The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2010-11-09City Con e1*1 Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Costello, Council Member Chuck Fellows, Council Member Caren Ray, Council Member Steven Adams, City Manager Timothy J. Carmel , City Attorney Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2010 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE 4. INVOCATION 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. 6a. 7:00 P.M. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PASTOR ROBERT BANKER OPEN DOOR CHURCH Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY — NOVEMBER 9, 2010 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 Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action.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 October 16, 2010 through October 31, 2010. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of October 26, 2010, as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Cancellation of December 28, 2010 City Council Meeting (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of December 28, 2010 due to the holiday. 8.d. Consideration of a Resolution Aaarovina an Amendment to the Water Su Contract and Water Conservation District and a Continuing Disclosure Agreement (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the Water Supply Contract with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and a Continuing Disclosure Agreement in order to refinance the Lopez Dam retrofit bonds. AGENDA SUMMARY — NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd) 8.e. Consideration of Temr)orary Use Permit Case No. 10 -019 Authorizina the Closure of City Streets for the Annual Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association Christmas Parade, November 28, 2010 (MCCLISH) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving Temporary Use Permit 10- 019 for the Annual Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association Christmas Parade. 8.f. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Job Description and Salary Range for the Recreation Coordinator Position (PERRIN) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution establishing a job description and salary range for the Recreation Coordinator Position. 8.g. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Rezoning Two (2) Properties at 188 & 194 North Elm Street and One (1) Property at 704 Branch Mill Road (Development Code Amendment 10 -003) (McCLISH) Recommended Action: Adopt an Ordinance to rezone two (2) properties at 188 & 194 North Elm Street from Single - Family to Gateway Mixed -Use and one (1) property at 704 Branch Mill Road from Agriculture to Rural Residential. 8.h. Consideration of a Resolution Consenting to the Assignment of a Communications Site Lease Agreement from SLO Cellular, Inc. to SLO Newco, L_ (CARMEL) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution consenting to the assignment of a Communications Site Lease Agreement dated June 16, 2000, from SLO Cellular, Inc. ( "SLO Cellular ") to SLO Newco, LLC ( "SLO Newco "). 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Sr)ecific Plan Amendment 10 -001: Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant: NKT Commercial (MCCLISH) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution denying Specific Plan Amendment 10- 001 regarding Subareas 3 and 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. 9.b. Consideration of Tentative Parcel Mar) 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10- 001; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant; NKT Commercial (MCCLISH) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 for the subdivision of 4.47 acres into three parcels and development of a 3,750 square foot commercial building, a 4,200 square foot restaurant, and a 50,881 square foot grocery store (Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan). If the City Council approves the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the City Council refer the alternative site plan to the Planning Commission for review. AGENDA SUMMARY — NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 4 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont' d) 9.c. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 10 -003; Location: Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant: Peoples' Self -Help Housing Corporation (MCCLISH) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 10 -003 for a thirty -six (36) unit affordable apartment complex on 1.65 acres (Subarea 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan) based on its recommendation against adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 (the Commission did not provide any findings to deny the proposed project). 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and /or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and /or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Correspondence /Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Correspondence /Comments as presented by the City Manager. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. AGENDA SUMMARY - NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 5 17. 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 Legislative and Information Services Department at 805 - 473 -5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo- span.org THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INCORPORATED JULY 10, 1911,/* c• MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR I F ADI IINISTl ATI SEF IC 41K- Y: FIANCES F . HEAD, ACCOUNTIN C S PE1 IS 1 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION F CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE. NOVEMBER , 1 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16 through October 31, 2010. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is a $2,653,1 83.33 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Chefs 147503- 147678 $ 2 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks s $ 464,871.12 BACKGROUND: Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Administrative Services staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure than 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 FY 2010-11 budget. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Approve staffs recommendation; 0 Do not approve staff s recommendation; 0 Provide direction to staff. Agenda Item 8.a. Page 1 cInr COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES: TAGES: The Administrative Services Department monitors payment o f invoices for accountability, accuracy and completeness using standards approved by the Council. 0 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 e are appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: IE W: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: TS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 4, 2010. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 5, 2010. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. October 1 — October 31, 201 g — Acco unts Payable Check Register 2. October 2, 2010 — Payroll check & Benefit Checks Register Agenda Item 8.a. Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 a pCkHist Check History Listin 1 648817 09122/2010 28.56 111011201 1 1:09AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 10/2212010 001944 BASK CHEMICAL 515791222 10104!2010 ' .ank code: boa 674.38 147519 10122/2010 006956 DREANNA BDRLAN Check # Date Vendor Status clearlold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid check Total 147503 10/1912010 0008 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 1 01910 10/19/2010 11200,090.00 1 147504 1012012010 008153 Q VERITY 102010 10120/2010 190.00 199.00 147505 1012012010 008140 DANIEL ELLINGS N Ref000106524 1011212010 184.63 1 64.63 1 47506 19!2912910 0051 MARCO GOMEZ R f000106527 1 0/12/2010 0.04 0.04 1 47507 1912912910 0081 JOHN HOOK Ref000106525 1011212010 20.88 20.88 147508 1012012010 008145 JEFFERY L PORRAB Ref0001065 9 10/12/2010 21.96 21.96 147509 10120120 0081 MARTHA REY RefOOO 1 06528 1 0/12/2010 34.87 34.87 147510 1012012010 0081 DANIEL R TDSTE Ref0001 10/12/2010 6.19 8.10 1 47511 10/22/2010 002627 STEVEN ADAMS 192110 10/21/2010 241.22 241.22 1 47512 10122/2010 000029 AMERICAN WATER WORKS WORKS 101910 1011912010 95.00 95.00 1 4751 1012212010 096196 STEVEN ANNIBALI 102210 1 0122/2010 499.95 499.96 147 514 1012212019 090612 APA - AMERICAN PLANNING 079946 - 100801 09/1512010 440.00 440.00 147515 10/2212010 006167 APPLIED EARTHWORKS ORKS INC 2057 1011412010 3 3,757.80 1 47516 10/22/2010 008189 ASAP MOVERS INC 2329 1010612010 1 1 ,650.00 1 47517 1012212010 006607 AT&T 000001 653784 0912512010 877.55 Page: I 1 648817 09122/2010 28.56 906.11 147518 10/2212010 001944 BASK CHEMICAL 515791222 10104!2010 674.38 674.38 147519 10122/2010 006956 DREANNA BDRLAN 101 310 1011 812010 30.00 80.00 D 147520 10/2212010 000154 BRIAN BU KLEY 101310 1 011312010 80.00 30.00 ca 1 47521 10122/2010 000123 CA ST BOARD OF 093010 0913012010 611.08 611.08 CL 0 1 47522 10/2212010 000110 CA BT D E PT OF 180 0076667 1 012112010 1, 050.21 1 800076672 1010712010 172.80 c� 1800076678 10107/2010 100.01 M 00 wiD Page: I i3 CL ^ ice/ M0 rMIL M M 00 4 apHlt Check History Listing Page: 2 11/0112010 11:09AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status C learNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 1 809976679 10/07/2010 66.25 1 147523 1012212010 097177 CALIFORNIA BUILDING 093010 09130/2019 101.70 101.70 147524 1912212010 006039 CHEVRON & TEXACO CARD 26934916 1010612010 166.32 166.32 147525 1912212010 003156 CLEANING SUPPLY E1021 1910412010 3,247.50 3 147528 1012212010 003580 COAST RADIOLOGY AC T3315 09/15/2010 30.00 30.00 147527 19/2212019 906439 COLUMBIA CASCADE 45695 -75 09/21/2010 1 1 730.75 11730.75 147528 10/2212919 902039 DELTA LIQUID ENERGY 23593069 0611612010 597.62 173997 08/1 812010 182.26 660.66 147529 1912212010 002673 DOCTORS I EDPLUS IVIED #1896720 0912712010 65.00 65.00 147530 10/22/2010 007985 WILLIAM R DYER 8157A13157B 10/0112010 1,140.00 1 147531 1912212010 000225 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 235391 99121/2010 3 3 147532 1012212010 004676 EDB IMAGING, INC. 8911 90/11/2010 4,626.23 4 147533 1012212010 007129 TERRY ENGER 102010 10/20/2019 169.00 180.00 147534 1012212010 008166 FL OR ENRIQUEZ 191310 10/13/2019 30.00 30.00 147535 10/2212010 004164 FEDE 7- 236-15479 0812412010 16.19 18.10 147538 19/22/2010 904790 DEANNA FLOYD 102010 10120/2010 48.99 48.00 147537 1912212919 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 31140 10/1412010 13,96 31130 1010612010 5.44 18.49 147538 1912212010 004372 GARING TAYLOR 10764/10783 08/31/2010 202.95 202.96 147539 19/2212010 909605 THE GAS COMPANY 19/5 111 10/06!2010 208.53 10/11-350 10/11/2010 87.89 10/11-1375 10/11/2010 67.97 10/8 -299 10/06/2019 39.29 1017 -910 10107/2010 29.27 10184290 N 1010612010 26.59 10/5-208 10105/2010 19.64 Page: 2 c� c� CL 0) M0 M c� c� 00 pkHiat 11101 /2010 11 :0 AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P 3 Bark code: boa Check # Date Vendor 147540 10/22/2010 002813 GRAINER, INC 147541 10/22/2010 008058 RDNE' GRAY 147542 10/22/2010 002405 CHUCK HAR 147543 10/22/2010 008157 AMBER HARPER 147544 10/22/2010 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS 147545 10/22/2010 991386 HOPKINS TECHNICAL 1 47548 10/22/2010 998158 LAURA HUGHES 147547 10122/2010 008844 IRON MOUNTAIN 147548 10/22/2910 005265 KIDZ LIFE SOCCER (DBA 147549 10/2212010 008159 NEREIDA LEAL 147550 10/2212010 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 147551 10122/2010 001136 DOUG LINTNER 147552 10122/2010 008160 PEPE 1 IARIN 147553 1012212010 007520 STEPHANIE MASTR 147554 10/22/2010 006088 MATCO TOOLS 147555 10/22/2010 000423 MID STATE CONCRETE 147556 10/2212010 000426 MIER BR OS LANDSCAPE 147557 10/22/2010 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice 1 0/5 -1 500 1 015 .214 9358320988 1 020 10 102010 101 32977 38122 33131 201023030 201022854 101910 D KG2028 2010FA - H89 191319 1920'10 102010 10'1310 102010 36027 34 771 170546 X3722 K5024 K50452 K50515 Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 1 0/07/2010 1 10/05/2010 0.93 496.20 09/29/2010 217.80 .80 21 7,80 10120/2010 220.00 220.00 1 0/20/2010 1 32.00 1 32.00 10/13/2010 30.00 30.00 09/02/2010 2 09/02/2010 2 09/24/2010 42.42 4,22 1.92 09130/2010 9 09/29/2010 11 00.38 10,388.43 10119/2010 500.00 500.00 09130/2010 1 48.24 1 48.24 10/15/2010 1,417.50 1 10/13/2010 39.00 30.00 10/20/2010 108.00 1 08.00 10/20/2010 88.00 66.00 10113/2010 30.00 30.00 10120/2010 72.00 72.00 10/1412010 277.20 277.20 09/23/2010 228.88 228.38 09/09/2010 70.69 70.63 10/19/2010 1 53.75 10/14/2010 109.46 10/1112010 85.28 10/1112010 18.48 Page: 3 t� c� ii 0) M0 rMIL M W a p kHi t C History Listing P ag e: 4 11/01/2010 11 :09AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank ogle. boa Check # Date Vendor states Clean old Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 63 10/1 3/2010 1 K36666 1 0/131261 7. 61 393.00 147558 1012212010 007951 MW ARCHITECTS INC 1 9346.063 08110/2010 2 10346.605 10/13/2010 574.23 1 0346.004 09/1512010 495.06 3 147559 1012212016 008161 ROSE MARIE ORTIZ 10131 10/13/2010 30.00 36.60 147560 10/2212016 006481 PACI GAS & ELECTRIC 1011 620838 10/1212010 256.18 1 0112 - 78 1296 1611212010 18.35 368.53 147561 1012212010 008162 PAGE & T RNBULL 10335 1611112610 5,442.00 8 147662 1012212016 007453 PLANNING COMPANY ASSOC 861 09/ 8,000.00 5 147563 1012212016 066696 POSTAL CONCEPTS 18634 10/0112616 8.14 8.14 147564 1012212016 060520 Q UINN COMPANY 30192605 101011201 49.01 36623766 1610112016 -48.15 6.66 147565 1012212010 068168 JILL f ICHARDS 101310 1011312010 30.00 36.06 147566 10/22/2010 008148 RITE AID CASE 160578 1010612016 848.60 848.00 147567 10/22/2010 008164 ROCKMOUNT RESEARCH H 1 09/30/2010 298.12 298.12 147568 10/22/2010 004833 STEVE ROMO ROM 102016 10/20/2010 44.06 44.00 147589 10122/2010 060536 GREG ROSE 1 02616 1012 /2016 1 76.06 176.60 147570 10/22/2010 000810 RRM DESIGN GROUP 09161316517 10/07/2010 1,862.33 1,882.33 1 47571 10/22/2010 006 594 LAWRENCE RUCKER 16261 1 01201201 88.00 66.00 147572 101221201 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 10201 10120/261 36.60 36.00 147573 1012212010 066080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 101410 1011412010 20.00 20.00 147574 10/22/2010 000562 SLO COUNTY TAX 2010/11 047,125,0024 10/22/2010 372.92 2016111 007,774,0121 10/22/2010 42.00 201 0111 662, 074, 123 1 0/2212010 30.62 2010/11 006,085,0251 101221201 12 - Page: c� c� CL 0) M0 M c� c� 00 M 147575 10/22/2510 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 147576 1912212010 001696 SOU A CONSTRUCTION, INC 1 47577 10/22/2010 000609 BOB SPEA 147576 1012212010 000623 SUNSET NORTH TH CAFE WAS 1 47579 1012212010 000638 TH 11 A ELECTRIC, IN 1 47580 10/2212010 007699 TIE F A WEST ADVISORS INC 147581 1012212010 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1 47582 1012212010 000641 T STE CONSTRUCTION 147583 1012212010 005448 TI COUNTIES T1NG SEM 147584 1012212010 008165 AMY TRUEHLAR 147585 1012212010 006551 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC. 1 47586 10122/2010 003429 DA1 1i E /IAN B ElE fE N 147587 1012212010 008168 WHITTLE FIRE PROTECTION 147588 10122/2010 003166 MATTHEW WI LLKOM M 147 592 1012612010 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, I N C 147610 1012512010 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 147611 10/29/2010 001259 AGP VIDEO, IN 147612 10/2912010 008167 APPLIED EARTHWORKS KS INC 147613 10/29/2010 005507 AT & T 201 0111 006,085,0267 201 20101'11 006,085, 0234 093010 PIJ 2010 -08 1 02010 2352 10- 8090 *02 06 - AG 1042882 543 191910 1 0201 072112 102010 13262 101510 9670309 102810 4 159 2057 -02B 2057 -0'1 B 1017-0183 1017 -7480 10/7 -3956 1 012212010 7.60 10/22/2010 7.00 10/22/2010 7.00 0913012010 94,836.02 1011912610 30,'175.51 10/20/2010 44.60 0913012010 240.12 1011412010 1 0910312010 218.75 09/30/2010 31.97 0912912010 800.06 1011912010 1 00.06 1012012019 216.06 1010612010 1,073.57 101201201 25.63 1 0/12/2010 12 1 611 512010 40.06 1 610612010 201.01 1 012312010 1 5.00 10/11/2010 2 , 2'1 6.00 6713112010 2,307.94 061301201 807.71 10/07/2010 1 88.64 1010712610 55.51 10/07/2010 32.30 478.54 94,535.02 30,175.51 44 .00 240.12 1 * 260.00 216.75 31.97 800.00 100.00 216.00 1 25.63 12,600.00 40.00 201.01 1 5.06 2,210.00 3,115-65 Page: apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 11101/2010 11:09AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code. boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNold Date Invoice Inv. lute Amount Paid Check T otal Page: apCkHi t 11101/2010 11:09AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 6 Barak code: boa C heck # Date Ven status Clear/Vold Date Invoice Inv, Date Amount Paid Check Total 1017 -3959 1 0107120 10 32.30 31 3.35 147614 101291201 008151 ATLAS CUSTOM SOUND 433553 09/24/2010 100.00 104.00 147615 10/2912010 006168 B FC C ARCHITECTS 910001064 10/08/2010 9 9,000.00 147616 1012912010 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS 10845 09113/2014 2.46 2.45 147617 10/29/2010 90191 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 993410 09130/2010 219.00 21 9.00 147618 10/29/2010 000090 BRISCO NULL & LUMBER 146047 10114/2014 73.93 73.93 147619 1012912010 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 17097 1011312010 196.00 1 7078 1011112010 147.00 343.00 147620 10/29/2010 004149 BUNY N BR OS TREE 101 10114/2010 700.00 700.00 147621 10/29/2010 007035 DA .P RTLAND 91123502 10107/2010 972.54 972.54 147622 10129/2014 005255 CBD INN 11S, INC 0276404141 09134/2010 10.00 10.04 147623 1012912010 003168 CELLULAR ONE 00483 1012112010 74.06 74.06 147624 10129/2014 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 910466 10/1112010 597.00 597.00 147625 1012912010 007468 COAST RIDERS 090710 09/07/2010 438.36 433.36 147626 10/2912010 004754 COLE CHRYSLER DODGE 635358 09/15/2010 266.39 266.39 1 47627 10/2912010 004952 D LLI GS & ASSOCIATES 13388 10/13!2010 360.00 360.00 147628 10/29/2010 005167 CREDIT BUREAU, THE 093010 09/3012010 95.20 95.20 147629 10129/2010 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER R 48517 0913012010 17.35 43519 0913012010 5.00 22.05 147630 10/2912010 400917 DEWAIIE "S CRANE 11092 1010112010 220.00 220.00 c� '147631 14/29/20'10 006843 DNB INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 549630 10/21/2010 189.44 � 549679 10/21/2010 105.00 294.44 147632 10/29/2010 002673 DOCTORS h EDPL S ICED ##1902138 14/12/2010 135.00 #013871347 1011212010 75.00 260.00 c� M 00 00 iD Page: apkHlst Check History Listing 6511 126 10105/2010 Page: 7 1110112010 11:09AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 651128 -1 1 0/0612010 Bank code: boa 1,360.46 147636 1012912010 007940 FERRAlANTI GRADING & he ck # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 147633 10/29/2010 007703 DUKE'S ROOT CONTROL INC 6963 10/1912010 2,596.20 2 147634 10/29/2010 007636 EAGLE COLLISION REPAIR 399 10114/2010 487.34 467.34 147635 10/2912010 001526 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 6554453 10112/2010 1270.20 617, 947.75 Page: 7 6511 126 10105/2010 46.76 651128 -1 1 0/0612010 43.60 1,360.46 147636 1012912010 007940 FERRAlANTI GRADING & PSI 2010 -09 10/2612010 55,597.96 56,597.95 147637 1012912010 004372 GARING TAYLOR & 10818 09/3012010 3 3 147638 1012912010 001252 GAR lEY EQUIPMENT 33135 08/1712010 370.80 370.60 147639 10/29/2010 005996 GRANITE N ST U T I N PW 2006 -06 10/2512010 617, 947.75 617, 947.76 147640 10/2912010 002356 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 101002455202 10/1512010 766.00 765.00 147641 10/29/2010 000330 GSA- INFORMATION TECH 343 10/0612010 562.51 562.51 147642 1012912010 000311 H I N DERLITER, DE LLAMAS 00 17071 -IN 10/1812010 976.00 976.00 147643 10/29/2010 002820 IN DOFF, FF, INC 1745231 1011212010 165.36 1744769 10/1112010 64.17 1746342 10/13/2010 80.54 260.07 147644 1012912010 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 16 1010712010 1 01.36 1 01.36 147645 1012912010 005201 ,JAS PACIFIC 131 10581 10/0712010 5,136.00 5 1 47646 1 0129/2010 001793 .J J SELLER & ASSOCIATES, 006510392 1010412010 1 006510393 10104/2010 675.41 1,910.01 147647 1012912010 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 110164 1011912010 157.50 1 10163 1 011912010 157.60 D 110160 1011912010 51.38 366.36 tM 147648 10129/2010 000417 HELLO & SON'S PUMPS & 2652 10/1412010 562.50 562.50 147649 10/2912010 003174 A.M. MILLER & CO INC 100410 10/29/2010 10, 000.00 '10, 000.00 147650 1012912010 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, K50491 10/1112010 16.95 16.95 M 00 w iD Page: 7 D c� c� CL ^ ice/ M � F O ice/ aDkHit 11101/2010 11:09AM Check History Listin CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DE Page: Bank code: boa Check Taal 150.00 Check # Dante Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date 147651 10/29/2010 008171 R.D. NEUSCHAFER 102810 10/28/2010 1 47652 10/29/2010 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 535932002001 10/01/2010 -29.90 535886644001 09129/2010 571.06 8.58 52931 3558001 08/11/2010 597.25 299.15 531202112001 08/25/2010 467.63 531789028001 08/30/2010 107.83 538328205001 10/0512010 2,534.36 225.00 534369351001 09/23/2010 258.00 32.22 532089035001 09/03/2010 147653 10/29/2010 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 10/12- 100318 10/12/2010 147654 10/29/2010 007108 PARAMOUNT CLEANERS 3340 10/01/2010 147655 10129/2010 005895 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS 11824 10/11 /2010 147658 10/29/2010 000503 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS, 2 1 5639 1 0/15/201 0 215637 10/15/2010 215640 10/1512010 215473 10/11/2010 215754 1012112010 147657 10/29/2010 002363 PRIMARY CARE DOG & CAT 82639 10/18/2010 82583 1 0116/2010 147658 10/29/2010 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 37300 10/08/2010 147659 10129/2010 002751 RANGE MASTER 4606 10/1812010 147660 10/29/2010 003089 RiNCON CONSULTANTS, INC 14703 10/0712010 147661 1 0/29/201 0 002932 RATAN & TUCKER, LLP 9246009 - 0099 10/19/2010 147662 10/29/2010 0081 MARY SILBERBERER 101110 10/11/2010 147663 10/29/2010 000850 S LO C OU 1TY Al 102510 10/2812010 147664 10129/2010 001102 SLOFIT 200904 10/1212010 147885 10129/2010 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 200733 10/06/2010 Amount Paid Check Taal 150.00 150.00 237.95 220.13 94.99 85.81 29.90 27.'17 -29.90 -94.99 571.06 8.58 8.58 507.25 597.25 299.15 299.15 1 467.63 27'2.93 107.83 84.83 2,534.36 225.00 30.00 258.00 32.22 82.22 13.03 13.93 1 + 201.00 1 25, 000.00 25 80.00 80.00 150.00 150.00 25.00 28.00 68.19 68.19 Page: 8 ap kH!st Check History Listing Page: 9 1110112010 11:09A 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paint Check Total 147666 10129/2010 001696 SOUZA CONSTRUCTION, INC PW2010 -08 10/19/2010 7 7,496.49 147667 1012912910 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 32553 16101/2010 6 6 147668 10/29/2610 007176 SPRINKLER ACING INC 17406 10/28/2010 296.01 296.01 147669 10129/2010 000616 STERLING 26811 10/08/2019 130.50 130.50 147670 16/2912010 000622 SUN BADGE CO 317923 10/0412610 110.66 110.68 147671 10/29/2010 002904 TEMPLET ON UNIFORMS 41284 10/1412010 771.26 41286 10/1412010 85.74 666.99 147672 1 012912019 006054 TIMES PRESS RECORDER 240 - 00020384 08/24/2010 19.20 ACCT #240 - 00020382 10/0612010 19.20 38.40 147673 101291201 008173 TRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATES 102510 1012812010 16.00 1 6.00 147674 1012912010 008651 IGNITED STAFFING ASSOC. 072327 1011312010 970.64 970.64 147675 1012912010 002 933 U N I IAR USA, INC LA- 585671 10/0412010 1 1,232-66 147676 1012912010 008010 NANCY E WEBBER PHD 100810 1010812010 326.00 326.00 147677 1012912010 0006891 EST PAYMENT CENTER 821469748 1010112010 167.60 167.50 147678 10129/2010 004897 WOOD R I DERS INC 73333 09/0912010 12,396.10 12 boa Total: 2,1 88,812.211 186 checks in this report Taal Checks. 2,188,812.21 ^ CL ice/ M Page. ATTACHMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL TAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 101112010 -10/14/2010 10122110 FUND 010 307 5101 Salaries Full time 216,480.51 FUND 220 18,855.29 5102 Salaries Part- Time - PPT 17 FUND 228 1 5103 Salaries Part- Time - TPT 26 FUND 284 1 5105 Salaries OverTime 15 FUND 285 1 5107 Salaries Standby 358.50 FUND 290 108 1 Holiday Pay 2 FUND 812 6 5109 Sick Pay 7 FUND 840 20 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 464 5111 Vacation Buyback 227.30 112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 V acation Pay 12 5114 Comp Pay 6 5115 Annual Leave Pay 5 5121 PERS Retirement 78 5122 Social Security 21,086.90 5123 PARS Retirement 589.46 OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT: T: 5128 State Disability Iris. 1,345.98 Admin. Support Services - 5127" Deferred Compensation 736.59 Community Development - 5131 Health Insurance 42,340.85 Police 10 5132 Dental Insurance 4 Fire 4 5133 Vision Insurance 1 Govrnment Bldg Maint. 5134 Life Insurance 601.01 Engineering - 5135 Long Terra Disability 988.58 Fleet Maintenance 40.80 8143 Uniform Allowance - Par s - 5144 Dar Allowance 875.00 Recreation - Admn 5146 Council Expense - e - Special Events 5147 Employee Assistance 222.30 Children In Motion 5148 Boot Allowance - Soto Sport Complex - 5149 Motor Pay 150.00 Public Works Maintenance 182.71 5150 Bi- Lingual Pay 125.00 15 1 741.96 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 317.50 484, 371.12 Agenda Item 8.a. Page 12 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26,2010 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA IA 'I. DOLL CALL: Mayor Ferrara called the special meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member Caren Flay, Mayor Pro Tern Jim Guthrie, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Tim Carmel were present. Council Member Chuck Fellows was absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 3 . CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE RMANCE E LUATI N pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title: City Manager 4 . RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor r Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Iy 1 etm re, City Clerk (Approved at CC Mtg Agenda Item 8.b. Page 1 MINUTES REGULAR ULAI MEETING of THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 201 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO OYO G ANDE, CALIFORNIA 1 . CALL To ORDER Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at :go p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Member Caren flay, Council Member Joe Costello, Mayor Pre Tenn Jim Guthrie, and Mayor Tory Ferrara were present. Council Member Chuck Fellows was absent. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Timothy Carmel, Director of Legislative and Information Services /City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Chief of Police Annibali, and Community Development Director Teresa M Cll h. 3 . FLAG SALUTE Cub Scout Pack 425, webelo , led the Flag Salute. 4 . INVOCATION Dr. Mayer- Harnih, Eahai Faith, delivered the invocation. 5 . SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS S None. 8. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. ordinances Read in Title only. Council Member Costello moved, Mayor Pre Tern Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further readings be waived. 7. CIT1 E VII PUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Mike McConville, E. Branch Street, noted he had pictures of the demolition of the building across the street, commented that he salvaged some bricks from the fagade of the building, and commented that he was still not dear about the parking associated with the Re-Max Lease. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item to do so at this time. Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, referred to Item 8.e. (Award of Contract to Nick E. Pokrajac, Inc. for Construction of Tenant Improvements at 300 East Branch Street) and expressed concern about the use of local sales tax funds; acknowledged income from Lease; stated that it would take two years to pay back the fund; stated she would like to see a way around this method of funding; and referred to the Police Department building still needing improvement. Tim Moore, Fair Oaks Avenue, also referred to Item 8.e. and inquired about the funding and whether the $296,000 was included in the original estimates. Agenda Item 8.b. Page 2 M e nutes: City Council Meeting Page 2 Tars, October 2, 2070 Hearing no further comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Mayor Pro Tenn Guthrie requested Item 8.e. be pulled for clarification. Action I . - council Member Ray moved, and Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie seconded the motion to approve consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 81, with the exception of Item 8.e., and including the amended recommendation for Item 8.f. (Expenditure for the Newsom Springs stone Culvert Project, with the recommended courses of action. City Attorney Carmel noted that the supplemental memo on Item 8.f. recommended the council authorize an additional expenditure of $5,000 for a total expenditure of up to $45,000. The motion passed on the following roll -call vote: AYES: Ray, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Fellow 8.a. cash Disbursement Ratification. ation. Action: Ratified the Iisting of cash disbursements for the period October 1, 2010 through October 18, 2010. 8.b. statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of September 30 2010. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the special and Regular city council Meetings of September 28, 2010, as submitted. 8.d. consideration of Acceptance of the Myrtle Street Rehabilitation Project, P 11 09. Action: 1 Accepted the project improvements as constructed by Ferravantl Grading Paving In accordance with the plans and specifications for the Myrtle street Rehabilitation Project; 2 Directed staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3 Authorized release of the retention, thirty -five 3 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been filed. 8.f. Consideration of Expenditure for the Newsom Springs stone Culvert Project. Action: Authorized an expenditure of up to $45,000 for construction of the Newsom Springs "stone culvert drainage improvement connection project. ITEMS PILLED FROM THE CONSENT A CENDA 8.e. Consideration of an Award of Contract to Nick E. Pokraja , Inc. for construction of Tenant Improvements at 300 East Branch Street, Project P W 2010 -12. Recommended Action: 1 Award a contract for construction of tenant improvements at 300 East Branch street, including the Base Bid and Bid Alternate A to Nick E. Pokrajac, Inc. in the amount of $298,745.44; 2 Authorize the city Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the 10% of the contract amount, $29,874, for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; 3 Find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15301 (a); and Direct the City Cleric to file a Notice of Exemption. Agenda Item 8.b. Page 3 Minutes: City Council Meetin Tuesday, October 26, 2010 Page In response to a request by Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie, city Manager Adams explained the costs associated with the project. Action: Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie moved to: 1 A ward a contract for construction of tenant improvements at 300 East Branch Street, including the Base Bid and Bid Alternate A, to Nick E. Pokrajac, Inc. in the amount of $296,745.44; 2 Authorize the city Manager to approve charge ord ers not to exceed the 10% of the contract amount, $29,674, for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; 3 Find that the project is categorically exempt from CE QA pursuant to Section 15301 a; and 4 Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Costello, Flay, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Fellows 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Development code Amendment 10 -003, Rezone ne T vo (2) Properties at 188 and 194 North Elm Street from single - Family to Gateway Mixed- Use and One 1 Property at 704 Branch Mill Road from Agriculture to Residential Rural. Associate Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an Ordinance approving Development code Amendment 10 -003. Mayor Ferrara noted that he had driven by the properties on N. Elan Street and requested that staff verify the addresses as he did not see an address for 188 N. Elan street. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Terror Fibi h , Arroyo Grande resident, property owner of the !North Elm Street properties, spoke in support of the proposed rezoning. Upon hearing no farther comments, !Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Brief Council comments ensued in support of the proposal to rezone the properties which would result in consistency with the General Plan. Action: Council Member Costello moved to introduce an ordinance as follows: " "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDEAPPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10 -003 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP., DESIGNATING O TWO 2 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 188 & 194 NORTH ELM STREET AS GATEWAY MIXED -USE (GMU) AND ONE PERPERTY LOCATED AT 704 BRANCH MILL ROAD AS RESIDENTAIL RURAL RI. Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: Agenda Item 8.b. Page 4 Minutes: City Council Meeting Page Tuesday, October 2, 2070 AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Flay, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Fellows 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: I O.a. Consideration of Bris o Interchange Alternative . City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1 Approve Alternative 4 to be included in the Project Approval and Environmental Document PA CED process; 2 Direct the consultants to prepare Caltrans design exception fact sheets and supporting information for consideration; and 3 Direct staff to present an update of the Briso Interchange project to the Traffic Commission and publicly notice the meeting to provide an opportunity for public input. He then introduced consultants Mark F ayba k from Wood Rodgers, , Inc. and Tony Harris from Planning company & Associates wh o would be giving presentations. Tony Harris representing Planning company & Associates, gave a presentation which provided an overview of previously approved Alternative 3B and the associated challenges that have since been identified; and provided an update of steps completed since the May 1 1t presentation to council. Mark I ayba k , representing Wood Rodgers, Inc., presented a project description for Alternative and explained right- of-way issues associated with County -owned property and the parcel owned by S. Patrick's School. Mr. Harris concluded by providing an overview of the net steps in the process and then elaborated on details for proposed auxiliary lanes at the request of Mayor Ferrara. Consultants Harris and F ayback then responded to questions from Council regarding the proposed hook ramps, design, and design exceptions. Mayor Ferrara invited comment from those in the audience who Sri hed to be heard on the matter. Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, inquired about the property that was designated for a new police station. John Keen, N. Elm Street, inquired whether this Alternative could include an extended auxiliary lane on southbound Highway 101 as it approaches Halcyon Road. Mayor Ferrara responded to public comments indicating that the city would be looking at alternative locations for a new police station site, and that CalTrans would be proposing a project on southbound Highway 101 that would include lane improvement . Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council comments ensued in support of Alternative ; acknowledgement that a tremendous amount of work has been done on this proposal; that the project has been in progress for a long Agenda Item 8.b. Page 5 M 9 City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 26, 2010 Page time; that this is the closest the City has come to receiving approval from Caltrans on a project; and that the City is at an advantage for ST1P funding because of the City's significant financial contribution to the proposed project. Action: council Member Costello moved to: 1 Approve Alternative 4 to be included in the Project Approval and Environmental Document PA CED process; 2 Direct the consultants to prepare ealtrans design exception fact sheets and supporting information for consideration; and 3) Direct staff to present an update of the Frisco Interchange project to the Traffic Commission and publicly notice the meeting to provide an opportunity for public input. Council Member Ray seconded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, lay, Guthrie, Ferrara DOES: None ABSENT: Fellows 11. NEW BUSINESS: 1I,a, consideration to Approve construction Plana and Specifications, Environmental Determination, and Tree Removal for the El Camino Deal Rehabilitation n and Enhancement Project, P 11 2008 -09. Community Development Director l lceli h presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1 Approve the construction plans and specifications for the El Camino Real Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, P V 2008 -09; 2 Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids upon receipt of Fund Allocation from the California Transportation Commission ion and Authorization to Proceed with Construction from calrans; 3 Direct staff to remove impacted trees prior to project construction so that tree removal activities are conducted outside the bird nesting season; Find that El Camino Real Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project is categorically exem from CEOA pursuant to Sections 1 301 c and 15 303(d); and Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption. Staff responded to questions from council concerning right- or" -ay issues, parking spaces at the Park & Fide Lot, and crosswalk issues as it relates to public safety and Police Department recom mendations. Mayor Ferrara invited comment from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon Bearing none, he closed the public comment period. Council comments ensued In support of the capital improvement project; further clarification concerning advantages and disadvantages of the uncontrolled crosswalk; that the crosswalk issue could be revisited later by removal or modification; support for the inclusion of class 11 bike lanes; and a suggestion for placement of caution lights near the cro during peak hou rs. Action. Council Member Costello moved to. 1 Approve the construction plans and specifications for the El Camino Real Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, PW 2008-09; 2 Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids upon receipt of Fund Allocation from the Agenda Item 8.b. Page 6 Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 26, 2010 Page California Transportation Commission and Authorization to Proceed with Construction from Caltran ; 3 Direct staff to remove impacted trees prior to project construction so that tree removal activities are conducted outside the bird resting season; Find that El Camino Real Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project is categorically exempt from CEOA pursuant to Sections 1 301 c and 15303(d); and Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption. Mayor Pre Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Ray, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Fellows 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority SLOCO ISLORTA . Announced that adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) required under SB 375 are scheduled for the December 8 t meeting, as well as certification of the EIR as it relates to the SCS; announced that SLOCOG's Annual Report is available online at www.slocog.o[g, announced that SLOE TA meets tomorrow. (2) south San Luis Obispo county sanitation District SSLOCSD . Met with the District Administrator and conducted a tour of the Plant and a briefing for the Grand Jury; announced the District Board is in the process of reviewing the budget cuts of approximately $300,000 due to significant reduction in sewer hook -up fees (average of 235 -20 hook - ups /year two and three years ago as compared to 2 hook -ups so far this fiscal year); will have a balanced budget; however, the goal is not to raise sewer rates. (3) Brisco/Halcyon/Hwy 101 Interchange Project Subcommittee. Received presentation and update earlier this evening. (4) Other. None. (b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE: (1) south County Area Transit (SCAT). Reported that there is a flattering out of the drop in ridership and starting to see an increase over last gear; reported that although revenues were down considerably, the agency was able to control costs this year and there will be a surplus of $35,000 going into net gear; reported that every 10 years, the agency must issue an operations report and recommended that anyone who rides the bus to attend meeting and /or s ubmit public comments. (2) Community Action Partnership. Meets on Thursday where the major topic will be the homeless center plan for Sari Luis Obispo and whether CPSLO will be a major partner. (3) Homeless Services coordinating Council HSoe. Has met to discuss a number of items including a Federal tracking system for homeless Agenda Item 8.b. Page 7 finutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday October 26, 2070 Page services in the area and is a key component for receiving Federal funding. (4) Tourism committee. Reported that the recent Savor event was very successful. (5) Other. None. (c) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO (1) Zone 3 Dater Advisory Board. Has not met since the last report. Mayor Ferrara noted that there have been discussions about changing the Zone 3 Advisory Beard from an advisory beard to a decision malting regulatory beard and a letter was sent to the Beard of supervisors regarding this matter about a month ago. (2) Air Pollution control District PCI. Has not met since the last report. (3) Other. Reported that the Five Cities Fire Authority held a recent event and ceremony to issue badges to all personnel. (d) COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS: (ABSENT) (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). (3) Other. None. (e) COUNCIL MEMBER CE FLAY: (1) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority CJPIA . Deported that the CJPIA met last month to discuss routine financial matters. (2) Economic Vitality corporation (Ells). 1 Reported on meeting last week to receive debriefing on the Central coast Savor event and the economic impact it had on the county, that planning is already underway for net year's event, and reported on benefits received based on money spent on media exposure; 2 Received ed status report on the San Luis Obispo Airport service level; and Net Friday, November ember h is the San Luis Obispo Economic Forecast. (3) Other. None. 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS a) Request to Schedule Public Budget Workshops. (GUTHRIE) Mayor Pro Tern Guthrie requested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to bring back on a future Agenda discussion about scheduling public workshops for setting budget goals. 14. CITY MANAGER ER ITEMS: None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: ICATIONS: None. Agenda Item 8.b. Page 8 Minutes: City Council Meetin in Tuesday., October 26, 2010 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Page 8 City Manager Adams announced that Halloween in the pillage would occur on Sunday, October 1 ' from 3: 00 to 5 : 00 p. m. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: Mike McConville, E. Branch Street, announced the Jazz Festival to be held this weekend in Pismo Beach. He also commented that there was no place for RV parking in the City and suggested the use of redevelopment funds to create RV parking in the City. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. in honor and memory of former Council Member Matt Gallagher, who recently passed agar. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk (Approved at CC Mtg w Agenda Item 8.b. Page 9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.b. Page 10 RO INCORPORATED MEMORANDU u JK Y 10, toll , To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGED SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION ATION of CANCELLATION of DECEMBER 28, 201 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER , 2010 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of December 28, 2010 due to the holiday. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND Traditionally, the City Council has cancelled the second regul scheduled December meeting due to scheduling conflicts surrounding the holidays. ANALYSIS O ISSUES: The city Council meets trice a month on the second and fourth Tuesdays. The second meeting in December generally falls during the week of Christmas and historically the Council has cancelled the meeting. This year the regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Cancel the December 28 meeting; Do not cancel the December � n meeting; Reschedule the December 28 meeting; - Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Pursuant to the City's Personnel Regulations and negotiated employee MOU's, cit offices will be closed o December 24 th and 25 By canceling the December 2 meeting, this would allover city employees, as well as the Council, an opportunity t o enjoy the holidays with their families rather than having to prepare and distribute the Council agenda packets. Agenda Item 8.c. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CIL CONSIDERATION OF CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 28, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER , 2010 PAGE 2 DISADVANTAGES: Cancellation of the meeting normally results in heavier agendas at , the prior and following meetings. ENVIRONMENTAL RE IEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: TS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 4, 2010. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 5, 2010. No public comments were received. Agenda Item 8.c. Page 2 o A . INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM JULY M t911 0 1% TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH THE SAN LUIS O ISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 9,2010 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the Water Supply Contract with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and a Continuing Disclosure Agreement in order to refinance the Lopez Darn retrofit bonds. FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is projected the refinancing will result in a savings of approximately $33,000 per year to the City's Water Fund. There will also be a savings of approximately 10% or $30,000 in the propel tax assessment paid by Arroyo Grande property owners. BACKGROUND: The City entered into a contract with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District "District" in 1966 for the delivery of grater from the Lopez Darn facility. The contract was amend in 2000 in order to issue bonds to finance retrofit of the darn. This provided for issuance of $28,905,000 of Lopez Dam Improvement Revenue Bonds, which included $13,200,000 in general obligation bonds and $15,705,000 in revenue bonds. Therefore, about % of debt is paid through property tax and o through water rates. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The District has determined that existing conditions of the financial market present an opportunity to achieve savings to agencies contracting for Lopez grater. Current estimates by the County of San Luis Obispo show gross savings in the total amount of $3.1 million. Interest rates vary with maturity. However, the overall average blended interest rate for existing outstanding bonds is 5.2%. The projected blended interest rate for the new bonds is approximately %. The bonds will still be paid off in 20 years, which is the same as the existing bonds. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 2 In order to refinance the bonds, each participating agency must approve a contract amend ment. The District wiII then sell the refunding bonds in December 201 g. The savings will commence on February 1, 2011 when the first payment will be dine. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the Resolution; - Do net adopt the Resolution; - Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution and refinancing of the bonds will provide significant cost sayings to property owners and the City's Water Fund. DISADVANTAGES: TAGES: No disadvantages have been identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: TS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 4, 2010. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 5, 2010. No public comments were received. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 2 RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DE APPI O I[ AN AMENDMENT T To THE WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH THE SAN LUIS o «PO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande "the City Council" executed and delivered a form of Contract between the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District "the District" and the City of Arroyo Grande ; ;the Agency"), effective September 19, logo (the "Existing Contract"), respecting the water provided through the District's Lopez Darn facility, including its appurtenances (collectively,, referred to as "the Facility"); and WHEREAS, EAS, the Agency originally entered into a contract for a water supply with the District on March 28, 1966 "the Prior Supply Contract"), which contract was first amended and restated in the form of the Existing Contract; and WHEREAS, the Agency has heretofore purchased water from the Facility for its water enterprise, pursuant to the terms of the Existing Contract; and WHEREAS, circumstances in the financial markets will now permit the refinancing of the Facility on terms beneficial to the ratepayers and taxpayers of the Agency; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the refinancing, it is necessary to amend the Existing Contract in certain respects; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a form of Amendment Flo. 2 to the Existing Contract (the "Amended Contract" ) which will authorize the foregoing refinancing; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a form of Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement") with respect to said refinancing; and WHEREAS, EAS, the Agency now wishes to insure the availability of water from the Facility on the most favorable possible terms and, to that end, wishes to approve the terms of the Amended Contract and to authorize its execution; HOW, THEREFORE, E, the City Council does hereby resolve and determine as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are tree and correct. 2. The terms and provisions of the Amended Contract, as presented to and reviewed at this meeting of the City Council, are hereby ap proved, and the Mayor of the Agenda Item 8.d. Page 3 RESOLUTION No. PAGE 2 City Council is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Contract in the name of and on behalf of the Agency, in substantially the form presented to and approved at this meeting of the City Council. 3. In connection with the refinancing of the Facility, the Agency understands and agrees that delivery of revenue bonds "the Bonds" by the SLO County Financing Authority intended to effect the refinancing will be conditioned both upon a the delivery of the fully executed Amended Contract and the fully executed a mended existing water supply contracts of the other participating agencies in the Facility and b a showing that the refinancing will result in savings to the Agency in the amount of not less than % of present value of the Agency's pro rata shame of Installment Debt Service (as defined in the Existing Contract). 4. The Agency understands and agrees that it is and remains obligated, whether or not the aforesaid refinancing takes plane, to provide certain annual information regarding its finances and operations to the municipal marketplace. In connection with the refinancing, the terms and provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, a s pre etend to and reviewed at this meeting of the City Council, are hereby approved, and the Authorized officer is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Continuing Disclosure Agreement In the name and on behalf of the Agency, in substantially the form presented to and approved at this meeting of the City Council. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion by Council Member by the following roil call vote, to wit: , seconded by Council Member and AYES: NOES: ABSENT. The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2010. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 4 RESOLUTION I . PAGE TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 8.d. Page 5 AM No. 2 TO CONTRACT BETWEEN SAN LUIS O ISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER. CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE FOR A WATER SUPPLY This Amendment No. 2 to the Contract between San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District "the District" and the Cit of Arroyo Grande "the Agency ", for a Water Supply "Amendment loo. 2" is entered into by and between the District, duly established and existing under the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation Act (Act 7205 of the Uneodified Acts of the California Water Code), and the Agency, a municipal corporation, as of the Effective Date identified below, and is undertaken with regard to the following facts: RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Agency originally entered into a contract with the District on March 28, 1966 "the Prior Supply Contract ") for the provision of a water Supply for the use and benefit of the lands and inhabitants served by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the District and the Agency amended and restated the Prior Supply Contract by execution of a contract for Water Supply effective September 1 , 2000 ("the Existing Contract" making provision for the financing of seismic improvements to Lopez Darn (the "Project"), which provides a water Supply to the Agency for the use and benefit of the lands and inhabitants served by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Existing Contract provides for the calculation of Agency Debt Service based upon the issuance of Tax - Exempt Obligations in the aggregate principal amount of $28,905,000 of Lopez Darn Improvement Revenue Bonds, 2000 Series A (the "2000 Revenue Bonds" of the SLD County Financing Authority, a joint exercise of powers authority established under the laws of the State of California (the "Authority "), on August 15, 2000, which included $13,200,000 in general obligation bonds of the District (the "2000 G.O. Bonds") and $15,705,000 o Installment Purchase Agreement obligations ation (the "IPA"), which were pledged to the payment of the Revenue Bonds; and WHEREAS, it now appears to the District and the Agency that conditions in the financial market place are appropriate for a cost-effective refunding of the Revenue Bonds, reducing the tax levy for the G.D. Bonds and the water rates pledged under the IPA, for the benefit of the taxpayers and ratepayers of the District and the Agency; WHEREAS, certain amendments to the Existing Contract are necessary and appropriate in order to reflect the foregoing; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Article 23 of the Existing Contract, all Other Agencies ( as defined therein) are also being provided with an Amendment No. 2 (each, an "other Amendment loo. 2"), all of which shall be executed by the respective Other Agencies as a condition to the effectiveness hereof; and Agenda Item 8.d. Page 6 WHEREAS, in compliance with said Article 23, it shall also be necessary as condition to the effectiveness hereof that the Rating Agencies confirm their ratings with respect to the Tax- Exempt Obligations as defined in the Existing Contract): N THEREFORE, be �t agreed and understood by the parties hereto as follows: Section 1. Recitals Defined Terns The foregoing recitals are true and correct. Capitalized terns used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Existing Contract. Section 2. Replaced and Additional Definitions a The definitions of the follo terms shall replace the definitions of the same terms within Article I of the Existing Contract. " General Obligation Bonds shall mean those certain general obligation bonds of the District, issued pursuant to authorization received from voters of the District at the election conducted on March 7, 2000, in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $13,200,000, supported by a levy of ad valorem taxes throughout the District, including any general obligation bonds issued to refund the Zoo G.O. Bonds. " Tax-Exempt - Oblig ations " shall mean th ose certain obligations executed and delivered by or on behalf of the District, representing and evidencing interests of the owners t in certain installment payments to be made by the District for the acquisition of the Proj w hose proceeds are to be used to finance, refinance or reimburse the costs of the Seismic Rernediation improvements, in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed the net amount, following the application of proc of sale of the General Obligation Bonds required to complete the Seismic Remediation Improvements pursuant to State mandate and the District's competitive bid process for such Improvements. The term `Tax- Exempt Obligations" shall also include any refunding bonds issued in order to refund such Tax - Exempt obligations. ( b) The following defined terra shall be added to Article l of the Existing Contract. " Refundin B onds " shall mean those certain bonds executed and delivered by or on behalf of the District receding any General Obligation Bonds and/or Tax-Exempt Obligations of the District (together, the `Prior Obligations"), the proceeds of which are applied: i to refinance or retire the Prior Obligations of the District and (ii) to any costs of issuance in connection therewith. Section 3. Concurrence with Reu.ndin The Agcncy concurs with the recommendation of the District to effect a refunding of the Tax - Exempt Obligations and the r.D. Bonds issued in connection wi th the Prior Revenue Bonds and agrees to take all appropriate action in support of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds, as recommended by the District, its Bond Counsel, being Fulbright & J worski L.I .P., and its Financial Advisor, being Public Financial Management. In particular, the Agency understands and agrees that it will have incurred additional continuing disclosure obligations with respect to the Refunding Bonds, as more particularly described in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement to be executed in connection with the Refunding Bonds, pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 the Securities and Exchange Commission. 2 Agenda Item 8.d. Page 7 Section 4. Agency's Obligations re: Advance from District. In the event that Agency is unable to meet its obligation to provide certain financial and operating data relating to such Agency, and is therefore unable to meet all acts, conditions and things required by law to be done or performed in strict conformity with the laws authorizing the issuance of general obligation refunding bonds, then the District may provide an amount (the "Advance" ) necessary to effectuate a refunding of the installment purchase portion of the original Tax - Exempt Obligations attributable to the Agency (the "Agency's Installment purchase Obligation" ) on the scheduled closing slate for the refunding bonds. Such an Advance by the District shall be considered a loan to the Agency, and the Agency shall thereafter be obligated to continue to mare payments to the District in accordance with the original Agency Debt Service schedule related to the Agency's Installment Purchase Obligation as though the Original Tax-Exempt Obligation had never been refunded until such time as the Advance, plus interest accrued thereon at the interest rate applicable to the original tax - exempt obligations, shall be repaid to the District in full. Section 5. Governing La . This Amendment No. 2 shall be governed by the provisions of the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in such State. Sections 6. Counterparts; Entire Contract This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall, together, constitute an entire document. Furthermore, following the Effective Date defined below, the Existing Contract, as amended by this Amendment No. 2, shall constitute the full and complete water Delivery Entitlement Contract of the Participant. Section 7. Effective Date. This Amendment No. 2 shall become effective as of the last date upon which the District, the Agency, and the Other Agencies shall execute this Amendment loo. 2 or one of the Other Amendment Igo. 2's 9 in accordance with Article 32 of the Contract (the `Effective Date"'). Section 8. Ratification. In all other respects, the provisions of the Existing Contract are confirmed and ratified. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 8 IN FITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each executed this Amendment No. 2 b their duly authorized representatives as of the first date set forth above: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE L D OM Authorized Representative APPROVED AS TO FORM: [PARTICIPANT ATTORNEY] :A APPROVED AS TO FORM. COUNTY COUNSEL: M Deputy County Counsel Date ATTEST: JULIE L. RIEvALI, COUNTY CLERK Me Deputy County Clerk Date Date ATTEST: [PARTICIPANT CLERK] 0 SAID LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 0 Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Date Agenda Item 8.d. Page 9 PARTICIPATING AGENCY CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT This Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Disclosure Agreement" ), dated as of December 1, 2010, is executed and delivered by the City of Arroyo Grande (the "Participating Agency ", the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and water Conservation District (the "`District" ) on behalf of the SLD County Financing Authority (the "Authority" ) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee" ) in connection with the execution and delivery of aggregate principal amount of SLO County Financing Authority Lopez Dam Improvement Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series (the "Bonds"). . The Bonds are being executed and delivered pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 201 (the "Indenture"), by and between the Authority and the Trustee. The Participating Agency covenants and agrees as follows: SECTION I. Purpose of the Disclosure Agreement This Disclosure Agreement is being executed and delivered by the Participating Agency for the benefit of the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with S.B.C. Rule 15c2-12 SECTION 2. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Indenture, which apply to any capitalized terra used in this Disclosure Agreement unless otherwise defined in this Section, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: "Annual Disclosure Report" shall mean any Annual Disclosure Deport provided by the Participating Agency pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Agreement. "Beneficial Owner" shall mean any person which a has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, any Bonds (including persons holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), orb is treated as the owner of any Bonds for federal income tai purposes. "Disclosure Representative" shall mean the of the Participating Agency or such other official as may be designated in writing to the Dissemination Agent if Other than the Participating Agency) from time to time. "Dissemination Agent" shall mean U.S. Bank Trust National nal Association, acting in its capacity as Dissemination Agent hereunder, or any successor Dissemination emination Agent designated in writing by the Participating Agency and which has filed with the Participating Agency a written acceptance of such designation. "MS B" shall mean the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or any other entity designated or authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission to receive reports pursuant to the Rule. Until Otherwise designated by the MSRB or the Securities and Exchange Commission, filings with the MSRB are to be made through the Electronic Municipal Market Access MM website of the MSRB, currently located at http://emma.msrb.org. "Participating Underwriter" shall mean the original underwriter of the Bonds required to comply with the Rule in connection with offering of the Bonds. Agenda Item 8.d. Page 10 "Rule" shall mean Rule 1 - 1 2(b)(5) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the sane may be amended from time to time. SECTION 3. Provision of Annual Disclosure Reports. (a) The Participating Agency shall, not later than February 15 of each year, commencing with February 15, 2011, provide to the Dissemination Agent are Annual Disclosure Report which is consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement. The Annual Disclosure Report shall be submitted in electronic format, accompanied by such identifying information as is prescribed by the 1ISR, and may cross - reference other information as provided in the Disclosure Agreement; provided that the audited financial statements of the Participating Agency may be submitted separately from the balance of the Annual Disclosure Report, and later than the date required above for the filing of the Annual Disclosure Report if they are not available by that date. If the fiscal year of the Participating Agency changes, it shall give notice of such orange in the same manner as for a Fisted Event under Section 4 this Disclosure Agreement. ( b) The Participating Agency shall provide, or cause the prepa.rer of the Annual Disclosure Report to provide, a written certificate with each Annual Disclosure Report furnished to the Dissemination Agent to the effect that such Annual Disclosure Report constitutes the Annual Disclosure Report required to be furnished under the Disclosure Agreement. The Dissemination Agent may conclusively rely upon such certification and shall have no duty or obligation to review such Annual Disclosure Report. ( c) Not later than February 16 of each year, commencing ing February 16, 2011, the Dissemination Agent shah provide written notice the District confirming whether or not such Annual Disclosure Report has been furnished to the Dissemination Agent by the Participating Agency. The District shah use its best efforts to assist the Participating Agency in preparing the Annual Disclosure Report for delivery to the Dissemination Agent no later than March 10 of each year. ( d) If the Participating Agency is unable to provide the Annual Disclosure Report to the Dissemination Agency by March 10 of each year commencing March 10, 2011, the Dissemination Agent shall send a notice to the MSRB in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A. (e) The Dissemination Agent shall: i determine each year prior to the slate for providing the Annual Disclosure Report the name and address of each National Repository and the State Repository, if any; and 11 to the extent information is known to it, file a report with the Participating Agency certifying that the Annual Disclosure Report has been provided pursuant to this Disclosure Agreement, stating the date it was provided and listing all the Repositories to which it was provided. SECTION . Content of Annual Disclosure Deports The Annual Disclosure Report shall contain or include by reference the following: (a) The audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in effect from time to tine. If any of such audited financial statements are not available by the time the Annual Disclosure Report is required to be filed pursuant to Section a, the Annual Disclosure Report shall contain unaudited financial statements in a format similar to the financial Agenda Item 8.d. Page I I statements contained in the Official Statement, and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same manner as the Annual Disclosure Report when they become available. (b) Changes in the service area and customer base for its Water Enterprise; (c) Five largest customers of the Water Enterprise; ( d) Statement of connections and sales revenues for its Water Enterprise; (e) Water tax and impact fee revenues for its Water Enterprise; (f) Water deliveries for the Water Enterprise; and (g) lutes and Charges for water deliveries for the fiscal year most recently concluded. Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents, including official statements of debt issues of the Participating Agency or related public entities, which have been made available to the public on the MSRB website. The Participating Agency shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference. SECTION 5. Termination of Reporting Obligation The obligations of the Participating Agency under this Disclosure Agreement shall terminate upon the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the ails. If such termination occurs prior to the final maturity of the Bonds, the Participating Agency shall give notice of such termination to the MSRB. SECTION 6. Dissemination Agent The Participating Agency may, from time to tune, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it In carrying out its obligations under this Disclosure Agreement, and may discharge any such Dissemination Agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. The Dissemination Agent may resign by providing thirty 30 days written notice to the Participating Agency. The initial Dissemination Agent shall be the U.S. Dank Trust National Association. SECTION 7. Amendment-, Warier Notwithstanding vithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure closure Agreement, the Participating Agency may amend this Disclosure Agreement, and any provision of this Disclosure Agreement may be waived, provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (a) If the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Sections 3(a), 4, or 5(b), it may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, change in lave, or change in the identity, nature or status of an obligated person with respect to the Bonds, or the type of business conducted; (b) The undertaking, as amended or taking into account such waiver, would, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the original execution and delivery of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances; and (c) The amendment or waiver either i is approved by the Holders of the Bonds in the same manner as provided in the Indenture for amendments to the Indenture with the consent of Holders, or (ii) does not, in the opinion of a nationally recognized bond counsel, materially impair the interests of the Folders or Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, Agenda Item 8.d. Page 12 (d) Any amendment that modifies or increases the duties or obligations of the Dissemination n Agent shall be agreed to in writing by the Dissemination Agent. In the event of any amendment or waiver of a provision of this Disclosure Agreement, the Participating Agency shall describe such amendment in the next Annual Disclosure Deport, and shall include, as applicable, a narrative explanation of the reason for the amendment or waiver and its impact on the type r, in the case of a change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial information or operating data being presented by the Participating Agency. In addition, if the amendment relates to the accounting principles to e followed in preparing financial statements, i notice of such change shall be given in the same manner as for a Listed Event, and (ii) the Annual Disclosure Report for the year in which the change is made shall present a comparison in narrative form and also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the financial statements as prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. SECTION 8. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Agreement shall be deemed to prevent the Participating Agency from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Agreement or any other means of communication, r including any other information in any Annual Disclosure Deport in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Agreement. If the Participating Agency chooses to include any information in any Annual Disclosure Report in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Agreement, the Participating Agency shall have no obligation under this Agreement to update such information or include it in any future Annual Disclosure Deport. SECTION . Default. In the event of a failure of the Participating Agency to comply with any provision of this Disclosure Agreement, the Trustee may (and, at the request of the Participating Underwriter or the Holders of at least 25% aggregate principal amount of Outstanding Bonds and upon receipt of indemnity satisfactory to the Trustee, shall), or any Holder or Beneficial Owner of the Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the Participating Agency to comply with its obligations under this Disclosure Agreement. Failure by the Participating Agency to comply with any provision of this Disclosure Agreement shall not be deemed an Event of Default under the indenture, and the sole remedy under this Disclosure Agreement in the event of any failure of the Participating Agency to comply with the terns of this Disclosure Agreement shall be an action to compel performance. SECTION 10. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Dissemination Agent The Dissemination Agent shall have only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Disclosure Agreement, and the Participating Agency agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent, its officers, directors, employees and agents, Harmless against any loss, expense and liabilities which it may incur arising out of or in the exercise or performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and expenses (including attorneys fees) of defending against any claim of liability, but excluding liabilities due to the Dissemination Agent's negligence or willful misconduct. The Dissemination Agent shall be paid compensation by the Participating Agency for its services provided hereunder in accordance with its schedule of fees as amended from time to time and all expenses, legal fees and advances made or incurred by the Dissemination Agent in the performance of its duties hereunder. The obligations of the Participating Agency under this Section shall survive resignation or removal of the Dissemination Agent and payment of the Fonds. 4 Agenda Item 8.d. Page 13 SECTION 11. Notices Any notices or communications to the Participating Agency or the District may be given as follows: Participating Agency Attention: Phone: ktrie.t• San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District County Government Center Room 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Attention: Public Works Director Phone: 0- 781 -5252 Dissemination Agent U.S. Bank Trust National Association 633 W. Fifth Street, 24 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attention: Phone: 213-615- Any person may, by written notice to the other persons listed above, designate a different address or telephone numbers to which subsequent notices or communications should be sent. Wi J Agenda Item 8.d. Page 14 SECTION 12. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of the Authority, the District, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriter and Folders and Beneficial Owners from time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. PARTICIPATING AGENCY 0 [Title of Signing Officer] AGREED AND ACCEPTED: U.S. BAIT TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Dissemination Agent 0 Authorized Officer SAID LUIS OEISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 0 Chairman Agenda Item 8.d. Page 15 EXFHBI I NOTICE TO REPOSITORIES OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Name of Obligated Party: Participating Agency Name of Bonds: SLO County Financing Authority Lopez Darn Improvement Revenue Bonds 2000 Series A Date of Delivery: December 2010 NOTICE IS BEREBY GIVEN that the Participating Agency has not provided an Annual Disclosure Report with respect to the above - named Bonds as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010, with respect to the Bonds. [The Participating Agency anticipates that the Annual Disclosure Report will be filed by .] Dated.. PARTICIPATING AGENCY 0 Participating Agency District A-1 Agenda Item 8.d. Page 16 RRO INCORPORATES ` MEMORANDUM ANDUM JK JULY 10, 1011 , T: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TE ESA MCCLISH DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Y: STEPHANIE SHAFFER, PLANNING INTERN SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CASE NO. 10-019 AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT EMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS PARADE, NOVEMBER 28, 201 DATE: NOVEMBER , 201 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution approving Temporary Use Permit 10-019 for the Annual Arroyo Grande pillage Improvement Association Christmas Parade. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Total cost of the parade is projected to be $1 ,294. In the past, the parade sponsor has paid all City costs. Since this has become a valued and successful annual event, it is proposed the City waive 50 percent of the costs this year. Parade cost estimates include overtime for staff to place and remove no parking signs; renting, placing and removing water barricades, and the provision of up to to police officers to direct traffic and ensure safety. BACKGROUND: The pillage Improvement Association's Christmas parade has been held annually for six consecutive years on the Sunday immediately after Thanksgiving. This gear's parade is scheduled for N overnber 2 8 2010 from 5 : 00 p.r . to :00 p - m . Other events occur in the Village before and after the Parade including a choir performance, tree lighting, nativity scene, a visit from Santa Claus and the screening of a movie in Heritage Square Park. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The parade stages in the Bank of America parking lot and proceeds onto Wesley Street and immediately turns east on Hest Branch Street and continues until turning south onto Short Street where it terminates and disbands in 01ohan Ailey. The parade mute requires the closure and "No Parking" restrictions on Wesley Street from Larchmont to West Branch Street and pest and East Branch Street from Wesley Street to Mason Street from 430 pm until 6:30 pm. Agenda Item 8.e. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CHRISTMAS PARADE STREET CLOSURE NOVEMBER , 201 PAGE 2 Due to construction of the Shops at Short Street, the applicant will coordinate the opening of construction fencing on 01ohan Alley and Short Street to allow larger vehicles to exit the parade onto South Mason Street. Other parade participants will disband in 01ohan Alley between Short Street and Bridge Street. ADVANTAGES: The Christmas Parade serves as a co mmunity event that allows citizens and visitors to celebrate the holiday season with organized activities in the village. The parade route is well established and City staff involvement is minimal. DISADVANTAGES: "No Parking" restrictions and the closure o f sections of West and East Branch Streets will have an impact on traffic congestion. Motorists net familiar with the parade route will have to use detours to get to their destinations which may increase travel time. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the attached Resolution approving Temporary Use Permit 10-019 for the Annual Arroyo Grande pillage Improvement Association Christmas Parade. - {codify and adopt the attached Resolution. - Do not adopt the attached Resolution. - Provide direction to staff. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This event is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CE QA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: MENTS: The Agenda was posted in front o f City Hall on Thursday, November 4, 2010. The Agenda and report were posted o the City's web site on Friday, November 5, 2010. N public comments were received. Attachment 1. Barricade placement and mute Diagram Agenda Item 8.e. Page 2 I N =&I*] ILIJ I NI ►' 1►' C A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO, 10-01 AND AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE of CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS PARADE, NOVEMBER 2 , 201 WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande village Improvement Association AG IA applied for a Temporary Use Permit to utilize City streets and property for a Christmas Parade; and WHEREAS, the temporary closure of portions of Wesley Street and West t and East Branch Streets will help to facilitate the parade for all people participating in the event; Not, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve Temporary Use Permit 10-019 authorizing the following actions subject to compliance with the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 1. Wesley Street from Larchr ont to West Branch Street and West and East Branch Street from Wesley Street to Mason Street will be closed from approximately .30 pm to 6.30 pr on November 28, 2010. 2. A "No Parking To w Arran Zone" will be established on both sides of Wesley Street from Larchmont to West Branch Street and West and East Branch Street from Wesley Street to Mason Street from :30 pm until 6:30 pm on November 28, 2010. I The applicant shall be refunded the Temporary Use Permit application fee. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following ro ll ca ll vote, to grit: AYES: TOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of November ber 201 . Agenda Item 8.e. Page 3 RESOLUTION N. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY 11ETM RE, CITY CLERK{ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORMA: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 8.e. Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 EXHIBIT " CONDITIONS S of APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 10-019 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1 , The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant shall comply with all of the Conditions of Approval for Temporary Use Permit 10-019. 4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his /her sole expense any action brought against the City, Its agents, officers, or emplo because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney yis fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at Its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his /her obligations under this condition. 5. The applicant shall notify all affected businesses and residents of street closures and parking restrictions at least 48 hours prior to the event. 6. The applicant shall abide by all road closure and parade regulations as established by the Police Department. 7. The applicant shall pay for half of the true City cost to ensure public safety, establish no parking zones, close streets and to provide for two police officers. Applicant costs are estimated to be $624. 8. The applicant shall comply with the Health Department regulations for all food products provided or sold during the event. g. Post "No Parking" signs 24 hours in advance. 10. The applicant shall coordinate efforts with the developer of the Short Street project to ensure that Short Street will remain accessible during the parade and that the construction fencing will be open to allow larger vehicles to disband from the parade and exit onto South Mason Street. Confirmation of this condition must be communicated to the Director of Community Development no later than close of business on Tuesday, November 23, 2010. Agenda Item 8.e. Page 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.e. Page 6 � � \ � \ «<> / « :\ �./ / ! � G \� \ ±� » > /}\ / j z« „ \�� a �� m� �\ Ell » y / r � � 2� \ °§ ,< .z � \ Agenda Item 8.e. Page 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.e. Page 8 RPORATIE l JULY 10. 191 MEMORANDUM O N To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DOUG PERRIN, DIRECTOR of RECREATION EATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE FOR THE RECREATION EATION COORDINATOR POSITION DATE: NOVEMBER , 201 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a job description and salary range for the Recreation reation Coordinator position. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approximate cost for this position is $70,,000, including salary and benefits. Sufficient funds have been allocated In the Recreation reation and Maintenance Services budget. With the retirement of the Facilities Coordinator and reorganization of the Recreation reation Division, a $31,000 savings will be realized FY 2010 -11 and $62,000 in F 2011 -12. BACKGROUND: At its August 24, 2010 meeting the City Council approved a reorganization plan for the Recreation Division and use of the PERS Golden Handshake Program for the Facilities Coordinator. At the end of 2010, the City's Facilities Coordinator will be retiring. At that time, as a cost saving measure, the Recreation reation Division will undergo a reorganization and most of the Facilities Coordinator's responsibilities will be assumed by the Child Care Coordinator. A new "Recreation Coordinator" job description (Exhibit A ) has been created to reflect the combined responsibilities. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: With the recommended combination of the Childcare Coordinator and the Facilities Coordinator positions, there were some concerns identified about work load levels. Ho wever, the Children In Motion before and after school child care program lost one of its school sites at the beginning of the 2010 -11 school year. As a result, ten part -time staff w ere laid off, and the Child Care Coordinator's workload was somewhat reduced. In addition, the recreation vision's two Supervisors will absorb some of the tasks s that have traditionally been performed by the two Coordinators. staff is also identifying other tads that may be eliminated without significantly impacting s ervice levels. Agenda Item 8.f. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE E FOR THE RECREATION E TION C F DINATOR POSITION NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE Since the child Care coordinator and the Facilities Coordinator positions are being combined, a job description has been developed to reflect the actual duties. The pay scale is rang 20, $3,029 to $3,681 per month, which maintains the current Child Care Coordinator's salary level. This is aw full time position, with basic hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Ho wever, hours may vary as necessary for child care site coverage or for special events. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: I . Approve staffs recommendation by adopting the Resolution; 2. Do not approve staff's recommendations; 3. Modify as appropriate and approve staff s recommendation; or 4. Provide direction to staff. ADVAN TAGES: By combining these two Coordinator positions, a $31, 00 saving should be realized in FY 2010-11 and a $62,000 savings in Fly 201 1 -12. This will help eliminate the existing subsidy and enable the city to continue to offer its child care programs. DISADVANTAGES: The staff reduction may impact the Recreation Division 7 s ability to keep the front counter open at all times and will add some additional burden to the two Recreation Supervisors and the part -time Administrative secretary. ENVIRONMENTAL ENTAL I E IE : No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 4, 2010 and on the City's website on Friday, November 5, 2010. No public comments were received. Agenda Item 8.f. Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL. of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING A JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE WHEREAS, EAS, the City of Arroyo Grande currently has both a Child Care Coordinator and Facilities Coordinator; and 1 HE EAS, the current Facilities Coordinator gill be retiring at the end of 2010; and WHEREAS, S, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City to combine the two Coordinator positions; and WHEREAS, EAS, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City to establish a job description for the position of "Recreation Coordinator rr, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "r and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City to establish a salary range for the position of Recreation Coordinator, which position will be placed on the fall- time salary schedule. NOW, , THE EF F E BE IT RESOLVED that Grande does hereby establish the position of duties and responsibilities set forth in the job The permanent full -- time position of Recreation pay as follows: POSITION: Recreation Coordinator Range 20 (SEIU) A B C D $3,Q29 $3,180 $3,34a $3,507 the City Council of the City of Arroyo Recreation Coordinator to perform the description so attached as Exhibit "A". Coordinator shall receive the rates of E $3,681 This Resolution shell become effective as of November 10, 2010 Agenda Item 8.f. Page 3 RESOLUTION N PAGE 2 o n motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call Grote, to it: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution w parsed and adopted this � day of November ber �, 2010. Agenda Item 8.f. Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE TONY F E RRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETM RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CA EL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 8.f. Page 5 Exhibit CITY of ARROYO GRANDE RECREATION COORDINATOR Class specifications are Intended to present a descriptive list of the range of duties performed b employees in the class. specifications are not intended to reflect all duties performed within the job. JOB OBJECTIVES To oversee and coordinate the children in Motion program and to coordinate scheduling of facilities within the Recreation and Maintenance Services Department including overseeing the operation of child care sites; preparation of required reports and responding to questions and inquiries from parents; implementation of program goals and objectives, administering and billing for facility use contracts, scheduling a variety of City facilities; and performing a variety of administrative tasks in support of assigned area of responsibility. SUPERVISION I ECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives direction from the Recreation Supervisor. May exercise technical and functional supervision over clerical, part -time, contract and volunteer staff. ESSENTIAL FUNCTION STATEMENTS The following task are typical for positions in this classification. Any single po sition may not perform aU of these tasks andlor may perform similar related tasks not listed here: 1 . Oversee and coordinate Children in Motion program activities including overseeing the operation of child care sites, preparation of required reports and responding to questions and inquiries from parents. 2. Recommend end and assist in the implementation of goals and objectives; establish schedules and methods for providing child care services; implement policies and procedures. 3. Monitor program performance; recommend and implement modifications to systems and procedures. 4 Prepare attendance, accident, weekly assignment and enrollment progress reports, parent fee records and other related reports. 5. oversee and monitor the operations of various child care sites; investigate complaints, accidents and injuries that occur; collect payment envelopes from sites. . coordinate preparation of the Parent Handbook and Staff Training Handbook. 7. Follow established procedures and guidelines to provide a safe, healthy and enriching environment for children; enforce discipline policies with program participants and staff. 8. Meet with parents regarding problems and/or information related to the child care program; respond to questions and inquiries as necessary. g. Plan, coordinate and attend staff and on -site meetings; attend and participate in required in- service training activities. 10. Participate in the selection of child care staff; provide or coordinate staff training; work with employees to correct deficiencies; implement discipline procedures. Agenda Item 8.f. Page 6 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Recreation coordinator (Continued) Page 11. Participate in the preparation and administration of the Children in Motion program budget; prepare grants for child care funds. 12. Coordinate Economic Opportunity Commission EOC state contracts to pay child care hours for low income families; enroll EOC participants into program; type payment letters to participant families. 13. Maintain records of weekly participant payments; coordinate payment fellow -up; issue collection reports to appropriate credit bureaus. 1. Coordinate and prepare various paperwork for new staff including staff fingerprinting, licensing and personnel action forms; maintain confidential staff files. 15. Promote and coordinate specific activities within the Children in Motion program; prepare program event and facility marketing material including news releases, flyers, schedules of events, pamphlets and brochures. 16. Monitor program compliance with laws, rules and regulations related to prevision of child care and related services. 17. Maintain awareness of new developments in the field of child care; incorporate new developments as appropriate into programs. 18. Oversee and coordinate the use and maintenance of various City recreational facilities including assigned community centers and parks. 19. Maintain a calendar of user groups; confirm reservations and explain policies and procedures governing usage of assigned facilities; ensure proper forms and permits are completed. 20. Receive and record payments for facility use; maintain current and accurate records of payments or refunds and attendance at various recreation facilities. 21. Participate in monitoring and maintaining the assigned budget; maintain and revie w monthly revenue and expenditure reports. 22. Evaluate the operational characteristics of various facility maintenance equipment; make recommendations for the purchase o replacement of equipment. 2. Provide assistance to the general public; answer the telephone and respond to questions and inquiries from the public; receive payments and issue receipts for recreation classes, sports leagues and facility rentals; close out daily deposits. 2. Perform related duties and responsibilities as required. 2. Assist the Recreation Supervisor with various sports related tasks, including preparation of league standings, mailings, and phone calls to teams, referees, umpires and scorekeepers. Agenda Item 8.f. Page 7 CITY OF ARROYO FAi D E Recreation coordinator (Continued) Page Q UALIFICATIONS Knowled f: Basic operations, services and activities of a child care program. Principles and practices of child care program development and implementation. Basic procedures, methods and techniques of budget preparation and control. Principles and practices common to the field of child care and recreation services. Safe and acceptable operation of off -site child care facilities. Principles and practices of record keeping and report preparation. Methods and techniques of grant preparation. Basic mathematical principles. Methods and techniques of customer service and public relations. Pertinent Federal: State and local laws, codes and safety regulations. Basic operations and activities of a recreation facility use program. Methods and techniques of scheduling and renting facilities for public use. Principles and practices of effective public relations. Applicable rules, regulations, policies and procedures governing use of city recreational facilities. Modern office procedures, methods and equipment including computers Ability t: Coordinate and direct the Children in Motion child care program. Recommend and implement goals and objectives for providing child care services and activities. Plan, promote and implement child care activities. Ensure off -site child care facilities are operating in accordance with established policies, procedures and guidelines. Despond to requests and inquiries from parents and program participants. Elicit community and organizational support for child care programs. Coordinate various personnel operations including fingerprinting, licensing and staff meetings. Interpret and explain City policies and procedures. Prepare and administer child care grants. Prepare clear and concise reports. Allocate limited resources in a cost effective manner. Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Monitor participant payments and maintain accurate and confidential records and files. Oversee and coordinate the use and maintenance of various City recreational facilities. Effectively respond to requests and inquiries from the general public. Effectively schedule facility use. Assist with organization of special events. Maintain accurate schedules, records and logs. Ensure adherence to rules and regulations governing the use of City facilities. Perform a variety of basic mathematical calculations. Communicate icate cl early and concisely, both or and in writing. Communicate effectively with a diverse population. Quickly accommodate unexpected changes in priorities, work schedules and emergencies. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE CE UIDELII ES Any combination of education and experience that would likely provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be. Agenda Item 8.f. Page 8 CITY of ARROYO GRANDE Recreation Coordinator (Continued) Page Education: Equivalent to the completion of the twelfth grade supplemented by college level course work in child cane, business administration or a related field. Experience: Two years of increasingly responsible experience in a child care program. One year of experience in a recreational setting including some record keeping and scheduling experience. License or Certificate Possession of, or ability to obtain, an appropriate, valid driver's license. WORKING CONDITIONS Environmental conditions: Child care facility and office environment: extensive contact with children and parents. Office and field environment; limited e to adverse conditions such as dust, fumes, odors or noise. Physical Conditions: Essential and marginal functions may require maintaining physical condition necessary for walking, standing, stooping, squatting or sitting for prolonged periods of tire; occasional heavy lifting; repetitive movement and fine coordination using a computer keyboard. Agenda Item 8J. Page 9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.f. Page 10 ROy INCORPORATE 7 MEMORANDUM JULY 10 1011 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TER ESA MCCLISH DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y: RYAN FOSTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER; SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING TWO (2) PROPERTIES AT 188 8 194 NORTH ELM STREET AND ONE (1) PROPERTY AT 704 BRANCH MILL ROAD (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10 -003) DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 201 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to rezone two (2) properties at 188 & 194 North Elm Street from Single- Family (SF) to Gateway Mixed- Use (GIVIU) and one (1) property at 704 Branch Milt Road from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential (RR). FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project will not result in any fiscal impact to the City. BACKGROUND: The City Council introduced the proposed Ordinance at its meeting o October 2 , 2010. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The proposed Ordinance will rezone the specified properties consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as required b y Government Code section 65860. ALTERNATIVES: ES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Map, rezoning two 2 properties at 188 & 194 North Elm Street from single - Family SF to Gateway Mixed -Use (GM U) and one 1 property at 704 Branch Mill Road from Agriculture (AG) to Residential Rural II; 2. Do not adopt the attached Ordinance; or 3. Provide direction to staff:. Agenda Item 8.g. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CA 1 -003 NOVEMBER 9, 201 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES: Adopting the Ordinance will achieve consistency between the City's General Plan and Zoning Map, as required by Government Cede Section 65860. DISADVANTAGES: Staff has net identified any disadvantages with adopting the Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: IEW: Staff has reviewed the proposed project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) and has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Section 15305 of the CEA Guidelines. Staff does not anticipate that the project will have an adverse effect on the environment, as the change in land use categories were part of the General Plan Update Program EII . if the City Council does not agree that this determination is appropriate, project approval cannot be considered at this time. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: Notices were mailed to fifty -eight 88 property o wners within 300' of the subject properties and published in the Tribune on October 29, 2010. As of October 29, 2010 staff has not received any public comment regarding the proposed Development Code Amendment. Agenda Item 8.g. Page 2 ORDINANCE ANCE H , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10 -003 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP, DESIGNATING TWO (2) PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 188 & 194 NORTH ELM STREET AS GATEWAY MIXED- USE (GMU) AND ONE ('!)PROPERTY LOCATED AT 704 BRANCH MILL ROAD AS RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) WHEREAS, S, the General Plan Land Use Element Map designates the two 2 properties located at 188 & 194 North Elm Street as Mixed-Use (MU); and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element Map designates the one 1 property located at 704 Branch Mill Road d s Low - Density Residential l LDR); and WHEREAS, EAS, the General Plan requires a comprehensive revie w and necessary revisions to the Development code for consistency, in accordance with Government code Section 65860;and WHEREAS, S, the city has initiated Development code Amendment ent '10 --003 to rezone the two 2 properties located at 188 & 194 North Elm Street from Single - Family SF to Gateway Mixed -lase GMU and the one 1 property at 704 Branch Mill Road from Agricultu G to Residential identiawl F ural R in order to achieve consistency with the General Plan Lend Use Element Map; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the city council has determined that the following Development code Amendment findings can be made in an affirmative manner; A. The proposed changes in zoning are required to ensure consistency with the objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. B. The proposed changes in zoning will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed changes in zoning are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16, satisfy the intent of chapters 16.32 and 16.36 the Municipal code and provide for internal consistency; D. The proposed changes in zoning are within the scope of the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update, and the potential environmental impacts are less than significant. Agenda Item 8.g. Page 3 ORDINANCE No. PAGE NOW, , THE EFOF E, BE IT ORDAINED ED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION : Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning lap ) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION : If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unla wful, 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, par rag rarph, sentence, orlause thereof, irrespective of the fatthatny one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: Upon adoption of this ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Exemption. SECTION : A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted ordinance. SECTION : This Ordinan shall take effect on the lamer of thirty 30 days from the dame of adoption. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call Grote to grit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing ordinance was adopted this g ' dally of November, r, 201 o. Agenda Item 8.g. Page 4 ORDINANCE N. PAGE 3 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY II ETMO E, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CAR EL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 8.g. Page 5 EXHIBIT t� c� t� c� 00 RlSClLLA LN �� m q 0 �A ti W 18$ & 794 North Elm Street: <� 2 Rezone from Single - Family (SF) to 2 � Gateway Mixed -Use (GMU) o E GRAND AV CH m 704 Branch Mill Road: ,G Rezone from Agriculture (AG) to Residential Rural (RR) WCORPOR T Jay 10, loll MEMORANDUM 4 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIMOTHY J. CA MEL, CITY ATTOR EY SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of A RESOLUTION CONSENTING To THE ASSIGNMENT of A COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT T FROM SLO CELLULAR, INC. To SLO NEWCO, LLC DATE: NOVEMBER , 201 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution consenting to the assignment of a Communications Site Lease Agreement darted June 16, 2000, from SLO Cellular, Inc. ("SLO Cellular") to SLO New o, LLC "SLO New o" . FINANCIAL IMPACT: All costs and expenses related to the review and processing of the proposed assignment are the responsibility of SLO New o. There is no fiscal impact to the City. BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2000, the City entered into a Communications Site Lease Agreement (the "Leaser) with SLO Cellular to lease an approximate three hundred seventy -five (375) square foot portion of the Reser #4 property, as well as space on the water tangy, for a communications facility site. The terra of the initial lease was for fire years with three 3 five (5)-year extensions, and the City is currently receiving rent in the amount of $1,791 per month for use of the site. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: B letter dated October 8, 2010, the City received notification from SLO Cellular requesting that the City approve an assignment of the Lease to SLO New co (the "Notice"), a newly formed Del aware limited liability company currently owned wholly by SLO Cellular. It should be noted that that proposed assignment of the Lease is being made In conjunction with the purchase by New Cingularr Wireless PCS, LLC "AT &T" of substantially all of SLO Cellularr's assets. lender the Purchase Agreement, at closing, SLO Cellular will transfer all of its assets to SLO New co and a change in control in the ownership of SLO New co will occur, such than SLO New co will be a wholly owned s ubsidiary of AT &T. This change in control constitutes an assignment within the reaming of Article 13 of the Lease. SLO New co will become the "tenant under the Lease and will be responsible for all obligations and liabilities of tenant under the Lease Agenda Item 8.h. Page 1 CONSIDERATION of A RESOLUTION CONSENTING To THE ASSIGNMENT OF A COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT FROM SLO CELLULAR, INC. To SLo 111E C , LLC CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 2 from and after the Closing Date. SLO Cellular will not be relieved of any future performance, liabilities or obligations under the Lease. ALTERNATIVES: ES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Approve staffs recommendation; mendation; 2. Do not approve staff's recommendation; 3. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The City's consent to the proposed sublease will ensure that residents continue to benefit from the cellular servic provided by the cell tower located on the leased premises and that the City will continue to collect the income that it receives under the terms of the Lease. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages of the proposed sublease have been identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is necessary for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November ber , 2010. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 5, 2010. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Later from SLO Cellular dated October 8, 2010 2. Lease Agenda Item 8.h. Page 2 RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE CONSENTING To THE ASSIGNMENT To SLO I E CO, LLC OF A COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED JANE 16 2000 BETWEEN SLO CELLULAR, INC. AND THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE WHEREAS, EAS, SLO Cellular, Inc, a California Corporation doing business as Cellular One of San Luis Obispo "SLO Cellular" entered into a Communications ations site Lease Agreement (the `Lease" ) wwith the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City" ) for approximately 375 square feet of lend, space on the City's grater tank, and access and utility easements connected therewith for real property located on Branch h Mill Road, Arroyo Grande, commonly known as the Reservoir #4 site; and WHEREAS, by letter dated October 8, 2010, SLO Cellular notified City that SLO Cellular and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC "AT&T" have entered into a Purchase Agreement pursuant to which SLO Cellular will transfer substantially all its assets, including the Lease,, to SLO New co, LLC "SLO I e co" , a newly formed Delaware limited liability company at the closing of the Purchase Agreement transaction (the "Closing "; and WHEREAS, SLO Newco is currently wholly owned by SLO Cellular; and WHEREAS, at Closing, a change in the o wnership of SLO Newco will occur, such that SLO I ew o will be a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T; and WHEREAS, this change in ownership constitutes an assignment within the meaning of Article 13 of the Leese; and WHEREAS, upon review of AT &T's operational experience and financial stability, City staff have concluded that SLO Iewo satisfies the general assignment criteria. NOW, THEREFORE, E, E IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby consent to the sale of SLO Cellular's interest in the Lease and assignment of the Lease to SLO Negro and authorizes the Mayor to execute a Landlord Consent and Estoppel Certificate ("Certificate"), subject to the following conditions: 1. SLO Newco shall agree to be bound by all requirements of the Lease and to comply with all City rules, regulations and policies related to the subject matter of the Lease. 2. SLO Cellular shall not be relieved of any future performance, liabilities or obligations under the Lease. Agenda Item 8.h. Page 3 RESOLUTION UTIO NO. PACE 2 3. SLO Newco shall become a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T at the Closing. 4. SLO k e co shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in reviewing the transaction, and in processing and preparing all necessary paperwork related to the assignment. 5. The Certificate attached to SLO Cellular's letter dated October 8, 2010 incorrectly states that the final expiration of the Lease is on June 1, 2015. Article of the Lease states that the Terra shall be fire years from the commencement date (June 16, 20 00) and that Lessee shall have the right to extend the Term for three 3 successive five year periods. The Certificate should be corrected to state that the final expiration of the Lease is n .June 1 2020. 6. In the event that any of the terms of the Certificate are inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution, the provisions of this Resolution shall prevail. 7. This assignment shall not become effective until SLO Cellular and SLO Newco accept in writing the conditions of this Resolution. Such acceptance shall be filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the date of adoption of this Resolution. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to grit: AYES: TOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of November 2010. Agenda Item 8.h. Page 4 RESOLUTION LUTIO NO. PAGE 2 TONY FER AI A, MAYOR ATTEST. KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 8.h. Page 5 ATTACHMEI T 1 October 8, 2010 CELWLAR ME a VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7010 1868 8808 8963 8670 ( ?f S an Loris ObisPo R ETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED City Manag CD - City of Arroyo G rande C-) P.O. Box 550 -� 214 East Branch Street y . Affoyo Grande, CA 93421 E: Connnunications. Site Lease Agreement (Ground) dated or comenpg" . as of June 16 2000 as heretofore amended and assigned, if applicable,' together w ith any related easements or other appurtenances, the "Lease) by and between City of Arroyo crane (the "Landlord" ) and SLO Cellular, Inc. as tenant or successor tenant, as applicable); Address of, Site: Reservoir #4 water Tank, 201 Huebner Lane, Arroyo Grande, California (the "site Ladies and Gentlemen: SLO Cellular, Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ( among other p arties , have entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Assets dated as of` Ap ril 8, 201 amended and assigned from time to time, the "Purchase Agreement"). Under the Purchase Agreement, SLO Cellular, Inc. will transfer substantially all of the assets comprising SLO Cellular Inc.'s cellular telephone system, including the Lease, to SLO N LLC, a newly formed Delaware limited liability company that, upon the Closing of the Purchase Agreement ("Closing"), will be wholly owned by AT&T. This letter serves as notice under the Lease that SLO Cellular, Inc. intends at the Closing to assign the Lease to SLO Newco LLC ("Newco"), which as of the date of this letter is wholly owned by SLO Cellular, Inc. At the Closing, a change in control in the ownership of N will occur, such that Newco will, following the Closing, be a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. The foregoing assignment and change in control and any subsequent transfers to AT&T's affiliates are collectively referred to in this letter as the "'Transfer ". Please note that there is a p ossibility that the assignment of the Lease to Newco may occur after the date on which the change in control of Newco is effective. This letter will be deemed to cover, and your consent will be deemed to apply to, the assignment of the Lease to Newco vco whether occurring before or after the change in control of Newco. From and after the effective date of the assignment of the Lease to Newco. (the "Closing Date"), which is expected to occur during the fourth quarter of 2010, Newco shall become the "tenant" under the Lease and shall be responsible for all obligations and liabilities of tenant under the Lease from and after the Closing Date, Nothing herein shall be deemed to release SL Cellular Inc. from its obligations and liabilities under the Lease, to the extent such obligations and liabilities arose or accrued prior to the Closing Dater You will be notified of any change in 133 A rroyo G rande DT 4L j 733 Marsh Street Suite B • San Luis Obispo CA 93401 • (805) 543 -0100 * Fax (805) 5 43-0197 Agenda Item 8.h. Page 6 City of Arroyo Grande October 8, 2010 Page the notice address and oth er contact information for the "tenan. f 5 under the Lease prom after the Closing Date. You also may be request � p request to p rovide copies of certain records regarding the Lease [and subject of the Lease and to join in the execution of a memorandum of lease the Tower that 1 s the subs or of the assinent of the Lease, rime. 'hank you in advance for your assistance and s app ropriate. l cooperation with respect to such requests. Please confirm y our consent to the Transfer described above and your agreement to the . letter and oonfir certain Lease terms by signing where indicated on the provisions f this Landlord Consent and Estoppel Certificate attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Certificate" and p returir� g � g the original s i g ned Certi in the enclosed, p prepaid enve lope. y ou have an q uestions about this letter, the Certificate or the transactions Should y � involvin Lease, Lease lease contact the under �gned at (8 05) 5 43 -0100, extension 1001 Very truly yours, SLO Cellular, Inc. y , Bruce Patterson, General Manager Agenda Item 8.h. Page 7 EXHIBIT "' "' TO LETTER LANDLORD CONSENT T AI D ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE The undersi ne • d landlord ("Landlord") under that certain , C Site Lease Agr (the "Lease"), dated a of June 16, 2000 by and between Landlord and SLO Cellular, Inc. ("Tenant"), affecting the property known as Ike ervoir #4 Water Tarim, 201 Hu Lane Arroyo Grande, California- (the "Property ", having the knowledge that Tenant intends to assign its interest in the Lease to SL Ne co LLC ("Newco � and that NewCO w ill become a wholl y o subsidiary of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC AT&T" hereby states declares rep resents and certifies to Tenant and Newco and their successors and/or assigns the following: 1, The Lease is in full force and effect, b has not been modified, altered or a e xc ep t as described above and c is the va lid and binding obligation of Tenant and Landlord. 2. Tenant has p erfored all o its obligations under the Lease, including nt o rent and neither Tenant nor Landlord are currently in default under the Lease and, t payment with the g ivi n g the best of Landlord kno no dent has occurred hick g g of notice or passage of time would constitute such a default. 3 . The rent commencement date of the Lease is .lurk 16, 2000 with a final expiration of the Lease on June 1, 2015 4 . The current rental is S 1,791.81 per month and such amount is subje to increase on June 1, 2011. 5 . Landlord hereby consents to the Transfer described in the letter to which this Landlord Consent and Estoppel Certificate is attached. This Landlord Consent and E Certificate shall inure to the benefit of Tenant and Ic and to the benefit of their respective successors and assigns and shall be binding upon Landlord and Landlord's successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Estoppel Certificate to be executed and delivered as of the day of 5 2010. B y: J Name ■ Title: 133 Arro Grande DT A- I Agenda Item 8.h. Page 8 ATTACHMENT 2 COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (GROUND) This Communications site Lease Agreement (Ground) "Agreement" is entered into this 16 day of June, 2000, between SLO CELLULAR, INC., a California corporation, dl a CELLULAR ONE of SAN LUIS OBISPO, ('Lessee"), and CITY of ARROYO o o GRANDE a municipal corporation formed under the lavers of the state of California ( "Lessor"). For good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1, PREMISES, Lessor is the owner of a parcel of land (the "Land" ) located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, state of California, commonly known as Reservoir The Land is more particularly described 'in Exhibit A annexed hereto. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee leases from Lessor, approximately 375 square feet of the Land and all access and utility easements, if any, (theTremises") described in Exhibit B annexed hereto. 2. USE, The Premises may a used by Lessee for any activity in connection with the provision of communications services. Lessor agrees to cooperate with Lessee, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, in making application for and obtaining all licenses, permits and any and all other necessary approvals that may be required for Lessee's intended use of the Premises. 3. TESTS AND CONSTRUCTION, , Lessee shall have the right at any time, foIIo gyring the full a ecution of this Agreement, to enter upon the Land for the purposes of making appropriate engineering and boundary surveys, inspections, soil test borings, other reasonably necessary tests (collectively, "Tests" ) and constructing the Lessee facilities as defined in Paragraph a below). Lessee shall comply with the repair provisions of Paragraph 15 belo w during and after all Tests and construction work. Agenda Item 8.h. Page 9 4 . TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be five 5 years commencing on the date first above written "Commencement Date" and terminating on the fifth anniversary of the Commencement Date (the "Term') unless otherwise terminated as provided in Paragraph 10. Lessee shall have the right to extend the Term for three 3 successi five year periods (The"Renewal Terms" on the sar eterr sand conditions as set forth herein. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for each successive Renewal Tern unless Lessee notifies Lessor of its intention not to renew prior to commencement of the succeeding Renewal Tern. 5. RENT. ( Within fifteen 1 business days of the Commencement Date and on the first day of each month thereafter, Lessee shall pay to Lessor as rent One Thousand One Hundred Dollars $1,100.00) per ,month ("Rent"). Rent for any fractional month at the beginning or at the end of the Terra or Renewal Term shall be prorated. Rent shall be payable to Lessor at city of Arroyo Grande P.. Box 550, 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421; Attention: Financial Services Director. (b) Rent shall be increased on each anniversary of the Commencement Date by are amount equal to five percent 5% of the Rent for the previous year during the initial Terra and all Renewal Terns. (c) Rent payments made after the tenth 10 day of any month will be considered delinquent, and shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent 1 per annum on the delinquent account. If the tenth 1 1h day of the month is on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then Lessee has until the net business day for the payment to be received by Lessor. (d) With in thirty 30 days of the fu I I a ecution of this Agreement, Lessee shat I pay to Lessor as additional consideration a one time administrative fee of one Thousand Dollars $1 1 000.00 for city transactional costs associated with preparation of this Agreement. FA ILITI S; UTILITIES; Ac ss. (a) Lessee has the right to erect, maintain and operate on the Premises radio communications facilities, including an antenna tower or pole and foundation, utility lines, transmission lines, air conditioned equipment shelters, electronic equipment, radio transmitting a nd receiving antennas, supporting equipment and structures thereto ("Lessee Facilities ". In connection therewith, Lessee has the right to do all work neces to prepare, maintain and alter the Premises for Lessee's business operations and to install Agenda Item 8.h. Page 10 ' c the antennas to the transmitters and receivers. All of transmission ion g Lesseies constru installation work shall be performed at Lessee sole cost and expense and in good workmanlike a manner. Except as otherwise specified herein, title to the Lessee Facilities shall b e held by Lessee. All of the Lessee Facilities shall remain Lessee's personal property and are not fixtures. Lessee shall remove all the Lessee . ■ . on or before the _ ex piration or earlier termination o this F acili t ies t its sole expense � Lessee rep airs an damage to the Premises caused b such Agreement provided, Less � � removal. should Lessee fail to remove the Lessee Facilities from the land within thirty (30) da of the expiration or ea termination of this Agreement, Lessor may remove and � store the Lessee Facilities essee's sole cost and expense, if Lessee does not claim at L ' ` ' d rovided that Lessor has given Lessee a ny third part financing the Lessee �a�l�t�es, are p e ntity s�ty days prior written notice, the Lessee Facilities shall be deemed abandoned. Lessee shall post a T r rent -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) surety bond for remoral of the Lessee Fa • I . t�es . , Th i a aforementioned surety bond shall be n eff tforthe initial Agreement. Lessee agrees to increase the amount of the �n�t�al five ( year term of this ■ e same p that rent increases in said Ren head for each Renewal Terra � the � ■ d esire to expand r imp am of Lessor's e structures or Tenn. should Lessee d � facilities i shall obtain Lessor's prior mitten consent. Any such iodated on the Premises, �t • ex p a n s i o n or improvement of Les sor's existing structures or facilities shall be deemed a s to Lessee's right of use of the expansion or improvement part of Lessor property, g during the term of this Agreement. a for the electricity and all other utility services it consumes or ( b) Lessee shall � • • d the servi utility company. Any electri uses �n its op at the rate charge • see `s sole cost and a pense■ Lessee shell have the upgrade, i necessary, shall be a Les • oth er utilities from the e utilities on the Land or obtain right to drag e lectricity r and oth • - utility ■r�n an that will provide service to the Land separate utility service from and company ( includin g enerator for Lessee's exclusive use.) Lessor agrees to a standby poorer . be reasonab required bar said utility co sign such do cum e nts or easements as may be • to the Premises, including the grant t Lessee or to the servicing to provide such service h the • • Lessee's sole cost of an easement in, over, across, or throug utility crr�r� , a Less � d • ' ' ' comp � provide utility services as provide Lard recurred such servicing utility l � ... . • or such p ower r other utilities will be at a loca herein. Any easement necessary f o acceptable to Lessor and the servicing utility company. ( c) Lessee, Lessees employ eats , subcontractors lenders and invitees a ` witho notice to Lessor twent ( 24) hours a dad, shall have access to the Prem ��tho Duri the Terra of the Agreement, Lessor grants seven dais a mee at n charge. g ■ • contractors guests and invitees, non-e to Lessee and its agents, emp loyees, , g d vehicular ing and egress across that poion r i g h t and easement for pedestrian an of the Lana described in Exhibit B. 3 Agenda Item 8.h. Page 11 ( d) Lessor shall maintain all access roadways from the nearest public roadway to the Premises in a manner sufficient to allow pedestrian and vehicular access at all times under normal weather conditions. Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing s uch roadways at its sole exp ense, except for any damage caused by Lessee's use o such road ways. 7. I NTERFERENCE, ( a) Lessee shall construct, repair and operate the Lessee Facilities in such a m that will not cause interference to Lessor and other lessees or licensees of the L and, provided that their installations predate that of the Lessee Facilities. All operations by L essee shall be in compliance Commission liance with all Federal Communications Co ission (FCC r equirements and all linable laws. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee shall not ca �e interference to Lessor's re- broadcaster for its fire police and other public safety department's artment's re and less of whether the re- broadcaster predates the Lessee Facilities. (b) S ubsequent to the installation of the Lessee Facilities, Les shall not permit t itself, its lessees or licensees to install new equipment ors the Land or property contiguou � the reto ow ned or controlled b Lessor, if such equipment will cause interference with Lessee operations. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by Lessor. In th event interference occurs, Lessor agrees to take all reasonable steps necessary t el such interference in a reasonable time period. Notwithstanding anything herein � to the in the event Lessor fails to comply with this p ra raph, Lessee's sole contr ary, remedy is to terminate this Agreement. 8 , TAXES, If p p roperty personal axes are assessed, Lessee shall pay any portion of such takes � which are attributable to the Lessee Facilities. Except as provided immediately below, L p ay p rop erty L essor shall a all real art taxes attributable to the Land. Lessee shall reimburse � L essor for any increases in real property takes which are assessed as a result of Lessee's imp rovement to the Lead. As a condition of Lessee's obligation to pay such increases, Lessor shall 1l first provide to Lessee the documentation from the taking authority indicating the increase is due to Lessee's improvements. 9 . WAIVER of LESSOR'S LIENS. (a) Le ssor waives an lien rights it may have concerning the Lessee Facil Le y ties • Lessee's persona prop and not fi and Lessee has the right which are deemed � to remove the same at any time without Lessor's consent. (b) Le ssor acknowledges that Lessee has entered into a financing arrangement ' promissory notes and financial and security agreements for the financing of the Agenda Item 8.h. Page 12 Lessee . Faoil . �t�e the " Col I ateral" with a third party financing entity (and may in the future eater into additional financing in arra ngement s with other financing entities). In connection ther L e or i consents to the installation of the Collateral; (ii) disclaiming any eral a fixtures r otherwise, and (iii) agrees that the Collateral shall in �n the Coll be e from ex ecution foreclosure., sate, levy, etta hment, or d i stress for any Rent e due are that such Collateral may or becom _ he removed at any time without recourse to legal proceedings. 