when she could locate the respective map. Karin Groteluschen, 649 Asilo, had concern that the conditions of approval mandated by City Council with approval of the revised EIR, were not being met with this project with regard to 50-foot setbacks from Pismo Clarkia and riparian areas; she urged the Commission to recommend denial of the proposal. Joel Kauser, 707 Asilo, stated concern with the entrance to the proposal being too close to the monument sign for the Highlands,believed the entrance road.for the projectshould line up with Rosemary Court; had concern that the house and property to the east of the entrance would be sitting on the�well head: Richard Nutting; 444 La Canada, had concern that the conditions of approval were not addressing the HOA; there were no mitigation measures included for this. Mr. Law addressed Mr. Nutting's concem re the HOA; stated the CC&R's allow for the City to have direct enforcement over the HOA and is a project requirement. Chair Brown closed the hearing #o[public comment. Ms. McClish also addressed 1Ar. Nutting's concems with the road alignment, explaining that . i a o i �e ue o environmen a cons rain s; iscusse Commissioner Fellow's concern regarding the 25-foot setbacks and the feasibility of the project; stated there wouid still be Class 1,impacts and the findings w.ould stiii have to be made. Chair Browr. closed the hearing for public comment. Commission discussion followed regarding the process for considering the findings. .Mr. Carmel clarified for the Commission that if the required findings for. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 cannot be made then the project cannot be_ approved. unless Overriding Considerations can be made (CEQA 15093). Commission comments followed: ; � PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 � ANNOTATEDAGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Commissioner Parker went into the issues in detail regarding biological resources and public setvices conceming Yhe pro}ect which supported why she could not make the required findings (CEQAGuidelines Section 15091): Impact 62. Bioloqical Resources: • Exhibit F (FSEIR) Addendum): As proposed the project improvements adjacent to the east fork of Meadow Creek do not aliow for the adequate mitigation of biological resources and the resulting impacts (significant and unavoidable) because once wetland has been removed it is irreplaceable. . ' Exhibit F, refers to fots 10, .12, 15 & '16, as being partially impacted so should be listed. • Exhibit A; 5.2.1, page 20 under Findings, disagrees with argument that because there is Iess loss to the project it is a better project, therefore changes and alterations are less than significant is not true; it does not mean there is no significant damage or impact to the Federally protected biological resources. • Exhibit F, the addendum, states the level of impact would remain essentiaily the same ae for the original proposed project and agree that it is potentially unmitigable without removal of [elocation of specific lots particularly 9, 20 & 21. Mitiqations: `. . Page 21 EIR addendum, No 1: the phrase "if feasible" needs to be eliminated in order to be a mitigation. , ; • Page 21, Nos: 1 & 3, ttie mitigations discuss only the impacts of the. building footprints and do not inciude impacts in the riparian and wetland areas lost due to grading due to building of roadways. � . Exhibit A, page 21 No. 4, Weed Abatement Program, states this is the responsibility of the HOA, but is not included in the HOA as being a specific program; it should also be made c{ear that no herbicides are to be used within a riparian area. • ,Paragraph 2, regarding access to riparian setback area, the word "should"should be replaced with_ the word "musY'; also minimizing road width should be part of this project. 63 — Impact to Oak Trees, Exhibit F: • 1,260 oak trees on site and performance bond is not adequate or effective. • Minimize road width to be sensitive to oak habitat and go around oak irees and B4— Impact on Site Specific Pismo Clarkia, Ciass 1, is signifcant but unavoidable:. • Avbidance of Pismo Clarkia is not shown and therefore remains a Class 1;reiocation is not a mitigation, but an enhancement (it has never been proven that this will work); Exhibit F (CEQA) Page 19, No. 1 states "if feasible" - in order for this to be a mitigation it should 6e deleted; the setback shoutd not only refer to tfie bui{ding . footprint, but to everything, the roadway, retaining walls, grading, herbicide runoff, . runoff of siftation and fire protection areas to be effective. Agency Permit Compliance: . _ • Rincon response states: "The success of the mitigation and monitoring plan is speculative and it's goal potentially cannot be met; the implementation of the ; required mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant : level unless avoidance is assured by project alternatives". - PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 ' ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 • Believed that there are project alternatives that could avoid the Clarkia, provide buffers and mitigate the�problem, but this project does not do that. B5 - loss of wildlife habitat (listed as Class 2 significant but mitigable) Exhibit F (Revised EIR addendum): • Page 22, states the impact would reduce the population and available habitat of wildlife in general including special status species"; mitigation of roadways that is mentioned will lesson the impact, but the impact will remain and therefore wiil remain a Class 1. . Under Loss of Wildlife Habitat - herbicide flow into the creek; mitigation measures keeping flow into the creek are good measures, but need to be extended- should be listed in the HOA; homes would have to be kept at a good buffer zone to keep the herbicides and pesticides from running off into the protected areas; page 3 has an excellent pesticide control program on page 33 of the HOA, but there is nothing on weed abatement; when homeowners build they need to understand that they can - only buiid acco�ding to their personal and environmental constraints. • • Exhipit A, 5.2.3, page 27, regarding the impact to the wiidlife corridor and the fact that the entire site acts as a wildlife corridor and facilitates wiidiife.movement from upland areas through the more urbanized downstream reaches of the meadow creek system; Ms. Parker stated that this corrido� is extremely important to this area and needs to be maintained; "special status wildlife" states that if they are present they are also likely to be impacted by direct and indirect activities of the project; therefore I belieue the loss of wildlife liabitat is a Ciass 1; do not believe that this has. been mitigated. . G4 Slope Stabifity Hazard, Class 2. - - • The project is as proposed creates a hazard inciuding iYs emergency access road thaf has not been looked at yet; the fact that it has steep slopes in excess of 20% makes it a Class 1, regarding not only erosion and siltation but also pesticide and herbicide runoff into the creek; ,it also affects H1 (which is hydrology and water qualiry). � . PS2 A Fire and Vegetation Plan: . Exhibit A in effect states that the occupants are not to ciear any of their boundaries in the native habitat area; the riparian buffer (in CEQA) is suggested to be 50 feet � � ri ehn� W � f hn in #hu f��+A�r�on a�ea aAd arc�rding to Exhihii-�, page-28, states vegetation management would potentially involve removal of some if not all of the vegetation within thirty (30) feet of the structure; therefore these two statements go against one another," California Resource Code 4219 requires clearance of flammable vegetation for a distance of 30-100 feet around a structure located.in a fire hazard area (according to our Fire Department this is considered a fire hazard area); mitigation measure PS1 requires 30 feet clearance minimum requirement for fire safety;:therefo�e; the combined 25-foot setback for the project is not going to work. In addition, the mitigation measure itself can cause impacf to the riparian habitat because fire protection is going to require homeowners to do weed abatement and remove the riparian habitat-so PS2A is an issue. : David Chipping, Conservation birector of the California Piant Society, page 87, of the 2004 CEQA Yeview, states the 25 #oot setbacks are insufficient for vegetation � management for fire control and. should not`be. taking place within protected - PLANNING COMMlSS10N PAGE 6 � ANNOTATEDAGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 ecosystems or areas in which mitigation planting has taken place - this conflict needs to be addressed... In regard to Ms. Parker's comments, Ms. McClish explained that the Fire Protection Plan and Pismo Clarkia Plan set up in the Mitigation & Monitoring Plan, CC&R's and Design Manuel, lays out measures both to protect plants and maintain fire protection. These requiremen#s are flushed out in the final plan; these environmental precautions are aiso being done on other tracts in the area. Commissioner Parker concluded 6y stating that she had 'more comments to contribute to the findings for the Tentative Tract Map and the Planned Unit Development, but,believ�s that the reasons stated were sufficient to expiain her reasons for not approving the project. Ms. McClish referred to Exhibit A, page 56, it does discuss two of the impacts Commissioner Parker had rrtientioned; B2 & G4, in that there is a residual significant impact unless modifications are made. 7:50 a.m. The Commission took a 10- minute break. Commissioner Fellows agreed with Commissioner Parker's comments regarding the findings/mitigation measu�es as,the project is proposed; agreed with Prlr. Nutting's comments regarding 1he HOA; appreciated comments by Elia Honeycutt and statements tiy Mr. Foote at previous meetings. He stated Lindy Althouse did a great job with the mitigations; with proper mitigation end 25 foot setbacks there could be a potential for some lots; regarding the entrance and tot 2, there is a probtem with balancing environmental constraints; as the project is designed he could not find overriding considerations o[ any social benefits for homes that wouid cost a million and a haif dollars. ' Commissioner Brown stated the environmental impacts are too great_and the mitigations inadequate; explained specific issues that he had with the project: 1) The "taking" of Pismo Clarkia seems to exceed the stated 4% and he does not support because it is an important resource and by the applicanYs experts own admittance, the fong-term success of Pismo Clarkia mitigation is in uestion. g erm en orcemen o mi iga ion measures relating to biologieal resources, (including protec#ion of creek habitat,�oak trees, Pismo Clarkia) is in doubt since development is proposed to impact important resources e.g. bonds for oak trees inadequate and no good receiving site for planting new oak trees for mitigation. He furttier stated that the issues could be reso{ved if the project were reduced ev,en further to lesson the impacts in line with the possible benefits of the project and referred to (CEQA 15091 & 15093); suggested options for possible reductions to impacts in the vicinity of lots 3, 8; 9. 18-21 and possibly lots 14-16, dependi�g on road configuration; io addition it would make sense to reduce the size of any remaining lots to. lesson the development footprint on the project and lesson the environmental impacts and it may then be possible to get a � statement of over�iding consideration; long term enforcement of mitigations based on the proposed HOA or maintenance district has not been proven: PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 � ANNOTATED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Ms. McClish summarized the Commission's consensus regarding the CEQA findings based on the impacts that Commissioner Parker spoke of regarding findings under CEQA 15091 (A) 1, Commissioner Fellow's. support of her comments and the comments from Commissioner Brown regarding the potential for reduction of impacts in the vicinity of specific lots. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, recommending that City Council deny the project based on the Commission's inability to make the required CEQA findings for reasons relating to the impacts to biological resources and public services as discussed by the Commission and that staff return at the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. The motion was passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows and Chair Brown. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tait B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO 05-005; APPLICANT — CAMPBELL, LLC; LOCATION —567 CROWN HILL. , Mr. Foster presented the staff report for.consi ration of a proposal for a planned unit tlevelopment (PUD) consisting of three (3) ne single-family homes on three (3) existing lots located at 567 Crown HiIL A PUD for t e site was approved in May; however, that � approvai was based on retention of a porti of an existing home, which was completely demolished without City approval. Ther ore, the approval of the PUD is invalid. He explained that Lot A& C remain unchan d; Lot B includes a new single-family home built to the same dimensions as the demoli ed home. The applicant has agreed to donate $8,500 to the City for historic preservaf n. Staff answered Commission questio s. Chair Brown asked Mr. Carmel f r his opinion as to whether the City considers the amount , i o is nc co pare o e enforcemen! action (condition imposed) taken with the project at 212 Miller Way? � Mr. Carmel stated that th project on Miller Way is a seperate issue and should not be discussed with this item; ach case is treated on a case-by case basis; each project could be dealt with in a differe t way and the Commission can determine what is appropriate. , Chair Brown opened e hearing to public comment Floyd Campbeil, pplicant, answered Commission's questions and further clarified on how the demolition h d occurred and stated he regret#ed that this had happened. Terry Payne, 12 Miller Way, stated that it was inappropriate to reference her property with this project but since it had. been referred fo she would like to inform the public of her • . PLANNING COMMISSION : PAGE 5 MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2005 IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 9/20105) VESTING TENTATIVE TRAC7 MAP CASE NO. 01-001, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-002 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TRACT 1998); APPLICANT .— TAOS HOLDING CORPORATION/CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION - NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTEf�SECTION UF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA. Commissioner Tait requested to be excused from the meeting due to the fact that he lived within 300 feet of the proposed project. Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of a Resolution of denial for a proposed residentiai subdivision consisting of finrenty-one (21) clustered lots and one (1) open space parcel on approximately 26.6 acres and informed the Commission that some minor changes have been made to the Resolution which are as foliows . 15t page, under Tentative Tract Map Findings for Denial, No. 1. first sentence, change from: ...the development cannot be clustered...to ...the development is not clusfered. No. 2, firstsentence, change the words: ...tract map or... to tract map and/or. Near the end of first sentence, Na 2., correct ...have not be adequately...to ...have not been adequately... • Commissioner Browr. requested the following change: No. 2, near the end of the , � last sentence; add language after Homeowner's Association to state: ...and maintenance district. . • Page 2, under the heading Planned Unit Development Findings, No. 1, delete the � word "and" before "al! yards'; and No. 2., first sentence add °does not" after ...manner of development... • Page 2, last paragraph, delete all wording in last sentence beginning with ...and information contained in ExhibitA... In conclusion, Ms: McClish stated that the City Council must make the final decision on . the project and that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending denial of the project The Commission had no questions for staff � Chair Brown opened the hearing to public commenf and hearing none closed it. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker #hat the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case Na 01-001, Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001 and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 01-002, located at James Way and La Canada as amended above and adopt: ; . PLANNiNG COMMISSION PAGE 6 , MINUTES OCTOBER 4; 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05-1977 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRACT 1998), P�ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-002; LOCATED AT JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Brown, Commissioners FeUows and Parker NOES: None : ABSENT: None AB$TAIN: Commissioners Tait and Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 4�' day of October 2004. B. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. 0 -008; APPLICANT — BILL SADEK; LOCATION — 1136 EAST GRAND AVEN . Mr. Foster presented the staff report for th review of a proposat for a mixed-use development consisting of nine (9) planne unit development and convert an existing " building.to commercial use. Staff answered Commission questions. : Although this was not�a public he ng Chair Brown opened the hearing for pubiic comment. Applicant Bill Sadek and Mark B ms answered Commission questions and stated they would have traffic reports prep ed when they bring the project forward; the�e wil!be an arborist report prepared; if th reduce the scope of the project (size,of units) to allow more space for parking an less friction with the residential wouid make it safer for children and allow more o n space, but woutd resuft in only one affordab{e unit and an in-lieu fee; they would li to get the Commissioner's comments on the walkway; the units witl be s rinkled a we will The Commission co mented on the foilowing key issues as requested lay the applicant: • Ingress/egre s � , : Setbacks � . ' Unit size . Pedesf' n walkway . Open pace . _ . Park' 9 8:25 .m The Co mission took a 5-minute,break. � . ATTACHMENT1b CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 7 area, and direct staff to work with the Historical Society, sp ifically on the Master Plan, and also on the potential management agreement. Council Me er Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, errara NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:20 . . The Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. 11.b. Consideration of Fiscal ear 2005-06 First Quarter Budget Status Report. [COUNCILIRDA] Director of Financial Service Kraetsch presented the staff report and recommended the Council/RDA Board of Direc rs: 1) Approve carryover appropriations as shown in Schedule A; and 2) Approve budget justments and recommendations as shown in Schedule A. Staff responded to questions rom Council regarding funding of the Desalination Study; and the possibility of setting up fund in the future for creek restoration and maintenance. MayodChair Ferrar pened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to b eard on the matter. No public comments were received and MayodChair Ferrara closed t public hearing. Mayor Pro T Nice Chair Costello moved to approve carryover appropriations and approve budget adj tments and recommendations as shown in Schedule A. CounciUBoard Member Guthrie s onded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Ferrara NOE None ABS NT: None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Icontinued) 9.b. Consideration of a Vesting Tentative Trect Map and Planned Unit Development (Case No. 01-007) to Subdivide a 26.9-Acre Property into Twenty-One (21) Residential Lots and a Twenty-Two (22) Acre Permanently Preserved Open Space Parcel. Associate Planner McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider the project, make findings determined to be necessary or appropriate, take tentative action on the project and direct staff to return with the appropriate Resolution for formal action. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Dennis Law, representing the applicant (Castlerock Development), gave a presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which included an overview of the project history; the original project design; the revisedlreduced project design; project mitigations for riparian habitat, wetland, drainage, Pismo clarkia, long-term maintenance, and HOA management; and project CITY COUNCIIJREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 8 enhancements including water well dedication, Pismo Lake watershed enhancement, emergency access, and a Pismo clarkia study. David Foote, FIRMA, presented an overview of a preliminary riparian and wetland mitigation plan. He noted that the plan is the functional equivalent of a 50-foot buffer and exceeds the mitigation requirements in the EIR. Lindv Althouse, Althouse and Meade, Inc., gave a presentation concerning Pismo clarkia and an overview of a mitigation, restoration, and long-term maintenance plan for Pismo clarkia on the proposed site. Dennis Law followed up on the issue of long-term maintenance of Pismo clarkia and explained the responsibility of the developer to establish the program during construction and monitor it for two years following the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy until the Homeowners Association (HOA) assumes maintenance responsibilities. He then reviewed enhancements of the project including a water well dedication; Pismo Lake Watershed Enhancement Plan (including a funding contribution by Castlerock to achieve the goals relative to sedimentation and water quality); an emergency access road extension to Hidden Oaks Road; and a Pismo clarkia study (Castlerock proposes to fund a significant portion of the study). Lindv Althouse presented further information on the proposed Pismo clarkia study and its objectives. David Law commented on the environmental review process and its purpose as an interactive process to identify impacts and alternatives. He concluded by encouraging approval of the project and requested continued cooperation in the interactive process to address concerns the Council may have for not approving the project. Bob Brownson, Arroyo Grande resident, read a prepared letter into the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department) urging the Council to acknowledge the non-compliant nature of the proposed development plan for Tract 01-001 as it relates to mitigating environmental impacts. He stated that the plan is not in compliance with the environmental findings in the Final Revised Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, which was previously certified by the City Council. Anna Unkovich, Arroyo Grande resident, agreed with Mr. Brownson's comments and spoke in opposition to the proposed development on the subject site. She asked that the Council support the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission and deny any building on this property and urged the full protection of the oaks and the wetlands. Douq Tait, Arroyo Grande resident, acknowledged that he had stepped down from the Planning Commission on this item due to a conflict of interest; however, he reserved his right to speak as a citizen. He agreed with most of the comments made by Mr. Brownson and cited many environmental constraints associated with this project. He referred to the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which revealed the potential for substantial environmental impacts and noted the applicant has acknowledged the biological sensitivity of this site. He referred to and summarized conclusions in the project EIR which indicate substantial impacts to 17 lots in the proposed development. He stated if these lots were eliminated, it would result in four lots remaining which closer reflects the 2001 General Plan designation. He stated he understood this project falis under the 1990 General Plan; however, the Revised Final Subsequent EIR reflects the updated 2001 General Plan as it relates to how many units are appropriate for the site. He referred to Council decisions and comments made during the General Update process in 2001 and said he would support the five units as designated in the General Plan and support any number less than that. He concluded by asking the Council to support the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the project as proposed. Vic Beeler, rural Arroyo Grande resident, agreed with Mr. Brownson's and Mr. TaiYs comments. He stated the applicant has not complied with the required 50 foot setback mitigation measures; CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 9 expressed concern with the proposed access road as it relates to emergency access; referred to Fish and Game issues; referred to a drain line which is under the proposed access road; supported protection of the Pismo clarkia; and stated that the project was too dense and should be reduced to five units. He opposed the project as proposed. Karen Tait, Arroyo Grande resident, referred to August 3 and September 1, 2001 articles in The Tribune and quoted from portions of the articles regarding the proposed project. She noted the community involvement with this project and the amount of news coverage this project has received in the past. She stated there are few places so significant that so many community members have come fonvard to protest a development, and clearly this is one of them. She asked the Council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project as proposed. Don Dirksav, Arroyo Grande resident, expressed concern about access to the development. No further public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Guthrie acknowledged the projecYs long history; noted that there are areas where Pismo clarkia is clearly impacted; stated that not everything feasible has been done to enable a finding of overriding consideration or that everything has been done to avoid Pismo clarkia impacts; suggested there are other potential solutions such as reducing the size of the project and reducing lot size; stated that there are impacts related to the proposed access road; expressed concern about the wetland area and whether or not the HOA can manage and enforce the mitigation measures and conditions. He reiterated that he did not think everything feasible has been done in order to reduce the impacts to the wetlands and he would be unable to make the required findings necessary to approve the project tonight. He acknowledged the proposed project enhancements, including the Pismo clarkia study and the Pismo Lake watershed enhancement. He stated that although he could not make the findings of overriding consideration in order to approve the project tonight, he was not ready to deny the project . outright, as there are opportunities for further review and modification. He stated he would like to see the best wetland possible; the largest and most stable Pismo clarkia habitat area; and a long-term plan to ensure that it will stay in place in perpetuity. Council Member Arnold referred to the staff report and read a statement about CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. He agreed with comments by Council Member Guthrie that other things could be done in order to approve this project. He referred to the constraint map and noted the projecYs negative impact to Pismo clarkia. He referred to several lots that significantly impact the wetlands; a lot that requires extensive cuts into a hill; and lots that are composed entirely within oak woodland habitat. He stated this is not a project that has made an attempt to avoid significant impacts; however, he said there is probably an opportunity to have some number of home sites there but not as many as is proposed. He could not support the project as proposed and suggested continuing the item or denying the project without prejudice. Council Member Dickens acknowledged the environmental impacts on the site and the challenge for developing the site. He said he believed the applicant and the proposal is moving in the right direction and applauded the applicant for bringing in various consultants and professionals that have expertise in Pismo clarkia and the riparian areas, and the restoration and mitigation measures that have been brought forth. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by members of the community. He said the first priority was addressing the CEQA impacts, including doing a better job of addressing the eastern area of the subdivision to protect the Pismo clarkia and CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 10 lessen the direct impact; looking further at the riparian wetlands and habitat, particularly at the western end of the subdivision, and the potential impacts to natural springs in the area; addressing the issue of slope stability; and addressing potential impacts to oak trees at the northern and eastern areas of the subdivision. He commented that when there is eventually a project that addresses the issues he is concerned with, there would likely still be a need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He said he would need to offset that with the proposed enhancements that the project is bringing forth. He said he was pleased with what was being proposed; however, he referred to the water well and inquired who would be responsible to construct the well and the infrastructure necessary to transport the water to Rancho Grande Park, as well as what the cost would be. He also spoke of water conservation measures and suggested connecting a dual plumbing system to the homes that are being proposed. He agreed that the houses presented in concept seem too large and that if the area is constrained because of its environmental concerns, he suggested a different concept of housing model that is less intrusive. He encouraged the applicant to move fonvard to revise the project and come back with a revised proposal, and supported either continuing the item or denying the project without prejudice. Mayor Pro Tem Costello stated that he liked some of the proposed enhancements as it relates to the riparian corridor and doing some restoration to an area that has been damaged. He stated he would like to see the required setback for all buildings in this project; expressed concerns about the serious impacts to the Pismo clarkia habitat and noted that there have not been any studies that show any success in the restoration or transplanting of Pismo clarkia; would prefer to see the 5-year Pismo clarkia study completed before taking any Pismo clarkia from the site; expressed concern to oak tree impacts on several lots; expressed concern about building on slopes greater than 20%; referred to several lots that directly impact Pismo clarkia and riparian habitat. He stated he would like to see a project come back that avoids the environmental areas that would be impacted. He supported denying the project without prejudice or continuing the item so it can come back with a different configuration. Mayor Ferrara commentsd on the proposed preliminary riparian wetland mitigation plan and noted that relying on the involvement of certain State agencies such as Fish 8 Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife for permitting and ongoing monitoring purposes is not realistic. He also noted that some of the strategies in the mitigation plan have merit; however, he expressed concern as to the degree to which they can be implemented on this site. He acknowledged the many site constraints such as drainage, riparian wetland, oak woodland, Pismo clarkia, setback, and slope and expressed concern about the proposed lots that involve Class I impacts and sensitive areas. He concluded by acknowledging this project falls under the 1990 General Plan; he noted that all the subsequent discussions and meetings have examined and reexamined the impacts that exist on this particular site; and the Council had looked at all the facts that had been generated to determine what would work on the site. He stated he did not support the project as proposed and would support denying the project without prejudice. He said consideration must be given to all the facts that have been brought forward. Mayor Pro Tem Costello moved to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande denying without prejudice approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001 (otherwise known as Tract 1998), Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001, and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 01-002 located at James Way and La Canada. Council Member Arnold seconded the motion. CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2005 PAGE 11 Council Member Dickens acknowledged the motion; however, he asked if the motion was appropriate based on all the feedback that was provided to the applicant. City Attorney Carmel stated it was within the Council's discretion to adopt the subject Resolution; however, there was so much additional material discussed tonight and so many additional findings made by the Council that he recommended the Council direct staff to incorporate some of the additional findings that were made into the Resolution. He stated some of the findings made tonight were not included in the proposed Resolution. Staff recommended the Council take tentative action to deny the project without prejudice and direct staff to bring back a supporting Resolution consistent with the Council's directio� for adoption at a future meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Costello amended his motion to include directing staff to incorporate the additional findings that the Council made into the Resolution and bringing the Resolution back to the Council for formal adoption at the next meeting. Council Member Arnold seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of GovernmentslSan Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Brisco/Halcyon interchange project continues to be a priority and discussion was held on how to advance the funding cycle. (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Encouraged Council Members to take a tour of the plant. (3) Other. Continuing to attend Zone 1/1A meetings and taskforce meetings; discussed work plan and alternative study for flood mitigation. b. MAYOR PRO TEM JOE COSTELLO: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. No report. (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report. (3) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). APCD is working at the appropriate level in terms of the use of their budget and use of the revenue. APCD has a significant increase in the amount of funds that are available for the Carl Moyer grant. APCD will be looking at measures dealing with the issue of global warming and how it affects APCD operations. (4) Fire Oversight Committee. No report. (5) Other. None. c. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1) South County Area Transit(SCAT). No report. (2) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (3) Other. None. d. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE: (1) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). No report. (2) Other. None. CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE2 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS None. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council/Board Member Guthrie moved, and Council/Board Member Arnold seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.n., with the recommended courses of action. City Attorney Carmel read the title of the Resolution in Item 8.j. as follows: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001 (otherwise known as Tract 1998), Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001, and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 01-002 Located at James Way and La Canada". The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Costello 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period November 16, 2005 through November 30, 2005. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of October 25, 2005 as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Acceptance of the Redevelopment Agency's (RDA) Annual Financial Reports [COUNCIURDA]. Action: Received and filed the Redevelopment Agency's respective Annual Financial Reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. 8.d. Consideration of Annual Financial Report— Fiscal Year 2004-05 Receipt and Use of Water and Sewer Development Fees. Action: Received and filed the annual report of the receipt and use of water and sewer development impact fees and charges, in compliance with Government Code Section 66013. 8.e. Consideration of Resolution Accepting the Status Report on Project Development Impact Fees (AB 1600). Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3889 accepting the status report on the receipt and use of Project Development Impact Fees (AB 1600) during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. 8.f. Consideretion of Approval of an Open Space Easement Agreement for Tract 2676. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3890 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an Open Space Easement Agreement for Tract 2616. 8.g. Consideration of Disposal of Surplus Bicycles. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3891 declaring the listed bicycles as surplus for donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs Office to be refurbished and donated to needy children. 8.h. Consideration to Approve Final Tract Map 2539 Subdividing Two (2) .49-Acre Parcels into Twelve(12) Parcels Located at 185 and 187 Brisco Road. Action: Approved Final Tract Map 2539, subdividing two (2) .49-acre parcels into twelve (12) parcels. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 3 8.i. Consideration to Approve Final Parcel Map AG 03-0071; Subdividing One(1) Parcel into Four(4) Parcels at 231 Corbett Canyon Road. Action: Approved Parcel Map AG 03-0071, subdividing 1.96 acres into four(4) paroels. 8.j. Consideretion of a Resolution Denying Vesting Tentative Trect Map and Planned Unit Development (Case No. 01-001), to Subdivide a 26.9-Acre Property into Twenty-One (21) Residential Lots and a Twenty-Two (22) Permanently Preserved Open Space Parcel. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3892 Denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001 (otherwise known as Tract 1998), Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001, and Lot Line Adjustment Case No. 01-002 Located at James Way and La Canada. 8.k. Consideration of Determination of Industrial Disability. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3893 determining that Police Officer Erin Taylor suffers from an industrial disability. 8.1. Consideration of Salary Adjustments for Management Employees. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3894 approving a salary adjustment for the position of Chief of Police for FY 2005-06 in the Management Salary Classifications. 8.m. Consideration of Confirmation of Appointment of New Chief of Police. Action: Confirmed the appointment of new Chief of Police. 8.n. Consideration of the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Progrem (STIP) Funding Projects. Action: 1) Approved the projects to be submitted to San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) for competitive funding consideration in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); 2) Approved the adjustments to the City's projects to be funded with Urban State Highway Account (USHA) funds); 3) Adopted Resolution No. 3895 declaring the Council's interest in obtaining 2006 STIP funding and local match commitment for the proposed projects; and 4) Directed staff to forward the Resolution to SLOCOG for funding consideration. City Manager Adams referred to the Council's approval of Item 8.m., the confirmation of appointment of new Chief of Police, and introduced Tony Aeilts as the new Chief of Police effective January 9, 2006. Mr. Aeilts briefly addressed and thanked the Council, staff, and the community. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Review Case No. OS-006; Community Sports Center; Five Cities Community Service Foundation; Location - 400 West Branch Street. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council 1) review the Pre-Application and provide input to the applicant regarding the design of the proposed facility; 2) provide consensus support for the concept of the proposed facility contingent upon Brisco/Halcyon — Highway 101 Interchange improvements being underway prior to construction of the facility and establishment of an endowment to fund projected operational and maintenance expenses. Fred Sweenev, representing Five Cities Community Service Foundation, gave a presentation on the proposed multi-purpose community center which would offer programs and classes for all ages; would provide a benefit to the City; would be available for City sponsored activities; and ATTACHMENT1c Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday,April 10, 2007 8.g. Consideration of Funding Request from Destination Imaginatio Action: Approve a $500 contribution to the Destination Imaginati Global Competition teams. 8.h. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 10. .060(b) of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 586 as follows: "AN RD/NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE A ND/NG SECTION 10.08.060.6. OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE." 8.i. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance A nding Section 2.28.050D of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Allow t Senior Advisory Commission, by Resolution, to Adopt Rules and Regulation to Govern Meetings. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 587 as Ilows: "AN ORD/NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO RANDE AMEND/NG SECTION 2.28.050.D. OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICI L CODE REGARD/NG THE MEETINGS OF THE SEN/OR ADVISORY COMMISS N." 8.f. Consideration of Amendments Standards for West Brench Street Special Event Ban ners. Recommended Action: Ado a Resolution Approving Standards for Special Event Banners for Community Bas Events." Council Member Fellows expre�ed concerns with eliminating the requirement for a ten-day interval between displaying baStFiers since banners could be displayed on a permanent basis with no gap between special e�ents. He also expressed concern with changing the restriction on the amount of time banners ay be displayed before an event and suggested that the 30 day requirement be changed to 0 days. Brief discussion ensued regarding the frequency of special events, whether the Arch' ctural Review Committee had reviewed the proposed changes, and staff time involved with F�enging the banners. Action: Council Merr�ber Fellows moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC/ OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL EVENT ANNERS FOR COMMUNITY BASED EVENTS", with the modification that banners may be isplayed for no more than 20 days prior to an event and 7 days afterward. Council Membe Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT• None 9. PU IC HEARINGS None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM 10.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Case No. 06-009; Revised Project Description for Vesting Tentative Tract Map/PUD Case No. 01-007 to Subdivide a 26.6 Acre Property into Seventeen (17) Lots and One Permanently Preserved Open Space Lot Located at James Way and La Canada. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday,April 10, 2007 Associate Planner Theresa McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council provide preliminary comments on a revised project description for the project; and approve a contract amendment for the preparation of an addendum to the Revised Final Subsequent Environment Impact Report (RFSEIR) by Rincon Consultants. Dennis Law, representing Castlerock Development, explained that the applicanPs goals were to present a revised project design concept for Tract 1998 based on findings made by the City Council in Resolution 3892; and to obtain constructive and productive feedback from the Council, staff, and the public. He displayed a vicinity map that highlighted the project area; gave a brief review of the project history; reviewed the original project objective and design and subsequent modifications to the original project design; and presented the current revised project concept for 17 residential units. He listed the benefits of the redesigned project including a reduction in the impact to riparian habitat, avoidance of impacts to Pismo clarkia, expansion of the wildlife corridor; and a reduction in woodland impact. Jason Tvra, representing Castlerock Development, reviewed the current project design; gave an overview of the site topography by section; displayed the RFSEIR Habitat Map which depicted the various habitat types located on the site; explained the habitat ranking analysis; described the proposed lot sizes, design and configuration; described proposed roads and emergency access points; reviewed the preliminary grading design and proposed drainage plan, and reviewed the site constraints map. He concluded by reviewing the benefits of the proposed redesign, which he stated strives to achieve a balance between the RFSEIR mitigations, the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, and the project objectives. Council Members asked questions of the applicant concerning the avoidance of steep slopes; the type of retaining walls proposed; filtering of run-off water from the development; whether the proposed RFSEIR Addendum should be noticed and circulated for public review; clarifications regarding the location and width of the emergency access road and its intended use as a pedestrian trail; how the projecYs drainage plan would address slope erosion and sediment control; whether the Oak tree on lot 2 could be retained; and clarification regarding property owned by the applicant on Noyes Road as it relates to transfer of density and alternatives identified in the project RFSEIR. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Robert Brownson, Asilo, referred to the history of the proposed project and acknowledged the revised project design and the mitigation of negative environmental impacts, including the avoidance of the Pismo clarkia plant species. However, he expressed serious concerns with remaining negative impacts to the Oak woodlands with the removal of sixty Oak trees, which he said results in a CEQA Class I significant and unavoidable impact to biological resources. He stated wildlife habitat would be negatively impacted by the loss of the tree canopy, as well as by the introduction of noise, light, and pedestrians. He suggested that the applicant consider removing lots 13 and 14 from the plan to preserve the Oak woodland and enhance the wildlife. He noted that lots 15, 16, & 17 also abut the Oak woodland; and noted that runoff from impervious surfaces would cause erosion along the creek banks and sedimentation in Meadow Creek. He stated that the proposal violates the required 50-foot setback in some riparian areas; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday,Apri110, 2007 supported the removal of the eucalyptus grove and the planting of improved riparian habitat; and expressed concerns about the erosive soil and steep hillsides. He stated that although he was impressed by the applicanYs progress, the remaining impacts need to be eliminated or corrected before the proposal could move forward. Vic Bealer, Easy Street, expressed concern regarding the number of Oak trees proposed to be removed; stated it was the wrong density as compared to the adjacent properties; expressed concern about who would be responsible for maintaining the area between the back of the lots and the eastern property line; stated that lots 8— 13 were inappropriate as they are too high for the surrounding area and will impact views; stated that the proposed emergency access road is unacceptable; and requested that the land be kept pristine in perpetuity. He further stated that some of the lots are too steep for any grading or development. Anna Unkovich, Asilo, commented that at one time the developer tried to trade the property for the park property at the top of James Way; commented on the importance of preserving trees; and requested that the developer work with some environmental group to protect this property in perpetuity. She also requested that the RFSEIR Addendum be released for public review and comment. She noted the long history of the project and requested the Council make a decision in the best interest of the community to protect the area. Joel Couser, Asilo, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He expressed concerns about human/visual impacts, noting that the project does not fit the area and the elevations of the lots would require steep retaining wal Is to terrace up the hill. Doua Tait, Asilo, noted his conflict of interest as a member of the Planning Commission; however, he was speaking to the Council only as a citizen. He stated the RFSEIR dated February 2004 had a habitat definition plan that differs from the preliminary tree plan regarding the extent of Pismo clarkia and requested this be further reviewed. He referred to the constraints map and noted jurisdictional drainage constraints that traverse the site from east to west in the northern portion of the property. He said that portions of lots 3 — 17 and the fire access road impact these jurisdictional drainages. He referred to mitigation measure B-2A of the Draft Supplemental EIR that recommended a span bridge instead of a culvert as a preferred structure for preserving Meadow Creek as a wildlife corridor. With regard to Oak tree removal and impacts, he stated this project changes the habitat and diversity of the Oak woodland. He asked the Council to revisit impacts to Oaks and transplantation as mitigation. He stated that the proposal does not avoid slopes greater than 20%; opposed the use of a Homeowners Association to monitor long-term protection of the environment; inquired whether the fire emergency access road/trail would be used only as a pedestrian trail and whether equestrians would be allowed; expressed concerns about impacts to Pismo clarkia habitat; and asked that the 2007 RFSEIR Addendum be circulated for public review and comment. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: — Had positive reaction to initial review of revised project which seems to avoid a lot of the sensitive areas that need protection; — When detailed project comes forvvard, will be looking closely at steep slopes - what type of retaining walls will be used, what they look like, and how visible they are; — Likes that the project avoids the lower area where the Pismo clarkia habitat is located; — Does not want to see mature Oak trees removed; must carefully review which ones are targeted for removal; acknowledged difficulty in transplanting Oak trees; Minutes:City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday,April 10, 2007 — Need to honor 50-foot creek setback for riparian area; — Concerned about impacts to wildlife corridor; — Does not want to rely on a Homeowners Association for monitoring enforcement; — Requested clarification be provided regarding Pismo clarkia maps; — Will evaluate this project based on its merits and the environmental considerations for this site; does not see any direct connection between trading impacts on one area for impacts on another area; — Proposed project is an improvement. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: — Had positive reaction to initial review of revised project; primary environmental impacts (Pismo clarkia and riparian) are greatly improved from previous proposal; — Concerned about requiring enforcement by a Homeowners Association; need a third party with expertise to maintain and improve the riparian area; — Concerned about slopes and terraced retaining walls; — Concerned about drainage plan; need to be very specific in future in order to evaluate project appropriately; — Not clear whether proposal includes two-story buildings; if so, need to see good elevations; — Need to reconcile multiple Pismo clarkia maps and reports; — Less concerned about removal of trees; represents about 2% of the trees on the entire site; — Need to clarify whether the proposed fire emergency access road has been reviewed and approved by the City; — Concerned about the cumulative reduction in the wildlife corridor; need to determine impacts to wildlife movement; — Has major concerns about drainage and slope; will review carefully when detailed project comes forward. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: — Has made numerous visits to the site and done homework; — Impressed with reduction in number of homes; although he acknowledged there were still many site constraints; — Concerned with differences in Pismo clarkia maps; needs to be checked into; — Appreciates that the road has been narrowed in some places to avoid trees; — Supports emergency access road; — Concerned with top two cul-de-sac lots as they are too steep; too much grading; and removal of two large Oak trees; — Lot 2 is in the riparian area buffer; — Lot 1 Oaks; consider retaining the three trunk Oak tree (#2433); — Cutting down or removing Oak trees should be avoided as much as possible; has issue with lots 11, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 6 as far as trees that should be avoided; specifically, Lots 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have Oaks on or near the property line and could be easily avoided; tree #9734 is at the edge of the emergency access road and could be avoided; tree #9719 is on the edge of Blossom Valley Road. — Supports removal of eucalyptus trees to protect and avoid destruction of the Oak woodland and to eliminate a fire hazard; — The well on the property should be given to the City for irrigation purposes; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday,April 10, 2007 — Replace barbed wire fence requested by neighboring resident (located above Oak tree #9479); — Need to use a bridge instead of a culvert; — The Homeowners Association must hire a consultant for monitoring. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following com ments: — Encouraged with revised plan; issues are not insurmountable; — Concerned with Lot 1 as it relates to the number of mature trees on the lot and suggested removing Lot 1 from the plan; — Drainage issues are significant; need to capture runoff from the project — will need more than a siltation filter; — Does not see link between this development and the Noyes Road property; — Agrees that a bridge is far better than a culvert to minimize impact to the creek; — Supports circulation of the RFSEIR Addendum for public review and comment; — Slopes and retaining walls can be done effectively; referred to Lots 12 & 13 and how walls would appear from a distance; landscape buffers could be used; — Suggested some kind of visual buffer between Lots 3 through 11 and the estate lots on Easy Street; — Supports development in this area; project has been moved away from Pismo clarkia and the wetlands; — Does not like to see Oak trees removed and supports saving as many as possible, particularly along the edge of the site; however, there is a minimal impact and it is offset by the avoidance of the P ismo clarkia; — Wants to see the riparian and wetland enhancement plan brought back; — Would like to see the on-site well reactivated and given to the City to help mitigate the impact to the City's water system. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: — Emphasized importance of concerns relating to the slope ratio; need to minimize the project impact to the natural contour of the hills; concerned about the size and intrusiveness of a retaining wal I network; — Realignment of the emergency road access lessens impact to wetlands and habitat and avoids impact to Pismo clarkia; — Supports option for a bridge instead of a culvert; — Concerned about drainage; referred to City's restrictive policy regarding development in and around creek systems; bio-filters need to be installed; noted that steep slope development creates rapid run-off and erosion; — Need clarification regarding Pismo clarkia impacts; — Supports circulation of RFSEIR Addendum for public review and comment; — Use of Homeowners Association for monitoring and enforcement is not plausible; need to find betterway; — Need to minimize Oak tree impacts; — Agrees there is no nexus between this project and any future Noyes Road project. Mayor Ferrara invited the applicant to ask questions based on the Council's comments. Minutes:City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday,April 10, 2007 Dennis Law expressed appreciation for the specific comments, which could be used to address the Council's concerns. He explained that they focused on presenting a conceptual design and less on specifics of the environmental, as the Addendum would address those issues. He supported public review of the Addendum; explained that the enhancement concept for the riparian area is to use the enhancement plan that is in the current Addendum as a starting place; explained that the exclusion of the eucalyptus trees is a part of that plan; stated that the prior plan had specific mechanisms to address siltation and pollutants from street run-off and that the goal is to incorporate the same kind of design concepts in a drainage plan that addresses concerns expressed by the Council. Jason Tvra responded to issues raised concerning the slopes and indicated they would retum with better depictions; noted that the emergency access road had been discussed at length with former Chief Fibich; noted that building heights and conceptual elevations are based on the RFSEIR requirements (50% of the roof shall not exceed 16 feet in height); and confirmed that a secondary evaluation of the entire property had occurred as it relates to Pismo clarkia. Council Member Guthrie clarified concerns relating to slopes and grading and requested the applicant look at alternatives to avoid the types of retaining walis used in a neighboring development and finding a solution that would fit into the natural environment as close as possible. Dennis Law clarified that the applicant does not see a nexus to the Noyes Road property, and is presenting the proposed project on its own merits. Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback with regard to the proposed project. City Attorney Carmel noted that a minor amendment was needed to the Addendum contract in response to circulating the Addendum for public review. He said the scope of work needs to include the consultanYs response to public comments in an amount not to exceed $4,000. Action: Council Member Costello moved to approve a contract amendment for the preparation of Addendum No. 2 to the previously certified Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report by Rincon Consultants, as amended to include a component for response to public comments. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. ATTACHMENT1d PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 • In respect to the variance findings - older lot re small and many are not standard so size is not a compelling reason to ow the Variance. • Concern that allowing this variance an educing the setback may set a precedence — she cannot make the findi for the variance. Keen: • When looking down the street and sualize the 10 ft setback, you need to take into consideration that that the etback starts from the property line and the property line is over 5 ft from street, so this sets back the house further than you may think it to be. • He does not think the var' nce would give any special privileges to this property and he would be willing approve this.variance. Commissioner Marshall ade a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen to recommend to City Cou il approval of a partial variance, to be no less than 25 percent at10 ft. for no more an 20 ft along the front street-yard setback, and adopt the Resolution. The motion faile n the following roll call vote: AYES: ommissioners Marshall and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Barneich and Tait ABSENT• Chair Ray 7:05 . The ommission took a 10 minute break. this time Commissioner Tait recused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of mterest in Item II.C. C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01- 001; APPLICANT CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION - NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA Associate Planner, Teresa McClish, presented the staff report for consideration of a revised application to subdivide a 26.9 acre parcel in the Rancho Grande Planned Development District into 15 clustered single-family residential lots and one 22-acre permanently preserved open space parcel. Ms. McClish then went over the history of the project to bring the public and Commission up-to-date and then gave details of the revised project design, explaining that many of the impacts had been avoided or reduced by clustering the units outside of the Pismo Clarkia area and the majority of the riparian corridor. In addition, the applicant has revised the engineered grading design to move away from terraced flat pads to a design of custom lots proposed for custom home design after the infrastructure has been put in place (in answer to concerns expressed at the last City Council consideration of the project). Ms. McClish then gave details of the Design Manual and the requirements for homeowners and Home Owners Association (HOA). She gave details of the final PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 Design Manual explaining that it would return to ARC for final approval as would each home design; additions to the CC&R's had been made regarding water conservation, fuel modification, drainage and open space requirements (for the open space parcel); revised emergency access routes; a mandated trail connection through the site; a proposed alternate emergency access (easement) through lots 2 & 3 connecting to the Easy Street neighborhoods. Ms. McClish then explained the remaining issues for the site and the proposed enhancements and stated that through studies it had been found that there were many different site constraints that had dictated the design of the present proposal. The 2nd Addendum to the EIR was prepared in relation to the project after the project had been revised. John Rickenbach, Rincon Consultants, gave the history of the environmental review for the proposed project and stated that the Revised Final Subsequent EIR was certified in April 2004; the addendum to the EIR was circulated and comments were responded to; this project no longer has a Class 1 impact so it does not have the same mitigation measures included in the prior document, and does not include a Statement of Overriding Considerations Ms McClish then described the preliminary tree plan (included in the packet) and concluded by stating that the applicant is now proposing to plant 44 trees for the 11 oak trees to be removed in addition to transplanted trees. She then discussed slopes and slope stability concerns, explaining how the project stays away from much of the sloped terrain of the site, although as proposed it will require filling of a gulley onsite that will modify slopes that are existing currently. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that staff is recommending the Commission review the Addendum and recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 01-001 as conditioned and including a mitigation monitoring plan contained therein. The Commission fielded questions to staff and John Rickenbach regarding the emergency access, riparian enhancement plan, the oak tree replacement and how the gulley was being evaluated. Mr. Rickenbach agreed that portions of lots 7 & 8 could be included in Table 2 for slope impacts. Ms. McClish clarified items included in Exhibit "B" and stated that Condition No. 18 could be modified to include a wall height of four feet as specified in the Design Manual; Condition No. 24, Alt "A" is preferred regarding the HOA. Condition No. 36 may be modified for use of the well during project improvement as follows: "Prior to final map approval, the City Council must authorize any change in the use of the on-site water well and the County Health Department approval is required for any well abandonmenUconversion. The applicant shall be entitled to use the water well for construction or irrigation purposes until offered for dedication on the final map or other instrument." Condition No. 42 would be corrected to state "span culvert'; Condition No. 44 would be clarified by modifying the language to state that the sidewalk is on the northeasterly side of the street; it was also noted that Condition No. 14 & 15 had been duplicated. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 In regard to concerns expressed by Commissioner Barneich that the gulley is rich in plants and that the oak trees appear to be very old, Mr. Rickenbach explained that in general this is an area that does not have an elevated level of protection for issues identified in the EIR though there may be jurisdictional issues; Mr. Devens commented on the four-foot wall requirement; regarding Lot 12 there is space between the trees to get a driveway and the house may need to be pushed further into the comer; regarding the constraints with respect to building these houses, the alternative would be to stair step and grade the entire lot, make flat pads and either build or sell the lot; this proposal would enable all the improvements to be included, but the specific homes would be designed with the particular lot slope in accordance with the Design Manual specifying the character intended for this development; Mr. Devens explained storm water runoff from the site, the drainage system that the applicant has designed; and he does not see a problem. Vice Chair Keen opened the hearing for public comment. Dennis Law, attorney for Castlerock Development, went over the history of the project addressing some of the concerns expressed. He stated that the HOA would be the best means to address enforcement of the mitigation measures and that as drafted the City would have the right to enforce them also; the set-up for the current project would be the same as Tract 1997, property owners will be able to come up with their own designs, the key being property disclosures to home buyers; water all mitigated for in 1991 by Castlerock. In addition this project will be subject to City neutralization fees; we are also providing the well on the property to the City and this will provide 50-60 acre feet per year (the project will utilize 7-10 Acre-ft.). Lot 1 is where the well is located and the unsightly tanks should be removed. In conclusion, he stated that the State mandates that the Community must provide housing and there has to be good cause to reduce density. David Wolf, biologist for the project, gave an overview of both the proposed Mitigation and the Enhancement Plan to achieve restoration goals for the site. In reply to a question from Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Wolf stated that in his opinion the gulley does not appear to be the result of an ongoing drainage connection that appears there and there is a small area that potentially may be considered jurisdictional. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the impacts of sediment from the gulley to Meadow Creek, Mr. Wolf stated that the gulley contribution probably is not significant and the erosion from the impacted area of Eucalyptus trees is more of a concern; regarding the occurrences of Pismo Clarkia; in addition, Mr. Wolf stated that Pismo Clarkia is an edge species and likes the fringe of the oaks. Jason Tyra then showed views of the proposed development from a number of different angles using a computer model. Dave Ragan, Arborist, clarified how they would be able to preserve the roots of a specific oak identified as impacted, and assured the Commissioners that the impacts PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 from grading would not affect the other oaks; using local acorns is not critical, but there are enough oaks that are bought at nurseries that have done well. From his experience 15 gallon oaks are not a good idea, but trees planted from deep tube-rooted seedlings will be stronger and bigger. Patrick Smith, 641 Asilo, stated two concerns, 1) the proposed dense cluster of minimal sized lots is entirely out of character with the surrounding properties and the General Plan, 2) the accountability and long term financing that will allow the development of this sensitive area needs to be better defined before being recommended. Further concerns were expressed regarding the small lots, steep grades, building restrictions in the area, required setbacks. The proposal is far too sketchy and incomplete at this time to recommend approval to the City Council. Mary Ann Otter, 641 Asilo, stated concerns with staff report and is not in agreement that this proposal fits the character of the area due to small lots; 7200 sq. ft. cannot accommodate a large house. Due to the fact that they will be custom homes all thaYs being built here is a road and infrastructure - no actual houses are being designed. Inconsistencies regarding Castlerock's letter, CR33 and CR8 conflict; CR36 11 re MM 32 conflict; CR3712, MM H3A the developer is asking for it to be deleted and this is an important drainage control issue and needs to be resolved; CR36 MM G4, why was the soils analysis not already done; how will the HOA be maintained with only 15 home owners, especially in the future; the houses should be predefined so as to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; approval of this plan is designed like a "pig in a poke" and needs more definition before approval. Don Dirskse, 637 Asilo, stated there is an environmental issue that has not been answered by the Castlerock, Rincon, or staff regarding the disappearance of a ground spring and the mysterious installation of a drain line on the southeast corner of Tract 1998 (starting thru the proposed lot #10), it may have diverted spring water from the wetlands as stated by Rincon in their report; Feb 2004; why was the drain line installed and was it not properly permitted by the City and purposely installed to reduce the wetland areas and reduce or eliminate Class 1 impacts; this is a huge concern for this project and no answers have been provided. Anna Unkovitch, 637 Asilo, after 10 years of parenting this land the environmental concerns of this site have not been addressed; concerns still exist that mature oaks are being destroyed, the Pismo Clarkia and the riparian areas are being invaded setbacks not honored and now we have slope issues and a gulley being filled; she asked that the Commission hold firm on the protections that have already been established for future generations. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon Way, staffs and Castlerock's answers to his questions: • Mr. Devens explained that the pipes had been removed by Castlerock and the City worked with another property owner to rectify the discharge PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 • Mr. Devens stated the fill dirt for the gulley would be timed with the commencement of grading and soil would have to be found for this purpose. • Mr. Ragan gave the dimensions of the deep tube-rooted seedlings and stated that he was pleasantly surprised the oaks came back at the Hampton Inn as they did get attacked by the Oak Bark Beetle in the early stage of growth; the box sizes that were planted were on the small size. • Mr. Tyra explained that Tract 1997, 1994 and 1132 were all custom home developments, Rancho Grande homes (in the PD area) are primarily custom homes; Tract 1834 was the only area that was a Tract development—the homes were sold with the property. Mr. Law addressed the issue of the capped pipes and stated that they were illegal and then addressed the issue of siltation stating that there will be erosion control during construction and the lots would be stabilized with vegetation until the houses are built. Vic Beeler, 565 Easy Street, stated that his neighbor's drain line was not illegal, but that Castlerock put in an illegal drain to stop the run off into the gulley; the gulley is a huge hole and where are they going to get the dirt to fill it; height limits are a concern on the property next to his and it looks as if they could be worked right into his view; there should be no two-story's; the houses will be built on stilts with each one trying to go higher than the next; he does not believe the lots will be sold to private individuals. Vice Chair Keen closed the hearing for public comment. 9:45 a.m. The Commission took a five-minute break. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the meeting past the 10:00 p.m. until a conclusion of the item being discussed; the motion passed on a 3/0 voice vote. In reply to a question from Commission Barneich regarding the idea that the houses may be built on stilts, Ms. McClish said it was more likely stem walls with landscape buffers would be the style. Mr. Devens stated that one idea might be to partially bury a portion of the story on the high side of the property and a then have a portion of the wall on the low side. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the grade of the lots, Mr. Rickenbach agreed that if the gulley gets filled none of the lots would exceed 20%. In reply to a question from Commissioner Barneich regarding the drainage pipes, Ms. McClish explained that drainage from offsite property had been coming onto the property and the applicant had been trying to deal with it; staff and County Health had been concerned as the quality of the water is poor (similar to leach line quality), but to conclude, this has now been taken care of. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 In reply to Commissioner Marshall regarding the individual lots that would be sold, Ms. McClish explained that prospective buyers of individual lots are required to be made aware of the conditions of approval, the CC&R's, the Draft Design Manual, the Mitigation Monitoring and Recording Plan; in addition the design of homes would be required to be approved by the Communiry Development Director with a recommendation from the ARC. In reply to a question from Commissioner Keen, Ms. McClish stated that after review of the Design Manual yesterday the ARC recommended approval of it and requested the final come back and with the condition that they review the homes. In conclusion, Ms. McClish stated that clustering of the lots and the grading plan is in direct response to some City Council comments in prior review. Commission Comments: Marshall: • He is now involved after this project has been through a lot, but that is the advantage of coming in late as many concerns have been addressed; the basic step of getting rid of Class 1 impacts is a huge improvement and extremely important; it is not possible to prevent this site from being developed. • He is concerned about the community's lack of favorable perception of the proposal for a lot sales subdivision development as this is routine in the County and this one will have more constraints upon the individual homes on a builder; the Design Manual should address any concerns. . He is minimally comfortable with the grading of the site as proposed, but he is not opposed to it. • The computer generated 3-D model is very good and he felt assured that public views around this project are sufficiently protected with this proposal. Barneich: • Given the constraints of the project iYs a very tough to develop, she appreciates the fact that it has come a long way and a lot of work has gone into it; she appreciates that the applicant has now reduced the amount of units as the prior proposals were outrageous. • She is struggling to approve this project, but she knows that some homes will be built here; all the mitigations measures sound great on paper, but she finds it hard to believe that all these will be followed and that all will go as planned. • She feels that the 15 home project is barely getting by; could we do better, she is not sure, but she still is concerned about how the custom homes will fit in with all the constraints. • She likes the riparian enhancement plan and the work that has gone into it; she appreciates the Pismo Clarkia avoidance and that there are no Class 1 impacts. • There are fewer houses — that is good; she likes the extension of the pedestrian path and that it will link across up to La Canada. . She likes the idea of transplanting smaller oaks, but not sure if they will survive. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 • She does not like the filling in of the gulley; she is not confident this is the right thing to do and what impact it will have in the future; lot 2 is still in the riparian habitat so maybe this needs to go away. • She does not like the removal of the large and extremely healthy oak trees in the gulley. Keen: • He is impressed that the Class 1 impacts have been avoided. • The project has progressed a lot since he was first associated with it over the years. • Over the years the whole process was to reduce the number of impacts, make lots smaller and cluster them and get them out of the impacted areas, and now the public comments are that the lots need to be bigger, they need to be spread out over the property so we are going backwards to what originally brought us to where we are today. . Putting custom homes on these lots is really necessary because the constraints for each lot will be different and with the Design Guidelines the builder will design for the constraints on each property. • He is in favor of filling the gulley as it gives a place to build this cluster of houses without impacting the Pismo Clarkia and riparian habitat. • The HOA should be modified to reflect the conditions of approval in the Resolution. • He is in favor of changing the size of the oak required in the mitigations as it is more evident that the smaller trees do better. • The drainage line that is behind houses on the south side of the property is a good way to remove the drainage that will accumulate. . The City needs to investigate if they can use the well and how much treatment the water would need to make it feasible for use. The Commission and staff had a discussion on lot 2, the constraints, and the fact that only the lot line infringes on the 50-foot buffer. In conclusion, after review of the constraint map, Mr. Law stated that the 50-foot buffer from the wetland and riparian area only just touches the corner of lot 2. Ms. McClish stated that it is better to keep the property line outside of the buffer. Ms. McClish then went over the Commission's requested modifications to conditions: Commissioner Barneich suggested some changes to the tree mitigation as follows: • Change the condition to specify that "IcSCally raised seedlings in deep root tubes" is used in place of the 15 gallon trees. • Tree #1128 to be preserved if determined feasible by Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Department. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 12 MINUTES MAY 6, 2008 Commissioner Marshall made a motion, sewnded by Vice Chair Keen, to recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map & Planned Unit Development 01-001, the CEQA findings updated to reflect the condition modifications as follows: • Exhibit 'B", condition of approval #18 note the 4ft. wall height requirement. . Condition #24 regarding bonding requirements and the functioning HOA: Keep Alternative "A" and to read the same up to the question marks then add language to state the CC&R's shall include a provision, subject to City Attorney approval, requiring that the developer maintain common area including designated open space, until the HOA includes a minimum of eight property owners. The developer shall fully bond for said maintenance obligation; remove Alternative "B", regarding the maintenance district. • Condition #27 which includes the tree mitigation plan can be reworded so that the mitigation focuses more on smaller trees. • Condition #36 regarding the well, the applicant shall be able to use water for construction and irrigation prior to dedication to the City. • Condition #42, note that the culvert is a clear span culvert (not a box culvert). • Condition #44, note that the sidewalks are on the 24-foot portion on the northeasterly side. • Delete condition #15 as this is a duplicate of condition #14. • Modify the mitigation plan to require locally raised seedlings in deep root tubes instead of 15 gallon trees; update CEQA findings to address this. • Preserve tree #1128 as determined by Public Works and Parks & Recreation Department, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 08-2064 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001 LOCATED AT JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Marshall and Vice Chair Keen NOES: Commissioner Barneich ABSENT: Chair Ray the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 6w day of May, 2008. ` . � `""'"�'� ATTACHMENT " THE MEADQWS _ _ _ _ � _ RANCHO GRANDE PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED e«eYa �,.oae _ c.iuo�ni. ALSO AVAILABLE AT CITY �'' ( HALL ; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP � TRACT 1998 1 � Project Description � � , Decembex 2007 J , � . U — – -- - Casderock Development, a Califomia Corpozation _______--- – 202 H3 Tank Fazxn Road f1I San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 u Phone: (805) 54G-8100 FAX: (805) 549-8419 �� Email: admin@casderockdevelopment.com _ � 1 . . � r , ; � � �,a� ��.� � ` � �x a �a � #�� / �°� �� o � �� + �.� �`+� � � �" � �� c� � � � �> � � '"^`, '�a 4 �^° L� dY t t es 'e" ``'� �,.'�,''sc+. '� @ � 'w ii Q / / AiY[Y�x K � VR J,s�"� ikw sfj�3.�,ry1�,i � q � � ,i��'r,/ � ��_ `cgg:�� c� �y � � z Y r� � �+ ��"� ,j ��,9 �Ma�.. C � Y. � t s� ,� � .}, ��.,��.F at a,��ek � d � �� sY . a � b v��,y a�** 's�'�' :� .w y 'n aG, �, °` � & x �� n.'b �'gd� °�ea e�� +'^a.r+�a`w�� '"A�`�` � "-� �a �.��'� t,�z��t,. , �k��a�'� «�.:. �'sx4�;: ,��F��,';�s��r oa�,�.��.?^��s�a��','��, k� �# �C >�� s� j'� �'r 'b.+3 S. 4"'�' 3`s �� 5F'.M{`.�+[3 ��'Gr �.i�� ^`'r e^ e t �` � � . � ' �� ,» F '�, a.. C - rn �.� � v a b S�' , , :, t x s � e'�s�'t� �, a . . c" '�b� u - �- s � w� � *`: 'p" ��' £ `�c'E�. u�''Y'� �?"'' � �..� b`�';�z '^,r ' Ea�4�a 7`} +�7�k d,,.� a ��..Y *��k < �� '�.�w`g,w,� k'`,', �ss '"++ ?,'��',� s» �u� " Lc'k r�L ��'�'p-�a�'.a '�.. .�"t�"��"�M # YY�� e ��-' � "� �s fr b�" f 1� 3`4 aa„-.� �l �",e Ch�'�xA Xa t' .-� e�y 4' �o- �',p •a �"F �'P� 5' �'i��'"��,��,r '*-�it . g'� ��f' �ls G k b , � i��.e E� ../'"� �...+ `�� '�� y".'.. i9'{� �y$ y# s' .�)�j�,� �^re' C'.2, 1' �� s N� *a s� � �. $y �s5 �`y�.'`x`gc*�� . ,xi�` *, t�. w. "'u'''�, ' . �" , ^ 4 M "" �`�'y�`i: "*"" i, �. �` 4 _ W w`'F' � 3 le ' 21�' y, '°� M1` �, *� bu�. T 4 s`� r g � � l , y s. tir �``� . M ce � �: -b ,s,T°" q -*``� �-gg y ��.,� s.p�u� �, g. ia. ta 'F a U- V, as . .�l �k 9 ,f�i '� �.� '�'� �`�.��'F '� a t f..'s � °��3�`"� &� b c�' « ,� �+a� t� a� � �sy. ,r u��rrl ;^% y„e7F � � eI t `* #a ;y eer � '� . y �,. £ � y ia a a'i.M � .'€.+ 9� 4;.# <s � , � '� ,� . k �` ��; ��'�t'�X"ot,�. �� " ua "e �� yv; S� n �s �r•a ''� a,+2 �� ti il .,�.�'�� c��;33�,.��rt �` ': �. �° y '� ,. � �« .o-� .. ,a ,� 'q� a� � ,�«n�,�„»` ` � .; �a '��' s�:� r �+ .��,� „8 •�a�., '�',y ��r +4�� 4oS.� °` x r �.0 �� w1+� ,�.�aBs. �r 4 '..ae�` +! 'M:' �x _,� k � a v Y. 'la u- c� ,F f F,�. .'� ��k# < .r u ��y �?^ � ih d , � �� . �;�i � ,; �„�y� • �'.t '�"�r a « ' �-. . '� fi +.`S ,wr? M�," ,�. #F n x µ k 'I�;s M ,� � - 4 a, °j� w , F 4V i€ jA"� ea a..,F "� �, `. � y� � °�t'� � � ,b �`. '�t St xar s- .. :� ..4"t #1 * Y st a ,e w� °'-'��k.t �"' r� q . Y il y v ti N ..�,y.�^-�'��,�°?�.rr��s.v'�'�+g°�" " °�r �'�. M' �kRk�af '� y *S";,�+.e,�. .� �i t� i1 {� fi Y +�T 'i �+t.s� �,.*.�.�'. yl� W 4iN'+yi f°3 ti�?�', R � �� • �i � � I � � � ,s . � i ' � ATTACHMENT3 Applicant Responses to City Council's Findings Tract 1998 Arroyo Grande, California March 27, 2007 Castlerock Development offers the following responses to the findings made by the City Council on December 13, 2005, Resolution No. 3892 as reflected in the revised project design submitted for review. Note: Council's findings are note in italics. Tentative Tract Map Findings for denial: Finding: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is inconsistent with the goa/s, objectives, policies, plans programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General P/an (1990) in that development and improvements are proposed adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats; spec�cally over half of the proposed lots intrude in the required 50 foot riparian buffer area, some in close proximity to the top of the creek bank for East Fork of Meadow Creek, which does not adequately mitigate direct and cumulative impacts to biological resources specified in the certified SE/R, and which consequently is contrary to the requirements set forth in the implementation measures for Bio/ogical Resources in the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 5.2, a copy of which is attached here to as Exhibit "A" Response: With the exception of Lot 2, all of the proposed lots have been reconfigured and moved outside of the 50-foot riparian buffer area, as defined by the FSEIR. Lots 1 and 2 are located between La Canada and the riparian boundary, with Lot 2 being the only lot that appears to (possibly) encroach upon the 50 foot buffer zone. However, it is important to keep in mind that the 50 foot setback as defined in the FSEIR is twice the distance of the City's standard creek setback of 25 feet. Consequently the Lots are also no longer within close proximity to the top of the creek bank for the east fork of Meadow Creek. The issues noted in the General Plan Section 5.2 per Exhibit A are proposed to be addressed through the use of landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, fencing and natural barriers. Finding: 2. The site, as shown on the tentative tract map, is not physically suitable for the type and proposed density because the development is not c/ustered in such a way that allows for all necessary easements, roadways, parking, and improvements without a suitable deviation from requirements set forth in the SE/R; and failure to incorporate to the fullest extent feasible, adequate mitigation measures specifically, development is proposed direct/y upon areas ident�ed as habitat for the Federally-listed Endangered and State-listed Rare p/ant species Pismo clarkia, and furthermore, additional development is proposed with the required setbacks from identified Pismo c/arkia habitat; development is a/so upon identified riparian and wetland setback areas; and proposed development does not avoid slopes greater than 20%, which without mitigation, remain significant impacts that cause damage to degradation of documented and important biological resources associated with the East Fork of Meadow Creek and Pismo clarkia and which are integral to maintain public health and we/fare. Response: The density of the project has been further reduced from 21 proposed lots to 17, specifically for the purpose of addressing the requirements of all necessary easements, roadways, parking, and improvements. The reduced number of lots requires less road development, resulting in even more available space for these requirements. In addition, clustering of the Lots utilizing minimum lot sizing reduces development impacts even further. It has been expressed by City Council during previous meetings that smaller, clustered lots were preferred. Relocation of the lots and the minimization of street widths, where permitted by Public Works, have allowed the occurrences of Pismo clarkia to be avoided. Impacts to areas of wetlands have also been avoided to the extent feasible. Fresh emergent wetlands directly adjacent to the East Fork of Meadow Creek have been avoided; however some seasonal wetlands may be impacted along the drainage on the northeast slope of the property. These areas of wetland impacts will most likely require some form of mitigation, as directed by Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impact to the Valley Foothill Riparian primarily occurs at the road crossing of Blossom Valley Road. This crossing location was selected based on an analysis and ranking of the habitat by a qualified biologist. The area of the crossing is dominated by existing Eucalyptus trees that are overpowering and degrading the growth of native species. The Agency required mitigation efforts as result of the crossing would enhance this area of the riparian habitat and permit the re-growth and advancement of the native species. The geotechnical reviews included in the EIR each conclude that through proper geotechnical engineering and civil engineering design, including the use of drainage swales, subsurface drainage structures and erosion control techniques (BMPs), that construction on steeper slopes can be achieved with minimal impact to erosion. The redesign of the project has relocated lots predominantly to slopes of less than 20% grade. Only portions of Lots 13 and 14 slightly encroach into steeper slopes where engineered retaining walis have been proposed to be constructed. Slope impacts are further mitigated as recommended by the geotechnical reports by the inclusion of swales at the top of the cut slopes and the installation of subsurface cutoff drains. Additionally, the grading plan for Lot 13 further mitigates slope impacts by grading the lot to as much as 20% on the building site. Any residence on Lot 13 would have to be designed to the fit the sloping profile of the lot. This reduces the need for cut slopes and site retaining walls. Primarily under the proposed road, and also Lots 12 and 13, there are periodic occurrences of incised slopes encountered along the existing eroded drainage that is to be over-excavated and reconstructed with engineered fill in accordance with geotechnical engineering recommendations and requirements. Finding: 3. The design of the tentative tract map and/or the proposed improvements are like/y to cause substantial damage to the natural environment, including fish, wildlife or their habitat, the potential impacts have not been adequately mitigated to the extent feasib/e and a Statement of Overriding Considerations can not be made for all remaining significant impacts; specifically, the resulting impacts to biological resources are not reduced to a level that is considered less than significant due to the proposed intensity of development and improvements (including areas in the vicinity of proposed/ots 9, 20 and 21 that impacts identified wetlands, in the vicinity of proposed lots 3, 8, 18 and 19 impacting the riparian corridor, in the vicinity the westerly portion of proposed Blossom Valley Road and the vicinity of proposed lots 18, 19 and 20 that are with in and adjacent to identified Pismo clarkia habitat); particularly a Statement of Overriding Considerations can not be made to override impacts to Pismo clarkia, for which, according to expert testimony provided during the public hearings by both the City's consu/tant and the applicanPs biological consu/tant, scientific evidence does not exist for proven mitigation measures associated with the protection of the plant species, except for avoidance of the identified unique Pismo clarkia habitat, and which is not achieved by the proposed project. Additionally, a substantia/number of oak trees are impacted and the project does not in corporate adequate measures such as road design features or locating development or infrastructure that would reduce impacts to oak trees (shown to be approximately one hundred seventy impacted trees total), particularly in the vicinity of the northernmost section of Blossom Valley Road and in the vicinity of the proposed lots 3 and 17. Furthermore, the projecYs provisions for the essential long-term protection of the environment through the requirements of, and reliance upon, a Homeowners Association, even with the additional enforcement provisions, or maintenance district, are speculative and have not been demonstrated to be adequate. Response: The reduction and relocation of lots and the minimization of street widths where permitted by Public Works have allowed the occurrences of Pismo clarkia to be avoided. The clustering and relocation of lots, the revised alignment of Blossom Valley Road and the reduction in street widths have significantly minimized impacts to the Oak tree population. The trees identified as impacted are primarily non-contiguous with the existing oak woodland canopy. Impacts to trees have been reduced to approximately sixty-one oak trees of which thirty-three are to be removed and the remaining twenty- eight are to be transplanted and relocated on to the site. This in turn would result in a minimum of approximately one hundred thirty-three mitigation oak tree plantings to be placed on site, consisting of a mix of fifteen-gallon and one-gallon oaks. Planned Unit Development Findings Finding: 1. The proposed p/anned unit development is not consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan (1990) in that development and improvements are proposed upon or immediately adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats and are therefore contrary to the requirements set forth in the interpretation measures for Biological Resources in the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 5.2, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" RESPONSE: Reduction and reconfiguration of the proposed lots and road removes the majority of development from areas identified as riparian or as other biologically sensitive habitats. Finding: 2. That the site for the proposed development is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking area, loading areas, roadways, landscaping, and other features required for the reasons as described in the above findings for the Tentative Tract Map. Response: The reduction in the density of the project provides additional space and allows for flexibility in project design as necessary to accommodate the use, yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking area, loading areas, roadways, landscaping, and other features required for the project. Finding: 3. That the improvements required, and the manner of development, does not adequate/y address all natura/and manmade hazards associated with the proposed deve/opment and the project site, including, but not limited to slope hazards. Specifically, impacts to geologic resources due are not reduced to a leve/that is considered/ess than significant due to the proposed development and improvements in the vicinity of lot 17 that impact slopes greater than 20%. Response: The geotechnical reviews included in the EIR each conclude that through proper geotechnical engineering and civil engineering design, including the use of drainage swales, subsurFace drainage structures and erosion control techniques (BMPs), that construction on steeper slopes can be achieved with minimal impact to erosion. The redesign of the project has relocated lots predominantly to slopes of less than 20% grade. Only portions of Lots 13 and 14 slightly encroach into steeper slopes where engineered retaining walis have been proposed to be constructed. Slope impacts are further mitigated as recommended by the geotechnical reports by the inclusion of swales at the top of the cut slopes and the installation of subsurface cutoff drains. Additionally, the grading plan for Lot 13 further mitigates slope impacts by grading the lot to as much as 20% on the building site. Any residence on Lot 13 would have to be designed to the fit the sloping profile of the lot. This reduces the need for cut slopes and site retaining walls. Primarily under the proposed road, and also Lots 12 and 13, there are periodic occurrences of incised slopes encountered along the existing eroded drainage that is to be over-excavated and reconstructed with engineered fill in accordance with geotechnical engineering recommendations and requirements. Required CEQA Findings: Finding: 1. Changes or a/tematives have not been incorporated into the project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effects as identified in the FSE/R and Addendum; specifically, Impacts B-2, 8-3, B-4, G-4 and the cumulative impact to biological resouroes. Response: The revised lots for Tract 1998 have gone through extensive evaluation and re-design, keeping in mind project objectives and City Council's concerns. The resulting lot reduction from twenty-one to seventeen and the re-alignment of Blossom Valley Road has significantly reduced impacts to the project environment. The following table provides a summary comparison of the total anticipated biological impacts since the original project design reviewed in the certified FSEIR. The current project proposed produces approximately a 49% overall reduction of environmental impacts and a 126% increase in the total open space. 36 Units—2003 21 Units—2005 17 Units—2006 Im acted Items acres im acted acres im acted acres im acted Wetland - Seasonal 0.106 0.411 0.205 Wetland — Fresh Emer ent 0.004 0.000 0.000 Coastal Oak / Pismo clarkia 0.569 0.058 0.000 Valle Foothill Ri arian Ri arian —Willow 0.139 0.002 0.000 Ri arian — Oak 0.072 0.230 0.000 Ri arian — Eucal tus 0.069 0.090 0.080 Coastal Oak Woodland 3.240 0.464 0.135 ------- ------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------- Overall size Overall size Overall size acrea e acrea e acrea e O en S ace Preserved 17.31 19.32 21.90 Impacts to steep slopes have been significantly reduced with the lessening and relocation of lots. Large cut slopes have been avoided and retaining walls used only where needed to protect existing slopes or to save trees. The area identified as having a potential for liquefaction has also been avoided. As summarized in the geotechnical engineering reports in the FSEIR and the Addendum, a project that is properly engineered making use of recommended erosion control measures and the proper implementation of drainage structures soils on this site are suitable for construction. As erosion is the primary concern for steep slopes on this particular site, it is important to note that main cause of the natural erosion and sediment contribution to the East Fork of Meadow Creek is the existin eroded drainage course located on the northeast portion of the site This revised design creates a beneficial impact by capturing and controlling the water that otherwise washes down this drainage, thereby removing it as a source of erosion and sediment. This is done while maintaining the historical flow pattern of the water to the existing wetlands adjacent to the East Fork of Meadow Creek. The concerns for erosion and sediment control are further mitigated by the implementation of an engineered drainage system that includes surface drains, drainage swales, subsurFace drainage structures and a sediment trap type structure. This site is further protected from impacting Meadow Creek downstream by passing drainage through the existing retardation basin along James Way, which operates with the purpose of slowing and controlling runoff from not only Tract 1998, but also Tracts 1997, 1994, 1834 and the upstream watershed areas. The basin was designed to control the maximum flow into Meadow Creek so as to be equal to or less than existing flows that occurred prior to development of the Rancho Grande Subdivision. ARC Notes ATTACHMENT 4 August 9, 2004 0 50 years is not that old. ThaYs not the div' when determining whefher to survey roperty ror poss�p�e rus�vncd� significance. o To be historical, a home should ha significant architectural character. o HRC members would need to ow CEQA and Secretary of the Interior Guidelines and Standards. o ARC felt public comment ould be helpful in making the decision. At this point, they felt there ere three different parties with three different viewpoints. They Id like additional information and requested that all committee memb s be present for the final decision. o It was reques d that Ms. Koch find out the process for removal of a property fro a local register in other cities. Ms. Koch will research. No action w s taken on this item. It is continued to the meeting of September 13, 2004. F. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT VTTM/PUD 04-001; APPLICANT — Castlerock Development; REPRESENTATIVE — Dean Coker; LOCATION — La Canada Road The project was presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. This is a review of the New Development and Design Standards specific to this proposal for a 21-unit subdivision and clustering of homes at NE intersection of James Way and La Canada Road. This project was decreased from 36 to 21 units to meet mitigation measures, primarily due to presence of Pismo Clarkia. The site has considerable slope constraints. The applicant proposes to build all units and has submitted design criteria to ensure homes are built to certain standards. Initially submitted are conceptual drawings of two homes, as well as proposed landscape information. There is proposed to be a design committee that reviews homes in comparison to the guidelines. Staff will also review them, and if there are any deviations, the Community Development Director will have to make a decision and it will be referred to ARC. Staff is looking for feedback on the Design Guidelines, specifically in regards to proposed minimum and maximum building sizes, massing, colors and design process. Maximum building size is proposed as proportionate to the size of the lot and the proposed minimum size guarantees a certain building size, even if there are constraints on a lot. Also, there are some statements regarding placement of homes and general principles of guidelines, on which staff is looking for feedback. Dean Coker mentioned their Operations Manager, Jason Tyra, couldn't attend today, but Larry Borillo is the co-architect and Christine Cote-Rogers compiled the material for the Design Guidelines. He expects another meeting with everyone, but hopes this will give some direction. The minimum lot size was carried forward from tracts in Rancho Grande. ARC Notes Pe9e � August 9, 2004 Larry Borillo, Architect, said their general approach is to continue the character of Rancho Grande in general. He's not familiar with the origins of the character of Rancho Grande, but he wanted certain styling, materials and colors, which would be consistent. He brought in a sampling of some of the colors and materials that should be consistent with Rancho Grande. They would stay away from Mediterranean and keep more with Craftsman. Coloring would be in mostly natural tones. Probably there will be concrete roofing, but if they got into asphalt roofing, it would be in earth tones. If there's any siding, it would be more of an accent. Stucco would be the primary building material. The ARC had the following comments and questions: o The plans look similar to other homes nearby, but larger? Yes, they are now proposing two-story, as well as single-story houses. Conceptual plan three is narrower and there will be some narrower plans. o Would you end up with one of any certain floorplans and several variations? Yes. o Is there reference to trees onsite? Ms. McClish answered yes, they have a free survey and mitigafion measures, including considerable tree removal and relocation. Mr. Coker exp/ained one drawing he described as an "lan McHargian analysis" They're trying to position buildings in areas away from Pismo Clarkia and oaks, as best they can. About 67—70% of the site will not be developed at all and will be put into an open space easement of some sort. There's in excess of 1300 trees on site, and abouf 102 are impacted in some way— transplanted or lost. Almost 30 are trees that have grown to a size where mitigation is required since they submitted their application. o Is there still some debate about the setbacks that would affect the environment and animal passageways? Ms. McClish answered that an EIR was prepared for fhe whole project. Required setbacks include riparian buffers or buffers for Pismo `C/arkia. ARC can include a condition that this project comes back for another review of design once everything has been resolved with lot layouts. Christine noted most of fhese Design Standards are redundant of the nearby tracts that have a/ready been approved. Mr. Coker added that Castlerock is amenable to meeting again for additional review time and to add ideas for the design process. o Design and color schemes have worked out well in adjacent tracts. o Chuck Fellows voiced concern that homeowners haven't kept to water constraints in landscaping. o How "currenY' are the proposed colors and materials? Jamie Ohlerreplied they're all fairly common and this is what everyone is using. He would like to see each house designed for each lot. Mr. Borillo commented that when they come up with different plans, they will look at specific things like massing or the shape of the footprint. For examp/e, there are going to be lots where for whatever reason, two stories may not work, so they'll do a one-story house. Ms. McClish added this isnY a typica/ tract, due to the ARC Notes Page 8 August 9, 2004 clustering of houses. Mr. Coker added that the clustering effect with potentia/ for different landscaping and different sorts of buildings has added new potential for this area, instead of becoming a t�adifiona/tract. o Should certain lots match current buildings on Rosemary Court? Mr. Borillo showed examples of what is in Design Guidelines that wou/d work as far as materia/s and design. Mr. Coker added that this area dips quickly and rooflines will barely be seen from the road. • Melanie Hodges continued that variety is the spice of life, so long as iYs not outrageous (like geo-domes or a-frames). Through the years, we get different types of architecture and often right next to each other. • Jamie Ohler agreed that some variation is good. Overall, as far as the document, it looks pretty standard. There's nothing glaring. He understands what Chuck said as far as volume and quantity of material, but he has no problem with it from vegetation to planning to fines for indiscretions. o Please describe the style of fencing. It will be split rail in front and six foot wood fencing in back. Mr. Coker showed photos of similar fencing from another project. o Will the buffer area go into private property, or will property owners have access to those sensitive areas? Ms. McClish replied the sensitive area next to properfy lines will be fenced off. There will be educational materials and signs regarding this and the HOA pays for monitoring. Mr. Coker added that there are retaining walls which in conjunction with fencing will preclude people from going into open areas. IYs almost a comp/ete barrier. o Do they plan to remove all eucalyptus trees? Mr. Coker has hired FIRMA to coordinate that and make recommendations concerning riparian enhancement. o They need to use something other than styrofoam under stucco siding. Mr. Borrillo answered they are starting to use lathe altemative. o ARC would like to see each plan come back through. A motion was made by Jamie Ohler and seconded by Melanie Hodges to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-001/ Planned Unit Development 01- 001 Design Manual, Concept Plans, Standards and Exceptions, with the conditions 1)that each plan come back for approval and 2)design guidelines come back for approval, once map has been approved by Planning Commission and City Council. Motion approved: 3/0 voice vote. ARC NOTES MAY 5,2008 PAGE 6 D. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-001 and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001; APPLICANT — CASTLEROCK DEVELOPMENT; REPRESENTATIVE �IASON TYRA; LOCATION — NORTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA AND JAMES WAY. Associate Planner Teresa McClish presented the staff report. She gave some history of the project, including site restraints and previous site layouts. She described the currently proposed layout and neighboring properties and connections. There are now 15 proposed residential lots, guided by a design process similar to other portions of Rancho Grande. The houses are now proposed as custom (instead of tract) homes. The applicants are looking for input on overall site design and particular architectural features in the Design Manual. ARC had the following questions: • Will individual homes come back to ARC for review? Yes. • What recommendations are needed now from ARC? Review the Design Manual. This is largely copied from other Rancho Grande areas. This design manual reflects FAR similar to other residential districts (limited at 35%). Another design constraint is the proportion of floor area between second stories and ground Floors. . What portion is not taken from other approved plans? Those two secfions (on FAR and second story limit), p/us Condition of Approval (COA) setbacks on page 9. These setbacks are more generous to allow for siting given slopes and oaks. o Also the building size is more conservative (pg. 12) than the previous version. o Attachmenf 1, "Project Submittal'; shows smal/er sloped lots submitted for this project than in other areas. . What about Viewshed Reviews? The EIR and addendum looked af impacfs from public vanfage points, inc/uding Blossom Valley Road and La Canada and James Way. The applicant also prepared some modeling from several public and private vantage points, as included in the packet. • Mr. Peachey disclosed that his office prepared these models. • Chair Hoag noted the residences probably won't be seen from public viewpoints, since the area is dropped down below street level grade. The viewshed concern would be more between adjacent neighbors. The Asilo neighborhood is very concerned with viewing fhe project. • Three main things are setbacks, building size and building height. There are some design changes due to the reconstructed gul/y (except lot 1). Drainage from natura/ areas wil/ be separated from drainage on lots and the street area, s/owed, and filtered through wet/ands to the creek and then to the regional drainage basin. o Regarding p/anting and landscape requirements: (page 22) they have water conservation requirements. The focus is water e�ciency, so lawns are still allowed, but limited. Jason Tyra, Castlerock representative, noted the biggest change is from the terraced tract homes to sloped custom homes concept. He discussed how they dealt with ARC NOTES MAY 5,2008 PAGE 7 challenging environmental issues like the creek crossing, the Creek Enhancement Program, and design around the oak trees. Don Ritter, planning consultant, commented that this was part of the Rancho Grande Master Plan. This piece had an original potential for forty homes prior to environmental studies, but has been changed several times to avoid impacts, most recently in response to the April City Council meeting's list of concems. The design is for custom homes. They based this manual on other Rancho Grande design manuals, with additional site specific information that builders and future homeowners will need to know, and with updated City information since the original Design Manual was created in the mid-1990's. ARC had the following comments: . Hoag o With this design, are there any more class 1 impacts? No, they've been reduced to class 2. ■ He appreciated their efforts to remove them all. ■ There are two amenities left over from the previous project where they were trying to win approval. • 1. There's a better riparian mitigation plan, with a more comprehensive approach. . 2. They needed a separate fire access since there's a long cul de sac. They also needed a trail to connect (per the Rancho Grande Master Plan). So, they were conditioned to build the access road off site to connect. • Peachey o Does this have its own HOA? We looked at a/ternatives inc/uding an HOA or a maintenance district, (but it will be the HOA) and they will share wifh contributions to manage the drainage basin. o The height condition is very new. An architect would have to do a topo on top of the roof to design to that requirement. IYs different than anything required by the County. ThaYs fo make sure the second story is smaller than the bottom. o The footprint can't exceed 35°/a? The FAR. o How do they comply with city density requirements? They are within al/owed density and the homeowners are resfricfed in their CC&R's that specify no further subdivision due to environmental constraints. Roger Frederickson moved and Terry Moore seconded recommendation of approval of the Design Manual for TTM 01-001 and PUD 01-001 to the Planning Commission with the following conditions: . The final Design Manual shall be reviewed by ARC for final approval. • Individual houses shall be reviewed by ARC for recommendation to the Community Development Director. Motion approved: 4/0 voice vote. ATTACHMENTS U �E�EIVED MAY 0 6 2008 Dave's Tree Service 625 Jameson Court ��F�� Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 �� (805)4$1-1038 Apri125,2008 Mr.7ason Tyra Castlerock Development 202 H3 Tank Fazm Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Tract 1998 Bvaluation of Select Oaks for Transplanting The 11 Coast Live Oaks, Quercus agrifolia, scheduled for transplanting in Tract I998. The data contained in this report is from the most recent site visit of Apri124,2008.The current size,condition and suitability for transplanting aze noted. Transplanting is a viable option. I believe all the oaks can be moved successfully with the possible exaeprion of 1128. Tree 1128 is growing on the top edge of a gully and it may be difficult to box a root ball large enough to sustain this oak. It may be feasible,based on the preliminary grading plan,to implement a small landscape wall on the downhill side of tlus oak. This would allow the oak to remain in place, According to E. B. Himelick and the American National Standards InsYitute, l2"of mot ball should be dug per inch of h-unk diameter on trees with a dbh over&". The dbh on eight of the oaks is less than 8". The other 3 are between 7.2"and 8.4"in diameter at 4.5' above grade. Trees 9633, 9664, 9735, 9745, 9746,9747,9749 and 9750 could be moved with the tree spade that you currently own. The loader mounted, Stevens Tree Spade Mode175 which is capable of taking a 75" diameter plug. Trees 1128, 9630 and 9737 would have to be boxed or moved with a larger tree spade. Tree 1128 is growing on the top edge of a gully.It may be difficult to box an adequately sized root ball. Soil depth should be physically checked prior to the transplanting.There were no rock outcroppings visible. The oaks should be watered to a depth of 4'wiUun 1-2 weeks of transplanting. Tree# DBH Canopy Leaf Size Shoot Condition Comments Bensit Leaf Color Growth 1128 8.4" 65% Normal 3"-4" Good Recommend small landscape wall Difficult to move 9630 7.2" 60°/a Normal 2"-6" Fair Included bark in 2lower rimaries 9633 2.7" 50% Medium 2"-3" Fair Growing on top edge of Li t swale 9664 3.8" 40% Normal 2"-3" Fair 9735 5.9" 75% Normal 3"-4" Fair DBH measuxed @ 49.5" Many small,dead twigs thmu hout cano 9737 8.3" 40% Normal 3"-6" Fair 9745 3.4" 3S%- Large Fair Suppressed beneath lazgex 40% Normal oak on SW side.2"a trunk removed at base old cut). 9746 3.7" 50% Large 1"-4" Fair Suppressed on SW side. Normal Included bark in primary 2.5' above ade 9747 3.4" 25% Variable 1"-4" Poor Leaves in upper canopy are Normal large.Leaves in the lower cano are small. 9749 3.4" 20%- Normal 3"-6"+ Fair Suppressed 25% 9750 S.5" 50% Noimal 2"-6" Fair 2 saplings w/in 15"&40"of the trunk DBH Diameter at Breast Height,4.5' above gade Shoot Growth Z.ength of new growth Canopy density, leaf size and color, and shoot growth aze all used to determine condition. Literature Cited ANSI A 300(Part 6)—2005,Transplanting. Trees, Shrubs and Other Woody Plant Maintenance—Sfandard Practices Himelick, E.M. 1991.Tree and Shrub Transplanting Manual i ( � a;� Dave Ragan ISA Certified.Arborist WC-0345A . . . � May 5, 2008 To: Arroyo Grande City Planning Commission and Arroyo Grande City Council From: Don D'ukse The following is a list of my continued concerns with the latest Tract 1998 proposal: ° Why aze so many of us attentive to this project? First, many of us were promised by Kelli Shetler and Susau Clazk(Castlerock sales representatives) that the oaks and weUands were protected. Second,CasUerock has demonstrated poor stewazdship of this property by starting an unpermitted road into, and driving indiscriminately across the wetlands and the Pismo Clazkia(see attached photo). The James Way walls also evidence the developer's lack of concern for our community. ° Uniform Fire Code requires 16%maximum grade for fue trucks—the proposed building site is a 20-25%grade. How do you accommodate for this discrepancy? ° Can recycle and gazbage trucks navigate steep slopes and nazrow turnazound azeas? ° Will the emergency road outlet be protected by deed if the school property changes ownership? ° Will guest or owner parking be allowed on the narrow street?Lot sizes do not allow for large gazages. Proposed street widths and slopes make pazking difficult for any guests, or for use of service vehicles. ° Is there room for sidewalks on these narrow streets without fiuther infringement on ecological constraints? ° Will the prospective new lot owners be govemed by the new or the old General Plan as they bring theu individual custom plans to you for approval? Do you really want to deal with these exact issues I S more times? ° Where is the wildlife cortidor? Will we be killing an entire ecosystem of wetlands,oaks, Pismo Clazkia, and riparian habitat with this plan? ° Can we realistically expect any HOA to maintain fences, drainage basins, and filters,as well as to secure native protected areas from pets and people?It is likely to take yeazs to sell these tiny, steep lots. I urge you to fully deny this latest plan, as it continues to be fraught with serious infringements on every proposed lot,and of every guideline established. Sincer y, RECEIVED c��' ' �aY o� zoos � � Dirkse �m oF,vtao�ro�� Asilo coMMUNm o�iorMerrr I • ' I 1 . ' - � � � � � _ � � 1 ' � � ' ,.- . � 4. �., s�.. �+. �w. . . r .,,�z x +� • � '�. f '7� 't +, $e ')ynY,' .�' � . . . -f" Y r+h.'L'��. . . .+ . `y ,3'�,ti'-� � ' / A Y�k:.. XS ''"�_ �� s s.� • " JY � y\ Y y 'it' j ' ' V F • .\ ,�'�_ �^ f ti'• i . . j=a. 4,'.s'1 3 s-e : r � ' .. . ,� n td •' ;srC` + - . ; ti . .,, � -�j l ' :A, � '. � ' . . r - jt d:.y .y . . - . . �'i i:�'j y � .� t � . � . � . . . -.. � i�. i'�i . .. . t? . S/l�f A \ .♦ `�' . � . . .. . � k. w r �� . ,�s f� 1 :. :� t ': . i� ^ � � ��y('.� l,�i � tf�f�, �� " . �, �j �', � � �� 1i�i.�`, { � 6�,2 � ,r� f � ��L: ' � � � r `�. , '�� : � ' :: , . t � - � • k� s.�.v.� . , _ r,.. c_� •ta� � \ . . .. . £T( �� . ' ... . . � . t .� � x 1,, r1 i�.. . �� . . f �` _ , \ 5) j;'.� . - . - . ' 1 ,'. . . . . . . k 4. ;�.'y . , ' � . A �' f .. . . . . . ._[ .� .. . . / l . 4 ��4 � � i � . . 3<v ' � � e� ':/ � x . . . � ., .. . ._ . .. ' {a � s '; F� � � } . . �.. y +yQ �: . - _ � � . i� .i �. � z � - - . .� a�:. � - '� 4�F(�� ._ : �� .. . . . . . x i - � .. .- . " � ' � _ �. 'FF` , . � . �'� . - . . .. . . . ( . . ' . ' .� , � � � . . � � � 3 �:% �� y�� x � �l. ' ?. � y � e a i ' . � 1.` ' rt � � f _ � t < / jjj ! : . , � � . � � �a. 't. �r ` � a ,_ y �� . �.� � e'r'+f1 . _ ,._.� - . �� _ �.i.-�`. . �°re\��:+ � � � A , ;�_ h �. ':r5 r �L � ' ��'� ' �i $ 'd': P �j ' - � , '! � - '�' . y ' �� , a :, � r .ti .� � , .c�ra�T ��5� Y � f °;, . .. � f� �� . : _ - ` � � Ya '" = '�t . � �e� i �� . . ` � 1 ' _ . � �_ #' � ' �<� �F �F - ' �.'�� F f { A"1 � � ; I . ; ' _.e . "j . q��g � ,' r � ;rll,� ,t > ' ' a 1� �1. � �� , t ' �tl � y ; , � , �� r� ,_ _ � ,�s �' �� < n�• � o Vic Beeler RECE�D PO Box 1078 MAY 0 6 2008 Pismo Beach, CA 93448 805-481-9064 ��T May 6, 2008 Mr. Rob Strong, Community Development Director Community Development Department 214 E. Branch Street City of Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Re: P.U.D. 01-001-Project (Tract 1998) Dear Mr. Strong: In response to the latest Castlerock plan, I feel the developer has gone backward in any sensible design. In an effort to save a few weeds, animal habitat and oak trees (which the plan still removes several large oak trees) they have now taken the next route to spoil the viewshed enjoyed by the neighbors and myself. I strongly object to any ocean view loss that I may suffer due to this flawed plan. Any loss of my viewshed will be strongfy defended in the court of law against each and every homeowner that should build on these lots and attempt to block my ocean view. The City of Arroyo Grande has been very aware that a viewshed ordinance should be in place. They were aware that these situations will take place in this community and they have not acted, and more importantly may have been negligent in their lack of action. The City of Arroyo Grande should now take a stand and disallow any building wherein a neighbor's ocean view would be obstructed or compromised. The houses proposed will be competing to look over the top of each other, leaving me with a walled compound effect. This is unacceptable. The developer must limit the project to the lower elevations and reduce the number of lots. � Without taking more time let me say that I concur completely with aspects and items as introduced in the letters of Mr.Patrick Smith and Mary Anne _ ._._ , _ Otter as related to the this project. "`� � S' c rely, ic Beeler 565 Easy Street. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 �°'-�-�'ui u�` t�;e ! J �� sl/o� There is an environmental issue about this development that continues to be unanswered by the Castlerock, Rincon,and city staff— I'm referring to the disappearance of a ground spring, and the simultaneous and mysterious installation of a drain line on the southeast corner of Tract 1998. Ttris piping was placed along the fence line, starting neaz the site of proposed Lot# 10(see the red X on the attached photo), and running down to the azea of the creek. This drain may have diverted spring water from the wetlands, a concern confirmed by Rincon as stated in the revised final SEIR,dated February 2004, page 42. The installation of this line was witnessed by many who live on Asilo, and on Easy Street, and the attached photo documents this concern. Despite the fact that this has been brought up again and again,and has been brought to the attention of city staff,why have we received no answers to this disappeazance of a previously prominent spring? Why was the drain line installed? Was it properly pernutted by the city? Was it purposely installed to reduce the wedand azeas, and to thereby reduce or eliminate Class I impacts? This very serious concern potentially has a huge unpact on this project, and yet no answers have been provided. Why does this critical question continue to be ignored? Sincerely, Don Dirkse 637 Asilo White lines in this 2003 photo indicate plastic pipe going down the fence line from a ground spring (red }:i,past the construction vehicles and oaks,to the Meadow Creek. U �� ~-�/y � �// I don't think that anyone would dispute the fact that Tract 1998 is an environmental treasure. For 10 years now, we have heazd experts tes6fy to the wealth found in its oak trees, its wetlands,its Pismo Clazkia, its riparian habitat, its necessity as a wildlife corridor. Even Castlerock lauded its value when trying to trade the property for what is now the pazk at the top of the James Way hill. Over many,many meetings, issues have been brought up regarding the protection of these environmental gems . . .even the topic of who can fully protect this azea when houses aze built has been repeatedly discussed. When you are playing Monopoly, you can trade Boardwalk for Park Place. But,tlus is not a game. You can't trade 40 oak trees and a dozen Pismo Clazlda for"enhancements" somewhere else. If you have ever worked with children or cats,they keep coming at you for something they want . . . .over and over and over and over again. They feel that rules aze for everyone else, not them. Some pazents operate out of fear of losing their child's]ove, and some simply get wom out and give in. . . .but the responsible parettt holds firm because some things warrant no compromise. This past 10 yeazs feels like being a pazent to this land. The developer keeps coming back again and again and again and again. Still the plans presented have mahue oak trees being destroyed,the Pismo Clazkia and riparian areas being invaded. Setbacks azen't honored. Now, we have slope issues and the filling of the nahu�al drainage that feeds water to the wetlands to contend with. Scientists azound the world aze telling us that the very surviva!of our planet depends on the preservation ojour trees and our wetlands. (See full page, color,PG &E ad). We aze the"Tree City!" Kristen has a huge group of volunteers who regulazly plant trees throughout the city. How can we allow any cutting of trees by developers in environmentally sensitive areas such as this? Even Third World countries such as Bali build around mahue trees. This entire community benefits from and values this 26-acre forest and wetland azea. You aze the officials that aze the stewazds of the land—the parents, in a sense. You have established setbacks and niles to protect all of these heasures. We ask that you be responsible parents and that you not make your decisions out of feat, intunidation,or of being bombazded with this issue over and over and over and simply being wom out. We ask that you hold firm on the protections that you have established. This is not a game–as individuals,as a community, and as a world humanity, we can no longer compromise on the environment! And, once again, I ask that the developer consider working with our community and some possible land conservancy agencies to protect this treasure–for us, for our children, and for our children's children. . . and fot his children, and their children This land needs to be protected at ali costs! Surely, with some willingness, and a little bit of creativity, we can find a win-win solution for the developer and for our community. Anna Unkovich 637 Asilo May 20, 2008 To: Mayor Ferrara RECEIVED Mayor Pro Tem Amold Councilman Costello MAY 21 2008 Councilman Fellows �m,�� Councilman Guthrie cot�nnauNm oEVaoPM�IT Cazen Ray,Chair of Planning Commission John Keen,Vice Chair Richard Mazshall, Commissioner Kristen Barneich, Commissioner Doug Tait, Commissioner Rob Strong, Director of Community Development Teresa McClish, Associate Planner Steve Adams, City Manager From: Patrick Smith Subject: Case No. 01-001 Proposed Development of Tract 1998 I urge the Council to postpone their decision to approve or disapprove this application.A number of new issues came to light during the 6 May Planning Commission meeting--the short period of only 21 days between the Commission meeting and the 27 May Council meeting is insufScient for residents opposed to this applicarion to gather the necessary information to refute assertions made at the Commission meeting. Also, I recommend that the Council request City Staf'f pmvide adequate responses to these new concerns before a decision is made. Specifically: • Castlerock appeazs willing to agree to almost any restriction proposed regarding set-backs, retaining walls,etc., and why not? The developer is not proposing to build the homes, or if he does,he will have much greater leverage once the riparian azea is filled in and the road is built,to negotiate variances as needed. (Please keep in mind that the developer still retains the future right to build all of the homes on the proposed lots himself,which in my opinion is likely.) I submit that the Council does not have sufficient detaiLs about the proposed development to make an informed decision at this time, since all the developer is proposing to build is a road and utility access. • Unlike previous applications,this proposal"hands offl' all the responsibility for meeting building and environmental restrictions onto individual lot owners,City staff and the Planning Commission. If individual custom homes aze eventually built then the City will haue to deal with each individual lot owner on a case-by-case basis. Up to 15 sepazate architects and builders will have to be monitored for compliance with the myriad of environmental regulations and City building codes required to build in this sensitive azea. Page 1 of 3 • Commissioners appeared to accept as fact the assertion made by Castlerock spokesmen that the PUD for Tract 1998 will be"identical"to nearby Tract 1997. This statement was repeated by at least one Commissioner to rebut public concerns raised about enforcement of the unusual building standards and HOA govemance being proposed. But this statement is not true because: 1)The HOA for Tract 1997 is much lazger than the HOA will be for Tract 1998 and is not responsible maintaining a lazge riparian habitat; 2) the City Council does not need or have"Direct Right of Enforcement"over the HOA for Tract 1997 as proposed for Tract 1998; 3) and the custom home lots in Tract 1997 are significantly larger than the minimum size allowed by City Code and none of the lots in Tract 1997 approach 20 degrees of slope or impinge on a riparian habitat. Tract 1998 will be a unique and very challenging development, not business as usual, and therefore deserves more careful detailed scrutiny before it is approved. • What will the Council's"Direct Right of EnforcemenY'over the HOA entail? Is it realistic to assume that a future City Council will go so faz as force individual homeowners into foreclosure if they can't or won't ante up special assessments to fix drainage or erosion problems or pay the upkeep on the 22-acre protected open space in wluch they can't even walk their dog? If excessive nznoff occurs (as some believe it will)causing further erosion to the creek, which in turn further erodes my property that abuts the creek,can I sue the City for lack of "enforcemenY' of the drainage restrictions? I submit that the Council does not want to assume this policing and enforcement responsibility without very careful consideration of the consequences and liability. • 14 of the 15 proposed "custom" lots are very close to the minimum size allowed by City Code, about 1/6`h of an acre. (By contrast, Vic Bealer's property, directly adjacent to Tract 1998,is 2.5 acres in size.) It came out during the Commission meeting discussion that there aze significant unbuildable areas on these steeply sloped lots due to set-back and slope limitations and avoidance of oak trees. The buildable area on each proposed lot should be specified in the proposal. If restrictions reduce the buildable lot size significantly below the minimum allowed by Code,then the number of lots should be reduced to allow suitable lot sizes. • Castlerock's spokesmen stated at the meeting that this new proposal is responsive to the "Council's desire to see smaller,denser lots". My understanding is that in rejecting Castlerock's previous proposals,the Council did not recommend smaller lots,which in fact would be in direct opposition to the current nual General Plan. The unprecedented dense cluster of minimum size lots is simply an obvious attempt by Castlerock to squeeze maximum profit out of this development and not a response to Council's recommendations. This misleading statement was not rebutted at the Commission meeting. Page 2 of 3 • In my comments to the Commission, I pointed out that"stilts"might be used to cantilever the sides of the buildings facing the creek—which would be out of place and further add to the apparent height of the buildings as viewed from the West.Later in the meeting, in response to a direct question from one of the Commission members, Staff confirmed that buildings with stilts would be allowed under City Code. Are cantilevered houses supported by sfilts acceptable to the Council in this area? • The EIR states that retaining walls are limited to 4 ft in height. However, in responding to a Commissioner's question, Staff pointed out that there is essentially no height limit on"stacked"retaining walls, which are stepped back at 2 ft increments. Shouldn't there be a restriction on the overall height of "stacked" retaining walls in this development in order to avoid another "Great Wall" eyesore like on James Way? • Finally, Castlerock's computer-generated pictures of the proposed housing development appeared to impress the Commissioners. In fact Commissioner Marshall stated that he would encourage other developers to provide similaz computer-generated depictions. However, I think this simulation is potentially deceptive. Trees are depicted as simplistic opaque"lollipops"that block out the view of neazly all of the buildings. Are these simulated"trees" in actual tree locations? Are proposed replacement trees (which initially are only about 18" high)shown at full growth in 30 yeazs? What is the height of the buildings depicted (the custom homes not yet designed)? Is the height 30 ft,the maximum allowed by Code, which will very likely be the case for custom homes on such tiny lots? Did Staff attempt to validate the accuracy of the computer simulafion? Shouldn't the simulation be veri£ed and be made available to the public beforehand,as is the other materials, especially since it is the centerpiece of Castlerock's presentation? Interestingly, one pazticulaz view, quickly skipped over,suggested that the multi-story, stair-stepped structures will look just like a condominium complex,totally out of chazacter with the surrounding properties! And why weren't there any views shown from Vista? Casderock's new proposal mitigates some environmental concerns with its previous proposals,but introduces serious new concerns (most notably the proposed filling of the riparian habitat)that need to be fully explored before the Council can make an informed and fair decision. Most respec P c Smith 41 Asilo Page 3 of 3 20 May 2008 To: Mayor Ferraza Mayor Pro Tem Amold RECEIVED Councilman Costello Councilman Fellows I�AY 21 2008 Councilman Guthrie cm oF nrteovo�wwoe Cazen Ray, Chair of Planning Commission COMMUNIIV DEVELOPMENT John Keen,Vice Chair Richazd Mazshall,Commissioner Kristen Bameich, Commissioner Doug Tait, Commissioner Rob Strong, Director of Community Development Teresa McClish, Associate Planner Steve Adams, City Manager From: MaryAnn Otter Re: P.U.D. O1-001 —Castlerock's own biologist contradicts EIR assertion regazding gully Commissioner Barneich's insightful and probing questions during the 6 May Commission meeting brought to light a glaring mis-representation in the Castlerock EIR Second Addendum dated March 20081. The EIR states on Page 5: "This portion of the property contains a deeply incised erosion gully, the western edge of which begins near Lot 3 and the eastern edge of which extends beyond the eastern property line into adjacent open space. Under the second reduced density development proposal, this erosion gulley would be filled, resulting in a graded slope of less than 20% throughout this area. The erosion guliey is not a blue line drainage and likely developed due to modified runoff patterns from development of adjacent properties. This is evidenced by the expanding e�ent of the gulley toward the northwestern property line (toward existing development) through a series of eroded fingers. Filling of the qullev to allow for the qroposed development would not onlv create siopes of less than 20% but would also cut off a consistent erosion source of sediment and silt runoff that contributes directly toward Meadow Creek." NOT TRUE- according to Castlerock's own biologist(David Wolf� as he explained at the commission meeting. During the wmmission proceedings, Commissioner Barneich described her on-site visit. She said that she expected to see a deep, ugly scaz on the land (erosion gully)that was pouring silt and run-off into the creek. What she found instead was a very wide depression, (50 feet wide in some areas), fully vegetated and with mature oak trees growing in it. Page 1 of 3 Ms. Barneich questioned Castlerock's biologist(David Wolf� about this. Mr. Wolff explained that the "erosion cullv" contributes an insi�nificant amount of run-off and silt to the creek, the real source of erosion is further down the creek where the Eucalptus trees aze, with steen sandy banks that are causing the erosion . (A transcript of this exchange is attached—taken from the DVD at 1:47 Disk2.) Mr. Wo1fFs expert judgment directiv contradicts the statement in CasUerock's EIR! (Regarding the erosion gully being" a consistent erosion source of sediment and silt runoff that cont�ibutes directiv toward Meadow Creek.") Those of us who care about the health of the creek have been totally misled by Castlerock regazding what the filling in of the "erosion gully"really means. The "erosion gully" truly is a riparian habitat as shown on the maps! And does not"hurt"the creek! Mr. Wolffls testimony should cause us to step back and look more carefully at what is really being proposed regazding the "erosion gully". Castlerock's EIR states that"ev� imnin¢es on rinarian habitaP'- (That is because the gullv IS riparian habitat.) Castlerock proposes to deal with this by destroying it-therefore there would be nothing to protect. By filling in this azea,the developer does away with the inconvenient hillside ripazian azea (a.k.a. "erosion gully"). Only a corner of lot 2 is shown impinging on the (remaining) ripazian habitat closer to the creek. This is on Page 22 of the EIR: "... The same condition aqplies to the second reduced density develoqment proposal Portions of everv proposed lot fall within the current 50-foot riparian buffer zone Lots 3 throuqh 5 and 13 throuqh 15 are adiacent to a deeplv incised gullev that is identified as riparian habitat on Fiqure 6. Lots 6 through 12 are adjacent to a continuation of that riparian zone, identified as a jurisdictional drainage area. However, this erosion gulley, which is not a blue line drainage, would be filled as aart of the proiect and thus would not be subiect to the rivarian setback. Riparian impacts associated with these lots are not anticipated to be significant.° That is, the developer is saying if he destroys it,he doesn't have to protect it! Aow was it determined in the EIR that the riparian habitat(as shown on the maps, and as stated above) was not deemed worthy of preservation and t6at the developer could just cover it with landfill and build a road on it? According to Mr. Wolff, we now know that this riparian gully ("erosion gully") need not be sacrificed for the health of the creek, so that"advantage" stated in the EIR is null. I am surprised and disappointed that only Commissioner Barneich understands and questions the implications of this issue. Page 2 of 3 In fact, some of the commissioners seemed to feel sorry for Castlerock mentioning how Castlerock has had to keep coming back yeaz after year with revised plans. But this is a common strategv for developers—to buv environmentallv sensitive land for a son� and then ,year after vear weaz down the opuosition and resistance to de�radin�the environment. I understand that some Commissioners and Council Members fee] that since the developer has submitted a number of revised proposals, it is simply "time"to let the developer proceed. THIS IS NOT THE PROPER BASIS FOR THIS DECISION. Council Members are stewazds of the land. The question is "Does the CURRENT proposal protect the land's natural resources?" THE KEYSTONE FOR THIS PLAN IS FILLING IN THE RIPARIAN AREA ON THE HILLSIDE WITH LAND-FILL—AN APPALLING DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT. How can anyone concerned with preserving Arroyo Grande's "gem" status (as stated on the city's web-site) consider this acceptable? I ask the Council Members to carefully consider if it is really worth destroying a rare riparian habitat and actually increase run-off(which will h�efully be caught), in order to shoe-horn 14 tiny lots into this extremely steep hillside? Based on the Highland's experience, Castlerock has a poor track record dealing with drainage. Do we just trust that the catch-basins will work(or be sufficient)the first time there is a huge storm? And that the land-fill (which may not be built on for yeazs) will not end up in the creek?Building on this site requires state-of-the-art techniques. Having worked in the high-tech industry for 20 years, I understand that"state-of-the-art"really means you're not sure iPs going to work! Approving this plan to fill in the hillside riparian area, which so few people have seen or understand, would be an unconscionable,hostile act on the environment and should not be rushed into. Please remember that THIS WAS NOT PART OF ANY PREVIOUS PROPOSALS and has only really come to light since May 6. It is not the same plan at all. I urge every Council member to re-visit the site to examine the proposed new location and the rich habitat in the "erosion gully" and ask yourselves if destroying this riparian area is the right tlung to do for Anoyo Grande's future. MazyAnn Otter L�� (�� Page 3 of 3 Transcript re: "Does Erosion Gully affect Meadow Creek KB: I just have one more question for David Wolf£ So back to the infamous gully... Obviously Meadow Creek is important. We all know that, but is the continued success of Meadow Creek really depending a lot with us getting rid of and filling in the gully?I mean is that going to make a huge difference? Is the gully really impacting Meadow Creed that much because I did read about that it does,but I didn't see much evidence when I was up there—but it might be the wrong season. DW: I don't think the gully is the major contributor of water to Meadow Creek. KB: But silt? DW: I don't think that either because there isn't that much physical flow that comes down there(last year, I can't remember,maybe it was summer because it was wazm)we walked through there and there just wasn't a lot evidence of flow,there wasn't big slugs of sediment,it was overgrown in thickets so I don't think it is a big contributor and I think the sediment and erosion are happening in the main body of the creek where the Eucalyptus trees aze, iYs just a steep eroding sandy bank, and any flows that come down in there—obviously this is what got it to the state it is now. KB: ok, so you don't necessarily, I mean if we were living in a perfect world which we're not,you would not necessarily have to sacrifice the gully to improve Meadow Creek? DW:No... I didn't know that was the intent of all that,but I mean it is just a physical feature out there... KB:No,well I mean I did read that one of the advantages of filling in the gully would be, maybe improving Meadow Creek. DW:No, Meadow Creek- it's its own thing. The importance of the enhancements for Meadow Creek is to fix whaYs going on right there,than I think is just, you know, contributing,and I don't think that major water contribution is coming from the gully that is causing that erosion. KB: OK,thanks David. Page 1 of 2 Teresa McClish From: BobLinda [brownsonl@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:02 PM To: Teresa McClish; Teresa McClish Subject: Note from Bob Brownson May 22, 2008 Teresa McClish Associate Planner Community Development Deparhnent City of Arroyo Grande From: Robert Brownson Resident of Arroyo Grande 653 Asilo Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Deaz Teresa: Subject: An urgent request to delay any tentative approval of the proposed development of Track O1-001 at the upcoming City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 27. After neazly 10 yeazs of investigative wark and countless hours on the part of the City Council, Ciry Staff and members of the Arroyo Grande Community, it would be only fair and reasonable to ask for a delay in any decision making regarding Track 01-001 due to the"issue" of the gully that could, in fact, be a riparian wetland feeding the Blue Line Meadow Creek. Protection of Meadow Creek.looms in importance over any rush to approve the new development plan from Castlerock. In the developer's plan, that deep gully is destined to be filled to make way for houses. However, John Rickenbach of Rincon Research acknowledged during the May 6th Planning Commission meeting that the azea could be `jurisdictionally a wetland". He went on later in the meeting to aclrnowledge that it would take a professional investigative agency, such as Fish and Game or the Army Corps of Engineers, to make that determination. We urge the City Council to delay any tentative approval of a development plan for Tract O1-001 until that jurisdicrional designation has been made. IYs only fair to Meadow Creek. Cordially, Bob Brownson 5/22/2008 CASTLEROCK ATTACHMENT 6 � �� O E V E l O P M E N T May 19, 2008 Teresa McClish, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Tract 1998 — Residential Design on Narrow Lots Dear Teresa: In response to your request for additional information, please find exhibits to help communicate the potential for custom lot development within Tract 1998. Your request indicated two particular issues; first, the ability to design homes around trees and second, how homes on narrow lots could be constructed when taking into account issues like drainage and the physical relationship between the homes based on the type of structure used. To address concerns regarding the ability of future property owner's to have homes designed around trees I think it best to refer to existing examples within the immediate neighborhood. Attached are aerial images (Exhibit "A") of several homes within the neighboring development known as Las Jollas de Rancho Grande (Tract 1997). This development is a custom lot project, very similar to that proposed for Tract 1998. The lot owners relied on a Design Manual, CC&R's and a specific lot design review and approval process. As you can see from the images, lot owners encountered various design challenges from slopes to trees, again, very similar to Tract 1998. The end result is a community of unique residential designs that worked around trees and blended with the surrounding environment. As was stated by Councilman Fellows at the recent Planning Commission hearing on May 6th, developing lots for custom designs by individual property owners is very common and generally results in a more favorable end product. The construction of homes on the more narrow lots in Tract 1998 is certainly realistic but obviously will require more thought during the design process. The supporting structural system of a home could require a combination of slab-on-grade and raised foundations (stem walls), as shown in attached Exhibit "B", depending on the placement of the structure. Drainage requirements of the Design Manual could require a property owner to implement various drainage mechanisms which could include the use of swales, subsurface drains, slot drains, downspout drains and/or yard drains that conduct water to the public road. Lot specific soils engineering required by the Design Manual could require a deeper or wider below grade foundation system depending on the type of the desired structure. In the end, issues like these are not insurmountable and can be A CnliJnixia Corryarwtiarv 202 H3 Tank FBmi RD8d � San Luis ObiSpO,CA 93401 • lk.NO.730788 � (805)5<68100 + Farz(805)549-$419 achieved within the allowances of the Design Manual. Looking to the neighboring Las Jollas de Rancho Grande development we again find end result examples, as shown in Exhibit "C", where homes are in close proximity to the property line and to one another while being at different elevations. In summary, development of narrow lots is not a new concept even in a custom home type project. I think it is important to remember that the construction of homes on lots in Tract 1998 is no different than any other lot / land that can be purchased in any city and/or county. The process of purchasing a lot will be no different than any other custom lot project, such as Tract 1994 and Tract 1997 in Rancho Grande. Every piece of property has its own challenges, requirements and attractive features. The key is bringing those factors together and facilitating the land effectively while minimizing impacts, meeting requirements and achieving the desired plan. This is a process that many, many property owners have successfully navigated to build the home they desire. If you recall our recent ARC hearing, one of the ARC board members, who happens to be an architect, expressed a certain excitement at the prospect of being able to design homes in the future Tract 1998. I think you would find this attitude to be shared by most if not all of the local design firms. I hope this provides you with the information you are looking for. If I can be of any further assistance, or if you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, Jason Tyra Castlerock Development ENCLOSURES EXHIBIT A � f e:,4eE. .�� .urtv M? 'F� )51. ��! P # t� i��5�2 .. � .�. �� { ... : . - 'y��.� .y� tg-:� ' f� � L . ' .,..._. . �i ei � � �N �� =F�;, 's is:'; �� `�'�:: � ..�. 4. 'i . # " M,t�. ANDRE DRIVE-LAS JOLLAS DE RANCHO GRANDE « � � �, � 'Iliiii:"K � � i'�' �i�ta�� ..�� _ . � ' ' ... �-�. ..�. =M1 �i',:. `..". { ii � A t.- �- �i ,xr: �._,{.�.,� � ANDRE DRIVE-LAS JOLLAS DE RANCHO GRANDE 1 � � � � �� ►{ � tlt � t �i{ GARA(� t � y(4, � � GARhGE t f � � � / GARA� �o � � �/` t�� / � � m �` �c t� ,..--- o�t — _ �,.� — „^"'"". — W ! ��,.� _.�.....___M...._,_... -- .. ...---^'" �.. Q� _,_... ..- .,... � ' ��,�. ..�... ,,, __- _- . �._ 1 ��ORNNAGE'1NR(��i W�' ��T � I t0i t�t�At�.5WhLE'.. ( `��AtNS ' �,- Q � � � I- f , .r � '"��''� k� tI S�u w^a f�°�� 1 � � ""— swu�:iu+c 1 �crs� 1 � I� ' S \Cy)e � �` �,,.�- � �,.."i"� , ��'��W� j4 ' M' �` ! y"r � ��{�Y��N�r w�`...- i � . � ' . � • F , � • � E_ . $ , • , • • • , � .s , • � � � � � � ; . � � 11 1 : 1 � . f15.: hT ., ' ,P � � � � � • � _5; O • � � � � � ' ; �, : . � ;1;.;, ;. � -s.i i 'a,� xk+ �i .x� +>>xa �y crl ::'.� .�Yz w ' ti �s' �r m;�. Z �.� -� i . .s, y'v . ' � 2��'-� �c r'z � t g x r . �� a• Sr H� �i ro � �� '�3 �� c'- 1t' ��y." ^i 8.+ £ � �` ;� i > � xT �.Z-T Jr Y+ .,� f',,-� .�j ..y�� r u . y�, x � 1 j �C� .dr�v��+"F1 '�t> N`� " ��,;•,p�s�"C4xi"-^u> ;y,� .`s r pt.,�, <a, �>t L -:f�'�l�s' ..'� .ky�R��a 1 ,E�i r � �, - � gTg=�,, �� ,a �,��*c ,�5 'r �.� F t r n -+ r�� _ 2 �+ `'Y'"z��" r"� :s �'C J.�- �'�. . s "r _ �'""'. " :. .��ek'r. � :ry�� ;y` . �. 2�g,v,'.' . . - � . . ' , . ' - . . -� "` � , . -�'. . .'.f y �.Xr . " �. _ . - :�7f� _ � Ct_� e �� r ' Lt � _ 1 i, q ♦ � � -� . w� .; ! 1 � ... J� � ,� � � � �, ,' n�R xc ,, i.w '. �y. . �. > > �w�f � �,e?,s, a �r �� .�.�. 7� � � � � � �.� \ .�'� �� i°U . i� .'i .'� y 'J �y! .. �-y . v t�. .: � � T,'- � ' `'�,v n � na1 - � -`'� '�AS'/'� ,� � p3` � � � f '�"-n.1,�i�f�� p� `'!Y _� ' � e / : ��9 � -�`a. ° ��' � ��\ t/ `°'_'�'�f '_`..�y , ,I` _! �=y �,./> �1 �( ti �� - I.�Y \ y�b�� 2� � � 3 .i�L � �� 1 , i.. fY �, f r 'k � � �/ +��9 f.� 4 i �� '-.'r9'(JS .' m �� Y��v . 'E��, . ��f� r:A � !� .. �Y �-; �'K-� r� y'j<"'�e �' �V � i `� '�� i ) :. t C �.; e. + iri p ti .��.iti�` � � �.�.`,.. �^ TASo�.[.1! i .ts! . b L Y ' _ :�.- ..;fi � X s�>= l -� ' �t a. , �,�`,:'� ��4y'. ,� 8' , � "h � • 1 � � � ,; ��_ rin�un � � ' �,. �: . �.� ,5,:. va • / / � �� F �� #.. „ �X v} Y �� t . � Qi 4 ' 9 '�" !a�°'��1 i't,'-�' , . � y R x,�V� W .,+�:: . � . , ., � � �°�j� i.�r� '•f�e� z -o*a`.o'3'3.'�C'�°��.taF,'Rc x �Y r '� "" tan ; ' : : ., � ee 'e }� " �� °"�r�"° .J�'�`t'�r i:Y. 4� Ra F`!s'" r . � � . � ;�;�. • • �-�� • - � 4� �b M N =,� r',?x:� ,e... . �, p .• .. ... e . I ' • ' • 1 � • � • � � / � 1 / � � / � 1 • • • • , � • • `�� • s� � � , � � � 1 ' � �� . k�' i Po� '.�. f = ' -i . . . . m .� " �ly... � . . � v�..,�,j�Ttj h � � ti . y yY��y3� ' �'. � � � - �� _��JaL J _� � . � ` �y d �� i+ �4 ? : , �5 µ ,a yy ��N _- .i�X� . � � �� ; � f i'�i ..f. ��'.!^� � �1 ,�.1 S��yti 4 S „. � .� i. .� 'Y .�,�.j sf�;�+ay,r . e E 'S � r �+3 ' *`,,,p! . 14� h.. .� Y� � - � �p�'*��' 'i1 ;� � �"`` "�`4^4 + ��: F^�`'± � ' � r ^ .. �� T � +?"' � �� ,� .e': � r .. � ' e� r . r ' �•yy � t r S�# . .� �. � � � � 4 ;� , 's ,� ° ��. . � � �Nr � ' S � P ; E�� ) _� i � • �p �� 1Y�1 ! ..�! �.1 �� 1� � _ ` "" '� 4.1L �' � 4 �i• J� a (�t� s'. � . � �� '` ' ' � A'" � r e i�".! .�. .r,� y.Ki.�� i�. �r : � . . ��.�w�� -.r �4a r f'sf K� �1�'L � 1 � '�'�� ✓s'�� a` r �. ti ��,-� �' - t �� f � . �( R v �q��Y 4 J X` ��pY.t/{� q�3.� ��Yr�� 1 � �y LR9�� .+s - � ' �' �U' '�x 3-�••19��✓.,�{,�i i� }�� r z��'�'wsy'!°'A �i,y"`J�`�! �.�'x�' � �� y�� Ilr I i . ri r` 5.�, ✓� � �i. �� i��a� � � ro•f� � �4 �ksF� '�'�I �V '' � �r�- +� W �1 y 1 �tr � ,r� '� � .+� r.dy trt+� Z '�`�'`f' '. '3'7�c�. � f.f fi>l�+. � ::"��. s� r�' � FJ xi 5M ��_�lv k {�� `sY.��rt�y' :.n � � �> �_. '� �ry � `�' f ... ilY� _# �(t� ,i,, r� j r 2 .1f "�. i�;S ��r"v�l�! ,�YJyn� f , � ,1i , . ` \ �� .�/`i'J*v�� +�441 /9� ��1�� i�J :1 V��4 ., 1� . 1 1 � � � i � � �S r I ' I 1 :�i�::, .�.�a � 1 1 1 � ' .�'S+�',�:. I ' / I ,�L��:� ��0� 'u-`;. 1 1 ;� � �„� 's. , 11 : X .�� „> .�..,,,ec . �..� � � . . � ,, ':. s + - w �F�„=. Ves6ng Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses COMMENTS and RESPONSES qTTACHMENT 7� A. INTRODUCTION In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Arroyo Grande, as the lead agency,has reviewed the comments received on the Second Addendum to the Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report(Second Addendum to the RFSEIR) for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D. O1-001 and has prepared written responses to the comments received. The Second Addendum to the KFSEIR was circulated for a 43-day public review period that began March 25,2008 and concluded on May 6,2008. The comment letters included herein were submitted by five private citizens and the applicant. Each comment on the Second Addendum to the RFSEIR that the City received is included in this section. Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commentors and to indicate where and how the Second Addendum addresses pertinent environmental issues. The Revised Final Subsequent EIR,First Addendum, Draft Second Addendum,and this Comments and Responses section collectively comprise the Final Second Addendum to the RFSEIR for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D. 01-001. Any changes made to the text of the Draft Second Addendum correcting information, data or intent, other than minor typographical corrections or minor changes, are noted in the Final Second Addendum as changes from the Draft Second Addendum. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially,and each issue within a comment letter, if more than one,has a letter assigned to it. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety with the issues of concern lettered in the right margin. References to the responses to comments identify first the letter number, and second, the lettered comment. Comment 3B,for example, would reference the second issue of concern within the third sequential comment letter. The focus of the responses to comment is the disposition of environmental issues that aze raised in the comments,as specified by Section 15088 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Detailed responses aze not provided to comments on the merits of the proposed project. However,when a comment is not directed to an environmental issue, the response indicates that the comment has been noted and forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration, and that no further response is necessary. B. REVISIONS TO THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE RFSEIR This secrion presents clarification and modifications to information contained in the Second Addendum to the RFSEIR,based on the comments and responses presented in Section C (written comments) of this report. All text from the Drah Second Addendum is italicized (Italicizec� so the context of the changes can be seen. Additions are underlined (underlined) where text is added and deletions are strike-through (�gk) type. The numbers in parentheses refer to the applicable comment number&om the comments and responses discussed in section C. � � � City of Anoyo Grande CR- 1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responsea 1. Paragraph three of the Project Description on pages 3-4 has been revised as follows: The second reduced density development proposal °��does not propose terracing an�or retaining walls on lots, leaving custom site and home design to the discrerion of the lot owner. Because lot owners have discretion regarding site and home design, tenacing and retaining walis may still occur on lots. Flat graded sites (under 2% slope) would be restricted to no more than 50 percent of roof height exceeding 16 feet while sloped graded sites (over 2% slope) would be restricted to a no more than 50 percent of roof height exceeding 20 feet (refer to Figure 5). [Response 6C] 2. Impact AES-1 on pages 15-16 has been revised as follows: Impact AES-1. The clustering of the residential units and preservation of open space under the original proposed project would parrially maintain the open space character of the site. Hozvever, the original proposal had the potential to alter the aestheric character of the site vicinity through alteration of scenic vistas from public viewing locations. The second reduced density development proposal would reduce the overall amount of development by approximately 58% when compared to the original proposed project and by approximately 29% when compared to the first reduced density development proposal. In addirion, the second reduced density development proposal more densely clusters proposed residences then either of the previously analyzed proposals, thereby minimizing site disturbance (and preserving additional open space). The reduced density, higher clustering, and addirional open space in the second reduced density development proposal would allow for higher overall massing, since the development as a whole would be less visible from the main public viewshed Qames Way). The second reduced density deUelopment proposal zee�l�also ^��does not propose terracing a�&or retaining walls on lots, leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the lot owner within prescribed design guidelines (refer to Rarionale for Reduced Mirigation below). Because lot owners have discretion regarding site and home design, terracing and retaining walls may still occur on lots. Impacts to the aesthetic chnracter of the area would remain Class II, significant but mitigable. [Response 6C] 3. Item 5(vii;previously viri) in Mitigation Measure B-2(a) has been revised as follows: A grease trap and/or silt basin shall be installed in all drop inlets closest to the creek to prevent oi1, silt and other debris from entering the creek. Such traps/basins shall be maintained and cleaned out every spring and fall to prevent overflozu situations and potential mosquito habitats from forming. �'ke ^:�*^^^^-��° ^^�°��^�public Works shall be responsible for maintenance � Clty ofArroyo Grande CR-2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses activities of grease traps and/or silt basins that convey water runoff from the street. The homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance activities of grease traps and/or silt basins which convey starmwater runoff from undeveloped portions of the site around the developed portions of the site; [Response 6F] 4. The last sentence of Mitigation Measure H-2(a) has been revised as follows: , ..an,.,.a,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,, ,,, ,.;nw,. .u,,,.,,,.,,,.«..;w:i;�,,,,��uauci�Public Works shall be responsible for maintenance activities drainage facilities that convey water runoff from the street. The homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance activities of drainage facilities which convey stormwater runoff from undeveloped portions of the site around the developed portions of the site. [Response 6L] C. COMMENTORS on the DRAFI' EIR Commentors on the Second Addendum to the RFSEIR include four private citizens and the applicant. These are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Commentors on the Second Addendum to the RFSEIR Letter No. Commentor A enc /Or anization Date 1 Patrick Smith Private Citizen March 25,2008 2 Ma Mn Otter Private Citizen March 25,2008 3 RobeR Brownson Private Citizen ril 3,2008 4 PaVick Smith Private Citizen A ril 17,2008 5 Ma Ann Otter Private Citizen A ril 17,2008 6 Jason T ra Castlerock Develo ment A ril 21,2008 � City of Arroyo Grande CR-3 FROM :CDD&EDD FRX N0. :805 473 5489 Rpr. 21 2008 12:49PM P4 Letter 1 March 25, zoos �EC��/E'� To: Caren Ray, Chair of Planning Commission ��'�5 Z�dB John TCean,'Vice Chair �'�A� liichazd Marshall, Commissioner ��u� Kristen Barneich, Commissioner Aoug Tait, Commissioner , ltob Strong, birec#or of Community Aevelopment Teresa McClish,Associate Platmer Steve Adams, City Manager From: Patrick Smith Subject: Proposed development of Tract 1998 Last April T attended fhe Council mceting wherc the pre-application for the deveIopment of Tract 1998 was discussed. Based on comments from members aF the Council and q xesidents who spoke at that mceting I compiled a list of concerns with the dcveloper's proposal.which I semt to the Council members and wluch I have attached to this letter for yaur reference. In addition to thesc knov✓n issucs I am very concerned that there are Coo many unkn°wn risks with the pmposed project, espccislly conceming the "statc of the art"technologies the developer will be forced to use to meet minimusri construotion at�d,environmental g standards, Once the bulldozers start therc will be no turning back.When unaQticipated probiems occur,as they inevitably wi12 in a project of this difficuIty, will the deveioper be willing or have thc resources to deal with them7 Please be mzndfnl of"Murphy's Law" in your assessment of ttte developer's proposal. Also, if the Planning Cotnmission and the City Conncil eveatually approve a version of tEie developer's plan for the development of Tract 1998, will the approval carry over to atwther deyeioper who might purohase the properry from the current developer? I ask this question because I lzave noticed that developers often buy_cl�eap land.it�ssnsztive.._.._— _�_—. -----�'"" areas on spec auon o eventually beiug sucoessful in overcoming environmental and , other concerns to get development projects approved,and then immediately turn around and sell the now developable land to another builder, and reap their profit. 3Yilogy in Nipomo and ltice Raach in dreutt are natable examples, snd I am sure there are other e�camples as well. I look forward to the 2'lanning Commission meetings where the many issues regarding I p t}us proposed development will be discussed. MosY respect£ully, Patrick SmiUi 641 Asilo l of 3 FROM :CDD&EDD FRX N0. :B05 473 5489 Apr. 21 2008 12:50PM PS Attachment Concerns Rcgarding Proposed Development of Tract 1998 Layout of the lats necics down thc South East wildlife migration routes through the gully I E to just a few yarcis,which will impact the movement of wildlife in the entire regioa The set-back z�equirements are violated in several locations. (The set backs are for I F structures,not lot lines.) Unlike the develaper's previous plans,thc access road runs a loager distance adjacent and I G parallel to craek, incre8sing the intrusion and impact along this sensitive ripariati area. Sevettil proposed lots sre immediately adjacent to oak forest—human uctivities ttnd I H lighting will disrupt wildlife habits and breeding in this azea. The unpact map presented by the developer does not account for ran¢e of Pismo Cla�•kia l � hahitat, showing only the recent observed"occuaences"of the plant in specific locations (the plant appeers in dit�'erenc locations in different years). There may be a jurisdictionat discrepancy regerding drainage rights of way. ' � The tight grouping of Iots on the hillside is not in keeping with the surrounding propertiea I K (2.5 acre lots and larger). The retaining walls required to stabitize the densely spaced,narrow lots along the steep hillside are too close together to allow sut�cient room between homes£or suitable � landscaping for screening and erosion control. (On Council Meznber remarked that he did not want lo see another"Grest Wall"like an Jaraes Way.} The a�a neer the creek is prone tq severe erosion, as evidenced in the erosion already _ ,se�in the areek banks and,hillside�b.e p7[op.os.ed highl�channelizai.drainage system-------� M---- will inerease water £low volume and speed,causing additional erosion and possibly exceeding capacities of thc culverts during heavy rains. The fi11 material tha.t will be necessary in cuts in the steep hillside may liquefy during an I N earthquake. Capture and treatment of runoff fmm impervious surfaces (mads,roofs, and driveways) prior W release into the creek will be a very challcnging engineering problem. How will the proposed mirigation plan, wluch requires advanced�iItration and separation O technolo�ts,be verified7 How will maintenance of thesc systems be sustained in perpetuity? VJho will be liQble fox mitigation if the system pmves inadequate? A larger number of oak trees will be xemoved. Incrcased impacts on animal and plant I P habitat (especially oAlc trees)are unavoidable if riparian and Pismo Ciarkia areas are 2of3 FROM :CDDBEDD FRX N0. :805 473 5489 Rpr. 21 2008 12:50PM P6 totally avoided(a trade off made in the developer's new pian).A Council member expressed uncertainty and cot►cern regarding the availability of suiYable areas for the P proposed replanting of some displaced oak trces and the survival rate (50%) estirnated by the developer. (Moderate repositioning af selected lots mi�ht save several oak treesJ Removal of cucalyptu.s trees due to fire 4azard and threats to native trees should be I Q required regardless of the pleu►'s approval. Silt a�d runoff fmm the devclopad could ruin the creek over time. F3ow will the I R proposed mitigation plan be fully vetted7 CuIverts oRen b$ck up and clog in heavy rains. Who will mait�tain the culverts7 There sppears to be confusion conceming the erea the developer refers to as"grassland". I S pthers refer to this area as "emergent wetland°. The Highlands HOA will not be capa6le of managing the developed property with its various and complex systems. Can an independent agency (such as a land conservancy T organization), be found or estahlished to manage the property? Flow will maintenance of the eystems on the property be financed in perpetuity7 Ts the proposed fire road feasible and approved by the fire department? The proposed fire I u road is located on a steep slopq which is subject to ero9ion and may not be feasihle Por larger fre trucks. The developer proposes that thc fire road as a multi-use trail--what will this mean? I V Mountaia biking? Would tho�re road ever be opened to through tr�c7 3of3 Vesting Tentadve Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Letter 1 COMMENTOR: Patrick Smith,Private Citizen DATE: March 25, 2008 RESPONSE: Response lA The commentor's attached list of concerns expressed at the project pre-application City Council meeting is noted. Refer to Responses lE through 1V. Resvonse 1B The commentor's concern about unlutown risks associated with the project is noted. The City will enforce implementation of required mitigation measures through the required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. Response 1C The commentor's concern about the potential for the Tract to be sold to another developer after approval by the City Council is noted. Such a transfer of property would not be expected to result in additional environmental unpacts. Response 1D The commentor's interest in discussing the project at upcoming Planning Commission meetings is noted. Response lE The impact of development on wildlife corridors is discussed in Impact B-2 and Mitigation Measure B-2(a), and the intersection of the lots and the drainage gully is shown in Figure 6. Also refer to Response 4I. Response 1F Riparian setback requirements are discussed in Impact B-2 and Mirigation Measure B-2(a). Also refer to Response 4I. Response 1G In the second reduced density development proposal,the width of Blossom Valley Road has been reduced to 24 feet in the vicuuty of onsite weflands and Pismo clarkia habitat. In addition, the crossing of the East Fork of Meadow Creek by Blossom Valley Road has been changed from a standazd culvert into a span-culvert(or bottomless culvert),which was recommended in the EIR and exceeds the openness rario recommended for wildlife crossings with potentially fewer � City ofAnoyo Grande CR-7 VesGng Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses impacts to creek banks and the surrounding riparian habitat. This unpact is addressed fully in Impact&2 and Mitigation Measure B-2(a). Response 1H Impacts to oak woodland and oak tree displacement are addressed in Impact B-3 and Mitigation Measures B-3(a) and B-3(b). In addition,unpacts to wildlife due to construction and human activities associated with development,including lighting and landscaping,are addressed in Impact B-5 and Mitigation Measures B-5(b) through B-5(�. Response lI Impacts related to Pismo clarkia are addressed in Impact&4. As noted therein, the second reduced density development proposal avoids all mapped Pismo clarkia occurrences. This impact is therefore reduced from Class I,significant and unavoidable, to Class II,significant but mitigable, under the second reduced density development proposal. Despite the avoidance of mapped occurrences, Mitigation Measures B-4(a) and B-4(c) remain as project requirements,as impacts could still occur if Pismo clarkia were to appeaz in areas which have not previously been mapped. Response 1T The commentor's concern regarding the jurisdiction for drainage rights of way is noted. The commentor does not relate the concern to an environmental impact. Therefore,no further response is feasible. The comment has nevertheless been fonvarded to City decision makers for consideration. Response 1K The commentor expresses concern that the grouping of lots on the hillside is out of character with the surrounding properties. Aesthetic impacts of the project are addressed in Impact AES 1 and Mitigation Measure AES-1(a). Res�onse 1L The second reduced density development proposal does not propose terracing and retaining walls from the lots,leaving custom sight and home design to the discretion of the lot owner within prescribed design guidelines. Because lot owners have discretion regarding site and home design, tenacing and retauung walls may still occur on lots. Erosion impacts are addressed in Impact G-3 and Mitigation Measure G-3(c). Refer also to Responses 3C,3D, and 6C. Response 1M There is a deeply incised erosion gully on the westem edge of the property near proposed Lot 3, the eastern edge of which extends beyond the eastem property line into adjacent open space. � City ofAnoyo Grende CR-S Vestlng Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses This erosion gully would be filled under the second reduced density development proposal. Filling of the gully to allow for the proposed development would create slopes of less than 20%, and would eliminate a consistent erosion source of sed'vnent and silt runoff that flows d'uecfly towazd Meadow Creek. In addition,in accordance with Mitigation Measure G-4(a), on-site development will be prohibited within the 50-foot riparian butter and will be limited to slopes of 20% or less. Erosion impacts are addressed in Impact G-3 and Mitigation Measure G-3(c). Drainage impacts are addressed in Impact H-3 and Mitigation Measures H-3(a) and H-3(b). Response 1N Impacts related to liquefiable soils, such as those referenced by the commentor, are addressed in Impact G-2. As noted therein, this impact is less than significant. Response 10 Drainage impacts are addressed in Impact H-3 and Mitigation Measures H-3(a) and H-3(b). The City will enforce implementation of required mitigation measures through the required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. Remedial actions required to comply with all condirions of project approval will remain the responsibility of the developer prior to site occupancy and/or the homeowners association following occupancy. Resuonse 1P Oak tree removal and replanring is addressed in Impact B-3 and Mitigation Measures B-3(a) and B-3(b). The commentor notes a concern about the survival rate of displaced oak trees. This issue is addressed in Mitigarion Measure B-3(a),which states: A11 trees planted or relocated as mirigation shall have a 90% survival rate after five years. If the five year suroival rate of trees planted or relocated as mitigation is less than 90%, the num6er of trees required to reach 90% sutvival shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. All replacement mitigation trees (trees planted to replace those that did not survive the five year period), shall in turn have a survival rate of 100%five years from date of planring. Tree monitoring and replacement shall conrinue until an overall five year, 90% survival rate is reached for mitigation trees. Planted or relocated trees shall not be located as to adversely impact on-site occurrences of Pismo clarkia. In addition, unpacts related to riparian areas are addressed in Impact B-2 and Mitigation Measure B-2(a). Impacts related to Pismo clarkia aze addressed in Impact B-4 and Mitigation Measures B-4(a) and&4(c). As noted therein,impacts to Pismo clazkia would be reduced from Class I,significant and unavoidable, to Class II,significant but mitigable, under the second reduced density development proposal. � City ofArroyo Grande CR-9 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response 1Q The commenter expresses the opinion that eucalypius trees should be removed in order to mitigate fire hazazds and impacts to native trees, regardless of the approval of the development plan. The comment is noted. Response 1R The commentor expresses concern about the practicality of the mitigation measures related to drainage and runoff from development. Blockage of culverts is addressed in Impact H-2 and Mitigation Measure H-2(a). The long-term management of these mitigation measures will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Also refer to Responses 1M and 10. Response 1S The commentor expresses concern that grassland habitat referred to by the developer might be considered emergent wefland. In the Second Addendum these habitats aze discussed separately. Impacts to annual grassland habitat aze addressed in Impact B-1,and aze determined to be less than significant. Impacts to emergent weflands are addressed in Impact B-2. Response 1T The commentor's concerns that the homeowners association(HOA)will be unable to manage the required mitigation on the developed property, and their request that an independent agency be found or established to manage mitigation on the property,are noted. Maintenance of mitigation systems will be financed by the homeowners association. Refer also to Response 3L. Response lU Access to the site by the Arroyo Grande Fire Depaztrnent is addressed in Impact I'S2 and Mitigation Measure PS-2(b). Road widths,lengths, and circulation, as well as the placement of fire hydrants,will be designed with the guidance of the Arroyo Grande Fire Department in order to ensure the provision of unhindered Fire Department access and maneuvering during emergencies. Response 1V The fire access road could be used for non-motorized recreational activity as a multi-use trail. The provision of off-road trails and multi-purpose public trails is addressed in Impact LU-2 and Mitigation Measure LU-2(a). � City ofArroyo Grande CR- 10 FROM :CDD&EDD FAX N0. :805 473 5489 Rpr. 21 2008 12:50PM P7 Letter 2 13 Apri12007 to City Council �� 25 March 2008 to Planning Commissian ��$��Q�B To: �� Mayor Fetxara Mayor Pro Tem Arnold Councilman Costello Councilman Fellows Councilma,n Cxuthrie Caren Ray, Chair of Plsttning Commission 7ohn Keen,Vice Chair Richard Marshall, Coixtmissioner Kristen Barneich, Commissioner poug Tait,Commissioner Rob Strong, Director of Community Aevelopment Teresa McClish, Associate Planner Steve Adams, City Managex Re: Proposed development of Tract 1498 ,Addendum 2 as presetrted at Che City Council Meeting 10 Apri12007 I am writing to expmss my setious concerns with the plan presented for the developmesit of"The Meadows". q 'I'he plan presented has almost all the lots situated an a steep hiliside with a center mad running v«tically up the hillside. Besides being ugly as sin for miles around,there a number of very serious issues with this pian, Soil Emsion: Cutt]ng the road into the steep hillside vertically invites further soil erosian I g along the sfdes of tt►e mad. _......__..... . .....---. . . . ......___.._..._._.._ ......._..__.. Drainage: The plan calls for smail,narrow lots on a steep hill divided by retaining walls. T'he amount of paved over areas for foundaYions,driveways,patios, etc. will be large compared to the amount of land lef�for vegetation. (Wider, larger lots would allow a C larger ratio af vegetation to pavetnent,but would cut more dccply into the hillside untess the lot was on several levels.)Run-of�'from the paved-over hiIIside will be significant, especially considering the velocity of the water coming down from the extremely steep upper home-sites aod,joining the water from lower hom�sices. This has several serious consequencea: Ravine damage: The ravine at the foot of the property feeds Meadow Creek. The ravine I just below the area chosen for development is already in a delicate position. Earlier p heavy rains have collspsed bntsh and trees inw the ravine and the ravine has'widened. 1 of 3 FROM :CDD8EDD FRX ND. :805 473 5489 Apr. 21 2008 12:50PM PB Climakologists are naw predicting les5 freqaent but hcavier rain storms in Californie's fuiure. Heavier rains will produce ltigh velocity water running down th�hillside and furthez'etoding the ravine. As it crashes into the ravine,the water erodes not only the side p where it enters hut elso the opposite side. My property is directly across the ravine from the site and quite close to it. IFmy pmperty is pulled into the ravine due to increased erosion,do I then own a part of the ravine,or is the city or developer liable for allowing the damage to occur7 Content of Water: All those new homes will require heavy landscaping to try and dress up the scar an the hillside and all thase retaining walls.This will further increase the dcstructiveness of the water due to pollnt�nts in the water jeapardizing the long und short term health of Meadow Creek. Yes, the developer says they wilt"mitigate"all thcse impacts, but what is this developer's track record in controlling drainage?During the city eouncil meeting the E flooding in 4he Highinnds II project was discussed.After the meeting I found out that our qwn street(Asito) also suffered#looding earIy on due to insufficient drainage. Only after the d�ge was done ta frant r�uds. incteasine soil erosion and nolluted run-off, did the ��loper nut in another storm drain on Asilo. (Fool me ouce-shame on you, Fool me twice-shame on me, Fool me three times7—don't. let it happen again.) Emergtng Wetland at risk: In my opinfon tlus is one of the most serious risks for the community. I w$s fascinatad to leam at the City Council Meeting th&t thIs scction of Arroyo Gzande has an "emerging wetland". What a wonderful and pre�ious nahu�al resource,especially with wetlands disappearing arotuid the wortd. T1iis could becoma a stop-over for migratory birds, which F need ail the help they can get with so many of their stop-avers disappearing. 'fbe developer was nat even aware of this situation and plans to release the dirty water right into the new wetland. I believc there may be special rules to protect wetlands and perhaps the coastal commission shauld be involved in this, ...._Bitd.HabitatA._........__—._. ----- -- - - -- -- . . �---. _... _. The ravine and the surrounding areas,the emerging wetlat�ds and the aek woodland are a trcmenrlous habitat for birds(whose numbers are dropping at an alarming rate). G This area provides habitat for the Cooper's Hawk which though not endtu�gered should be taken into consideration in the development of this area. Other Wildlife:As a supporter of environmental protection, Califnrnia native plants and wildlife,I undexstctnd that the eucalyptus trees should be removed to preserve the oak woodland adjacent to the ravine. Ta give thc animals that intutbit the euaalyptus tree area a cbance to recover and re-locate I believe the trees should be removed in a phased H removal. However, with this plan,the very direction in whieh the animals nead to move will be into the new road. The road atself will disrupt the delicabe ecology and the balance betwoen predators and prey ihat exists in this sma11 wilderness. I fear that li�rther deveIopment will jeupardiu the healih of this ecology. Peoplc are just waking up to the need to protect what is left of the natural environment in our towns and cities. 2of3 FROM :CDD&EDD FAX ND. :805 473 5489 Apr. 21 2008 12:51PM P9 r pftcr seeing aur City Council in action, I am re-assured that the members will hy to make the best decision for the long-term bene�it vf the commuivty and for the preservation of Tree City's wonderful naturat resources. MaryAnn Ottcr 641 Asilo 3of3 Vesting Tenta6ve Trad Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Letter 2 COMMENTOR: Mary Ann Otter,Private Citizen DATE: March 25, 2008 RESPONSE: Response 2A The commentar expresses concern over the aesthetic impact of the proposed project. Aesthetic impacts are addressed in Impacts AES-1 and AES-2,as well as Mirigation Measures AES-1(a) and AES-2(a). In addition,the commentor notes a number of additional concerns,which are addressed in Responses 2B through 2H. Response 2B Impacts related to soIl erosion and grading aze addressed in Impact G-3 and Mirigation Measure G-3(c). Also Refer to Response 1M. Response 2C Impacts related to drainage are addressed in Impact H-3 and Mitigation Measures H-3(a) and H-3(b). Also Refer to Response 10. The commentor raises other issues related to drainage, which are addressed in Responses 2D and 2E. Response 2D While development on the site would increase runoff amount and velocity,fillutg the erosion gully, as proposed in the second reduced density development proposal,will reduce runoff into Meadow Creek. Runoff impacts are addressed in Impact G-4 and Mitigation Measure G-4(b),as well as in Impacts H-1 and H-3,and Mitigation Measures H-3(a) and H-3(b). Also refer to Response iM. Response 2E The commentor expresses concern that landscaping conducted by lot owners will increase pollutants in runoff water. Mitigation Measure H-4(a)includes a provision for a pest management program for landscaping that relies on integrated pest management rather than chemical controls: Development of an integrated pest management program for landscaped areas of the project. These areas would include slope-stabilization landscaping, and residential area landscaping. Integrated pest management emphasizes the use of biological, physical, and cultural controls rather than chemical controls. Examples include use of insect resistant cultivars, manual weed control, use of established thresholds for pesticide and herbicide application, use of chemical � City ofArroyo Gnnde CR- 14 VesGng TenTa6ve Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Finai Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses controls that begin preferentially with dehydraring dusts, insecticidal soaps, boric acid powder, horticultural oils, and pyrethrin-based insecricides. This measure will be implemented by the applicant and enforced by the City. Runoff impacts are addressed in Impact G-4 and Mitigation Measure G-4(b), as well as in Impacts H-1 and H-3 and Mitigation Measures H-3(a) and H-3(b). Response 2F The commentor expresses concern over the potential loss of emergent wedand habitat on-site. This unpact is addressed in Impact B-2. Mitigation Measure B-2(a) is designed to limit impacts to wefland ecosystems in compliance with regulatory requirements. Response 2G The commentor expresses concern that the riparian and wefland areas, as well as the oak woodland, on-site provide habitat for birds, specifically for Cooper's hawk. Impacts related to wildlife habitat due to construction and human activities associated with development, including lighting and landscaping,are addressed in Impact B-5 and Mirigation Measures B- 5(b) through B-5(�. In addition,construction timing related to nesting birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is addressed in Mitigation Measure BIO-5(b). Response 2H The commentor suggests that eucalyptus tree removal occur in phases in order to give u�imals that inhabit the eucalyptus tree azea a chance to recover and relocate. In addition, the commentor expresses concern that the removal of eucalyptus trees,even if it were phased, would drive animals into the proposed on-site road. The removal of eucalyptus trees could be phased,but because the�nimal species to which the commentor refers are not protected species, such a phased removal is not required under CEQA. � City of Anoyo Grande CR- 15 Letter 3 � ' RECENED APR 0920D8 Apri13,2008 c�oM�u�my�p� To: Planning Commission Chairperson,Caren Rey and Pla��ning Commissioners Barneicty T�een, Marshall and Tait cc: Mayor Tony Femira and City Councilmen Arnold, Costello,FeUows and Guthtie Community Developraent Director,Roh Strong Associate City Planner,Teresa MeClish City Manger, Steve Adams From: R.obert Bror+vnson 653 Asilo • Arroyo Crrande, CA 93420 The following is provided far your consideration when this application moves forward ' A for review at the Planning Commission.level. Thank you. Summxry of directives fCOm the Arroyo Grande City Councf!to Castlerock Development following the submission xnd presentatlon of a pre-appllcation for the B proposed development of Tract O1/001. Pre-applfcation No. 06-009. Bnbdivision Into Seveaateen (17} Lots on April 10, 2Q07: • Avoid steep slopee;lxave major enncerns about drainuge and slopes. Steep s1op4 development creates rapid run-ot�'and erosion. Concemcd about slope ratio:need C to minimize the pmject impact to the natural eontour of the hills; conoerned about the size aud intrusiveness of a retaining wall network. • Nad to kaow the type of retaining wa11a proposed?What type of retaining walls; � what will they look like and bow visible will they be?Concexned ahaut terraced � retaining walls, How will they]aok fram a distance? • Must ackzwwledge dif�iculty in transplanting Oak uees. Do not want io see mahtte Oak trees reanoved;must carefully evaluate which ones are targeCed for E removal. Concerned with removal of iwo Oak trees on top iwo lots. Support savi»g es many Oak trees as possible, • Will run-offbo filterad at�d how7 Concamed about drainage plan.Need to capture runofffrom fha project;will need more than a siltation filter. Concerned about F drainage;refexrad to City's restrictive policy regard'vig developraent in and arouad creek systems;bio-£tlters nced Yo be installed. • Take down the harbed Wire fencing around certain sections of the properiy;unlikc I the more attractive wood fencing elsewhere. (Requeat of Iocai resi.dents). C' FROM :CDD&EDD FAX ND. :805 473 5489 Rpr. 21 2008 12:49PM P2 Page 2:Note to Planning Coaunission . Rcmove eucalyptus trees to pmtect and avoid destruction of the Oak woodland I H and to elitninate a firc hezard. (These trees aze located dangerously close to neazby residencea). . • Need clarification re. the]ocation aud width of the emergency access road and its I � use as a pedeslria�trail.When was it approved by the Cit� • Must honor 50-foot setback far riparian ar6as. (The pro-aPPkcs�tion map violetos I � the mandated 50-foot setback in some riperian areas.) • Concerned about iaapacts to wildli fe corridor and the cumulative reduction in the I K wildlife corridor.Need to detertnine impacts ta wildli£e movement.. (A CBQA cansideration.) • Camwt rely an a Homeowners Association to moniWr enfomement;need a third I L paity with expertisa to maintaia and imprave the riparien area. • , Coneerned with differences in Pismo clazkia maps;need to be checked into. Nced I M clarificatiari regarding Pismo clarkia impacts. • Support a bridge,not a cul'vert. I N • Concemed with top twa eul-d�sac lots as they are toa steep;too mnch g�ading; I O • T.ot 2 is tha riparian are$buffer I P . Consider re}aining lree ttunk Qak tree#2433. Cutting down Oak trees should be f Q avoidcd as much as possiblt. •. Suggest removing Lot I from the Plan be�auso of the number.of mature�ees that I R wauld be talcen wt an that lot • Suggest a visual bu£fer between Lots 3 through 11 and the cstate]ots on Basy I S Streot. • . Would t3ke to aee the ott- site weII on ihe proPerty reactivated and given W tha I. T City. Further comment from Rohert Brownson,653 Asilo,Aimyo Gran.de in advance of the davelopment pla¢i submission to I?lanning Commission and City Coucil.: U "If cumulative negative impacte(to biological resourees and clsewhere) can, in fact,be mitigated,,,eareful coneideration must ba given to the IMPACT of thoac mitigario� measures end their feasibility. As well as the oversight to see that they are suecessfully FROM :CDD&EDD FRX N0. :805 473 5489 Apr. 21 2008 12:49PM P3 applied and forever supervised. Mitigation measures cannot be le8 up to a Homeowner's I U Association to police. In some cascs,mitigation measures hava b$en known to cause more haim than good and,certainly,tlus should be avoided. Thank you for giving this recap and my comments your consideration, Robert Biowasan 653 A.silo Axroyo Cnande, CA 93420 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Letter 3 COMMENTOR: Robert Brownson,Private Citizen DATE: Apri13,2008 RESPONSE: Response 3A The commentor's provision of comments for Plaiuling Commission consideration is noted. Response 3B The commentor provides a summary of the comments from the City Council for the applicant to consider during the pre-application hearing, dated April 10,2007. Refer to Responses 3C through 3T. Response 3C The commentor points out that development on steep slopes,and the intrusiveness of a network of retauung walls,are concerns. Mitigarion Measure G-4(b)lunits development to slopes of 20% or less. In addition,the project description notes that terracing and retaining walls are no longer proposed on the lots,although terracing or retaining walls could still be constructed by lot owners. Response 3D The commentor notes that the type and appearance of retaining walls is a concern. As noted in Response 3C and in Impact AESl in the Second Addendtun, terracing and retaining walls aze no longer proposed on or between the lots,leaving custom sight and home design to the discretion of the lot owner within prescribed design guidelines. Because lot owners have discretion regazding site and home design,terracing and retaining walls may still occur on lots. Response 3E The commentor notes that the removal and transplanting of oak trees is a concern. Oak tree removal has been reduced&om the first reduced density development proposal, and these impacts are addressed in Impact B-3 and Mitigation Measure B-3(a). Oak tree transplanting would be monitored by a qualified arborist or botanist for at least five years or until the lrees have successfully established, as determined by the City Parks and Recreation D'uector. Response 3F The commentor notes that drainage and runoff filtration are concerns. Impacts related to drainage are addressed in Impacts H-3 and H-4,as well as Mitigation Measures H-3(a),H-3(b), and H-4(a). These provisions include a detention and siltation basin,a drainage plan, and a stormwater management plan. � � City ofArroyo Grende CR- 19 Vesting Tentative Trad Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses The commentor also suggests that bio-filters be installed. Although bio-filters could be considered alternative mitigation, they are not specified as mitigation because Measures H-3(a), H-3(b),and H-4(a) are sufficient to reduce the impact below threshold levels. Response 3G The commentor notes that local residents would like to see the barbed wire fencing around sections of the property taken down unlike the more attractive wood fencing elsewhere. The comment is noted. Response 3H The commentor suggests the removal of eucalypius trees to protect oak woodland as well as to reduce fire hazard. The applicant's Preliminary Riparian&Wefland Mitigation Plan noted in Impact&2 includes eucalyptus removal from the top of the bank in order to address impacts to riparian and wefland areas. Additionally, eucalyptus irees are excluded from a 30-foot zone around development as part of the Fire/Vegetation Management Plan in Mitigation Measure I'S-2(a). Response 3I The commentor requests clazification regarding the location and width of the secondary access road discussed in the project description,and whether it will be available for use as a pedestrian trail. Refer to Response 1V. Response 3T Riparian setback requirements are discussed in Impact B-2 and Mitigation Measure&2(a). Also refer to Response 4I. Response 3K The commentor expresses concern about impacts to the wIldlife conidor, and the cumulative reduction of the corridor. The second reduced density development proposal changes the crossing of the East Fork of Meadow Creek by Blossom Valley Road from a standard culvert into a span-culvert,which meets the same standards for maintaining wildlife corridors as the span bridge suggested by Item 5(v) under Mitigation Measure B-2(a),which has since been stricken as it is no longer required. In addition, this issue is addressed in Impact B-5 and Mitigation Measure B-5(�,which states: Preservation of the wildlife corridors that are present on the project site can be achieved with sufficient setbacks from Riparian and Wetland Habitats and by avoiding direct and indirect impacts to oak Woodland habitat. Refer to Mitigation Measure B-2(a), Riparian and Wetland Protecrion, setback values to allow for Riparian/Wetland corridor preservarion, and to Mirigation Measure B-3(a)for oak tree avoidance and mitigation measures. � Cily of Arroyo Grande CR-20 Vesting TeMative Trad Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responsas Res�onse 3L The commentor expresses concern that the homeowners association(HOA)will not be able to effectively monitor enforcement of mitigarion measures,and suggests that a third party be made responsible for maintauling the riparian area. Mitigation B-2(a) requires the applicant to ensure that buffer areas aze revegetated using only plant species native to the region,and thereafter makes it the responsibility of the HOA to maintain the buffer vegetation and to implement a weed abatement program to exclude non-native species from ripazian/wefland areas. Response 3M The commentor expresses concern with differences in Pismo clarkia maps. Analysis of Pismo clazkia impacts in this addendum is based on the extent mapping contained in the Revised Draft SEIR for the project. Impacts related to Pismo clazkia are addressed in Impact B-4 and Mitigation Measures B�(a) and B-4(c). As noted therein,the second reduced density development proposal avoids all onsite Pismo clarkia occurrences,as all development is located more than 50 feet from the edge of the occurrences. This impact is therefore reduced from Class I,significant and unavoidable, to C1ass II,significant but mitigable, under the second reduced density development proposal. Also see Responses 1G and lI. Response 3N T'he commentor indicates a preference for a bridge as opposed to a culvert. The culvert in the first reduced density development plan has been changed to a span-culvert in the second reduced density development plan,which meets the standards for maintauling wildlife corridors,as well as the commentor's preference. Refer aLso to Response 3K. Response 30 Refer to Response 3C. Response 3P Figure 6 (Constraints Map) in the Second Addendum depicts the proposed lot layout and riparian buffer areas. As shown therein,proposed Lot 2 intersects with a portion of the buffer, as suggested by the commentor. Mitigation Measure B-2(a) requires that development on all lots be concentrated within building envelopes which avoid riparian habitat by a muumum 50-foot setback. � City of Anoyo Carande CR-21 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response 30 The commentor requests that oak tree #2433 be retained, and notes that oak trees should be avoided to the extent possible. The Preliminary Tree Plan contained in the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Project Description submitted in November 2007 shows that tree #2433 is not slated for removal. For additional information on oak mitigation, refer to Response 1P. Response 3R The commentor suggests removing proposed Lot 1 from the plan in order to preserve the mature trees on that portion of the property. Lots 1 and 14 were removed from the Apri12007 preliminary revised project in order to avoid larger,older growth oak trees. Resvonse 3S The commentor suggests a visual buffer between the proposed Lots 3 through 11 and the estate lots on Easy Street. The comment is noted. Although not a public viewing point, in consideration of the open space character of the development, visual modeling shows that the anticipated profile of the proposed development is not prominent from the vicinity of Easy Street. In addition,the proposed Landscape Plan includes a buffer in this location composed of transplanted oaks and other landscaping. Resvonse 3T The commentor requests that the on-site well on the property be reactivated and given to the City. The City is placing a condition of approval on the project for an easement and dedication of the water well. Response 3U The commentor expresses concern about the feasibility and impact of proposed mitigation measures,and requests oversight of their unplementation beyond the HOA. Plan requirements, timing, and enforcement measures are specified for each mitigarion measure identified in the second addendum. Refer also to Response 3L. � City of Arroyo Grande CR-22 i � Letter 4 a��i ��, zoos REC�IVED To: Mayor Ferrara APR 1 $ 20Q8 1Viayor Pro Tem.Arnold Councilman Costello ��orawpE Councilman Fellows � Councilman Guthrie Csren Ray, Chair of Planning Commission John Keen,Vice Chair Richard Marshall, Commissioner Kristen Hameich, Commissioner Doug Tait, Commissioner Rob Stroag,Director of Community Aevelopmcnt Teresa McClish,Associate Planner Steve Adams, City Manager From: Patrick 3mith Subject: Proposed development of Tract 1998 This is a follow-up to my 25 March 20081etter to the Commission. After reviewing the developer's revised plan I would Iike to bring w the Commission's attention the following significant new issues: • 14 of tLe 15 proposed lota are very clase ta the minimum s�ze allowed by the Cily's Code. �xcluding the single proposed large lot at the top of the slope tnakes the average lot size equat to 7771 sq ft,which is onlq 8%ebove the required minimwn of 7200 sq ft for conaentional subdivisions and substnntially less thau the 12,000 sq R for RS zoned areas. (Did the develaper propose the single large lot simply to allow the average to be stat�od as 8807 sq ft in the A report7) Lots in the adjacent Highlands tracts are considerahly larger,and the custom lat sizcs in the Rancho Grande master plasx are tnuch larger srill. And of cotnse the directly adjecent county properties are acres in size. The Commission's interpretation of the minimum lot size reqvlrement of'7200 sq ft should also take into accaunt the steep slope and the proposed narrow lo#widths (only b0 ft in many cases). The extreme denaity of the propoaed development it enHrety out of character a»d will adversely affect groperty vxiuea of the surrounditlg erea. . '�'he devefoper ia now prnpoaing sloped lots,a aubstantial change from tbe earlier proposal whiCh SpecE�ed graded lota aeparated And stabilized by reta[ning walls.Presumably this change is required in order to maximize thc B number of lots in a reduced area and avoid the costs and serious environmental impacts and structural issues with high retaining walls. FRDM :CDD&EDD FAX N0. :9�5 473 5489 Rpr. 21 2908 11:29RM P2 • The devclaper i9 naw seeldng a change in building hefght limftxtions. Structures on steeply sloped lots will require cansiderable supporting suhstructurc (stilts,essentially)on the sides of the bnildings facing the creek which'will C feuther add to ihe apparent height of the buildings. Viewed from the West, one will sec an uninterrupG� row of stair-stcpped struchues up the slope. Any landseaping in the namow apaces 6ctween the build'sngs wi'll he btacked£com view. The closely spaced houses will look iike a rnndominiwn comt►le�, totally out of character with tLe surrounding properties. • Parlcing requiremente are stilt an isauc. 'rtte proposal is designed to just meet the Ietter of the parking rcgulation. However, on-stneet parking on a 2fl-plus degree alape will be difficult(if not daugemus).Nor wili the closely spaced, p narrow sloped tots accomtuodate 3-car gsrages. Sine� faznilies nowadays typically own 3 cara(and will perhaps own additional neighborhood electrIc vehicles for aruund-town use in the£uture),where wiil theao horaenwners park wlien buit'd aat ie campletc7 , • Tha developer is aow ezplicitly propoaing caaMsn homes on a!1 the lob. Accepting this change wiIl leave it up to individual lot buyers to deal with the greding and erosion issues on the lots. This is the wrong approach for such a E dense development in a sensitive envimnmema!area. In fact,did nat the arigiuel approvat for the proposed development of Tract I998 stipulate the plan wauld be alang the same lines as the adjacent Higtilands development,which consists of tsact homes o�uniform design? • The develoQer Fa "6aading off" bailding design challengee onto iadividt�al lot owners and City stai� The City will have to deal with each individual lot owner on a cas�by-case basls to satisfy emiranmemal regulations and City building codes. Ciiven the tiny lot sizes and tho severe constraints af buitding on stceply F slope�i lots,o.ne can andcipate t�hai individuals wanting to build high�nd,custoiri homes will seek further variances on height and set-back requirements. Ona should also ant3cipate that lot awners will be tempteti ta build illegal granny units or rec riooms within the tall sapparting substructures on the west sides of the buildings. • The propoaed new plau is a�plY�ciently c1►enged tu require a aomprchenaive tew EI1L The dt�weloper sfiould uot be aIlaweQ to simply submit an addend►nn to the prcvious EIR The new plan invoives new signifccattt envimnmental impacts (�, (height and parking wauvers,substar►tial land fi1I,change fmm g�adied lots actid retaiaing walis to staped lots)and other new issues (sioped lots and parking constraints)which juatify requiring a comprehensive new EIR. In addition to the�e new issues,manp of the earlier issues that T descxibed in my previous ' �„� letter regerding thc developer's previous proposal to tbe Coxnmission retx�ain unresolved: o��3 FROM :CDD&EDD FRX N0. :805 473 5489 Apr. 21 2066 11:38RM P3 • The ripertan set-back rcquirement is still ioy„ latcd[or ev�1ot (Frora page 22: "Portions of every proposed lot fall wiWin the curnent 50-foot riparian buf�er I zone:� Qrossly violating the set-back requirement desired by ihe Council will advexsely af�'ecc erosion, polludon,and wildlife habit�ts. • Feasibility and adequacy of praposed erosion apd run-off mit�gaHon plans. (From page 38: "...portions of the curnnt proposal wonld still be located on relatively steep slopcs. Specifically,portions of Lots 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and I S wauld be located on slopes exceeding 20%.") Extensive landfill is now proposed, � which may further affect th¢ecology of the area and have other unintended consequences. The need for this landfill is just one indication of the extreme measures necded to build in this steep area, using technology and methods which cazuiot be fnlly verified a.head of time. If thc erosion still turns out to ba greater t�han expect�d, what ther�7 • The eseential wildlife corridor alon¢the creek will still be cut off by the bouses wnd new road. A potential corridor along the ridgeline(next to the Highlands iraet) is not a substitute far the existing and mare isolated eorridor E( along the creek. Noise and lights frorn the houses will also adversely affect wildli£e transiting the area along this proposed upper corridor, if the coyotes will even use iC. • Loss of matnre oak treee ia atilt n paramount concern. The City just recently allocated signi�cant funds for msWration of ttees in other areas of town, so why I L allow mature trees to be cut down here7 • "Gotchad" not documented in the EIR. For example,the coyote pack that lives near thc creek would likely be displaced, which could lead to an explosion in th� M rat and rabbit populations(who in turn will eat the�ew plantings promised in the ptan). Developzng in such a aensitive area is bound to have unintended adverse cooaequences. T71e fACt that tius new plan appears to mitigate some of the concerns with previously submitted plans docs not make thc�ew plan more acceptable. On the contrary,the new N proposal is evep more vut of charseter and counter to the Cety'a General Plan. While I understand the developer wanting to try and maximize hie profit, skinnying down the lot sizes to barc minimum, seeking height and parking waivers and encroaching on the riparian areas should not be allowed. Most res y P c sil , 3•�3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.Ot-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Letter 4 COMMENTOR: Patrick Smith,Private Citizen DATE: April 18,2008 RESPONSE: Response 4A The commentor expresses concern about the proposed lot sizes. In addition,the commentor believes that the City Council should account for steep slopes on-site and nazrow lot widths in interpreting the minimum lot size requirement. The commentor aLso states that the proposed development is out of character with the azea and will impact property values. Aesthetic impacts of the project are addressed in Impacts AESl and AES2. As noted therein, Mitigation Measures AES-1(a)and AES-2(a) are sufficient to reduce impacts below thresholds of si�ificance. In addirion,compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed in Impact LU- 1. The commentor's concerns are nevertheless noted and will be forwazded to the appropriate decision makers for review and consideration. It should also be noted that economic impacts,such as those associated with decreased property values, are outside the scope of CEQA unless related to a physical environmental impact(refer to CEQA Guidelines § 15131). Response 4B The commentor notes that the developer is proposing sloped lots rather than graded lots separated and stabilized by retainulg walls, and makes presumptions related to why this change was made. The comment does not d'uecfly identify specific issues of concern with the environmental analysis. No specific response is feasible. Res�onse 4C The commentor notes that the change in building height lunits and development on sloped lots will alter views from the west,block views of landscaping between buildings on the proposed lots, and alter the visual character of the site. Aesthetic unpacts of the project are addressed in Impacts AESl and AES-2. As noted therein,Mitigarion Measures AE�1(a) and AES-2(a) are sufficient to reduce impacts below thresholds of significance. With regard to development on sloped lots,refer to Response 3C. In addition,compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed in Impact LU-1. � Clty ofAnoyo Grande CR-26 Vesting Tenta6ve Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response 4D The commentor expresses concern over limited parking. The currenfly proposed project meets City pazking requirements and therefore would result in no environmental unpacts related to parking. Response 4E The commentor notes that the developer is proposing custom homes on the proposed lots and expresses concern related to grading and erosion issues that may result. Impacts related to soil erosion and grading are addressed in Impact G-3 and Mitigation Measure G-3(c). Also Refer to Response 1M. The commentor additionally questions whether"original approval for proposed development of Tract 1998 stipulate[d] the plan would...consist of tract homes of uniform design?" There has been no previous project approval for Tract 1998 (now referred to as VTTM and P.U.D. O1-001). In addition, other tracts in the Rancho Grande area were constructed with approved design guidelines for style and character similar to the design guidelines proposed for the second reduced density development proposal,which will guide the development of custom homes. Resroonse 4F The commentor expresses concern about the"handing off" of building design challenges onto individual lot owners and City staff. Specifically, the commentor is concerned that lot owners will seek additional variances on height and setback requirements, and that they will be tempted to build illegal granny units or recreation rooms within the supporting substructures down-slope of their residences. The EIR addresses the project as proposed. Future modifications to the proposed lots are considered speculative and can therefore not be feasibly evaluated in the EIR. Response 4G The commentor suggests that the plan has changed sufficienfly to require a new EIR. As noted in the introduction to the second addendum: Accarding to Secrion 15164 of the State California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines,an addendum to a previously cerrified EIR is the appropriate environmental document in instances when "only minor technical changes or additions are necessary'and when the new informarion does not involve new significant environmental effects beyond those idenrified in the EIR. The change currently being contemplated involves eliminating 21 residenrial lots from the 361ots proposed under the original Revised Draft SEIR far a new total of 15 single family lots. This reduction wauld ultimately avoid and/ar reduce all environmental imqacts previausly analyzed for the original proposed project. In addiHon,as discussed belaw(see Conclusion secrion), the second reduced density development proposal would have no nezv significant environmental effects. As such, the addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA. � City of Arroyo Grande CR-27 Vesting Tenfative Trad Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response 4H Refer to Responses 4I through 4N. Response 4I Refer to Impact B-2 and Mitigation Measure B-2(a),which states: Portions of every proposed lot fall within the current 50 foot riparian buffer zone. Lots 3 through 5 and 13 through 15 are adjacent to a deeply incised gully that is idenh'fied as riparian habitat on Figure 6. Lots 6 through 12 are adjacent to a continuation of that riparian zone, identified as a jurisdicrional drainage area. However, this erosion gulley, which is not a blue line drainage, would be filled as part of the project, and thus would not be subject to the riparian setback. Riparian impacts associated with these lots are not anticipated to be significant. Lots 1 and 2 urill still be adjacent to a portion of the remaining riparian setback, although it may be possible to concentrate development on these lots to avoid the setback. Additional concerns related to erosion,pollution,and wildlife habitats are addressed in the Biological Resources,Geologic Resources,and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the Second Addendum,respectively. Also refer to Response 1F. Response 4T Refer to Responses 1M,10, and 3C. Response 4K Refer to Response 3K. Resvonse 4L Impact B-3 and Mitigation Measures B-3(a) and B-3(b) address the issue of loss of mature oak trees. Also refer to Response 1P. Response 41v1 Commentor expresses concern about unpacts to wildlife corridars and other unintended adverse consequences of development. Wildlife corridors are addressed in Response 3K. Analysis of unforeseen and unintended consequences would be speculative. ResQonse 4N The commentor's opinions with regard to the merits of the project are noted. The proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the General Plan in Section 5.0 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,and a determination of consistency must be made by the City Council. The commentors concerns about consistency with the General Plan are noted. � City of Anoyo Grende CR-28 FROM :CDD8EDD FRX N0. :805 473 5489 Rpr. 21 2008 11:30RM P4 Letter 5 17 April 2�08 to City Council and Planning Commission T°: RECEIVED Mayor Ferrat�a Mayor Pro Tem Arnold APR 18 2008 Councilman Costello Councilman Fcllows qp� d11roFAipOM� COUIICIZYl1811 �r11t17f1C �NN�MIYDl.�11� Caren Ray,Chair of Planning Commission John Keen,Vice Chair Richard Marshatl, Commissioner Kristen Barneich, Commissioner Daug Tait, Commiasioner Rob Stroag, Director of Community Devclopment Teresa McClish,Associa.te Planner Steva Adams, City Manager Re; Proposed development oF Tract 1998 I havc serious concerns with the revised plan for the development of Tract 1998. However there is I A not much of a.plazt to evaluate; It ap�ers that the onl�t6in¢this devel�er plans to build i� ROAp and utiliiv accessl I.ack of Definidon; Thcre will be no grading of lots,each lot-owner will choose a builder and design a custara housc. All of this is undefined. What size and desigi of houses rvill be pexmittecl7(Qn sIoped lats the oprious are limibed.) 1'here coWd potentially be 1 S different huilders buiIding 15 custom houses. Which builders are B environmentally conscientious, and which are not? Thc City staff will have their hands full aegotiating veriances for alI these cusWm houses—some on tiny lots. And a host of tegulations won't help you. Aftcr 15 years in subcontract management I lmow that requirements on paper arc very diffcrent than what actually happens in tt�,e f�eld.A reasn of requirements won't turn a bad builder into a good buildert Lot Size: Have you ever scen a modest-sized custom house? Sanne of the lots clase to the creek are barely above the miqunum required by the city For a single family house(7,200 sq ftet). How big of a house shauld be petmitted a»these lots? I live scrose the ravine it►the Highlonds tract on an average size lot. Ours is a 2,100 sq ft. tract C house on a 12,000 sq 8. lot. Can you imagine considerably larger Iwuses on such small lots?! It is ludicrous. T'he buildiag site is toffilly inappmpriate for the custom approach and tiny lot sizes proposed. Euvirot�mont�il Crcek and�Vctlands T'hc building sitc is also wtally inappropriate for cavironmcntat reasons. The smallcst lots (resulting in g�esYest concentratioa of houses,conarete and run-of� are located in the most sensitiva p area of the sitc near the riparian area by the creelc. Why?Bocause the slope gets steeper and steeper 1 of 2 FROM :CDD&EDD FAX N0. :805 473 5489 Apr. 21 2008 11:30RM PS the Iugher on the hill you go,making building up there even less feasihle than near the botwm. (Making this site doubly inappropriate.) The sensitive area is not onlq a tributary feeding Meadow Creelc ,but even more importantly,an p emerging wetland. With wetlands disappearing world-wide and especially in California,we should not he jeopardizing this incredibly precious nahual resource. And Arroyo Crrande could do a lot worse thsn attract bird-watchers to the area who patronize hotels, SBcB's tu►d restaurants aad are generally con8cientious people to boot. Rodent Control The ares nesr the creek proposed for development is home to a pack of coyotes. We see their Poot prints in our back-yard. 'I'his nack is essential to controlling the rat as�d rahbitponulation'�it ravitte. This dtvelopment basically displaces them. The developer seys there will he a`�vildlife corridar"on the ridgeline—but thc coyotes are not necded on the ridge—the rats and rabbits live E near the ravine of the creek. fTow will an explosioa in the papulation of mdents be corrtrolled without the coyotes7 And witl the potetttial for poisonous run-off into the creck increasc es residenis on both sides of the ravine try to get comml over tite rodcnts without their natural predat�rrs? �er Wi1dliFe 't'his axea is also habitat for the Cooper's FIawk. I have seen juvenile Cooper's hawks wat�.hing my bird-feeder on a numher oF occasions.I read in the Tribune that some pmposed developmcnt on I F Willow Road needed to cvnsider the Copper's Hawk habitat and that should be considcr�d berc aIso. HQA, All through this plan, I sec the term"Significant but mitigatable."3ince the developer is only building the road, who will be responsibte for all thesc mitigations?This sitc poses a mi6gation nigtttrnare that wiU need ta be addr�ssed by each individual builder. And there are 5nancial worrics.This HOA consists of I S individuels. G Is it realistic w expect tUat 1 S people will be able(or willinp�to pay fees high enough m provide for the maintenazice of the ri�rian �rea and the maintenance of the mitigation measures? The first thing that will be aeglected in a finaacial short-fall wilI bt thc rip$riaa area, Is ihere aay kind of iegal bond that will be in place to ensiu�e that the riparian enviranmeut is not de- graded duc to ihe 15 hous�hold HOA being uuable w meet its financial commihnent? Concluefon: Maybe I em cynical,but after reading the revised plan,my thought is that the developer just wants to put in minimal infi�asducture and then wash his 2�ands af the huge pmblems and pit-falls that this H plan represents. I respect property rights,but�we must also respect steward-ship of the arc�'s naturai resourees. This is thc wrong plaa on the wrong site. ��.c��,� �� ai a,�,io 2of2 Vesting TenTative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Letter 5 COMMEN'TOR: Mary Ann Otter, Private Citizen DATE: April 18,2008 RESPONSE: Res�onse SA The commentor's oputions regarding the merits of the project aze noted. Response 5B Refer to Responses 3C and 4F. Response SC The commentor expresses concern regazding the appropriateness of custom homes on lots at or neaz the minimum lot size requirement. The aesthetic impacts of the project are addressed in Impacts AES-1 and AES2. As noted therein,Mitigation Measures AES1(a) and AES-2(a) are sufficient to reduce unpacts below thresholds of significance. In addition, compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed in Impact LU-1. Response SD Refer to Responses 2F,4I,and 3K. Response 5E Refer to Responses 3K and 4M. Response 5F Refer to Response 2G. Response SG Refer to Response 3L. Response SH The commentor's opinions regarding the merits of the project aze noted. � City ofArroyo Gronde CR-31 _ . . _ CASTLEROCK �etter 6 . . _ - . O E V E L O P M E N T Apri121;2008 Teresa McClish, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande PO Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Subject: Revised Final Subsequent EIR, Second Addendum for VTTM 1998 Deaz Teresa: Please accept the following comments regarding the above-referenced RFSEIR and enter them into the public record. I would also appreciate response from the SEIR consultant to the questions and statements given. Sincerely, `�/� ",�--- Jason Tyra Castterock Development 1. The first pazagaph on page two (2), under"Pmject History" states, "The 1991 EIR covered most of the recent phased subdivisions of the Rancho Grande Subdivision (Tracts 1834, 1994 and 1997) with the ex�centiox of the subiect nronertv([�TTM and P.U.D. Ol-OOI, nreviouslv Tract I998)arrd the Noyes Road property (Parcels 10 and 11)." The statement is not entirely accurate. The 1991 EIR clearly stated its goal to identify the A major environxnental impacts that would result from the development of the Rancho Grande Subdivision, including"...the 40 unit cduster area in Tract 1998, and orher future projects as identified by the Cily ofArroyo Grande Planning DepartmenP'1. The Final EIR also included the pro�osed 401ots of VTTM 1998 as part of its cumulative analysis and mitigations in general, and rnore specifically, reIative to traffic, air qualitv, 'Drak Environment Impad Report Tor the Rancho Grande Subdivision,page 135,dated January 1991 (Append"a 17) 'Final Environment ImpaG Report for the Rancho Grande Subdivlsion,pages 18&19,86,dated March 1991 (Appendix 18) A California C rpaatiott - 202 H3 7ank Farm Road . San Luis Obispo, California 93401 . Lic. NoJ30788 • (805)546-8100 • Fax (805)549-84t9 water, sewer and other services.3 It is for this reason ihat the current series of I A environmental documents are referred tb as "subsequent". It seems cleazly documented that the u�c, drainage and water impacts of VTTM I998 were included in both the cumulative analysis and the subsequent mitigations for the overall Rancho Grande Development. Mitigations previously performed on behalf of VTTM 1998, as well as the rest of the Rancho Grrande Development inctude construction of the Ciry-owned water reservoir No 5 off Puesta Del Sol and its water lift & pumping station on West Branch, between Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway; the water B booster station located next to water reservoir No 5; improvements to the Brisco Road/ Highway 101 interchange; construction of a retention basin on the comer of James V✓ay & La Canada; and street impmvemenu to James Way. Other mitigations include the land currently being used for the new Rancho Grande Park, which was donated to the City to satisfy the Parks & Recreation mitigation for all of the Rancho Grande Development, including VTTM 1998'. 2. The third paragraph on page three (3}, under"Project History" states, "The second reduced density development proposad eliminates most terracing and retaining walls on lots, leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the !ot owner." C There aze no walls being proposed on lots and no terracing between lots. 3. A similaz statement to item 2 above occws on page fifteen (15) under "Aesthetics- Impact AES-1". p Again,there aze no walls being proposed on lots and no terracing between lots. 4. Pazagraph 4 under Mitigation B-2(a) on page 19 states, "As a condition of the 50- foot setbacl�primary on-site stormwater drainage shaL!not be allawed to enter the East Fork of Meadow Creek." Currently storm water drainage ultimately enters the East Fork of Meadow Creek, as that E is the historical pattern. Proposed drainage plans show storm water released via oudet structures that sheet flow eventuaIly into the creek following the IustoricaI pattern. Prior to stormwater being released from the storm drain system servicing the lots and roadway "first flush"flows pass through a WaYer Quality Unit, capturing debris, sediment and hydrocarbons. 5. Component viii of Pazagi�aph 4 under Mitigation B-2(a) on page 21 states,`A grease trap and/or silt basin shall be installed in all drop inlets closest to the c�eek to prevent ail, silt and other debris from eniering the creek. Such iraps/basins shall be F maintained and cleaned out every spring and fall to prevent overflow situations and potential mosquito habitatsfrom forming. The komeowners association sha[I be resaonsible for grease trap and/or silt basin maintenance activities" 'Final Environment Impad Report for the Rancho Grande Subdivision,peges 84&86(85),tlated Mareh 1991 (Appendiz 18) 'Draft Environment Impad Report for the Rancho Carande Subdivision,page 117 &112,dated January 1991 (Appendix 19) . Inline Water Quality Units aze included as part of the current drainage plan, based on the feedback and request from the City of Arroyo Crrande Public Works department out of desire to be able to centrally manage the maintenance filtering structures. All storm system components integrated as part of and/or connected to the conshuction of the road will be publicly maintained. This would include the inlets at the top of the hill that feed F into the road drainage system. In accordance with the Drainage Maintenance Plan incorporated in the CC&R's the HOA is responsible for drainage swales/structures and outlets that exist solely within the open space. Drains that capture water from the open space and then pass under (but do not connect to) the roadway aze included within HOA responsibility. This mi6gation measure should be revised accordingly. b. The second paragraph under tUe heading "Rationale for Reduced Mirigation"on page 22 begins by stating, "It should also be noted that Mitigation Measure B-2(a) was revised per the Apri12004 City Council meeting to reauire a 50-faot setback from riparian or wetland areas (rather than the origina125}." The vesting tentative map for VTTM 1998 was accepted as complete for processing under CEQA in 19985,prior to any city ordinances or laws regarding creek setback G requirements. Subject to certain conditions, Section 66498.1. (b) of the California Subdivision Map Act provides that Tract 1998 is nat subject to ordinances or laws enacted by the City after acceptance of the application for processing. Even though Casflerock disagrees with the application of the setback requirement, it has carefully tried to design the project so as to accommodate the City's request for a 50-foot setback, while still maintaining a viable project. If the City strictly imposes the setback condirions on this project, it will preclude Castlerock from proceec3ing with the proposed subdivision as a viable project. 7. The first pazagraph on page 23 contains the statement: "It may be possible that the agencies will accept the applicant's mitigation strate�as being functionally equivalent ao the 50 foot setback requirement described in the certified Revised Finad SEIR for this project." It should be noted that the SU-foot setback is not a law or a federal/state agency H mandated requirement. The setback requirement was created and imposed by the City in response to specific concems for development previously proposed d'uectly adjacent to the actual creek line of the East Fork of Meadow Creek. The second reduced density project moves the core of the proposed development well away from the primary creek corridor. 8. The first paragraph on page 23 also contains the statement: "liowever, without I that assurance, this CEQA analysis must conclude that the applicant's preliminary � 5 Letter from Lezley Buford,City of Artoyo Grande Community Development,to Don Ritter,Castlerock Development, dated Novembei 10, 1998 mitigation plan may nat meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure B-2(a), because it I does not include a SO foot bu,ffer setback." Please see the comments on item 6 above, regarding whether a setback imposed after the vesting tentative map for VTTIvE 1998 was accepted as complete for processing under CEQA can be used to preclude Casderock from proceeding with the pmposed subdivision as a viable project. 9. Pazagraph one under Mitigation CR-1(a), ott page 32 begins with the sentence: "A qualified archaeologist and Native American representative shald monitor all earth � moving activities within native soil." An extensive on-foot cultural resource surface survey of'VTTM 1998 took place on May 11, 2002,and was conducted by Mr. John E. Atrvood of Pacific Archaeological Sciences Team(PAST} along with Ms. Peggi Odom,representing the Northem Chumash Councii. In their report, Mr. Atwood and Ms. Odom made the following findings: • "An intensive examination of this area failed to reveal the oresence of anv kind of prehistoric stone tools or manufacturing debris that would indicate that the Chumash people,for habitation purposes, used this partieular area. "6 • "No evidence o�m human remains ivas encountered during the investigation and their presence within the boundaries of the subject property is nat considered likely."� • `At this point, there is no evidence that would indicate that buried cultural resources are likely to exist within the boundaries of Tract 1998. "8 The report concludes by stating"There was no evidence revealed during the survey that would indicate that a more substantial buried archaeological deposit e,zists below the current surface. Therefore, subsurface testing on the subject properry prior to development is not likely to reveal any new information about the cultural resources of the area."9 In light of Mr. Atwood's findings, alomg with findin�s by other cultural resoutce sutveys conducted within and adjacent to VTTNI 1998 °, this specific mitigation seems unnecessary,since there is no evidence that any basis for suspecting cultural resource impacts from the project exists. At the very most, an azchaeologist should be"on ca1P', should any cultural resources be encountered. 'Page 10 of"Cuttural Resources Survey Of TraC 1998,Parcef 7 Of Pm 77-103(The Meadows At Rancho Grande)In The City Of Arroyo Grande,San Luis Obispo County,Califomia", 6y Barbie Stevensan Getcheli and John E.Atwood, Pacific Archaeological Sciences Team(PASn,dated May 2002. �Page 15 of M"Cuttural Resources Survey Of Trad 1998,Parcel 7 Of Pm 77-103(fhe Meadows At Rancho Grande}In � The City OFArtoyo Grande,San Luis Obispo Courty,Cafitomia",by Barbfe Stevanson Getchell and John E.Atwood. Pacfic Archaeolagical Sdances 7eam(PAS�,dated May 2002. 'Page 11 of'CUiturel Resources Survey Of Trect 1998,Parcel 7 Of Pm 77-703(The Meadows At Rancho Granda)In The City Of Arroyo Grande,San Luis Obispo County,Cal'rfomia",by Barbie Stevenson Getchell and JOhn E.Atwood,Pacific Archaeologieal Sdences Team(PASTj.dated May 2002. 'Page 15 of"Cuttural Resourees Survey Of TraGt 1998,Parcel 7 Of Pm 77-103(fhe Meadows At Rancho Grande)In Tha City OEArroya Grende,San Luis Obispo Caunty,Califomia",6y Barbie Stevensan Getchell and John E.Atwood,Pacific Archaeologipl Sdences Team(PASn,dated May 2002. 10 A large portion of TraG 7998 was included wi[hin an aroa surveyed by Robert L.Hoover in 1977(a);hvo other surveys (Dills n.d.and Hoover 1977b)have been conduded an large nearby parcels;and anothersmaller study(E-3941)has been conducted nortfi of tha projed area. 10. Mitigation G-4(b) on page 39 begins by acknowledging that the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code does not pemut building and grading on"slones of 25% and greater•",but then goes on to say: "Because of the erosive qualities of the site, development shald be prohibited on slones exceedin�20%. There is no prohibition within the City against grading on slopes between 20% and 25% and other than identifying the site as having "erosive"soils, no expezt justification or reason for tlus mitigation is offered. In fact, each of the EIR's consulting geotechnical K engineers concluded that with the implementation of proper engineering, site testing and erosion control measures potential impacts will be successfully mitigated. As it is necessary to consult with a quaiified soils engineer for the design and construction of any structure within the development per the proposed Design Manual, in accordance with state building code and as recommended by Mitiga6on Measure G-3(a), each lot would be required to undergo geotechnical revi,ew and engineering to mitigate any anticipated geologic hazards including potential erosion ixnpacts prior to issuance of a building pezmit. Therefore the conclusion to restrict development on slopes less than 20%is unfounded and the proposed Mitigation Measure G-4(b) should be s�icken in its entirety and revised to read: As prescribed by Title 16 oflhe Ciry ofArroyo Grande Development Code, building and grading is not permitted on sJopes of 25%and greater. S7eep slopes (corrsidered to be 20-25%)present a danger to landsliding, slope failure, sedimentation of on-site drainages due to accelerated runof�"and soil erosion. Therefore an individual geotechnical report shall be required to be completed for each lot by a licensed and qualified soils engineer in accordance with the requirements of the City ofArroyo Grande Building Depariment and the applicable state building code. Engineering methods as determined by the soils engineer shall be implemented in the construction plans for submittal to and appraval by the City ofArroyo Grande Building Department. In addition, a soils engineer shall inspect and certify the construction of the building pad prior to campletion of the foundation inspection by the Building O�cial. Prior to final inspection by the Building O,f,�cial a civil engirteer shall inspect and cert�the completion of the lot impravements including establishment of erosion control measures and the insiallation of drainage facilities. 11. The last sentence under Mitigation H-2(a)states: "Subsequently, the maintenance of all on-site drainage facilities, culvert, bridges and flood protection measures will be the responsibility af the H0.4." L As noted previously, maintenance for much of the on-site drainage facilities, culvert, bridges and flood protection measures will be the responsibility of the City Public Works Department. As defined in the Drainage Maintenance Ptan included in the CC&R's the HOA is responsible for draanage swales%slructures and ouflets that exist solely within the open space. Drains that capture water from the open space and then pass under(but do not conttect to)the roadway are included within HOA responsibility. This mitigation raeasure should be revised accordingly. 12. As stated in the approved FSEIR, per Impact H-3, the reasoning behind the requirement for the restoration of the detention basin along James Way was out of concern for increased storm-water runoff. The analysis of this impact references a report completed by Mike Ratty of Garing Taylor and Associates dated December 17, 20a2. It is stated in the FSEIR and the Second Addendum that"The report states that while the basin is currently functioning as designed, the basin would not be able to function properly with the addition of stormwater runoff from the proposed project."It is this reasoning that is used to determine the need for Mitigation Measure H-3(a). This reasoning and determination is flawed as the report completed by Mr. Ratty made no such conclusions and in fact cleazIy stated "the retardation basin is restricting storm water as originally required... " as well as confirming "77�e retardation basin included restricting water from the development of Tract No. 1998 which is now Yesting Tentative Tract Map 01-001. "Mr. Ratty in addition states that "Due to the conservative assumptions for the runoff coe�cients less water is probably running ofj'the watershed than is indicated by the calculations. " Based on Mr. Ratty's statements it is not M understood how the conclusions in the FSEIR could have been reached and the resulting Mitigation Measure H-3(a)developed, which is again referenced in the Second Addendum, considering the impact that was being evaluated. Mr. Ratty does address the question of whether the retardation basin can be used to capture silt and operate as detention basin which the retardarion basin was not designed to do. Note that the specific purpose of the retardation basin was to comply with mitigation requirements o€the EIR for the Rancho Grande Subdivision by Denise Duffy and Associatesl�. These mitigations stated that "...surface runoffflowsfrom the Rancho Grande Subdivision rncluding portions of Tract 1994, Tract 1997, Tract 1998 and Tract 1834 (East and West) shall flow through this basin and the flows shall be restricted to a discharge rate equal to a pre-development discharge of 252 cfs."Mr. Ratty states in his report that "The existing retmdation basin can be used to capture silt from the storm runoff. This can be done by over excavating the basin bottom below the lowest outlet elevation or in an emergency sand bag the area around the outlet structure. "This is assumed to be the language from which the incorrect conclusions have been drawn. To require this modificarion of the retardation basin to a detention basin in order to capture silt would establish a requirement that exceeds any potential impacts that Tract 1998 could cause alone,as the homes of Tract 1834, Tract 1997 and the larger property homes upstream each contribute to this drainage and pass though the same retardation basin. In addition to NPDES requirements Tract 1498 already addresses concerns for silt and debris runoff as raised by Public Works and the City Council through its implemeatation N of inline Water Quality Units(WQU) in fhe storm drain system. These WQU's caphue sediment, debris and hydrocazbons contained in the "first flush"flows. Based on the incorrect conclusions made in the FSEIR,Mt. Ratty's report and the efforts I O already proposed to be implemented in the improvement design of Tract 1998, Mitigation Measure H-3(a) should be deleted from the Second Addendum. I t Final Emicanment Impau Aeport fw We Rme6o Grende Subdivieion,dWed March 1991 rfppeneu la) Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Letter 6 COMMEN"I'OR: Jason Tyra,Casflerock Development DATE: Apri121,2008 RESPONSE: Response 6A The commentor notes that the 1991 EIR covering the Rancho Grande Subdivision included analysis of Tract 1998 (now referred to as VT"I'M and P.U.D. O1-001). According to the Final EIR for the Rancho Grande Subdivision: The application for 1998 was submitted some time after the application for the other tracts were considered complete and the EIR was initiated. The City is required to deal with each application in a timely manner, in compliance unth State requirements. Also, the Draft EIR can only deal urith the level of information that was available at the time of the prepararion. Although an allowance of up to 40 units on Tract 1998 was already approved by the development agreement in 1983, at the time of the prepararion of the Draft EIR, there was no concept map available for Tract 1998. At present, there is a concept map and an application for Tract 1998 filed with the City. This Final EIR considered the implicarions of development of Tract 1998 in the discussion under the Revised Alternative 1834, as well as the Cumulative Section. The Rancho Grande Subdivision Final EIR also states that site specific information and evaluation of Tract 1998 (now VTTM and P.U.D. O1-001) will be the subject of a separate EIR. Res�onse 6B The commentor notes that traffic, drainage, and water impacts of the proposed development were included in the cumulative analysis and subsequent mitigations for the overall Rancho Grande Development. The commentor also lists mitigation performed. The comment is noted. Refer aLso to Response 6A. Response 6C The commentor notes that retaining walls on lots and terracing between lots are no longer proposed. However,custom site and home design remains at the discretion of individual lot owners, so terracing and the construction of retaining walls may still occur on lots. Paragraph three of the Project Description on pages 3-4 has been revised to reflect this distinction: The second reduced density development proposal ^�',',-�-,.�.',�^��^^-�.,,�^`does not propose terracing s�or retaining walls on lots, leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the 1ot owner. Because lot owners have discretion regarding site and home design, terracing and retaining walls may still occur on lots. Flat graded sites (under 2% slope)would be restricted to no more than 50 percent of roof height exceeding 16 feet while sloped graded sites (over 2% slope) would be restricted to a no more than 50 percent af roof height exceeding 20 feet (refer to Figure 5). � City of Arroyo Grende CR-38 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response 6D Refer to Response 6C. Impact AESl on pages 15-16 has been revised as follows: Impact AES-1. The clustering of the residenrial units and preservarion of open space under the original proposed project would partially maintain the open space character of the site. However, the original proposal had the potential to alter the aesthetic character of the site vicinity through alterarion of scenic znstas from public viewing locations. The second reduced density development proposal would reduce the overall amount of development by approximately 58% when compared to the original proposed project and by approximately 29% when compared to the first reduced density development proposal. In addition, the second reduced density development proposal more densely clusters proposed residences then either of the previously analyzed proposals, thereby minimizing site disturbance (and preserving additional open space). The reduced density, higher clustering, and addirional open space in the second reduced density development proposal would allow for higher overall massing, since the development as a whole would be less visible from the main public viewshed Qames Way). The second reduced density development proposal�also ek�s�ate-»�esE does not propose terracing a�or retaining walls on lots, leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the lot owner within prescribed design guidelines (refer to Rationale for Reduced Mirigarion below). Because lot owners have discretion regarding site and home design, terracing and retaining walls may still occur on lots. Impacts to the aesthetic character of the area would remain Class II, significant but mirigable Response 6E The commentor references Mirigation Measure B-2(a) and notes that the drainage plan for the proposed project would eventually flow into the creek after flowing through a Water Quality Unit,which the commentor clauns is acceptable because this is the historical pattern. The pazagraph referenced by the commentor [Item 4 in Mitigation Measure B-2(a)] relates to prunary on-site stormwater drainage. As noted later in the measure,if implementing this requirement is not physically, technologically, or economically feasible for construction of the project as proposed, then addirional measures shall be implemented. This includes the installation of grease traps and/or silt basins in all drop inlets closest to the creek to prevent oil, silt and other debris&om entering the creek. It is therefore permissible,in accordance with this measure,that runoff eventually flow into the creek, as suggested by the commentor. Response 6F Mitigation Measure B-2(a) requires the homeowners association(HOA) to be responsible for maintenance of grease trap and/or silt basins installed in all drop inlets neaz the creek. The commentor notes that storm system components integrated as part of and/or connected to the construction of the road will be publicly maintained,rather than being the responsibility of the HOA. Item 5(vii; previously viri) in this Mitigation Measure has been revised for clazity, as follows: A grease trap and/or silt basin shall be installed in all drop inlets closest to the creek to prevent oil, silt and other debris from entering the creek. Such traps/basins shall be maintained and cleaned out every spring and fall to prevent overflaw situations and potential mosquito habitats from forming. � City ofAnoyo Grende CR-39 Vesdng Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses �es Public Works shall be responsible for maintenance activities of grease traps and/or silt basins that convey water runoff from the street. The homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance activities af grease traps and/or silt basins which convey stormwater runoff from undeveloped portions of the site around the developed portions of the site; Response 6G The commentor notes that the vesting tentative map for the property was accepted for CEQA processing in 1998,prior to City ordinances or laws regarding creek setback requirements,and that under the California Subdivision Map Act, the property may not be subject to ordinances or laws enacted by the City after acceptance of the application for processing. The 50-foot setback was requested for the project by the City Council, and the Second Addendum is consistent with this request. In addition, the commentor notes that Casderock Development will be precluded from proceeding with the subdivision as a viable project if the 50-foot setback is enforced. The comment is noted. Response 6H The commentor notes that the 50.foot setback is not a law or Federal or State agency mandated requirement. The comment is noted. Also refer to Response 6G. Response 6I Refer to Responses 6G and 6H. Response 6T The commentor notes that a cultural resource surface survey conducted by Pacific Archeological Sciences Team and the Northern Chumash Council did not find any evidence that Chumash people used the property for habitation purposes,or that buried cultural resources are likely to exist on-site. However, grading and construction could still reveal buried cultural resources. As such, appropriate mitigation is still required to reduce potential impacts below thresholds. Response 6K The project site contains steep slopes and is underlain by the Pismo Formation and presents a moderate slope stability hazazd. Landsliding has the potential to damage and destroy structures,roadways and other improvements as well as to deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and erosion. Soil slumping can damage or destroy structures and lead to erosion problems. As such,the EIR includes a stricter standard for slope grading which prohibits grading on slopes exceeding 20%. � City of Anoyo Grande CR-40 Ves6ng Tenfafive Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response 6L Refer to Response 6F above. The last sentence of Mitigation Measure H-2(a)has been revised as follows: , , ...:i/ A,. ab,.,.,...«..«..;i,;1;s....LSka�ra�public Works shall be responsible for maintenance activities drainage facilities that convey water runoff from the street. The homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance activities of drainage facilities which convey stormwater runoff from undeveloped portions of the site around the developed portions of the site. Response 6M The commentor states that the Report on Rancho Grande Retardation Basin by Garing Taylor& Associates does not support the conclusions reached in Impact H-3,which necessitate Mitigation Measure H-3(a). However,proposed development would introduce new runoff and drainage impacts to an area that is currenfly undeveloped. As such,this unpact remains significant but mitigable, and Mitigation Measures H-3(a) and H-3(b) remain necessary to mitigate project impacts below thresholds. Response 6N Refer to Response 6E. Response 60 Refer to Response 6M. � City ofArroyo Grende CR-41 May 1, zoo$ RECEIVED Arroyo Grande Planning Commission MAY 012008 Arroyo Grande City Council cmoF,neROVOC�ww� COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMEM As a member of the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission I do have a conflict of interest regarding the proposed project, (Vesting Tentative Tract Map and P.U.D. 01-001) as I have real property within 500 feet of the proposal. As such I will step down and abstain from participating in deliberations and decision making for this item, and will not use my official position to influence a governmental decision. However, this dces not preclude my right as an individual to submit written questions, and concems as a private citizen or member of the general public. Please accept the following written material regardi�g this item, as a private citizen. Respectively submitted. . � �— � Doug Tait 645 Asilo Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Regarding Proposed Development on P.U.D. 01-001, (Tract 7998) Questions and Concerns from Revised Final Subsequent EIR, Second Addendum The proposal eliminates most terracing and roetaining walls on /ots, leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the lot owner. This statement is problematic for it tells me that each individual lot owner will have the burden of grading and erosion issues. If the developer is not proposing to actually build the homes, then all that will be done is to "scar" the land until custom grading and homes can be built. Filling of the Jurisdictional Drainage. Has it been determined by Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the jurisdictional drainages can be filled with imported soil and not create new impacts to the existing wettands or Meadow Creek? From page 22 of the March 2008 EIR, "Portions of everv proposed lot fall within the current 50-foot riparian buffer zone." The applicant proposes to fill in areas adjacent to a continuation of a riparian zone, identified as a jurisdictional drainage, to not be subject to the current riparian setback. Is the "erosion gulley°, as referred to in the EIR, a riparian type hatiitat? One shoutd not be allowed to fill in a riparian area to justify it dcesn't exist in order to build over it. The Army Corps of Engineers states that ephemeral tributaries—which have water flowing only at certain times of year—are to be considered jurisdictional, (provided that an ordinary high water mark is present). Tributary waters can be channels that are usually dry and may have very faint or ill-defined ordinary high water marks. An important question is, is there a hydrological connection between the wetlands and adjacent drainage ditch? If that can be answered in the a�rmative then the project will result in the fill of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or the state of Cal'rfornia. Figure 2 map inser� (page 7). The proposed 10-foot public utility easement, does that comply with the 50-foot setback from riparian, wetland and Pismo clarkia? East end of figure 2: the proposed 20-foot wide emergency access/city utility easement crosses a second jurisdictional drainage constraint. Are both jurisdictional drainage constraints proposed to be filled? What type of crossing is proposed over this jurisdictional drainage? The proposed 18-foot wide access path and proposed 20-foot wide emergency access easement cuts through an oak woodland constraint. t HOA Responsibility ImpactAES-2 is classified as Class II, significant but mitigable. Part of the mitigation is that exterior lighting shall be limited to security and safety purposes. Many home owners in the Highlands have installed exterior decorative lighting around their homes. I do not see how this mitigation is fully enforceable as stated in 15126.4(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure B-2(a) #4. "It shall be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain the buffer vegetation . . .and implement a weed abatement program to insure that non- native species be excluded from riparian/wetland areas. Public access to buffer areas shall be prohibited.° The mitigation continues with, "There should be no private ownership of the riparian setback and access by people and pets should be restricted." Again, per CEQA, mitigation measures must be fully enforceable. In fact all mitigation measures, the HOA shall be responsible for, mav not be fullv enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally-binding agreements, as stated in Section 15126.4(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Page 20 of EIR Addendum suggests that implementing the listed mitigation measures for B-2(a) Riparian and Wetland Protection may not be feasible. Which proposed mitigations may not be feasible to the applicant? I believe the mitigations that are not feasible, because they are not enforceable, are the ones placed on the HOA to protect riparian and wetland habitats. The above statement on page 20 requires clarification. "If implementing the above measures is not physically, technologically, or economically feasible for construction of the project as proposed, then the following mitigation measurers shall be implemented which require the applicant to comply with Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and obtain the necessary permits from the appropriated resource agencies." Isn't the applicant required to comply with Federal, State and local laws and regulations and obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate resource agencies reqardless if the implementation of other mitigation measures are not feasible? Mitigation measures for impacts to wetland/riparian areas can often be inadequate by only requiring that a project obtain reauired oermits from the CDFG, RWQCB, and /or the Army Corps of Engineers. If the applicant has already received the appropriate agency permits, or 'rf the ageney has provided recommended mitigation for the project, then these can be incorporated as mitigation measures in the CEQA document. However, if the applicant has not yet received or applied for the necessary permits prior to the preparation of the CEQA document, the mitigation measures requiring "obtaining permits" is not adequate under CEQA guidelines Section 15370. Merely obtaining a permit does not meet the definition of a mitigation. 2. Rational for Reduced Mitigation, page 22. Regarding the proposed span-culvert crossing of Meadow Creek. Would a span bridge or a span-culvert provide for the optimum in wildlife movement in the project area? Which of the two types of c�eek crossings would provide for fewest impacts to the creek banks and surrounding riparian habitat? From the document, `Portions of every proposed lot fall within the current 50-foot riparian buffer zone." These impacts can not be mitigated without substantial redesign or lot relocation and this condition applies to the current development proposal, as stated in the document. However, the applicant proposes to "fill in", with imported soil, a continuation of a riparian zone identified as a jurisdictional drainage which would make the project not subject to the current and adopted riparian setback. I believe one should not be permitted to "fill in" a riparian area or jurisdictional drainage to remove from it from the environmental constraints of the project. I concur with page 23 of the document, "This CEQA analysis must conclude that the applicant's preliminary mitigation plan may not meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure B-2(a), because it does not include a 50-foot buffer setback." Impact H-1 — Hydrology and Water Quality is directly related. The document reports that the jurisdictional drainages are a consistent and natural erosion source of sediment and silt runoff that contributes directty to Meadow Creek, and that filling in these drainages, and placing lots over the drainages, would actually reduce on site erosion. If this is correct, which is questionable, instead of removing a jurisdictional drainage, which most probably"feeds"the wetland, and is considered hydro logically connected to the wetland, the jurisdictional drainages should not be filled but any sediment and or silt flowing down should be slowed down by appropriate engineering techniques to reduce the stated sediment and erosion into Meadow Creek. If the proposed "filled in"jurisdictional drainages are not re-created on top of the engineered fill, or nearby, how will the natural runoff by conveyed? And what will take the place of these drainages, which are beneficial to the health of the wetlands? � Impact B-3— Oak Removal Page 24 of the document states, "Oak trees and Oak Woodland habitat shall be avoided by adjusting or removing proposed lots to eliminate inclusion of oak trees." Designing a project to fd into the landscape is environmentally sound, and preferred. However, the current proposal would result in the removal of 11 oak trees, the transplanting of 12 oak trees, and the removal of associated habitat within the Coastai Oak Woodland habitat onsite. To transplant an oak tree you must first remove it, thus 23 oak trees are proposed to be removed. Portions of the proposed project remain located in areas that would result in direct impacts to the oak tree canopy cover within the established riparian corridor. Specfically, nearly all of proposed lots 13-15 are located in oak woodland habitat. Oak Woodlands and Tract f998 The concept of biological integrity refers to a system's wholeness, including all the necessary elements and processes. Today we are now understanding how our land- use practices and policies impact biological integrity not simpty diversity. For example, and oak woodland development project that proposes to preserve a wetland area, but does not recognize the relationships between the wetland and upland vegetation may completely destroy a rare plant found in or around the wetland that depends on an insect pollinator whose lifestyle depends in turn on the adjoining upland vegetation. Removing trees, filling ditches, diverting water, and building houses and roads generally fragment the landscape and affect both the diversity and integrity of the oak woodland. Though relatively few populations of oaks will ever be spec�cally protected under the Endangered Species Act, other listed species found in oak habitats provide de facto consideration for the oaks when assessing critical habitat requirements. We should consider the well being of oak woodlands as an ecological unit, rather than that as individual trees. �Idlife Relationship The strong relationships between oaks and wildlife are well established. Many oaks are keystone species in their natural habitats, meaning that their importance to the ecosystem is far greater than their numerical proportion in it. Many other species depend for their survival on the oaks, and are lost when oaks are removed. Oaks may also be considered umbrella species. By protecting oaks, other associated species may be protected as well, even if they do not depend directly on the oaks y survival. As an example, Califomia's state butterfly feeds on a single plant species (false indigo) which in tum grows in the understory of oak woodlands. If an oak woodland is protected, the butterfly is included under this protective °umbrella". This requires the preseroation of understory species in addition to the oak trees themselves. As an oak tree alone is worthy of protection; but less so if it is left surrounded by concrete in a subdivision. From page 24 of the document, each tree or group of trees shall be protected by a five foot fence enclosure prior to construction. The fence is normally at the dripline of the tree, but it may be adjusted or omitted with the City's written approval. In what circumstance would the fence be adjusted or omitted? As stated in the document, "An appropriate browse protection program will be developed for all oak tree planting areas on the project site." One of the most serious obstacles to oak reproduction is the impact from foraging by a variety of animals including deer, rodents and grasshoppers. Repeated browsing can stunt growth or kill seedlings outright. For this project what will be done to protect oak plantings? As stated in the document, "In the event that underground utilities must be placed within the dripline. . .the utilities shall be installed by auguring at 24 inches minimum depth or by hand trenching. No machine trenching within a tree's dripline shall be permitted." Question: The allowed auguring at 24 inches minimum depth, I assume, will be done by hand since no machine trenching within a tree's dripline will be permitted? Oak Tree Mitigation, Mitigation Plantings As stated in the document, "Replacement plantings shall be more than a 3:1 ratio and shall be minimum 15-gallon sized nursery trees." A few years back, conventional wisdom suggested that replanting oak seedlings was a viable means of insuring oak sustainabitity. With time come new ideas and evolution of thought, and most ecologists now recognize that replacing a century-old tree with 1, 3, or 10 one-year old seedlings does not adequately replace lost habitat values of large trees. It has become evident that simply focusing on mitigation plantings based on a tree seeding ratio is not a sufficient strategy to ensure the viability of oak woodlands. Flawed mitigation schemes are accepted by local jurisdictions. Consultants preparing EIR's perpetuated the myth that mature oaks can be transplanted effectively. Scientific evidence to the contrary abounds. A study of 593 coast live oaks transplanted to make way for residential development in Orange County showed that 71% of the trees died within 7 years. Another study of 25 coast live oaks relocated for development in Catabasas showed that after 5 years, 32% were dead or dying, 44% were in decline, 24% were stable, and none were thriving. S As early as 1993, assembled oak experts from the CA Oak Foundation and the University of CA Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program agreed that"oak transplantation should not be considered a form of mitigation for land development impacts on woodlands". Local jurisdictions also aliow the removal of mature oaks in exchange for planting some greater number of smaller sapling oaks. This contributes to the degradation of overall habitat values in three ways. First, the structural complexity of mature oaks will not be achieved by replacement specimens for decades. Second, mitigation plantings are often installed at sites that are not ecologically appropriate or in locations that will not be optimal for long teRn viability. Monitoring of such mitigation plantings usually ceases after 5 years, far before replacement of the habitat values of the removed trees can ever hope to be achieved. Third, mitigation plantings never include the associated understory species of an intact oak woodland. -Oak mitigation information taken from, "A Planners Guide for Oak Woodlands; 2"d edition. University of Califomia, and °Uri�an Wldlands Group'; CA Oak Foundation Advisory Board. Maintain Local Sources Since most tree species have adapted to the specific environments where they grow, it is important to plant oaks that come from a local source. If nursery stock is proposed, the applicant should find out the location and elevation of the acorns collected, and insist on seed sources from as near the planting site as possible. We should remember that the proposed project does not just remove 11 oak trees and transplant 12 others. Rather the proposed project changes the habitat, diversity, and in�grity of the oak woodland by impacting at a minimum 23 oak trees. � lmpact B-4. Pismo clarkia. On page 26 of the document, '?he second reduced density proposal avoids ali onsite Pismo clarkia occurrences, as ail development is located more than 50-feet from the edge of occurrences. The nearest development, the proposed span culvert, would be located approximately 175 feet from the nearest mapped occurrence." That would depend which map you refer to. The Habitat Definition Plan map from the Revised Final Subsequent EIR, February 2004 maps out coastal oak woodland with Pismo clarkia occurrences in red, and clearly shows this occurrence at the southem portions of then lots 15 and 76. From this it does look like the currently proposed Blossom Valley Road may be located within the 50-foof setback of Pismo clarkia occurrences. Verification is needed. This same Pismo clarkia occurrence is also shown on the Mc Hargian Alignment Analysis dated 1/22/04 under the legend "Pismo Clarkia Boundary." From the Revised Final Subsequent EIR, February 2004, starting on page 40 and continuing on page 41, it states "New information provided by the applicanYs Habitat Definition Plan indicates that a slightly different pattern of occurrences of Pismo clarkia were observed onsite during the summer of 2003, compared to what was observed by Rincon biologists during the summer of 2002. Lots 15 and 16 and adjacent street would impact the Pismo clarkia occurrence approximately 80 feet long and 50 feet wide based on the 2003 survey of Pismo clarkia. This same occurrence was not observed in Padre's 2000 or Rincon's 2002 surveys, but was observed in both the 1998 EIP and the 2003 Atthouse and Meade surveys." This 80' X 50' occurrence is not shown on the most recent constraints map, (Figure 6 in the cuRent document). RFSEIR, February 2004, page 41 continues with, "This new Pismo clarkia information confirms that annual plant populations experience fluctuations in size and number from year to year. In addition the new information also indicates that the most central portion of the project site provides favorable conditions for Pismo clarkia. Due to the extent the onsite occurrences of Pismo clarkia fluctuate from year to year, the acreage of Pismo clarlcia habitat that would be impacted as a result of development cannot by accurately determined." The above RFSEIR, Feb. 2004 statements still hold true for the March 2008 RFSEIR, Second Addendum. David Chipping, Conservation Director of the CA Native Plant Society, in his letter dated 1/27/04, sums it nicely—"It appears that there is a considerable variation in the distribution of Pismo clarkia. As 2003 did not follow an exceptional year for seed production, this also suggests that actual habitat for Pismo clarkia might be considerably larger that is currently mapped under the constraints analysis." In the current document, page 28, under Rationale for Reduced Mitigation —"The second reduced density development proposal would avoid mapped occurrences of 7 Pismo clarkia." There is a mapped occurrence, as noted, and this occurrence should be ver�ed to show that the proposed development does, or does not, impact the Pismo clarkia by encroaching into the established 50 foot setback before mitigation is reduced. Impact G4, page 37 states that landslides have the potential to deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and erosion. This is exactly what may happen when one "fills" a drainage channel as proposed. G-4(b), page 39 states, Because of the erosive qualities of the site, development shall be prohibited on slopes exceeding 20%. F{owever, from page 38, Specifically, portions of lots 1,9,10,11,12,13, and 15 would be located on slopes exceeding 20%. Also according to the On-Site Slopes map—Phil 8ums and Associates, May 2000, portions of lots 5,6,7,8,10, and 11 may be on slopes greater than 25% /mpact H-1— Hydrology and Water Quality. The document infers that the jurisdictional drainages a�e a consistent and natural erosion source of sediment and silt runoff that contributes directly to Meadow Creek. And that by filling in these drainages and building over them would actually reduce on site erosion. If this is correct, which is questionable, instead of removing a jurisdiotional drainage that most probably feeds the wetlands and/or Meadow Creek—why not keep the drainages intact and slow down the runoff to prevent any sedimentation and erosion into Meadow Creek. If the drainages are filled, as proposed, will the drainages be re-created on top of the engineered fill? Or elsewhere onsfte? Impact PS-2 The project site is in an area characterized by high fire hazards. However, the plan shall require 30 feet of adequate clearance from brush to structures throughout the development. More and more areas characterized by high fire hazards are requiring more than a 30 foot clearance, (100 foot minimum in Ventura County). On my Notice to Abate Fi►e Hazard from the city of Arroyo Grande, the vegetation management guidelines state hillside homes must have a clearance of a minimum 100 feet on the downhill side of the structure. Would it not be prudent for the city to require a clearance of greater than 30 feet on the proposed custom homes to 6e located on steep slopes in an area characterized by high fire hazards? PS-2(b) states road grades on all roads shall not exceed 16% , per the Unfform Fire Code. With slopes of greater than 20% how will upper Blossom Valley Road and the Emergency Access Road comply with PS-2(b)? � From page 53 pf the document, "Spec�c lots proposed for development remain in areas determined to contain steep slopes, oak woodlands, and fall within the 50-foot riparian setback." From the current constraints map, a summary of lots that impact key resources include: -The most eastem jurisdictional drainage constraint adjacent to Tract 1278 includes lots 2,3,and 4 in its setback. -The next jurisdictional drainage constraint, the drainage proposed to be filled, includes lots 2-10 and 13-15. -The Oak Woodland constraint includes lots 4,5,10,11,13-15 -Slope constraint (greaterthan 20%) includes lots 1,5-9,13,and 15 -The Pismo clarlcia constraint, (according to the 2003 Habitat Definition Plan) may include a section of the proposed Blossom Valley Road. -The RiparianNVetland constraint, (with the proposed removal, or filling, of the jurisdictional drainage) still contains lots 1,2 a�d portions of the roadway. It seems clear to me that this proposed development needs additional work to fd on this site with its many constraints and impacts to sensitive environmental issues. I believe the applicant can do better, and the city should demand better. This site has an abundance of natural resources, riparian and wetland areas; oak woodlands; habitat and occurrences of Pismo clarkia; and wildlife. "Surely we are not so poor that we need to destroy them, or so dch ti►at we can afford to lose them.°— Richard Drury,former National Park Service Director. Thank you for your consideration on these matters, �• �--�-- Doug Tait 645 Asilo Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 R City Response to Doug Tait Letter of May 1, 2008— 1. Filling of Jurisdictional Drainage. The applicant will be required to implement a mitigation program described as Mitigation Measure B-2(a), that includes a 50- foot setback from riparian and wefland habitat. Where this is not possible,and when jurisdictional areas aze affected,appropriate permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFG be needed before tract map approval. As a condition of these permits,compensatory mitigarion may be required,and the EIR Addendum describes this process and performance standards. Note that the anticipated impact and mitigation measure are substanrially the same as what was previously described in past EIR documentation. Thus,the Addendum is an appropriate form of documentation for this issue. As described in the Revised FSEIl2,none of the"erosion gull}�' that would be filled is not a riparian area,but coastal scrub habitat. However,the lower portion of the gully includes seasonal weflands along the immediate drainage. 2. Public Utility EasemenYs Impacts to Biological Resources.As noted in the previous response,the FEIR and Addendum acknowledge that some rightsof- way may encroach into the proposed 50-foot setback for riparian and wetland habitat, and appropriate mitigation is proposed. With respect to Pismo clazkia,the proposed easement would be outside the identified 50-foot setback from this resource,as described in the Revised FSEIR and Second Addendum Impacts to oak woodland areas have been previously described in the Kevised FSEIR,and the proposed utility easement would not result in new unpacts or mirigation measures that have not already been previously disclosed. 3. Enforceability of Mitigation Measure AES-2(a). The mitigation monitoring program for the project describes the mechanism to enforce this mitigation measure,which is related to lighting. Lighting plans for individual homes must be reviewed and approved by the City must be approved,and compliance with these plans verified prior to final inspection. Additional lighting that may be inctalled later that is not in compliance with the approved plans may be subject to enforcement actions by the City. 4. Enforceability of Mitigation Measure B-2(a). This mitigation measure involves avoidance,setbacks from,or compensation for,biological resources that could be impacted. The enforcement mechanism for this measure is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project,and involves the City and other permitting agencies. Period inspections and permit review to ensure compliance with conditions are required,and further conditions may be imposed by permithing agencies as part of their processes. As described in the staff report for the project,where enforcement issues are the responsibility of an HOA,that entity (or the applicant, if prior to the establishment of such an entity) would be required to hire a consultant to perform mitigaiion monitoring,and would report to the City to ensure compliance. 5. Oak Woodland Habitat and Tree Removal Issues. While the revised project described in the Second Addendum would impact some oak woodland habitat and remove some oak trees, and transplant others, the magnitude of this impact is less than was described in previous CEQA documentation associated with this project application. The current project would remove 11 coast live oak irees and transplant 12 others,while the previously documented first reduced density proposed would have removed 68 trees and transplanted 102. The Second Addendum acknowledges this unpact, and its associated mitigation measures, which remain unchanged from those previously required,even though the magnitude of impact is less. 6. Pismo Clarkia lssues. The comment is concerned that the revised project does not necessarily avoid all impacts to Pismo clazkia,suggesting that based on some previous survey information, a portion of Blossom Valley Road may be within the proposed 50-foot setback for this resource. The map showing the extent of the Pismo clarkia habitat included in the Revised Final SEIR are based on independent surveys prepared by the EIR consultant,and considers other surveys previously prepared for the site,which mapped a slighfly different extent of occurrence. The individual Pismo clazkia occurrences that may have previously been identified near the proposed roadway were not observed by the EIR consultant during surveys conducted for the CEQA analysis. The revised project clearly does a much better job of avoiding Pismo clarkia habitat and occurrences than any previously proposed version of the project,and based on the habitat map included in the Revised FSEIR,all aspects of the project would be outside the proposed 50-foot setback,and in fact would be at least 175 feet away based on the EIR analysis. That is the primary basis for the change from a Class I to a Class II impact. As noted in Mitigation Measure B-4(a),it is still required that a 50-foot buffer from the Pismo clarkia occurrences described in the Revised FSEIR needs to be shown on grading plans,and marked in the field with fencing. Appropriate pernutting agencies,including the City and its biological resource mitigation monitor,will need to verify that the occurrences have been appropriately fenced. In the event that the extent of occurrences changes at the time grading and construction are proposed such that an unpact could occur, the biological monitor would notify the City and other regulatory agencies as appropriate. However,based on the current information,the conclusion and mitigation approach the Second Addendum is appropriate,and consistent with the requirements of CEQA. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality Issues. Jurisdictional areas subject to fill would be required to comply with permit conditions from the US Army Corps of Engineers and RWQCB. This is consistent with what was described in previous CEQA documentation and the Second Addendum. 8. Fire Protection Issues Related to Impact PS-2. Mitigation Measure PS2(a), which describes fire protection measures associated with vegetation management,is consistent with previous mitigation included in the Revised FSEIR, and adequate to mitigate unpacts from a CEQA perspective. The City may wish to consider more restriciive conditions of approval. The slope of roadways will be required to comply with the Fire Code,as noted in the CEQA documentation for the project. The Fire Department will make the final determination of project compliance. Nanci Parker Board Member Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District To: The City of Arroyo Grande City Council Members Planning Commission Members Re: Comments to Vesring Tract Map and PUD O1-001 Revised Final Subsequent Envirorunental Impact Report Second Addendum I would like to address some concerns of the Vesting Tract Map and PUD 01-001 project which directly impact the health of Meadow Creek Tributary and iYs Riparian conidor,as it relates to Water Quality from Erosion contamination and Chemical run-off. This project has both direct and cumulative impacts on the Riparian Marsh lands of Pismo � (specifically Meadow Creek aviary and animal habitat). The tributary itself has been identified by the U.S. Geological map as a"Blue Line" seasonal creek. As such,it travels across and under an adjacent road and joins the protected areas of the Pismo Lake Marsh[see map on page 6]. It is imperative that we maintain the health of the areek by eliminating wherever possible any impacts that negatively affects this region. Water quality is directly impacted by erosion and chemical run-off among other factors. WATER OUALITY: EROSION CONTROL � Preventing sediment from entering the Creek and the Riparian Coiridor. In 1998, the Water Quality Contml Board referred to the soil at this project site as some of the most erosive soils in the state. Tlus is an important consideration in the prevention of erosion into this area. The Gu1levArea: p. 22 "Portians of ei�ery proposed lot fall wiihin the current 50 foot � riparian buffer Zone. Lots 3 through S and 13 through I S are adjacent to u deeply incised gully that is identified as ripm•ian habitat of Figure 6. Lots 6 though 12 area adjacent to a continuation of that riparian zone, identified a jurisdictional drainage ar•ea". p. 35 Impact G-3 "...the imported fill material proposed to frll the erosion gulley in the area proposed for deveJopment would cut off a consistenl and natural erosion source of sediment and silt runoff that contributes directly to Meadow Creek ther•eby reducing onsite erosion". --- -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 � Page These statements seem to conclude that once this gulley has been filied, the azea would � no longer be of erosion concern. Historically this gully has been a major factor in a lazge to�•�� flow of sediment into the Riparian Corridor as well as directly into the Creek. It must be documented that further erosion from this gully has not occurred since the removal of drainage pipes from former projects and neighboring sites. Any new project should guarantee that further erosion wili not develop. In order to guarantee the success of mitigation, the source of the erosion must itself be addressed and then eliminated, not just reduced. Blue Line DrainaPe: p. 5 "The erosion gulley is not a blue Irne drainage and ifkely developed due to modified runoffpatterns from development ofadjacentproperties". Although the gully is not classified Blue Line drainage, this erosion gulley currently runs C, directly into the riparian corridor and then into the Blue Line Meadow Creek. This erosion gulley is currently and will continue to be a direct line for the transportarion of silt and debris from new building sites as well as the gully itself if not corrected. The fact that the gulley is not a"Blue Line" drainage site does not discredit that it directly impacts the Blue Line Arroyo Grande Creak. Drainaee Pattervrs: p. 36 Mitigation Measure G-3(c) item f. "Landscaped areas adjacent to sb•uctures shall be graded so that dr•ainage is away frorn structures". � Specific method and termination of drainage flow should be incorporated in the mitigadon measure. This generalized statement leaves too much unanswered. p. 35 Mitigation measure G-3(b) "The expansion rndices of individual lots should be determined on a lot-specifrc basis". Deternunation of soil erosion impacts on a lot by lot basis may help prevent erosion on C individual sites, but iYs prudent to determine an overall grading site plan to prevent one site from contaminating or transferring emsion and grading impacts to other sites. Grade Issues: p. 5 "Under the second reduced densiiy development proposal, this erosion gulley would be filled, resulting in a graded slope of less that 20% throughout this area". � Run-off from slopes as steep as a 20% grade can easily cause eirosion material to contaminate and fill the Riparian and Creek areas. Erosion control measures are vital both during and after construction. [see p. 36, MM G-3c] Emerrencv Access: The emergency access road must be built in such a way as to minimize soil erosion, silt filtration and water flow into i7parian habitat and creek '{ corridors. This mitigation measure should also be listed under flood control impacts. �� The emergency access road is located on a steep 20% grade. This impact needs to be further addressed to include measures to prevent or divert an excess of water, debris, silt, --------..._ - - - _ 2 � Page and other environmental hazard.ous materials from flowing along the main roadway and I Vl into the sensitive areas of the creek. Roadwavs: Minimize roadway surfaces whenever possible to maacimize percolation and cut down on the water flow that leads to erosion towards the creek areas. Narrow roadway and eliminate street parking whenever possible especially through � environmentally sensitive habitats to the minimum standards ailowable for emergency access. Allow character of roadway to be more flexible to avoid standing oaks and other natural resource areas along with buffers required. WATER OUALITY: Contamination frora Chemical Run-off Saecitic lots: remove all lot portions that lie within riparian areas as well as 50 ft, buffer ( _ to ma�cimize buffer mitigation. Permit hillside development projects only when the following criteria are met: . The natural contour of the hillside is preserved and maintained whenever � possible and removal of native habitat minimized , Excessive, intrusive hillside grading that is not required in order to satisfy density proposals of the project is prevented. Currently, the Project does not conform to proposed 50 foot setbacks of the '/ environmentally sensitive areas. To better guarantee successful mitigation proposals, F� building lots must be located completely out of buffer areas, as well as any designated ripazian area. p. 16 Biological Resources Impact B-2 "small portions ofproposed Lots 4 and 5, as well as three separate segment so Blossom Yalley Road are located ivithin the mapped riparian habitat shown of Figure 6". p. 19 B-2 (a) mitigation 1 states "if feasible, all we[land and riparian areas shall be avoided and building envelopes shall be located so that all ripm•ian and wetland habitat is buffered fi•om development �ncluding gradin� by a minin:um 50 foot setback measured from fhe top of the creek bank or•the outer edge of ripar•ian vegetation, whichever is greater". p, 22 "Portions of every proposed lot fall within the current 50 foot riparian buffer Zone. Lots 3 fh�•ough 5 and 13 through IS are adjacent to a deeply incised gully that is identifred as ripar�ian habitat of Figure 6. Lots 6 though 12 ar•ea adjacent to a continuation of that riparian zone, identified a jurisdictional drainage area". p. 23 "...some development tivould nonethe7ess be located in riparian ai�eas. As a result, impacts would remain Class ll, signifrcant but mitrgable". _._ . _ _ ___ 3 �P � ge Roadwav and Parkine: To decrease footprint of roadways and parking that Iead L to increase in water run-off filled with chemical, debris and siltation, that flow into the creek and riparian areas,the following is recommended: On S[reet Parkinp: On sU�eet parking causes auto emissions and oils to drain down the street and directly contaminating creek and riparian area. Eliminating on-street pazking whenever possible and installing oil and debris traps as well as conducting a high maintenance program would decrease this potential, but contamination would still be inevitable. Grade: Decrease roadway and driveway grade whenever possible to slow water run-off into creek and riparian areas. Current grade of roadway is still extremely steep which will cause high amount of run-off into the riparian areas. Plan roadways so that the run-off travels across grades whenever possible instead of current configuration of traveling directly down grade. Footprinf: Decrease roadway footprint to decrease imperviable area and to increase buffer areas. Construct roadway around large diameter Oaks and avoid all buffer and riparian areas whenever possible. i7se perviable pavement whenever possible to increase water percolation on site. An overlay map showing conshaints would be helpful to deteimine if .n/� another roadway route or building envelope configuration can provide less impact � � �� to riparian areas. This includes decreasing footprint as well as lessoning erosion and chemical run-off into riparian areas and stream. Chemical use: pp. 12/13 state: "Ii shall be the responsibllity of the HOA to implement a weed abatement program". Weed Abatement: A weed abatement program must be specific, both to the homeowners and to maintenance crews for the riparian creek area. Weed N abatement within the ripazian creek area should be accomplished without harmful chemical use that would threaten the wetland ecosystem. Chemical u.se: Lot sites must be located outside the 50 foot buffer zones to prevent harmful chemicals from flowing into ecologically sensitive areas. Although the pest control program of this project is thorough and contains 33 pages of instruction and education, a full chemical use program must be included for both homeowner use and ripazian creek maintenance programs. Conclusion• Despite substantial mitigation measures, this project still has serious impacts on what is undoubtedly the most environmentally sensitive area in Arroyo Grande. All in all tivs � continues to be an improvement over past projects. Progress has been made in protecting some of the more serious environmental constraints and most of these issues have been addressed thoroughly. However,there are still serious and avoidable impacts that need to be more adequately addressed. -- ' 4 �Page Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District Pismo Lake Ecological Rese�roe *�' ...: \n {�,,.✓ f� : � �I� x R� . Sj; 1pQ� a''C'.�'�YR��' J��'o'Y � ' �� i � 1 ,„t t - ,v >3 t . . t t � � , i Yf 4 7j- �'.:.,yy ��!^7�. `^�.i� °�.�' ne�' `�� , "�y' s r �f" � j� ,':a '1x�'� lS`l�' + �9r' � w '�a,A.: ia Y:. ��.. ;%{�� t t FiJ } ` �'�s �iY e �Y�?� �� e Y..� (�rS�� y4� � ?� i, i • g �ir`,ra.�i+�� . � f��S ��- t�"1 1.� � 1 1 s' � 2� ��r� ` � 5 \� r *'- lY . �r � r� .. S�+� '�, `�� ,__:: ,; - . }.i+. �y-: 'y r�jy•��h�i,3�i 2� )Fii �aT'*d'��4+r'�j'7 L# '�E��i'� ''yr.5�>�'• �i +y�''R`t � t [S, . S� t � ��7 �K .� t t �A a a ,f 1 ��•��L G l. y t14i� ' ��, �E ` i ` �� `�� V . � t �j. ,� i tC ;'7� d �'}I��R��i��a'�.�� ,�� 1i d�.�`saJ3 r . �' y`��,9irf )n'�``� : y 7 �.'a. .. � ��j�� }��'j �� r[.... 101 ,-.0 ��}�i'`y?D�� 4Y,yV�.� Vf�� • �+ � 4 t s14 � �X � � s � G.i\��r a r *�,'�,.�r�'�^ �,�«i�I��it''��!,ht"'� . f"'� �`.�'�sv�.�t 4 . � �� , ��',�i� �a;•.- ; �..�, �� t °� i�� k�r/'.�^S".�p��'�i'�� . 1 Gt, t� 'A � �� y� dY ;�4 . �.+ pr „ ;� t� c �G8'b �,.(� . :k gylti'a' p. . cf� . �Y�` vFJC ' 'J �� % ��J°i� . i W r '`..tN� t�'r�! r N�:1 < {` "s e, °•; t h� .Ry,1 ��` .. �lA'�� j ..=y. .'' �ii fi� T :' u�, "i'�i'�El}�?�vvd">�iSi\hl�`x}��p?�.�»�' sF � � ` ��t � �t " ) £; � i Y � �. �i4��,�yT.��}k.S x�C�ReF2�c`3��{.$�."k'$.�$'}L�.��lq��y�,''�' . it y �z��`�� '` ' E�C 3 (��N'��1 'k.��.�#tiY^�`G1T�.��'716�.�`i41�'��a�.�~{ �N. V. � �x '^ ' .� ' '� � �'F4 .c11 +a�'t+��}ii��ii � aF �y.2 1'r p s�� Q'�< FJ wuA./'j - . �z �ci. y�. .. ;. �, n 'k z r 7,� a ,,_,. d9S = `- zn-.'..�. '��. �� 3�1 � � r�,�j��}i+ C��i }5��A4v l� 'diQ� Z �F��1 '��q S� iWtviv t;a EWaNArat�c��'_b2 }��t�.S.t�;.. 1G1 '�i Ix�3 �' 4 �`L �'�.{�6��rt.u}4Yi�'�4�{��T`�� r� °'/�'7.{�%�Yfi�p��'s0.`'1� �'�� h�'� ? � ,�3 \',� rXB' `- �,i`hT�t�Hj�'�7��;�+#.ri! '� a�/�Y ��'-isd"��:�it� '� �.:. -Y t`�y�,',�� 3� � . ..�5:- _ �.t�"r,�11Sz.iz��'rsxH' ;'L",7a¢?�i&v�i��x � ��..,;5��r5'Y#��a,a: t �, ,,1.�. 4;. This map shows the Blue Line Meadotiv Creek running fi�om projecz site upper right corner through Pismo Lake Ecological Rese�ve, center of map left side. —._ ..... __ _ _-- ---- - _ . _ - S � Page wildlife corridor: (fl wildlife corridors: p. 27 reads: "The entire site acts as a wildlife corridor, facilitating wildlife movement from .upland areas through the more urbanized � downstream reaches of the Meadow Creek system. ...a sufficient movement corridor for common wildlife species such as black tailed deer. coyotes, raccoons, rabbits, and opossums still remains." This corridor is extremely important to this area and needs to be maintained responsibly. .Wildlife corridor needs to be reopened as soon as possible, especially along the back end of the project area and under the culvert corridor. Barbed wire fencing needs to be removed from the culvert and along protected wildlife corridors and foraging azeas. 6 � Page Vesting Tentative Trad Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses COMMENTOR: Nanci Parker, Board Member,Coastal San Luis Resource Conservarion District AESPONSE: Response A The applicant will be required to unplement a Storm Water Management Plan in accardance with as Mitigation Measure H-4(a),including development of best management practices (BMPs) for the long term operation of the site to m;n;m;ze the amount of pollutants that are washed from the site. The EIR Addendum describes this process and examples of BMPs which may be included in the plan. As noted in the Second Addendum,the on-site erosion gulley is not a blue line drainage and has likely been sustained and modified by runoff patterns from development of adjacent properries. Jurisdicrional areas subject to fill would be required to comply with permit conditions from the US Army Corps of Engineers and RWQCB. This is consistent with what was described in previous CEQA documentation and the Second Addendum. Response B The applicant will be required to implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with Mirigation Measure G-3(c) to m;,,;m;�e erosion,sedimentation and unstable slopes on the project site,including areas which would be filled as part of the project. Response C The commentor's statement that the on-site erosion gulley,which is characterized throughout the Second Addendum as not being classified as a blue line drainage, contributes to Arroyo Grande Creek, is noted. As noted in Responses A and B,the applicant will be required to unplement Mitigation Measures to minimize the amount of sediment pollutants that are washed from the site. Response D The requirement in Mitigation Measure G-3(c) that landscaped areas adjacent to structures be graded so that drainage is away from structures is part of a larger Grading and Erosion Control Plan. Specific methods of termination will be determined during preparation of this Plan, which is required far submittal to City staff prior to approval of land use permits for grading of tract improvements. Response E Mitigation Measure G-3(b), as referenced by the commentor,is lot-specific because it mirigates a lot-specific impact associated with expansive soils. The applicant will also be required to implement a property-wide Grading and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with Mitigation � City of Arroyo Grande CR-7 Vesting TentaGve Tract Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Commenfs and Responses Measure G-3(c) to m;n;m;�e erosion, sedimentation and unstable slopes on the project site as a whole. Response F The applicant will be required to implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure G-3(c) to ininiinize erosion, sed'unentation and unstable slopes on the project site, including areas which would be filled as part of the project. Res�onse G The applicant will be required to implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure G-3(c) to minimize erosion,sed'unentarion and unstable slopes on the project site,including in the vicuuty of the emergency access road. It should also be noted that Mitigation Measure G-4(b) (Development on Steep Slopes) prohibits development on slopes exceeding 20% due to the erosive qualities of the site,despite City prohibition of development on slopes 25% or greater (Title 16 of the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code). Response H The commentor suggests that roadway widths and on-street parking be ininimized. As discussed under Impact B-5 in the Second Addendum,the current project reduces road widths to 24 feet within the vicuuty of onsite weflands and Pismo clarkia habitat. Reducing widths to less than 20 feet in this and other areas of the property and removing on-street parking may result in inconsistencies with Arroyo Grande Fire Department recommendations and City parking requirements,respecrively. Refer also to Mitigation Measure PS-2(b) (Road Widths, Lengths,and Fire Hydrants). Response I The commentor suggests that all lot portions that lie within riparian buffer areas be removed. Mitigation Measure B-2(a) (Riparian and Wefland Protection) would mitigate the loss of riparian/wefland habitat. The commentor s recommendation is noted,but is not required from a CEQA standpoint. Res onse The second reduced density development proposal does not propose terracing or retaining walls on lots,leaving custom site and home design to the discretion of the lot owner within prescribed design guidelines. This may result in unproved preservarion of the naiural contour of the hillside. In addirion, the second reduced density development proposal would reduce the overall amount of development by approximately 58% when compared to the original proposed project and by approximately 29% when compared to the first reduced density development proposal, thereby inu�imizing native habitat removal. It should also be noted that the applicant will be required to implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure G-3(c) to minimize erosion, sed'unentation and unstable slopes on the project site. � City of Anoyo Grende CR-8 Vesting Tentative Trad Map and P.U.D.01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR Second Addendum Comments and Responses Response K Refer to Response I. Response L Refer to Response H. As noted therein,reducing road widths to less than 20 feet and removing on-street pazking may result in inconsistencies with Arroyo Grande Fire Department recommendations and City parking requirements,respectively. Refer also to Response G. As noted therein,Mitigation Measure G-4(b) (Development on Steep Slopes) prohibits development on slopes exceeding 20°/a due to the erosive qualities of the site, despite City prohibirion of development on slopes 25% or greater (Tifle 16 of the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code). Response M Comment noted. See responses to previous comments. Response N Mitigaiion Measure B-2(a) (Riparian and Wetland Proteciion) requires a minimum 50-foot setback from ripazian areas. As a condition of the 50-foot setback, primary on-site stormwater drainage is not allowed to enter the East Fork of Meadow Creek. Response O The commentor notes that although the current project is an improvement over past projects, serious issues remain. Comment noted. Response P The commentor provides a map of Meadow Creek and the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. Response Q The second reduced density development proposal changes the crossing of the East Fork of Meadow Creek by Blossom Valley Road from a standard culvert into a span-culvert,which meets the same standards for maintaining wildlife corridors as the span bridge suggested by Item 5(v)under Mitigation Measure B-2(a). The removal of the barbed wire fencing would be consistent with the principles described in this mitigation measure. � City of Arroyo Grende CR-9