10 TERMINATION a terminated on thirty (30) days prior written notice a follows: Th is Agree ment may 00 by ether pa upon ' a default of any covenant or terra hereof by the other party, which ` ire s ixty da s of receipt of written notice of default, provided defelt � not cured with � that the grace period for an ( 10) i . . monetary default i ten days from receipt of notice, � by � r Le ' f ' �t does not obtain or maintain any license, permit or other approval necessary � for the con a nd operation of the Lessee Facilities; or (iii) by Lessee if Lessee i unable to occupy nd utilize the Premises due to an action of the FCC, including without � . li a tale back of channels or change in frequencies; or v by Lessee if Lessee determ that the Premises emise are not appropriate for its operations for economic or technologic re asons , , i n ludin g, without. limitation, signal interference. Should this ' ed pursuant to this Paragraph 1 Lessee shall pay the Rent due A he terr�n�nat . up to the effective date of termination, 5 11, DE STRUCTION OR CONDEMNATION. If the Premi or Lessee Facilities are damaged, destroyed, condemned or transferred in lieu of condemnation, Lessee m elect to terminate this Agreement as of the date of such damage, notice to Lessor n destruction condemnation or transfer in lieu of condemnation, b o more than forty- (45) days following the date of such g i v ing dama destruction condemnation or transfer in lieu of condemnation. 12, INSURANCE, ' sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain on the Lessee, at Lessee � Premises ' and on the Lessee Facilities, bodily injury and property damage insurance, a well as au lia in suranc e, with a combined single limit of at least One Million Dollars ( per occurrence. Such insurance shall 'insure, on an occurrence .. emp loyees , ent , bcontractor t lenders and bas against all liab of Les �t connection with Lessee's use of the Premises, all a provided �r�v�tes ari out of or �n tonne � for herein. Lessor shall be named as an additional insured on Lessee's poli Lessee shall provide to Lessor a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverage required by this p aragraph prior to entering the Land. Agenda Item 8.h. Page 13 1 . ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may assign this Agreement or sublet the Premises or any portion thereof to and j tit subject to Lessor's prior written consent and the assignee assuming all of � Le obligations herein. Under any such assignment or subletting, Lessee shall not be relieved of an future performance, liabilities, or obligations under this Agreement. ' L essor may assign this Agreement upon written notice to Lessee, subject to the assignee in all of Lessor's obligations herein, including, but not limited to, those set forth in assuming g P ("Waiv of Lessors ' Lien" above. This Agreement shall run Frith tine propert y g rap • an shall be binding ors and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective ors personal rep resentatives, hers and assigns. Notwithstanding anything tothe s uccessors, p contrary contained in this ► reement, Lessee may sign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer' without notice or consent its interest in this Agreement to any or financing entity, agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Lessee i has obli for barraged money or in respect of guaranties thereof, (ii) has obligations db bonds debentures, notes or similar instruments, or (iii) has obligations under evidence or with resp ect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances and similar facilities or in respect of guaranties thereof. 114 WARRANTY o f TITLE AND QUIET ENJOYMENT. ENT. Les sor warrants that: i Lessor own s the Land in fee simple and has - rights of access thereof and the Land is free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions, except as disclosed by th e public records: ( ii) Lessor has full right to make and perform this Bement; and (iii) Lessor covenants and agrees Frith Lessee that upon Lessee paying Mgr � . . Rent end observing. and performing all of the terms, covenant and conditions err the g . p Lessee s panto b e observed a'nd Lessee may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises. 15 REPAIRS. Lessee shall not b req uired to make any repairs to the Premises or Land unless stated b reason of Lessee's action or inaction, including, not such repairs are necess y li to, Lessee's tests and Lessee's construction, use, operation and maintenance of the Lessee Facilities. Except a set forth in Paragraph a above, upon expiration or . l . t � t ermination hereof, Lessee shall restore the Premises to the condition in which it existed upo exe cution hereof, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Lessee's control e 16 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. Lessee agrees that it will not use, g enerate, store or dispose or permit the use, generation, storage or disp of any Hazardous Material on, under, about or within the Agenda Item 8.h. Page 14 ' violation of an laver or r To the best of L.es or' knowledge ledge without Land �n v� rvst` O a ion Lessor rep resents, warrants, and agrees (1) that neither Lessor nor, to the �g best of Lessor's knowledg without investigation, any third party has used, generated, stored or disposed of or p ermitted the use, generation, storage or disposal of, any Hazar dous dous taterial defined below) on, under, about or within the Land in violation of any law or r e g ulation, and that Lessor will not,- and will not permit any third party to use, generate, store p n r dispose e f Hazardous Material on, under, about r within the Land � in violation � ' of an law or regulation. Lessor and Lessee each agree to defend, indemnify a nd hold harmless the other and the other's partners, affiliates, agents and employees against any and all losses liabilities, claim and/or costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees an d costs ) arising from a ny breach of any representation, w arranty or agreement conta ined in this p aragrap h. As used in this paragraph, "Hazardous Material" shall mean y petroleum or an p etroleum p roduct, asbestos, any substance known by the state in w hich t he Land is located to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity, and/or any substance, chemical or waste that is identified a ha ardou , 'toxic or dangerous in any applicable � federal, st ate or local law or regulation. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 17 LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY. ITY. (a) Lessee shall exonerate, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend Lessor and its directors re of o r r � ' officers and emplo y ees ees from and against any and all. suits, actions, udgrrrnt leg a l or administrativ proceedings, arbitrations, Claims, demands, causes of � a c t i o n, damages, liab ilities interest , attorneys' fees, fines, penalties, losses, costs and � exp en s es of whatsoever find or nature (collectively, " Claim arising out of or resulting from oper ations performance under this Agreement by Less 6e or its officers, . oiler or p directors, e mplo y ees , contractors subcontractors, lenders or agents, including, without ' use occupanc or en of the Premises by Lessee or any work, activity l�r�n�tatron, the p � - or ether thing allowed or suffered by Lessee or Lessee's directors, officer, employees, s subcontractors lenders or agents, invitees or lenders; or 2 any injury to or contractor • - es death of err p e rson or a damage to property, if such injury, death or damage arcs the p s at out of or ' tributa le to or results from the acts or omissions of Lessee or Its directors, � ' contractors subcontractors, lenders or, agents, including, w ithout officers, employee l• tat�on, the use, occupancy . ' en of the Premises by Lessee or any work, activity �r�r� or en` or other things allowed or suffered b y Lessee or Lessee's directors, officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, actors lenders or Ag ents on the Premises. . Nei her the expiration or earlier t erm in ation of this Ag reement nor completion of the acts to be performed under this core Agreement shall rele Lessee from its obligation to 'Indemnify, as to any Claim, so long .as the event upon which the Claim is predicated shall have occurred prior to the effective date of any such e x pir ation or earlier termination or completion and arose out of or was in any may connected with performance or op erations under this Agreement by Lessee, its directors officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, lenders or agents or any one o f them. h Agenda Item 8.h. Page 15 1 MISCELLANEOUS. ( a ) This Ag reement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the artier t supersedes erede all offers, negotiations and other agreements concerning the subject matter contained herein. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties. - %- (b) If any p rovi s ion of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable iith respect to any p arty , the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each provision of this Ag reement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by lave. ( c) All of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and p ermitted assignees of the respective parties. ( d ) A ny notice or demand required to be given herein shall be made by certified or r egistered mail return receipt requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below. LESSOR: City Manager City of Arroyo Grande P. o, Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 LESSEE: SLO Cellular, Inc. Cellular one of San Luis Obispo 733 Marsh Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: General Manager W ith Copy to: SLO Cellular, Inc. c/o Western Cellular Management 18638 Whitney Road Monte Soreno, CA 95030 Attn: Ravi Kunnra Lessor or Les m from time to time designate any other address for this purpose by � written note party. notice to the other art . All notices hereunder shall be deemed received upon actual receipt. (e) T Ag reement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. ( f) Lessor acknowledg es that a Memorandum of Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Ex hibit a will be recorded by Lessee in the official records of the County where the Land is located. In the event the Land is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust, Lessor ag rees to obtain and furnish to Lessee a non - disturbance and attornment instrument for each such mortgage or deed of trust. Agenda Item 8.h. Page 16 (g) Lessee, at its sole cost, may obtain title insurance on its interest lnthe Land, Lessor" shall coop erate by executing documentation required by the title insurance company. ( h) In a case where the approval or consent of one party hereto is required, req uested uested er otherwise to he given under this Agreement, such party shall not unreasonably delay or w ithhold its approval or- consent. - i Al'l Riders and Exhibits annexed hereto form material parts of this Agreement. 6) This Ag reement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed as original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. LESSOR: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, MICHAEL . LADY la to ATTEST: KELLY T E, Director of Admin- ltrative Services /Deputy City clerk LESSEE: SLO CELLULAR, INC., a California Corporation, dt a CELLULAR ONE O SAN LUIS O BISP O • 1�� DA PRU TT, V ice President, General Manager APPROVED As TO CONTENT: Icy{ ERSURCH, I rAti m U I ij6ffl nager APPR AS TO FORM. I T J CAF L ; pity Attorney Agenda Item 8.h. Page 17 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION IPTIO F LAND to the Agre dated 2000, b and be Teen CITY OF F Yo GRANDE, ar municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of California, as Lessor , and SLO CELLULAR, INC., a California Corporation, dba CELLULAR ONE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, as Lessee. The Land is described or depicted as f ollows: 1 f Erna t` t Ranchos Corral i ra, ism and l d That portion of Lo P Che�sin , � the City rn of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State California, a to map led for record in Book A, Page 6 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: eginn�n • g at the most S outherly comer of the lard described in the deed to Arnsa W. t,ison recur erurry, , ed in Book 15 , a 302. Deeds, marked by post set y A.F. Parsons in � �9� as 9 presently nar ked an 4 incli diameter pipe tagged l � shown on the ma filed in Book , Page 120 o Records of Sur e r; p the most Easterl comer of s thence North 5 � East, .o feet to a point, from which y co land of Dlxson Dears North 540 East, 537.30 feet, more or less, marked by a post established by A.F. Parsons in February. 1892, presently marked by are old fence comer, said p oint be the true point of beginning; thence at nght angles South 36 degrees, 240.00 feet to a point thence at right angles North 54 degrees, 272.00 feet to a point thence at right angles North 36 degrees, 240-00 feet to a point thence South 54 west, 272.00 feet to the true point of beginning A P N: 007 Agenda Item 8.h. Page 18 EKH I B I T B DESCRIPTION of P REMISES to the Ag reement dated 3 Lk PE I Le , 20oo, by and between CITY ARROYO OF GRANDE, municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of California, Lessor and SLO CEL.LULAF , INC., a California Corporation, dba CELLULAR ONE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, as Lessee. The Premises are described and/or depicted as follows: Cellular One of San Luis Obispo Cellular Communications Facility at the Cit of Arroyo Grande's Reservoir 4 Facility Two Million Gallon Water Tank I Cable Run Cellular One's Fifteen foot (15 " } by Twenty Five foot (25') Lease Area Eight foot (8') by Fourteen foot (14') Equipment Pad Tank Mounted EMS Antennas Tree foot five inch ' " by five foot Equipment Cabinet Access Foal Agenda Item 8.h. Page 19 EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM OF AGRE1NT to the A d ated 2000 by an between CITY OF AF GRANDE, a r unici l corporation formed under the laws of the state of California, as Lessor, and SLO CELLULAR, INC., a California Corporation, d a CELLULAR ONE O SAN LUIS ISP as Lessee. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF Ll 15 6�7 On acs t . Kota Public , j e 3 2000, befo erne., r personally eared r proved p l i f satisfa evidence o be the who names fls subscribed to t me on the bas ry the within instrument and acknowle p d t e th he they executed the same i his h r h * ir authorized c aeit ies , and that " hi signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY UBLIC Tr San ( SEA. y��`• -��,: �.l �' - . �.a.�� STATE OF CALIFORNIA S5. COUNTY OF ) On J �� ,X000, before rr e, k , Notary Public, p ersonally appeared - L - ,personally known to me or prove to e on the basis of satisfactory evidence to 6 e the person(s) whose names (s) is/a subscribed t the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sha4hey executed the same in l r authorized oa cit and that by hi signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTAR PV6LIC 1(p1Y YMETAAOi1E QonMnidon f 112'JOOB {SEAL} �� ao,�n� o+ Agenda Item 8.h. Page 20 A. INCORPORATED 7 MEMORANDUM 4K JULY 10, 1611 IF TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TER ESA I ICCLISH, COMMUNITY III UNITY I E EL PMEI T DIRECTOR I BY: RYAN FOSTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 1 - 1; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER F EAST GRAND AVENUE A D SOUTH COU TLAND STREET; APPLICANT — N T COMMERCIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Specific Plan Amendment 10-001. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the City associated with adoption of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL SPA AA0 NOVEMBER 9, ri PAG it ( I (I B err y T was a s t t he Cit Counci oin Septernber 8,,, 1998. The speuflc �Dlan a,r,ea consists of an'Droximately' forty-seven ('47) Agenda Item 9.a. Page 2 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER E1 9, 2010 PAGE 3 acres, divided into four subareas. The original approval of the plan included development standards for Subarea 1, which consists of both neo- traditional and `patio' single - family homes. The BGSP was amended in 2003 to address development standards for Subarea 2 (Jasmine Place), which consists of small -lot townh rues. The BGSP was again amended in 2005 to address development standards for Subareas 3 and 4. A t that tire, the two subareas were side -by -side in a north -south orientation and the development standards specified commercial development on the front (East Grand Avenue) portion of each subarea and multi - family rental residential development on the rear portion of each subarea. Several provisions were included in the amendment requiring coordination between the two property owners, as half of each subarea was on a separate pro perty. A Lot Line Adjustment was approved in 2069 in an attempt to clearly delineate each subarea as a separate property. This had the effect of rendering many of the provisions of the 2006 amendment moot. Additionally, the 2066 amendment designates the rearmost 2. 6 ages o f the entire 6 . 1 -acre property for residential development. Because the property now identified as Subarea 4 is only 1.63 acres, the remaining 0.9 ages at the rear of the property now identified as Subarea 4 is restricted to affordable residential development (Attachment 1). It should be noted that the General Plan, Berry Gardens Specific Plan (existing and proposed) and zoning regulations all layout provisions for intensified lnfill development of both subareas. Protect Description The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes development standards for both Subareas 3 and 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan BGSP. Because the two subareas are now separate properties, the proposed amendment seeks to deouple the subareas, allowing each to develop independently of the other, but in a complementary manner. Commercial/retail/office uses will be allowed on Subarea 3 (4.47 ages) and multi- family housing will be allowed on Subarea 4 ('1.63 acres). The applicant's proposed revisions to the BGSP are attached (Attachment 2 ) — staff has included all material provisions of the proposed revisions in Exhibit B. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission considered the proposed Specific Plan Amendment at two (2) separate public hearings in conjunction with proposed use permits for each subarea: September 7, 20 (Subarea 3, Attachment 3 ) and October 1, 2010 (Subarea 4, Attachment , both times recommending denial. At the meeting of September 7, 2010, the Commission recommended denial on the basis that the provisions for Subarea 3 did not provide an adequate buffer distance (setback) between dissimilar uses (commercial and residential). At the meeting of October 19, 2010, the Commission again recommended denial on the basis of recommending against adoption of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MID). The following findings are from the Planning Commission Resolution that recommends denial of Specific Plan Amendment 10-001: Agenda Item 9.a. Page 3 CITY COUNCIL SPA '1 - '1 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment conflicts with the General Plan; specifically policies LU -2, L 11-1.2, L 11-1.3 and 11-2.2 (Land Use Element). 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; The proposed Specific Tarr Amendment will create an illogical land use pattern by allowing a commercial ial buildings to be placed on the property line o rear yard setback) adjacent to a residential area, which does not provide an adequate buffer between the two uses, nor does it comply with the California Fire Code. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan; The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is neither necessary nor desirable to implement the provisions of the General Tarr, as it does not require development to include an adequate buffer area between the commercial and residential areas, nor aloes it require the incorporation of design elements as required by the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed -Use Districts and the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan. 4 The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in a superior development to that which could occur using standard zoning and development regulations. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations as it does not provide an adequate buffer between commercial and residential uses. The findings contained in the attached Resolution for. denial have been augmented based on further discussion of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment from the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2010. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 4 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 5 ANALYSIS PSIS of ISSUES: Legislative vs. ,Judicial Acts Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one o three categories — legislative, quasi-judicial o ministerial: • Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates, zoning ordinances o r specific plans. These acts establih local law — rules that apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. kinder California law, legislative acts are subject to initiative and referendum. Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislature acts) to projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are discretionary, based on the decision-makers interpretation and application of policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or refe rendum. • Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local government, such as the mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are met. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a legislative action — if adopted, it will establish the rules under which Subareas 3 and 4 may be developed (setbacks, buildings size, etc. Its adoption would not, however, grant any entitlements to either subarea, and no development may occur without separate approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Pro osed Specific Plan vs Existing Specific Plan The following tables illustrate the development standards contained within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment vs the development standards in the currently adopted Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP) for each subarea: i i h rim- Standard Proposed Existin Minimum Building Site Minimum Front bard Setback 10,000 square-feet 0-5" 20,000 square-feet 5 S 300' setback from East Grand Avenue for buildings taller than 3' Minimum Street Side Yard Setback -5' ' for single - story, 10' for two-story or more Minimum Interior Side bard Setback 0-5' -5 Mi nimum Fear Yard Setback 10' -5' Maximum t_Dt Coverage % 50% Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAIL 1. N/A Maximum Building Height 35' or three 3 stories, whichever is less. Total 5' from average grade; height may be increased t o Agenda Item 9.a. Page 5 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER 9, 201 PAGE 6 Standard Propo Exi Maximum Density height including any 45' from average grade for Minimum Building Site appurtenances shall not architectural features that do Minimum Front Yard Setback exceed 40' not exceed 25% of the floor Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 10' from adjacent area of the floor located commercial and 30' from directly below the feature adjacent single - family and provided that any residential development portion of the feature that Minimum Fear Yard Setback 20' exceeds 3' from average grade be set back 20' from Maximum Lot Coverage 0% the perimeter of the building. Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAIL 1.0 In no case shall a building Maximum Building Height 35' or three stones, contain a single plane that whichever is less and shall exceeds 3' from average include one or two -story g rade Parking 1 space 1 300 square -feet of 1 space i 250 square -feet of building area gross floor area for story component and the retaillcomm rcial uses; 1 adjacent residential space J 100 square -feet of neighborhood, unless the publicly accessible area for restaurant /food service uses; parking requirements may be reduced by a maximum of 30 %, subject to the provisions of Section 16.56.050 of the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code This setback requirement was not considered by the Planning ning Commission at its meeting of September 7, 2010 Parking standard based on Mitigation Measure IIl- (Air Quality) Subarea Standard Proposed Existin Maximum Density 28 units 1 acre 28 units 1 acre Minimum Building Site 50,000 square-feet 40,000 square-feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 10' 10' Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 10' from adjacent 25' for dwelling unit, Tfor commercial and 30' from covered parking adjacent single - family residential development Minimum Fear Yard Setback 20' 20' for dwelling unit, ' for covered parkin Maximum Lot Coverage 0% 0% Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAIL 1.0 NIA Maximum Building Height 35' or three stones, 35' whichever is less and shall include one or two -story components to provide a transition between the three - story component and the adjacent residential neighborhood, unless the Agenda Item 9.a. Page 6 GITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER 19,2010 �mmmmm.mm.. vw.w .,.,.www.�mm mmmmmm m ,, �,,,,,,w ,w.www� Standard � w w ..,� „,,, y �udw„ waww�,. „., ,,,,,,,� �ma,m „m _� �ww� �w � � . � ,. v,ww..w,w.ww .... ........ �.� ry -story compo i i ii rn a l . from the adJacent residential 'p' �,,,,ro � „u,.. m „n,,,M „u.w,w mm,,..,nn,,,,,,m„ ,. Par kin g „uw,wWww mn,,,nnmp._�� , u es ac n 5 'o a s 1- ells ( covered) , spac o d welli n g covered); s parki to prov ided be rate ,,, spaces Iper dwelling unit, pest parking requi mama, ma !be re duced provided that t he coon can be accornmo on the mixed-use porfi the w s' area, determ thro ld i'Scretion revi ' c wmmrvrvm Plarkin ratio based on obsierved parkin deni,and at similar pro within the Cit of Arro Grande over -. ear+ period and � ' easur it Quality a s Agenda Item 9.a. Page 7 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER 9, 2019 PAGE Subarea Orientations As illustrated above, the setback locations differ between the two subareas due to Subarea Ts orientation to East Grand Avenue and Subarea 's orientation to South Courtland Street. Therefore, the rear yard setback requirement applies to Subarea 3 and the side yard setback requirement applies to Subarea 4 with regards to issues relating to the buffer between the two dissimilar uses. Proposed Setback Changes As identified in the above table, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will increase the minimum rear yard setback for Subarea 3 from o' to 10'. This proposed change is intended to address concerns raised at the Planning Commission and facilitate a buffer between any proposed commercial building on Subarea 3 and multi - family housing units on Subarea 4, and was not considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 7, 2010. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment also decreases the side yard setback for Subarea 4 from 25' to 10' in order to maximize area available for potential housing units on Subarea 4, yet also is intended to maintain a buffer area between housing and commercial development on Subarea 3. Therefore, when the rear setback on Subarea 3 and side yard setback on the north side of Subarea 4 are combined, a minimum of 20' between any proposed structures would be provided under the provisions of the pro posed Specific Plan Amendment. number of practical issues regarding these setback requirements have been identified by staff in the discussions of the individual Conditional Use Permit applications related to economic feasibility of affordable housing density and commercial tenants, driveway alignments, fire access and parking requirements. It is particularly important to note that Subarea 4 is narrower than was anticipated In the existing specific plan, which makes development of the property problematic under the current minimum side yard setback requirement of 25r and potentially difficult even with the proposed 10' setback. Gate era Mixed -Use (GMUI Setbacks Specific plans may contain development standards that override Development Code standards. However, considering the Planning Commission's concerns with setbacks, it may be helpful to discuss the setbacks that would be required for each subarea under the Gateway Mixed-Use GMU zoning district standards. The GMU zoning district allows a 0-15 rear yard setback, unless adjacent to a residential district, in which case the residential setback shall apply. If this standard were applied to Subarea 3 (considering Subarea 4 is essentially a Multi - Family Apartment (MFA) district), an average setback of 15' would be required (15' is the minimum required rear yard setback in the II FA zoning district). If remaining MFA setbacks were applied to Subarea 4, the minimum front yard setback would be 20', Agenda Item 9.a. Page 8 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER , 201 PAGE 9 the minimum side yard setbacks would be 10', and the minimum rear yard setback would be an average of 15 I . As illustrated above, the significant differences between the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the existing Berm Gardens Specific Flan BGSP relate primarily to setbacks and parking. Many of the development standards in the existing BGSP were developed for a previous site - specific proposal and are no longer relevant. Because both subareas are within the Gateway Mixed-Use GMU zoning district, any development standard not included in the BGSP would default to the GMU standard (ie, maximum building size). ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution, denying Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 as recommended by the Planning Commission; 2. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) and approve Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 as proposed and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approve Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 with revisions and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution; 4. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration ND and approve specific Plan Amendment 10-001 relating only to Subarea 3 and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; 5. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approve Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 relating only to Subarea 4 and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; or 6. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of specific Plan Amendment 10-001 will support the issues identified by the Planning Commission. DISADVANTAGES: Denial of Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 would preclude approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: : I accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) Guidelines, staff has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) for the proposed project Attachment . The purpose of the IVIND is disclose any potentially significant impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment and to describe any mitigation measures that will be implemented to Agenda Item 9.a. Page 9 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE '10 reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level. It is an informational document only; its adoption does not, in any way, grant approval of the project that it describes. If the City Council does not agree that the MND is adequate, project approval cannot be considered at this time. The MID is based on specific Plan Amendment 10-001 and Tentative Tract Map 10- 001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001, as they were all submitted together as a `project' under CE A. The MND D also allocated a maximum of forty 40 residential units to Subarea 4 for the purpose o f evaluating any potentially significant impacts. It should be noted that the project described in the MND can be revised, and as long as the revision does not exceed the intensity of the original project r otherwise introduce any new potentially significant impacts, the MNID may still be adopted for the revised project. Additionally, the NAND itself can be revised to expand /augment discussion on any number of topics. Areas that were identified as having potentially significant impacts are as follows: Air quality, 0 Cultural resources, Geology and soils, 0 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 0 Hydrology and water quality Land use and planning, and Noise A irQuali t y Staff consulted with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to identify any potentially significant impacts to air quality and to create mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed project will generate emissions (pollution) both short - terra (construction) and long -term (operational). Standard mitigation measures have been included to reduce the short - terra impacts to a less than significant level. The pertinent mitigation measures included to reduce the long- terra impacts to a less than significant level include a reduced parking requirement to promote alternative modes of transportation and replacement of the existing bus stop on East Grand Avenue with a bus turnout. The proposed project is considered both a Type A and Type B project regarding tonic air contaminants — Type A projects are those that generate tonic air contaminants while Type B projects are those that place sensitive receptors within 1 ,000 feet of existing sources of tonic air contaminants. A detailed health risk Agenda Item 9.a. Page 10 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10-001 NOVEMBER 9, 201 PAGE '11 assessment was conducted for the proposed project which found that the proposed project does not exceed maximum thresholds for either Type A or Type B projects. Certain commercial uses may generate objectionable odors that would impact adjacent residents. As such, a mitigation measure has been included to prohibit these specific uses in Subarea 3. Additionally, a mitigation measure has been included to establish a `no idle' zone for any diesel - powered delivery trucks to minimize idling to the maximum extent feasible. Cultural Resources Staff consulted with Mr. Fred Collins of the Northern Chum ash Tribal Council (NCT13)to identify any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources and to create mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. There is potential for significant impacts to cultural resources should any substantial deposits of prehistoric cultural materials be present on the project site. A mitigation measure has been included that requires inspection b y a qualified archeologist of any areas where native (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed prig to construction activities to determine if any cultural resources are present. Geology and soils A geotechnical study of the project site was conducted by GSI Soils Inc. mitigation measure has been included that requires adherence to all of the recommendations contained within the geotechnical study. Greenhouse Gas LGHG) `missions . I - I•IW.PPI.I Staff consulted with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District APCD to identify any potentially significant impacts from Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to create mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. mitigation measure has been included that requires a number of GHG- reducing measures be incorporated into any construction plans, subject to review and approval by the APCD. Hydrology and Water Q uaft y A mitigation measure has been included that requires several water quality best management practices (BMPs) be incorporated into any construction plans. Land Use and Plann A mitigation measure has been Amendment that strengthens Enhancement Plan EGAEP . Specific Plan Amendment. included to require language in the Specific Plan its relationship to the East Grand Avenue Staff has added this language to the proposed Agenda Item 9.a. Page 11 CITY COUNCIL SPA 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9. 2010 PAGE 12 Noise Operation of commercial uses will generate noise that impacts adjacent residents. Mitigation measures have been included to restrict commercial delivery hours to between :00 AM and 10:00 PM and also to require a noise barrier to shield adjacent residents from delivery- related noise. Planning Commission Concerns At its meeting of October 19, 2010, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the MAID regarding aesthetics and traffic impact categories relating primarily to Subarea 3, neither of which was identified as having any potentially significant impacts and therefore, no mitigation measures were included. Based on these concerns, staff has expanded the discussion for each of the impact categories in the I D; however, no potentially significant impacts have been identified for either area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners w ithin 300' of the project site and also published in the Tribune on Friday, October 22, 2010. As of November 2, 2010, staff has not received any public comment regarding the proposed project. Attachments: 1. Land uses allowed in Subareas 3 and 4 in existing B erry Gardens Specific Plan 2. Proposed revisions to the B erry Gardens Specific Plan 3. Planning Commission meeting minutes, September 7, 2010 4. Planning Commission meeting minutes, October 19, 201 5. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration MND Agenda Item 9.a. Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE DENYING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 10-001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST EST CORNER of EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLA 1D STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NI+ T COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for Specific Plan Amendment 10- got to amend the Berm Gardens Specific Flan as it relates to the development of Subareas 3 and ; and WHEREAS, REAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council deny Specific Plan Amendment 10-001, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 at a duly noticed public bearing in accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande on November g, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEA, the State CEA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public bearing, as follows: Specific Plan Amendment Findings: '1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment conflicts with h tine following General Plan policies: L -2: ... Mixed-use development shall be compatible in size and scale to ensure preservation of the 'rural setting and small town character" of the City. The proposed Specific Tarr Amendment sloes not address maximum building size for commercial buildings to ensure that development is ompa ible with immediately adjacent residential development L 11-1.2: Require that adequate buffering and setbacks be provided between dissimilar uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment mould potentially allow a total minimum buffer distance of twenty 2 feet between commercial and residential structures, Agenda Item 9.a. Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 of twenty 20 feet between commercial and residential structures, which is not adequate for the two dissimilar uses. l... 11-1-3: Where a question of compatibility exists, require the new use to conform to the lower intensity use. The proposed specific Tarr Amendment aloes not require the commercial use (subarea 3 to conformer to the lower - intensity residential use (Subarea 4 regarding buildings mass and scale and setbacks. LU -2.2: Require that the new structures relate to the prevailing existing, or planned scale of adjacent development. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not regulate the form of structures to ensure that they relate to the existing and planned scale of adjacent development. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; The proposed specific Plan Amendment will create an illogical land use pattern by potentially allowing commercial and residential structures to he placed within twenty 20 feet of each other, which would constitute an illogical land use pattern. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment nt is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan; The proposed specific Plan Amendment is neither necessary nor desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan -- in fact, it is inconsistent with several General Plan policies, as discussed above. 4. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations. The development standards contained in the proposed specific Plan Amendment would not result in a superior development to that which would occur using standard zoning and development regulations as it aloes not require a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen feet on Subarea 3., which would otherwise be required under the provisions of the Gateway Mixed Use GM zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, E, E -IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 without prejudice based on the inability to male the above findings. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 14 RESOLUTION UTIO o. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member following rol ca ll vote, to grit: , seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 9 th day of November, 2010. , and by the Agenda Item 9.a. Page 15 RESOLUTION NO, PAGE TONY Y FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETM RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: T: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY IMAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 9.a. Page 16 I '1 10 Berr Gardens S� edific'Plan, Amendment, Oictobler �201 P Purpose and Ob The purpose and objectives for Subareas 3 and 4 of the Berr Gardens Specific Plan 'Include the followin Subareas Defined Subarea 3 consists of APN 077-131-0152, and AP'N 077-131-054 and Subarea 4 consists of'APN 077-131 053, and APN 077-131-0,55 as shown on the followin map: A Item 9.a. Pa 17 Land Use Designations and Property Development standards Subarea Subarea 3 provides for commercial/retail development of 4.47 acres. Allowed uses shall be consistent with those allowed within the Gateway Mixed -Use (GM U) zoning district, subject to the same level of review as required by Municipal Code Section 16.36.030. All development within Subarea 3 shall conform to the following ing standards: - 1. Minimum Building Site: shall be 5,000 square -feet. N o subdivision resulting in lots less than this minimum size shall be allowed. 2. Minimum Front Yard Setback: shall be 0-5', consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts. Greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on let configuration. The front yard is that side which is closest to East Grand Avenue. 3. Minimum Street Side Yard Setback: shall be 0-5', greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on lot configuration. The street yard is that side which is closest to South Courtland Street. 4. Minimum interior Side Yard Setback: shall be 0-5", greater setbacks may be allowed through discretionary review and approval based on let configuration. The interior side yard is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line. 5. Minimum Dear Yard Setback: shall - be . 10', greater setbacks may be alloyed through discretionary review and approval based on Iot configuration. The rear yard is that side wh ic h is closest to Subarea 4. 6. Maximum Lot Coverage: shall be 75%, inclusive of all enclosed structures. 7. Maxim um Floor Area Ratio (FAR): shall be 1. 5, inclusive of total floor area«. 8. Maximum Building sleight: shall be ' or three () stories, whicheirer is less. Total height including any appurtenances shall not exceed o'. 9. Parking: shall be provided at the ratio of one (1) space for every Soo square-feet of building area. The ratio for commercial/retail is based on the proximity of public transportation and existing proposed high - density residential development. Subarea Subarea 4 provides for affordable multi- family residential development of 1.63 acres. All development within subarea 4 shall conform to the following standards; 1. Affordability Requirement: ent: the Subarea shall be used for the purposes of providing affordable housing to persons with incomes not exceeding % of the area median income, adjusted for household size. The monthly housing cost may not exceed 30%-80% of the area median income, adjusted for household size. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 18 2 . Maximum Density: shall be twenty -eight units per acre, inclusive of a density bonus based on the mandatory provision of affordable housing. 3. Minimum Building Site: shall be 50,000 square -feet. No subdivision resulting in lots less than this minimum size shall be allowed. 4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: shall be 10'. The front yard is that side which is closest to South ourtland Street. 5. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: shall be 10' from adjacent commercial development and 30 from adjacent single - family residential development. The interior side yards of the property are those sides which are perpendicular to the front yard of the property. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: shall be *. The_ rear yard of the property is that side which is closest to the City Limit Line. 7. Maximum Lot overage: shall be 50%, inclusive of all enclosed structures. 8. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR ) : shall be 1., inclusive of total floor area. 9. Maximum Building Weight: shall be ' or three ( ) stories, whichever is less and shall include one or two-story components to provide a transition between the three -story component and the adjacent residential neighborhood, unless the three -story component is a minimum of forty (40) feet from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Total height including any appurtenances shall not exceed 0'. 10. Parking: shall be provided at the ratio of 0.65 spaces for every bedroom. This ratio is based on the mandatory provision of affordable housing and must be supported by observed parking demand for at least three () similar multi- family projects located in the City or similar sized cities spanning the past tern (10) years. 11. Minimum Open Space: shall be 35%. East Grand Avenue Frontage Development of Subarea 3 shall implement the objectives of the General Plan, Municipal Code, Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts and East Grand Avenue Enhancements Plan relating to streetsca pe character and pedestrian orientation along the East Grand Avenue frontage. Green Building and Energy Efficiency All new development shall be accompanied by a detailed summary outlining energy use calculations, design features and/or operational measures that exceed minimum standards in order to make the development more `green' and energy efficient. Access, Circulation and Parking 1. Vehicular Access. Each Subarea shall utilize its own frontage for primary access. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 19 2 . Emergency Access. A driveway between o connecting the two Subareas shall be required to provide for emergency access, the design of which shall be subject to Fire Department approval. Vehicular access to the driveway may be optionally restricted to emergency vehicles only through the use of bollards or a gate, as approved by the Fire Chief. 3. Fire Access. Shall be provided per the strict application of the California Fire Code and its appendices, as approved by the Fire Chief. 4. Courtland Street. Development of each Subarea shall include widening of South Courtland Street to its ultimate width along that ubarea's frontage. 5. Pedestrian Path. A pedestrian paths connecting the two Subareas shall be required to encourage interaction between the two Subareas. 6 Parking Easements. A reciprocal parking easement for the benefit of all properties in Subarea shall be a condition of development for each property in Subarea 3. Street 'trees /Parkways and Landscaping Street trees and parkways are not required provided that a corresponding number and type of trees are planted within 10' of property lines and adjacent to sidewalks and that no fence or wall is erected between the trees and the sidewalk. internal landscaping for each Subarea shall be subject to discretionary review and approval and should include bloswales and drought - resistant plant material. Fences and Walls Interior fences and walls shall be limited to b' in height and subject to discretionary review and approval. Retaining walls along the western edge of the property may be up to g' in height with discretionary approval. Perimeter fencing along the East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street frontages shall be limited to ' in height unless the portion over % up to ', is 90% light emitting All fences and walls shall be subject to discretionary revie w. Drainage and storm Pending Facilities Each Subarea shall incorporate lover- impact features into development and shall direct remaining storm water runoff east, across South Courtland Street to the Poplar Ponding Basin.. which was designed and built to accommodate development of the Subareas. Development of each property within the Subareas shall be subject to payment of a reimbursement fee to the City for that property's proportionate share of capacity cost. Architectural Design Guidelines Subarea 1. Buildings. No specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea shall conform to the same architectural theme. The architectural theme for Subarea 3 shall be architecturally compatible with existing adjacent commercial development. 2. Signage. Site identification shall be limited to one 1) monument -style sign that displays the name of the complex and tenant names and comply with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040 -A, Subsection B. (complex identification). Each building shall be limited to the following: Agenda Item 9.a. Page 20 One (1) large wall sign, not to exceed 120 square -feet; * Two ) medium wall signs, not to exceed 100 square -feet; and 0 One (1 ) small wall sign, not to exceed fifty ( ) square -feet. All signage shall be subject to discretionary review and approval. 3. public Art. A public art component shall be included, consistent with the City's Public Art Guidelines and subject to discretionary review and approval. Public art is encouraged to be incorporated into building facades, signage, lighting fixtures or railings, and may include a specific focal point and driveway features. Subarea I. Buildings. No ,specific architectural theme is required; however all buildings within the Subarea shall reflect a residential character and be compatible with exiting adjacent residential development. 2. Signa e. Shall comply with Municipal Code Section 16.60.040-A,, Subsections A. (multi- family complex identification) and A. (rental office identification ) and be subject to discretionary review. and approval. Phasing of Development The two Subareas and properties within the Subareas may be developed concurrently or separately, r ►rid d that all applicable requirements are t et emergency access, etc). Agenda Item 9.a. Page 21 I �. i s J : ,Y <r CL A. I low Lu ((ff o � nu � r I� iii, 0✓1 ,e "',a. J ' i y 1 i i i y� H l Agenda Item 9.a. Page 22 ATTACHMENT 2 SPECIFIC PLAIT PROPOSAIIS — Subareas 3 and Purpose and ob'ectives This amendment to the berry _ Gardens Specific Plan establishes the new Subareas 3 and and establishes the allo uses in ,both subareas. The Berry Gardens Specific Plan Subareas and 4 purposes and objectives include the follovAng: a Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the city of Arroyo Grande's General Plan; b Promote high - duality retail commercial development within the City of Arroyo Grande's Redevelopment Area; c Increase the stock of Arroyo Grande's supply of affordable rental housing stock; and d Produce a functional, aesthetically pleasing project that will serve as a landmark in the City of Arroyo Grande's western gateway and complete build -out of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Allowed Land Uses Although the entire portion of both Subareas 3 and 4 are zoned Gateway Mixed-Use Specific Plan GMU -SP , these subareas established two distinct development areas within the zone. The Approxi�mately 1.63 acres lot at the rear of the site has been established s subarea and is designated as Multi- F'aily Apartment and the . af ana b lot adjacent to East Grand Avenue has been i&-designated Mixed-Use (S ex hihit ; The Uuses in the Multi F amily Apartment p subareas 3 and 4 are restricted to rental apartments that will comply with a.f `ordable housing standards, including ma imum family incomes rents and lon -term ffordabilit 1 . ; Uses in the f li ed -[use ` Af Subareas are restricted to those uses as allowed in the Gateway Mixed-Use GMU zoning district as defined by Chapter 1 6,36 of the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. Development Standards — Multi- Family Apartments Maximum derrsi 28 dwelling units per acre Minimum building site 40,,000 square-feet Minimum front yard setback& 10' Minimum street-yar se 10' for s in lc - sto , 15' for two -sto r y M inimum si yard setbacks 10' for dwelling unit, 3 feet for covered parkin Minimum rear -yar tbackl- 20' for dwelling unit, ' for covered p arkin g Minimum di stance between buildin 10' Maximum lot covers 0% ' Family income levels as defined by state Health and Safe!y Cade §50105, 50106, 50079.5 and 50093. Specific Plan Arnendm nt 3 o April 2010, Rev. 29 October 2010 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 23 Maximum building hel t ' Minimum en space % Parking requirements + 1) Qnna aQ suar 3 W z ia ll : n , 0- 5' for single{- story, 10' for two -story or • * # + or Minimum side yard setback spaces per bedroom; guest p Minimum rear yard setback#- requirements may be reduced by 0% Maximum lot coverage provided that the reduction can be Maximum building height accommodated on the nixed use portion of the subarea, as determined through discretionary review. I n l u ionary housing requirement 25% of the total number of dwelling units, 10% shall be restricted to the low-income category Development Standards — Mixed-Use Minimum building site 210,,000 square-feet Minimum front yard setbaekl- 0-5 , 00' setback from East Grand Avenue for buildings taller than ' Minimum street - setback& 0- 5' for single{- story, 10' for two -story or more Minimum side yard setback o- ' Minimum rear yard setback#- 0410 Maximum lot coverage 0% Maximum building height ' from average grade; height may be increased to ' from average grade for architectural features that do not exceed 25% of the floor area of the floor located directly below the feature and provided that any portion of the feature that exceeds 35' from average grade be setback 20' from the perimeter of the building (Exhibit 2. In no case shall a building contain a single plane that exceeds ' from average g r ade Siage Subject to the provisions of Chapter 16.60 of the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code Parking requirements arian Car r ■ ■ Agenda Item 9.a. Page 24 300 square feet of building area; parting requirement s may be reduced by maximum of 30 %, subject to the provisions of Section l 6.56.050 of the City of Arroyo Grande Develo ent Code Conceptual Plans m�ln�4 See Exhibit 23 for a conceptual plan illustrating complete buildout of both subareas, utilizing the development standards described above. Architectural Guidelines A single architectural theme and character consistent with both the Gateway Mixed-Use MU zoning district and the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan GAP shall be used throughout Subareas 3 and a separate architectural theme will be used tugut Subarea 4. Site and building design shall incorporate nee architectural elements that are consistent with the surrounding g borhood All new construction and exterior remodels shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Use of water features and plazas are encouraged in Subarea 3. B uildiniz Materials Consistent use of stucco and masonry or horizontal painted wood or composite siding is encouraged as exterior siding materials. Concrete or clay tile, slate, or heavy composition shingles are encouraged as roofing materials. (Wood shale or shingles are prohibited due to fire safety concerns). Heavy timber, tile, or wrought iron �s encouraged for accent materials such as granite, the and rock. • Sc reening P rov i s i ons Walls shall generally be the same color and materials as the adjoining building exterior and should not exceed a height of six feet. Heights up to eight, feet may be allowed and are subject to minor exception approval. Walls in re front and street side yards should not exceed thirty -six inches in height. Perimeter fences shall not exceed six feet high unless specifically approved through a variance; architectural features such as entry gateways, trellis and arbor elements shall not exceed a maximum height of eight feet. Outdoor Stora e, Mechanical E quipment and Trash Enclosures To the extent possible, these types of facilities shall be integrated into buildings and not located outside. When necessary, and if approved through discretionary review, limited outdoor storage, mechanical equipment, or trash enclosures may be located within walled and gated enclosures designed as an extension of and compatible with primary or accessory structures. Freestanding enclosures and metal accessory structures are discouraged. Normal utility and air - conditioning equipment may be placed on the ground when screened by appropriate landscaping and situated away from outdoor use areas, windows, or doorways. All rooftop equipment shall be screened appropriately. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 25 IMPROVEMENTS E1 TS Circulation and Part in Courdand Street — C urtland Street is are existing collector street, which shall be used for seeen.dnru access the mixed-use and shall the rirn access for the multi- family apartment subarea . Grand Avenue — Grand Avenue is a major arterial street, which runs the full length of Subareas 3 and will sley be used for access to Subarea 3. This access will be a right in out circ ttrn. ' • r • r • s Parking n — Parking for each subarea shall be provided in accordance with the development standards contained within this amendment, ■ Pedestrian Path — A pedestrian path shall be provided between the two subareas, providing for a connection from the East Grand Avenue to the multi- family apartment portions of both subareas. Water, Sewer and Utilities Water services shall be obtained from an existing water main located along East Grand Avenue Sever services shall be obtained from an existing sever main located in Curtland Street. Gas and electrical utilities shall be obtained from existing lines located in East Grand Avenue. All utilities shall be installed underground. l;rainae Both Subareas 3 and 4 will direct strmater runoff east across Curtland Street to the Poplar Basin, which was recently expanded by the City to increase capacity. Each subarea will be required to reimburse the City for its proportionate sham of basin capacity, as determined by the Public Works s Department. IMPLEMENTATION Preieet Phasing Because a different party ovens each subarea, the possibility exists that each owner may wish to develop their subarea according to their own timeline. For this reason, development of Subareas 3 and 4 shall be separated into two distinct phases Agenda Item 9.a. Page 26 Reimbursement Provisions Although each subarea shall be able to pursue development according to its on schedule, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the development of both subareas result in cohesive, integrated project.. For this reason, a reimbursement provision is necessary to guarantee aeeess � installation of "mutually beneficial" infrastructure improvements "easements" across Subarea 4 for the benefit of Subarea 3 that are vital to this purpose. Each subarea o agrees to share in the cost of an appraisal to determine the value of the easements desired by the owner of Subarea 3 at the time such easement are needed. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 27 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER , 20'10 ATTACHMENT 3 II. PUBLIC HEADING ITEM: A. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 10 -001, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 10 -001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 10 -001; APPLICANT NI" T COMMERCIAL C/0 NICK TOMPKINS; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER Mr. Foster indicated that this item was continued from the August 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting and presented the staff report for the Commission to consider a Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit (adopt Resolution with preferred Condition of Approval #5); southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and south C urtland Street. Mr. Foster clarified that subareas 3 and 4 are up for discussion tonight regarding the Specific Plan Amendment and stated that staff has received numerous comments on the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Foster responded to Commission questions regarding pedestrian access, runoff, parking and affordable housing. Chair Brown opened the meeting for public comments: Carol Florence, Principal, oasis Associates, Inc., stated that the applicant, architect, real estate agent, and owner are present on behalf of Food 4 Less; asked the Commission t0 adopt the Resolution with Condition of Approval #5. B. and thanked Building Official Hurst, Fire Chief Hubert; Community Development Director McClish and Planner Foster. Ms. Florence addressed the fire Issues; gage a brief history of the It line adjustment for sub areas 3 and ; gave names of businesses that were approached t0 facilitate this site; in 2010 Food 4 Less was contacted; changes in response t0 People's Self Help were ,made; and modifications for the proposed project were made as recommended by AFDC. Richard hard Barris, Director of Real Estate, Food 4 Less, stated that Food 4 Less will create 120 125 jobs; will hire locally; covered employee benefits; and stated the store returns money back to the community. Commissioner Barnei h inquired about ,moving the building to the East Grand Avenue frontage. Mr. Sarris indicated that they did not want customers to pant in the rear of the building and walk to the front to enter. In answer t0 Commissioner Brown, 1 — 20 percent of c ustomers come from the Five Cities area to shop in the San Luis Obispo Food 4 Less; the smallest Food 4 Less store is 43,000 sq. ft., located in Stockton; addressed ,moving all the property line issues stating that you will lose parking and would ,Hake the business intangible; the franchise would not agree to operate unless the store is open for 24 hours. Commissioner Brown stated that most food items d0 not have sales tax. Mr. Barns reported that approximately % is taxable. In response to Commissioner Brown, Community Development Director McClish reported that $67,000 in sales tax is based on what the applicant has submitted. In response to Commissioner Barnei h, the night crew restocks the store and delivery hours can be restricted. Tian Sheil, Architect, addressed building design. Dick Tompkins, ITT, gave the history of the property; said $500,000 per week in groceries are leaving this area. In answer to Commissioner Brown, Mr. Tompkins stated that the highest and best use for the property is hotels; and Indicated he has no other tenan option for the back part of this site but has interest for the front of the site. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 28 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER , 2010 PAGE In answer to Commissioner Teen, Mr. Tompkins indicated than architecture fits well with what is designed at the back of the site. In answer to Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Foster said the store could be moved a little bit to the front and Mr. Linn stated the driveways were the best compromise. The Commission took a break at 8:15 pm. and reconvened at 8:26 pm. The meeting was opened to the public: Carolyn Johnson, Member, Board of Directors, Peoples Self -Help Housing Corporation PSHD : indicated that PHSC is proposing to develop 34 of 50 units; referred to her letter above dated September 3, 2010. Michael Byrum, Dodson Way, Produce Manager, Spencer's Market, opposed Food 4 Less. Del Clegg, Cookie Crock Market said the Food 4 Less in San Luis Obispo was not a 24 hour store in the beginning; trues will be sitting out in the street; there will be a 22.6% market leakage; suggested to look at sales tax number; concern with parking and back wall; will have an economic impact with the businesses in the shopping center; concern with signage, and the 8 roll up door. Benadene Duffin, asked why the developer did not talk to the residents that live in the area and the adjacent stores; and suggested recreational and specialty stores for this site, Scott Smith, Empleo, San Luis Obispo and Bruce Fraser, San Luis Obispo, PSHC, said when they bought the site net door, the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, they did not anticipate lame building on property line; indicated this is an unpleasant living environment with no setback; the Specific Plan said 48 mouses and that they will be lucky to get 36, which may go down to 28 and wound like to see cooperation on property line. In answer to Commissioner Brown he indicated that the building are set backs are 10 3 Minimum to a little less than 20' has very little room to move; and indicated that he is working with Community Development Department on a parking reduction; have an issue with Statutory 9 of the Fire Code adopted and have not been able to meet the objective; and the buildings will need to come down to two stories. Chad Sorenson, Maple Street, stated he is not opposed to a commercial project, government agencies should not bend rules; concern with loading area, concern with quality of life and safety, he supports the multiple walkway from East Grand Avenue to the grocery store; concern with left hand turn from East Grand Avenue; the proposed fire access lane on west side of building has no turn around; in favor of developing smaller stores; concern with traffic and adding trucks; there should have been more advertisement for the hearing and oppose the project: Fussell Read, East Grand Avenue, Cookie Crock Warehouse, said there are six employees here that are in opposition to the store and stated Dick Tompkins is the owner of the building occuipied by the Warehouse. Richard Duffin, Newport Avenue, said there only so many dollars your can divide between tine seven with Wal-Mart; suggested the area be developed of smaller stores; and is opposed to Food 4 Less. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES UTES SEPTEMBER , 2010 PAGE Mr. Spencer, Collado Corte, representative of Spencer's Market, said approximately six years ago he was contacted by Mr. Strong to change the retail encroachment of East Grand Avenue, in which many changes were made at the shopping center; talked about gateway project; this would cause an economic impact to his employees; concern with the other smaller businesses that surround his center; challenged design gaup to look at other options; stated businesses are searching for revenue; and feels that the shopping dollars going out of the area are going to Dsto. Beatrice Spencer, Ran Parkway, opposes project; concern with driveway on Curtland going across to other driveway and opposes the project. Jennifer Steele, Arroyo Grande and Chris Insala, Elm Street, oppose the project. Wendy Beckom, Hill rest Drive, is concerned with traffic; and said there should have been more advertisement for this hearing and opposes the project. Carol Florence, referenced to ordinance for Berry Gardens Specific Plan, will revise signage and would like PSHC as a neighbor. In response to Commissioner Ruth, Mr. Sarris said parking varies during the day, 50 — parking spaces will be used by employees. II.I'lr. Tompkins said in the process of purchasing /dividing there was always an assumption to a zero setback until about 30 days ago. To solve fire plan they did not want conflicting crossing to CVS driveway. In answer t o Commissioner Barnei h, Food 4 Less is not bigger than Albertsons. The Commission took a break at 9:45 pry and reconvened at 9:50 prn. Carol Florence responded to additional questions and said Food 4 Less is looking forward to ming into this area. Commissioner B arneich referenced the Coolie Crock letter indicating there is no conspiracy. There is a problem with the size of the store. The setbacks, size, and use they are asking for are allowed; the pros of the project is developing a vacant lot; restaurant site will be nice; the tax revenue may increase a little at what expense? At this site, Food Less does not seem like a cohesive project; and agrees with Carolyn Johnson's letter regarding 2007 Strategic Plan. In answer to Commissioner Teen, M r. Foster clarified that the proposed signage is under Architectural Guidelines for the subareas. He said he would like to see the PSHC reverse the project; moving forward will cause problems for traffic in /out of the two projects; opposes moving off of zero and circular tower; in favor of a new plaza at Courtland /East Grand; concern with economic impact. Commissioner Ruth said the fire access needs to be ironed Out before approving anything; would have to see some kind of buffer between Food 4 Less and PSHC, cannot support the resolution due to not making the findings. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 30 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 201 PAGE ,Jennifer Martin thanked the audience for coming out and the applicant for the new development; prefer to keep line where it was and then buffer; support tower but not color; cannot see putting Food 4 Less in front of sidewalk; supports the property line and does not feel the projects blend together. Commissioner Brown stated the project cannot be taken separately, they have to come in together and as Planning Commissioners we must consider the businesses already established. Commissioner Barnei h made a motion, seconded by Commissioner F uth, to direct staff to return with a resolution to deny Specific Plan Amendment Case No. 10-001; Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 10-00 1, Conditional Use Permit Case No. 10-00 1. The motion passed upon roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Barnei h, Ruth and Chair Brown NOES: Commissioners Martin and Keen ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7 to day o September 2010. Ill. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION /NOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 17,2010:. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Community Development Director McClish stated that staff talked to owner o the Liquor Store located at Fair Oaks Avenue and Traffic Way and the owner will install concrete wheel stops to protect Vehicles encroaching on the sidewalk from the parking lot on the Fair Oaks Avenue side and reported that St. Patrick's School will plant the new trees with their next phase. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner Barnei h will not be at the next regular meeting of the Commission. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR R COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth and unanimously carried the meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm. ATTEST: DEBBIE WEIDHINGEF SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TIM BRIAN, CHAIR As TO CONTENT: TER ESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved a t the October 5, 2010 meetin Agenda Item 9.a. Page 31 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 2010 ATTACHMENT • South facing sign shall not be permitted due to square footage exceeding Fire cities Center Planned Sign Program. RESOLUTION No, RESOLUTION of THE PLANNING COMMISSION of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE No. 10-005; ESTABLISHMENT of A 5,100 SQUARE FOOT CHASE BANK; 900 RANCHO PARKWAY The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ruth, B arneich, Brown, been, and Martin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Res olutin was adopted this 19 day of October 201 o. D. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE No. 10 -001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE No. 10--003; APPLICANT — PEOPLE'S SELF HELP HOUSING; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST EST CORNER of EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH CO RTLAND STREET Chair Brown stated he would like to have separate discussion on the Specific Plan Amendment, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Ryan Foster g ave a brief explanation and presented the staff: report to the Planning Commission to consider making a recommendation to the City council regarding an amendment to the Berr Gardens Specific Plan and development of Subarea 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan with thirty -six 3 affordable apartment units including one - bedroom, two- bedroom and three - bedroom units. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA), the Community Development Department has prepared a draft mitigated negative declaration for the project. Staff responded to questions from the Commission concerning the adoption process of the p Mitigated Negative Declaration, State lay regarding potential concessions for People Self g Hel p g g Housing being built; explained that the Specific Plan needs to'be cleaned up; and indicated that the approval of the conditional Use Permit is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; addressed the fire late; and indicated ARC has recommended approval of the project. Associate Planner Foster indicated staff received a letter today from Del Clegg, Vice President of Alpine colony Enterprises, Inc., which talked about piecemeal development; ghettoization of housing project and dung too much with too little. Commission discussion included the set back from the three story building from Berry Gardens and location of three story building; setbacks in the existing Specific Plan versus the changes; questioned the 7,000 vehicle trips per day identified in the draft Litigated Negative Declaration; and the project description in the negative declaration. Chair Brown opened the meeting for public comments'. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 32 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 201 PAGE Boot# Smith, representative of People's Self Help Housing, indicated that tiring is critical due to funding; and gage a brief description of the apartments; and hoer it would operate. Bruce Frasier, said that in Conditional of Approvals, number 17(e), should be corrected t ;landscape architect'; talked about the project design; fire code access; landscaping and trees; and supports the conditions of approval and Specific Plan Amendment. He then addressed questions from the Commission regarding the type and location of fences; landscape behind proposed Food 4 Less and rear setbacks. Scott Smith addressed questions from Commissioners regarding rental terms; management of apartments and parking reductions. Associate Planner Foster addressed questions regarding Subarea 4, access circulation and parking; and fences and galls. Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis, representative for NKT, supports Planning Commission approval and gave some history. The following people spoke in opposition to the Food 4 Less project (Subarea 3 ) and provided the following c m ents /concerns: high traffic volume and parking on C urtland; left turn motion onto C urtland; sight distance northbound on C urtland; driveway angle; drainage calculations; type of fence may be a problem; the People I s Self Help housing is a goad addition to the neighborhood; referring to Specific Plan Amendment, addition of 50,000 square foot building is too big; referred to Food 4 Less having a economic, environmental, and traffic impact; other business in the center will be impacted; Cookie Crock will suffer an economic impact; negative declaration is inadequate; suggested having a full Ell ; large trucks entering/exiting and will have an impact on the neighborhood; did not know Food 4 Less was going to be addressed tonight and was not appropriately noticed; noise and odor problems; suggested types of business that could occupy the commercial area; proposed apartments will not have adequate room for children to play; in favor of affordable housing but too jammed; gateway plan does not allover a big store in this location; in favor of smaller stores- setbacks: referred to the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan. - Wendell Wilkes, Huckleberry Ave. John Spencer, South Halcyon Ind. Del Clegg, East Grand Ave. - Benadene Duffin Newport Ave. - Richard Duffin, Newport Ave. - Patrick Dempsey, Coilado Corte - Michael Morr ow, Raspberry Ave. - Scott Pace, Doty Drive - Beatrice Spencer, Calla Corte John Gutierrez, Arroyo Grande Carolyn Johnson - Friedman, Newport Avenue, asked if Subarea 3 could be reviewed separately in the Specific Plan Amendment. On motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Barneich, unanimously carried to continue addressing this item as the time was 10:00 pm. In answer to Commissioner Barneich, Fire Chief Hubert stated the fire access is acceptable. Commission discussion included square footage of CVS, Vons, Sesloc. and Longs; parking for visitors at Peoples Self Help Housing; whether the proposed project was adequately covered in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; only addressing Subarea 4 in the Specific Plan Amendment and striking subarea 3; and supporting the Conditional Use Permit. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 33 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 201 PAGE Associate Planner Foster read the notice that was mailed and advertised to the audience for clarification. On motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner ioner F uth and unanimously carried, it was recommended that the City Council not adopt the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration based on concerns relating to Subarea 3 and therefore deny Specific Plan Amendment 10-0001; preferring that Planning Commission be allowed to consider separate amendments for each subarea 3 and 4. On motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth and unanimously carried, it was recommended that the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 10-001 based concerns with Subarea 3 in the environmental determination. V . DISCUSSION ITEMS: None V1. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None II. COMMUNITY E ELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP Community Development Director Il cClish asked Commissioners if they would be at the November 2, 2010 regular meeting as at this time there is one public hearing item scheduled for the meeting. Hill. ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously carried the meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm. ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGEF SECRETARY Y To THE COMMISSION As To CONTENT: TIM BROWN, CHAIR TER ESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY NITY DE ELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting) Agenda Item 9.a. Page 34 IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION /NOTICES of ADMI I TRATIVF f F .1 1 1 11 F T ]RF1 r% 2nins ATTACHMENT 5 CITY of INITIAL STUDY/ �. • MITIGATED NEGATIVE �'� CA �F°K -�• DECLARATION S p e c i f i c Plan Amendment Tentative Parcel ma 0-001, Conditional Use Permit 10-001 . o , Soot e'st C rh r of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street ti .. ,•,� r � - x i it• '� � ., - ;7 jr,F,' { �. 1 -R J�� s,M � � � }�.� * � � i' � � �r�"j� �'�`trL i - - �' `y 5 . ,-, +. �. 4 L `•' t r* �' - , fi r _.� . #'+ �" .. � r - �* - r '.. r �.� • * + �' ' �_�: , 5'!� - ': +. . #�, L ''�f ; may„ � � . �� - � - �� " ��. # # ''" 4 ° :'k +• ,i:}z }�`1S�:� 4� ", {I'x •.yL..�r{Yr Sti4a -.. �' }- ' ;N'Y }. .- ;taF-. "";1 � f iti} v 4 •'7 ' }' *' *-x i' . ��. S�i'.irr1. },�(\.}I_Stk ..� +F J •4t ��. „y.. .1 �XT '' #' yF .�L +;�.'�.: wr "�'�' - }�� '�'�{. •r.. f � {",A1 Xv � -: - +�aMlw� � . '. �. t��!}„ 5��'� � �1� . �„-r�:: ._ • •� ''� '' ` `i iiy *} .yr ;4 M i. �.:r• r"or:+� ?T r�' - vE� .� +3ti fifififi _ s' dt_ CL 7 ;.1',. lit k: rk —i4 r a 1.`3 ' LL Fr r' � � "Y F. T�l'yll�t"' r. - T '� ' !' '1`. Y �� h ' i� � R�� }� �• r• +` ��, •fi 5r ..` * - ;. * - Su area . j . 1 � . . y7* � . e - - w 4' . - '.ii - '��y}'Jya,[�x�.• L *; � * `• ' } `• . .. . - ti. , •Lim' + *'� '- , Ar C SMA PM y ,L� i 1 .•� i �" tF } f., L A Nf dkm July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SCH No, 2010081068 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 35 INITIAL STUDY M ITI GATEO NEGATIVE DECLARATION .duly 2010 (Revise Novem 2010) SPA 10- TPM 10-001, CUP to -0o1 Project: Specific Plan Arne nd m e t 10-00 1, Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001, ConditionaI Use Permit 1 -001 Lead Agency: City of Arroyo Grande D ocument Availability: • City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 2 14 East B ranch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 9342 Arroyo Grande Library Boo West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 33420 0 htt www.arro o rande.or ( search) Project Description: The proposed project would amend the Berry Gardens Specific Platy (BGSP) as it regulates the development of Subareas 3 and ; subdivide 4.47 acres into three commercial. lots and develo a pproximately 58,500 square-feet of commercial space. S ummary ocument Preparation: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for he proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Aw Teresa Clih, AICP Community Development Director Ryan Foster Associate planner 27 Jul 2010 01 Nov 2010 Date - Reprised 27 Jul 2010 01 Nov 2010 D at e Revised Agenda �e m a e �j INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Repri November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10 -001, CUP 10 -001 Table of Contents: Introduction . ........... rr.r riff... rr r. rr..ia ■.. .a • r •rr Introduction and Regul G ■......■ a. r. r* Fr.rrrrr■• r..♦ ai. rr.•. r..rrrrrrr.......r ..+.r...... ................... Lea d Agency........ ............. ........... 4 ........... ..... rrr. ■rr.. +.rrrrr•... ........ 0 rrr. rrr.... r■r rr.rrsr..a•rrrr.r *.� ■.r.rra■ ■. ■ Purpose and Document Organization. ...... 0 .. - -4. .... q ............ .....rrrrr.r......... ...rasa +.rarrrr.. +..r +rrrrr.r.r Summary Findings... ..... ............. r........... parr asi■ r....rr. rt■ a■ r r. rtsarrrr..... rr■ rrrrr... . ...... .. ........ . ............. Project Description ........ air■■ .......................... rrr.....r.r +rrrrrr■....•....... r................ M ....... .............................. -0,4-3 Introduction n.... ......... rri rii ■w �r ri r. *■ #.terra sss ■�.r rar�rir ■ *i ■■ri ri ri r■i ■. rrrai.�i ■t�f rr rr■ ■i *�..ai�is�if ■...rsi rii■. *�yrtiiri�r■ +rrii■ ■ *.ias ■r.rrsi ■ ■�. Loc ation .r r. r........ r rr r. ...rrr..■.. r.... ■...... r.. r....... r r r........ ■a+■ r■ r■ ■..... ■. r rr.................................................... rfrr■ r. r s as r.. ■ r �.+nd and Need for Pr ... .............. .■..... .. ............ . ■..4.....■■................... Bac k g round ' a ........... 0...... 0.............. q. Project Description.... rrarrr.....rr.rrr...arr. .■ rr.■.rr. r. rr...r+..r.....r.arrr.•.....rr. 0...rrr00 s....a. ra sr r ..rasa.. ■r. ■. *ras *. rarr...airr Other R equired Public Agen A pp rov al s ...... ■... rrr ............ ■ ................ 0...... rasa .......... Belated Projects ... rrr. r.... aarrs...rarr. s...ararrrr. +.. r.ar.....rs ■•r.•......r...•. rrar.r....rr..r. ■.. 4... r■ .........................rrtarr. r■ Environmental r....... ■. 4 ---o ............. 4.4. iii. rq■... ar............■ i. rri r.■- 4 ........... - .- ....... 0 ............... - ....... 0- ...i ./ Pro j ect Information ■r r... ararr....a a. r........rr. F....... .... ■ ...............■ jar■■ r...*■■ as.. �......... J arr ...r.. +rrsr...ras.. +rsrr..rs.rs Environmental Factors Potentially Affect •....r. ■ *ii ri ............. ra rrii r��iii. i ■r.i..isri�..+irr.i *raarrsi�rr rr.ii ■.iiri rtaii. ■r.r Determination ■ ■..rr ■rr.I Frrr ■ r.Frrrr.if ■•r....F■ rrr.■■. rrrrr■■♦. Frrrrr. �rrrrs ■ ■ rr ■. *a•s.r.�� ■ ■sa■.�# rim ■..Fr. rrr• . Evaluation of Environmental Imparts ■ ...............arri■. +.ii. rrsi.i..ri. *irr■i ■i��.ii ■.��rri s. ri trt.. rrr. ■r�rtrrrii..iraii ■.i.ri ri. ri t *ii�� Environmental rrrrirrta.... ■.rrr•..��. its ...F.arsr ■ ■ ■.arrrrrr..rrr.r.... rrr■ Frrr■F •irrar.. #r ■.ar..r #•.rra..Frt.arr ..•.rrr■ ■�Frrr.r +.rr..rtr• ■f.i M . Aesthetics .........................sirs rrr. arrrr ................ 0 .......... 4 ........ rrr. r. r.. rtas arr. +' r.rrar..■ ..r.rrrrr.rartrtrra.r.r.y.sr ... 12 11. Agriculture and Forest R esour ces .. .......w ..... ......sari... *i .............. ri rail . ■............s....�rir Ill Air Quality ■ .................. rrr. s. a.arrr...rrrrrr. Fr..■.. f+. r. r. r...rrrr....ra.r■...rrr...+ rt rrr........0..... r.rr... a .............................. 1 IV . Biologi Res ources .risr ■.iris ■.sari+ ■ *f..rr ri ■iris si ■ ■i Farrr■. ■.r.a... ■�rt+ir■ aria. ri■■ �. r+i.r ■�ir..r...a.i ■ia�rrri ■ ■. *i ri.. *rrirr.i i. ■ *rii r.F4 V. C ultural Resourc ........ ....rrr.. t.. rrr■ ■....... ■. ............... .. iii.. t............ ......... ■...... ■.q..iris...... r. ■�r..it *riais�+r. ■.ri r.. Geology Soils . a.rr..FF.■■...... r. r.......r.FrFar ........ .....a.s.....Fr■.......r....... • r. r• r.... ■.s.r ♦.r...............rr. r..ar..arr...... i n . .rrrr r.... as rr r. s.. . ..rrrrr. ■....s ■..aaarrr..arrr. • iii ............. 11rrrr ■ G reenho u se G a s Emi . a....... 4.... ■....... ill Hazards and 1 ■ ardou Materia .........rr.......... 0 ..................... ri. #.ss...rrr.rq...... H f� � i 00...... r...i.. ri.............. IX H y drolo gy and Water Qual ...... o...r ........................ rr.. q............ ... #irri.0........frrri.i..tia* r... ri rw W.46 64.6a of vVed.i..i X . land Use and Planning ..................... 0.-.6.... ....... 00 q..................... rrr. rr.. i. rr. i.... r. r.... a.. ...............i�ir....rri�.iir r s. rf. Mineral Resources ..♦....... aa■■ s.. rr■.■. rr Fr■ r. ..arrr....r am* ...•aa.rlr.a...f■ r arrr. F. r.r s.r#. i r ra.. a a r s.... rrr ■r.. ■rrr...■ r r r. so* . r.... •....rrr. +.. XIl Noi .r ■r............arr as ...............rrr........ 0........ rrr. rr...... r0 ...rrr.... r.. r.. r.■■ .0 .rr.rr0 ..r................... .srr..rrrr.. Population Housing ■ r.... a. r. r#. r .... ...............r +Fa....i....... rrr.. ...rr...F....0................. 4...........r Frr..i.r..rr r.... Do' .. X I V. Public Services.... ......... . *radsat...rrr..r.rrr.0.rtrr.. *.r a.... r i r.. r.. f.rr a.r..rt.■ r2 X . Re creat i on ♦■ arsr ..........+........ ■.........r. r........ r r r...... r.. r.. rrr... r.... r.. rr.. f ...s.....rr .................... r r■... a rr.. +.■... Page 3 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 37 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Pearled November 2010) SPA 10 -001 T P 110 -001 CUP 104001 XV 1■ Tra nsportation /T raffic . r. a r. r r ...... t .................... r ....... r. r .... s ... r .. r ............ r r .. r r a a ..... r .... r ..... r r. r. r r r ........ r r• s s .. i IL Utilities an Se rvice Systems ■rr ........ p .................... �.rrw..r..rri rs•� * *i riirrrss...ri i.........•s.• 1- Mandatory Findings of Significance . r. 66. a66i666 ai■ r6•• 6.. r.. r*.****..... r..... rr6irr66. a. aaa•• r• a.... 6 r 66 M r +r.s.•..a Summary Of M Me asures . ..... *aa.■.. * *.... err. 6r6a ■ ■aa•srasaaar..r *rf...•ra..6r. 66666.a..r.aaa0.. *�,.. + ...................0...... References ..... r ......... r............+.... a..■ a .....6 ................ s............... 6 ............. r......... r. 666 66a• asa. a•. r• + + Documents Maps..... 666666 ............... sits• si.ar *.a *.r + +r. ■66•.•aa6a6..s.■ 0....r.... +.. r... ...rr ra6.00a.••...66666r66666aaa•�a• *6x s.a• + +6�V Consultations ........... 6666 ......... • .... r ...... .............. ............ 0 ......... .................. r. a r. r r i i i a•.• r* f•• � r ......... Page 4 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 38 INITIAL STU DY M ITI ATED N EGATIVE DE LARATION July 2010 (Reprised November 2010) SPA 10-001, TPM 10 -001 CUP 10-001 Introduction Introduction and Regulatory Guidance The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative a Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCI ) 100 et seq. An Initial Study is conducted by a lead. agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)). If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less- then - significant level, a [litigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR [CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared. This IS/ ND conforms to the content requirements under CECLA Guidelines §15071. Lead Agency The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.' The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande. The contact person for the lead agency is: Ryan Foster, Associate Planner City of Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473 -5420 Purpose and Document organization The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate any potentially significant impacts or reduce therm to a less-than-significant level. This document is organized as follows: • Introduction This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document. Project Description This chapter describes the reasons for the project, scope of the project, and project objectives. Page 5 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 39 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE LAI ATI ON July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001 TPM 10 -001 CUP 10 -001 Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures This chapter identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts, explains the environmental setting for each environmental issue, and evaluates the potential impacts identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation n mea ur s are incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less -than- significant level. • Mandatory Findings of Significance This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall s ignificance of any potential impacts to natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and impact to humans,,, as identified in the Initial Study. Summary of Mitigation Measures This chapter summariz es the mitigation measures incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study. • References This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this I MND. It also provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document. Summary of Findings Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the environmental analysis presented in this document.. there is no substantial evidence that, after the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment. It is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the EQA Guidelines. Revision This Mitigated Negative Declaration was reprised in November 2010. The revision does not identify any additional p otentially significant impacts, nor does it change any mitigation measures. The purpose of the revision is to clarify why no potentially significant impacts were identified under Aesthetics (Section I ) and Traffic (Section XVI ). Page f of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 40 July 2010 ( �err��r X010} INITIAL TIJD'� �11T1GATED �IEGTIIlE DELRATI 0 N SPA 10 -001, TPM 10 -001 CUP 10 -001 Project Description Introduction - h been prepared by the City of Arroyo • I nitial ' ' ated a ati Declara ( I S/ MN D ) t, The projec This Study /Ming r en al effects f the proposed project- Ci t evaluate the potential environ Grande (th ty� eet and the wesr�dary of careen oath C�tlar�d Stn western e is located along East Grand Avenue, bet appro . 1 acres. The site is t arcels, totalin approx project site con of two (2) p g the City. Tine pr ] rclal to the east, north and west PtY of Grover surrounded on all sides b existing development: rrwrr� Beach and single-family residential to the south. I f r Proje the site as S 1 round an heed fo j . Ian (B totaling which identifies 3 Ben Gardens Specific P { forty-seven � The project site is part f the r totaling approximately forty se - the B SP contains four (4) sub areas, Subarea ( developed with both 4. Adopted �n 199, development f and p as ado ted, �t only addressed P e amended to address the acres. wh en the BG P w * homes — th BGSP w to b ent f homes and patio - ditional single- family ended o allow the residential developm r�ee tra . areas. In 2003, the B P guar amen l anent Subarea (P f Sub areas an 4. remaining three sub amended to allow the deve p In o, the BP was Page 7 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 41 INITI aTIJD1l MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) PA 10 -001, TPM 10-001, CUP 10 -001 This amendment set forth standar • d for th e subareas to be development with a commercial component ` northernmost of the project site, and affordable multi apartments on n approximately the • No development was eve pursue this the remainder of the project site. d to completion under p b amending the BCSP rrrent and now the applicant is seeking to refine devel standards amend � and secure entitlements to develop the commercial portion of the situ. Devel of the two subareas will complete development �` of the Ber Gardens Specific Plan, refine the western gateway into the City and increase sales and property tax revenue. P roject Description Specific Plan Amendment • Gardens Specific Plan — specifically, S ubareas and 4. The The proposed project would amend the Berry p western edge of Plan corers a forty- seven (47) acres along the Berry Carders S pecific pp developed with a nnic of neo- Arroyo o Grande. The Plan includes four (4) Subareas; Subarea is p ; .. 'p Subarea is developed with single-family townhouses. A trad single-family and pa�t�o homes • veld ed with nine (9) neo- traditional single - family homes. The remainder of p Subarea 3 is de p The proposed ar�ner�drer�t would establish Subarea and the whole of subarea 4 are undeveloped. , allowed uses ar�d d eve loprr�e nt standards for Subareas 3 and 4, consisting of the following. • no rthernmost 4, acres Subarea )— maximum of ,S • Commercial use n the northern square -feet; and . t 1,3 acres {subarea 4} �-- ma o f forty -five � �Iu1t��farn�ly residential on the soothernnnos ( 45) units. Tent 0.55 acres and 3. The proposed project ct would subdivide Subareas into three (3) lots of 0,27 acres, • ed acres, allowing individual ownership of separate commercial building pads, to subdivision � propos for Subarea 4, onditinati use Permit ro oed project could develop Subarea with 50 ,881 square -foot grocery store located at the Thep p P building located at the East Grand Avenue frontage rear of the parcel, a 1,,988 square -foot cornr��nercral b g South ou�rtland and 4,3 square re nt located at the corner of East Grand Avenue n i driveway a right-in., right -cut driveway at East The develop would be served by three (3) y also S tre et. T p driveways at South Cou�rtland Street, The development Gr Avenue, and two ( unrestricted y A total o n� • includes an interior connect ion to Subarea 4 along the western side of the p • �e�relo anent of the Subarea 4 will be subject rein spaces will be provided for the developrr►ent p site p p to sube cent conditional use permit application. O t h er Required Public Agency Approval q No other public agency approvals rovals are required for the proposed project. Related Projects dens Specific Plan (BGSP).p w hich leas been ed ro'ect is related to the larger Berry Car � + i homes ` patio' The propos project with a rr�ic of r�eo�trad�t�or�al single-fami developed over the last twelve (1 yea all bounded by Boysenberry on approximately forty -one (41) acres, gener ally bores and tornho p Asks Street. Straw Avenue, a Pa r4 Boulevard and Averse, r Page 8 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 42 INITIAL STUDY M ITIGATED NEGATIVE DE LARATI 0 N July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10-001,, TPM 10-001 CUP 10-001 Environmental Checklist Project Information Project Title: Lead Agency Name & Address: Contact Person & Telephone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor Na me & Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: SPA 10 -001, TPM 10-001, CUP to -OOH. City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Brach Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Ryan Foster, Associate Planner (805) 473 -5420 Southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street, Arroyo Grande, California NACT Commercial 684 Higuera Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mixed-Use Specific Plan (MU-SP) Gateway Mixed -Use Specific Plan (GMU --SP) Refer to page The project site is surrounded by commercial development to the east, north and west and residential development to the south. The site itself is undeveloped. Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: None Page 9 of 4 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 43 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001 TPM 10 -001, CUP 1 -001 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors c hecked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at feast one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact ", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: E] Aesthetics El Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use /Planning Population/Housin ❑ Transportation/Traffic El Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Mineral Resources El Public Services [] Utilities /Service Systems [:] Air Q uality El Geology /Soils El hydrology /water Quality ❑ Noise [] Recreation E] Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: El I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have had a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect because revisions/mitigations to the project have been made by r agreed to by the applicant. _ A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or its functional equivalent will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" o "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact has been 'adequately analyzed in an earlier document.. pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described its the report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the impacts not sufficiently addressed in previous documents. F1 I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR o Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EI , including revisions r mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than- significant level and no further action is required. dtx 20J 0 Ryan Foster Date Associate Planner Page 10 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 44 INITIAL STUJDY M ITI ATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TP M 10 -001, CUP 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact ", that are adequately supported by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources slew that the impact does not apply to the project being evaluated (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "fro Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on general or project- specific factors e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must consider the whole o f the project-related effects, both direct and indirect, including off -site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse changer may occur in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration; Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigatioin measures, prior to declaration of pro , ject approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where., pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or ether CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) o Negative Declaration [ R,, Guidelines for the Implementation n f CEQA, § 1 (c)() D 1• References to an earlier analysis should: a Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review. b Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects were adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis. c) Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site - specific conditions for this project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion. g. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify: a the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the 'impact addressed b y each question and b the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of significance. Page 11 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 45 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001 TPM 10 -001, CUP 10 - 001 Environmental Issues 1. Aesthetics E nvironmental Setting The project site is located along the City's main commercial corridor (East Grand Avenue) and although the site is undeveloped, it is surrounded by commercial development to the east, north and west and residential development to the south. D iscussion a -b: No impacts. r ■ s . + s ♦ a , thep F 9 P 0 S @- v isual WEE 1- . DeveIo P meat of the vacant P ro'ect site cou deg rade th the existing visual character or cluality of its surroundings, depending on the mass and scale of the development. Prior to any taking lace on the p roiect site a use p ermit must be approved through_.._ discretionary review, which . re uir s the approvin _ body t mad e a finding that the development Will not imp air the character or integrity of the surrounding area. Therefore develop of the vacant site will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of its suFrrouNndin s d: The project would create a new source of nighttime lighting in the form of parking lot and b uilding lights and illuminated signage. However, compliance with applicable standards will ensure that this new source of lighting grill not adversely affect views in the area. References 1 11. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Environment Sett ing . The project site Was previously used for agricultural production ( but does not contain prune soils, nor is it designated or zoned for agricultural use. Page 12 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 46 Potentially Less Than significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? �] ] b) Su bstantia lly damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, role outcroppings, and [ [� ❑ historic b uildings with a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial l or glare w hic h would adversely affect day or nighttime vi ews in [l ❑ E El the area? D iscussion a -b: No impacts. r ■ s . + s ♦ a , thep F 9 P 0 S @- v isual WEE 1- . DeveIo P meat of the vacant P ro'ect site cou deg rade th the existing visual character or cluality of its surroundings, depending on the mass and scale of the development. Prior to any taking lace on the p roiect site a use p ermit must be approved through_.._ discretionary review, which . re uir s the approvin _ body t mad e a finding that the development Will not imp air the character or integrity of the surrounding area. Therefore develop of the vacant site will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of its suFrrouNndin s d: The project would create a new source of nighttime lighting in the form of parking lot and b uilding lights and illuminated signage. However, compliance with applicable standards will ensure that this new source of lighting grill not adversely affect views in the area. References 1 11. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Environment Sett ing . The project site Was previously used for agricultural production ( but does not contain prune soils, nor is it designated or zoned for agricultural use. Page 12 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 46 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001 TPM 10 -001 CUP 10 -001 * In determining whether impocts to agricultural resources are s ign i cant environmental effects, lend ogencies may refer to t he California Agricultural Laird Evoluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by th Cali Deportment of Conservation as on optional model for use in assessing impacts on ogrtcultural and farmland. Di scussion a -e: No impacts, References - 1,. 3,, 7 III, Air Quality Environmental Setting Sari Luis Obispo County is in non -attainment status for zone (03), respireable particulate matter (PM10) and vinyl chloride cinder the California Air Resource Board (CARE) standards. The County is in attainment status for all other applicable CARD standards, Potentially Less Than less Than S ignificant less Th Significant Significant No Impact with ith Would the project: Impact � M iti g ati o n a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique F armlan d, r significant No Impact Fa o f Statewi Importa (Fa as Impact shown on the reaps prepared pursuant to the 1:1 1:1 � l� Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the El California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural ricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ El c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 122)g), timberland as defined by Public 1:1 Resources Code section 4 o timberland zoned � ❑ ❑ � Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 1104(g)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest lard to non -fdret use? E] ❑ El e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? * In determining whether impocts to agricultural resources are s ign i cant environmental effects, lend ogencies may refer to t he California Agricultural Laird Evoluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by th Cali Deportment of Conservation as on optional model for use in assessing impacts on ogrtcultural and farmland. Di scussion a -e: No impacts, References - 1,. 3,, 7 III, Air Quality Environmental Setting Sari Luis Obispo County is in non -attainment status for zone (03), respireable particulate matter (PM10) and vinyl chloride cinder the California Air Resource Board (CARE) standards. The County is in attainment status for all other applicable CARD standards, Page 13 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 47 Potenti less Th Less Than Significant Significant wit significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct im plementation of the El El applicable air quality pl b) Violate any air quality stan or cont substantially to are existing or projected air quality 1:1 Z El El violation Page 13 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 47 INITIAL STUDY MITI GATED N € ATIVE DE LARATI 0 N July 2010 (Reprised November 2010) SPA 10-001, TP 11 -001 CUP 10 -001 o result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under are applicable federal or state quality standard (includ El ambient air � releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1:1 El ED concentrations? e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number o f people? ❑ � ❑ El * Where available, the sign ficonce criteria established by the applicable air quol'ty management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make these determinations. Discussion a: No impacts. b -c: Operational emissions for the proposed project were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 computer model by Air Pollution Control District (AP CD) staff. The estimated operational emissions for the proposed project are approximately forty (D ) pounds o reactive organic gases (ROG) + nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide ( x) combined per day. This exceeds the AP D's operational C EQA thresho f twenty -five p ound s o f R + NO x combined per day. Additionally, operational emissions will contribute to greenhouse gas (H emiss The Attorney General requires a G HG impact evaluation and the implementation of feasible mitigation measures at the project level to mitigate GHG emissions. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level: 1M 111-1: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to include an allowable parking reduction to promote bicycle, pedestrian and transit use. MM 111-2: The site design shall be revised to include a bus turnout and transit shelter to replace the existing east -bound burs stop (East Grand Avenue) adjacent to the s ite subject to review and approval by the Regional Transit Author (IOTA) and Director o f Community Development. The proposed project will also generate short - tern emissions during construction. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these - impacts to a less than significant level: MM 111-3: The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and adhered to for all construction related permits; Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non - potable) water shall be used whenever possible. All dirt stockpile areas s hould be spayed daily o as needed. Permanent dust - control measures Identified in the approved revegetat on / landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil- di ac tiviti es. Page 14 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 48 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAMATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001 TPM 10 -001, CLAP 1001 Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one 1 month after initiaf grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation Is established. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetatin should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board APD). • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paved should be completed as loan passible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon a possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two ) feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. • Wheel-washers shall be installed .where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site. • Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used where feasible. The contractor /builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 opacity and to prevent the transport of dust ofd site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)prior to the start of any construction- related activities. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. Use of alternative-fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible. Signs that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. 1111M 111 -4: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) i present within the area that will be disturbed. If 11 A is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the AP D. If N A is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Tonics Control Measure (ATM ) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. 1M 111 -: All portable equipment (50 horsepower or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the GARB or the AP D. MM 111-6: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APD shall be notified within forty -eight (4g) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an AP CD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered; • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. Page 15 of Agenda Item 9.a. Page 49 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 R vi sed N SPA 1 ;001, TP 10 -001 CUP 10- 00} • Co ntaminate d soil shall be covered with at least sic () inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH -- non - permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No head pace shall be allowed where vap ors p s could accumu 0 Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due t0 wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. • Curing soil excavation, o dors sh not be evident t such a degree a to cause p ublic nuisance. ance. 0 Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. d; The proposed project is considered both a Type A and Type B - p ro'e�ct re ardin toxic air J g contaminants. Type A.pr jects are those that generate toxic air contaminants (diesel delivery trucks and Typ B projects are those that place sensitive receptors (residences) within 1,000 feet of exciting sources of tonic air ontami nant . The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District L AP D t I' . { � has e s ta b lis hed fished thresholds of significance for excess cancer risk for both Type A and Type l projects. The p threshold for Type A projects is an excess risk of 10 in a million and the threshold for Typ B proJect is an excess risk of 89 in a million. A detailed health risk assessment was conducted for the proposed project. The health risk assessment concluded that the excess health risk for the Type p ortion of the proposed project is in aw million and that the excess health risk for the Type B portion of the proposed project is 19 in a million, both of which are below the thresholds of significance established by the LAPD. e: Operation of the commercial portion of the proposed project may create objectionable odors affecting adjacent residents. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce this pc tent!aI impact t0 a less than significant level: M 111- 7: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to prohibit the following commercial arses, • Nail salons; Dry- Coffee roasters; • Gasoline stations; Furniture refurbishing /refinishing; Any use involving the application of spray paint MM 111-8: Operation of the proposed grocery store shall include the establishment of a 'n0 idle' zone for diesel - powered delivery vehicles. vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques: 0 Each delivery vehicle's engine shall be shirt Off immediately after arrival in the loading dock Or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. 0 The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the ma imurn extent feasible. Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the `no idle' zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. 0 Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the rece iving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines. 0 Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. Page 16 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 50 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 ( Reprise d November 7010) SPA 1 -001, TPIVI 1 -001 CLAP 10-001 • Use of alterna fueled ve hicles is recommended wherever possible. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. R eferences: 8 , 9 , 1 , A C, Q, I. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The site is devoid of flora and fauna with the exception of invasive grasses /weeds that are mowed twice a year in accordance with the City's weed Abatement Program. Existing development on all four 4) sides of the project site precludes its use as a wildlife corridor. D iscussion a -f: N o im pacts. Ref erences: 10, 11, 1 Page 17 of 4 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 51 /� less Th an Potentia less Than Signi Sig Significant No Im pact W oul d the project. Impact ;with Impact Mi a ) H ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on an s pecies identifie a a "e�"ISltive, candidate, or special status species in ❑ 1:1 0 local or re reg ional lane policies, or regula g P ► p or by the California Department of Fish and G ame or the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service? b Have a su adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service? c Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal El El El � pool, coasta etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological irnterruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species o with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ [] ❑ � corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery ite e Conflict with any focal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ El � preservation policy or ordinance f) Conflict with the provisions of an a Habitat Conservat Plan, Natural C ommuni ty Conservation ❑ 1:1 El � Plan, or o ther approve local, regiona or st habitat conservat plan? D iscussion a -f: N o im pacts. Ref erences: 10, 11, 1 Page 17 of 4 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 51 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10-001 CUP 10-001 V. Cultural resources Environmental Setting No archeological sites have been recorded within one -half mile of the project site; however, two (2) archeological sites have been recorded w ithin two- thirds of a mile of the project site. A phase one archeological surface survey was conducted in 1997. No intact historic or prehistoric cultural sites were noted during the survey; ho wever, isolated pieces of prehistoric shell and modern or historic shell and burnt bone and glass were noted in a total of five (5) separate locations within the entire forty-seven (47) acre Berry Gardens project area, including the project site, Two ) of these locations contained Pismo clam shell fragments with either glass or domestic animal bore and are probably historic in origin. The remaining three (3) locations contained isolated shell fragments that are probably prehistoric in origin. A substantial amount of fill material has been stored on the project site for the past several yea r. Discussion a -c: The presence of isolated prehistoric cultural Materials indicates the potential for significant impacts to culturaf resources should more intact or substantial deposits be present within the project site. Implementation n of the following mitigati n measure will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level: MM V-1: Any areas where nature (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. if cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. References: 10. 11,. 14, B vl. Geology and Solis Environmental Setting In general, the project site slopes to the south with an average elevation of approximately ninety 90) feet above mean sea level. The south side of the site is generally ten (10) feet below the north side in elevation. dear surface soils generally consist of silty sands to a depth of 4 -5 feet in a slightly moist to moist state and in a loose to medium -dense condition. Page 18 of 4 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 52 Potentially Less Than Significant less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project. Impact Mitigation Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ §15064.5 b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of are archaeological resource, pursuant to 1:1 0 ❑ ❑ §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ 1:1 El outside f formal cemeteries? Discussion a -c: The presence of isolated prehistoric cultural Materials indicates the potential for significant impacts to culturaf resources should more intact or substantial deposits be present within the project site. Implementation n of the following mitigati n measure will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level: MM V-1: Any areas where nature (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. if cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. References: 10. 11,. 14, B vl. Geology and Solis Environmental Setting In general, the project site slopes to the south with an average elevation of approximately ninety 90) feet above mean sea level. The south side of the site is generally ten (10) feet below the north side in elevation. dear surface soils generally consist of silty sands to a depth of 4 -5 feet in a slightly moist to moist state and in a loose to medium -dense condition. Page 18 of 4 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 52 INITIAL STUDY WTI GATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION J u 1Y 201 Revised November 201 SPA 10 -001, T P 1 0 - 001 C UP 10-001 ( Revised Di scussion a: A geotechnical investigation of the project site was performed by I Soils I nc. This investigation concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed project if the recommendations contained in the investigation are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level: MM V1 -1:. The project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. M V11-2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and updated geotech study based on the sturdy prepared for the project by 1 Soils Inc. dated April 2006. b -e: No impacts. Page 19 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 53 Potentially Liss Th an Less Than Significant Signi Significant No Impact vwr �th Wou the project; Impact Impact R Il Mitigation a Expose people or structures t potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or d ea th involving. i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as de on th most recent Alquist- Pr Earthquake Fault Zoning Ma p, issued by the Stat Geologist f or the area, or based on other � � subst antia l evidence of a known fau Re fer to � ❑ Division of Mines and Geology Special Pu blica ti on 42 .) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv Landslides. b Result in substant soil erosion o the l oss of El ❑ ❑ topsoil? c ) B located on a geologic unit or soil that i s unstable, or that would become unsta ble, as a result of the project and potentia result in on- or ofd site El ❑ ❑ lan lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as de fined in Ta 18- 1-13 of the Unif Building C ode (1994), creatin El ❑ El E substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils inca pable of adequately supporting the use of septic t an k s or alterna waste disposal El El E sterns w here sewers are not available for the dis of waste water? Di scussion a: A geotechnical investigation of the project site was performed by I Soils I nc. This investigation concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed project if the recommendations contained in the investigation are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level: MM V1 -1:. The project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. M V11-2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and updated geotech study based on the sturdy prepared for the project by 1 Soils Inc. dated April 2006. b -e: No impacts. Page 19 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 53 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE ATIVE DECLARATI N JuIY 2010 (Devised November 2010 SPA 10-001, TPM 10i -001, CUP 10-001 References: 15 VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting The project site is located adjacent to existing commercial and residential development, along the it main commercial corridor (East Grand Avenue). Discussion a -b: The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas (GHG) mission , from both daily operation of buildings and traffic generation. While the California Air resources Board (GARB) has not yet developed a statewide threshold, as directed under Senate Bill 97, the City has determined that the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2008 white Paper, which includes possible methodologies and thresholds for project -level GHG emissions, provides the hest and latest information on establishing cumulative impact thresholds. This paper has determined that a conservative threshold where a project's impact may be considered "cumulatively considerable' is 900 metric tons or more of GHG emissions per gear. The following table provides a general summary of project types and sizes that generate 900 metric tons of GHG emissions per year: Project Type Potentially less Than significant Less Than Apartments/condominiums Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project. Impact Mitigation Mitigation Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the El environment b Conflict with are applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of EJ ❑ greenhouse gases? Discussion a -b: The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas (GHG) mission , from both daily operation of buildings and traffic generation. While the California Air resources Board (GARB) has not yet developed a statewide threshold, as directed under Senate Bill 97, the City has determined that the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2008 white Paper, which includes possible methodologies and thresholds for project -level GHG emissions, provides the hest and latest information on establishing cumulative impact thresholds. This paper has determined that a conservative threshold where a project's impact may be considered "cumulatively considerable' is 900 metric tons or more of GHG emissions per gear. The following table provides a general summary of project types and sizes that generate 900 metric tons of GHG emissions per year: Project Type Site that Generates 000 Metric Torts of GH6 Emissions per Year Single - family residential 50 units Apartments/condominiums 70 units General commercial or office space 35,000 square feet Retail space 11,000 square feet u pe rma rket/grocery store 6,300 square-feet Based on the above assumptions, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 7,899 metric tons of GHG emissions per gear, or 47,712 pounds of GHG emissions per day. This is approximately nine ) times the threshold of 900 metric tons per year that the Paper considers to be a icumulativefy considerable' impact. The Air Pollution Control Board (AP CD) has established mitigation measures to reduce project -level GHG emissions. implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level: 1 111 -1: All construction plans shall reflect the following H- reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the AP CD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures: Page 20 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 54 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MY 201 (Revised SPA -0 fiP � l io01 0' � � e ased November 01 } UP 1 • Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric app lian c es and tools. Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions fr m p arked vehicles. Design should provide o tree coverage within 10 gears of cons usin low ROES emitting., low maintenance native drought resistant trees. • N residential good burning appliances. 0 Provide employee lockers and showers. one shower and lockers for every 2 employees are recommended. • Trusses f or south - facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar - heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south - facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing root pitches, the closest standard roof p itch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. 0 Increase the building energy rating by 0% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 0% rating cannot be double counted. 0 Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of 'buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in surrrner. 0 Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. 0 Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. 0 Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design), 0 Utili ze highs efficiency gas or solar water heaters. • Utilize built -in energy efficient arppIiaNnces (i,e. Energy S ta r • Utilize double -paned windows. + Utilize low ener street lights (i.e. sodium) * Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. • Install energy- reducing programmable thermostats, * Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA /DOE Ener tar' rating to reduce summer cooling needs. • Eliminate high wat er consumption l andscape (e .g., plants an lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROB emitting. 0 Provide on -site bicycle parking both short terra (racks) and long terra (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. one bike rack space per 10 vehicle /employee space is recommended. Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TRUs at the loading docks. Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks lockers to service the residential units. References: 8, 9, C, Page 21 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 55 INITIAL STUDIO MITIGATED NE ATIVE DE LARATI0N Jul 201 f evi SPA 10- TPI 10 -001, cup 1 -01d ovmsmnor 01 V111 Hazards and Hazardous Materials E nvironmental Setting There are no known hazards or hazardous materials associated with the r ` p o�ect site. Potentially Less Than Than i nificant inificant with Si No Impact V'ufd the project; Impact Miti Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or � �] disposal of ba ardous materials? b Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials, substances, or waste into the environment? 0 Emit hazardous emissions or Dandle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, compiled pursuant to G overnment Code §65962.5, and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan % s not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport o public use airport? If so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires, including areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands D iscussion a, c- ho . N i m p acts. 1:1 13 El 19 1:1 1:1 El 19 1:1 - ED 0 El ❑ a to b, The potential for naturally occurring asb es t os (NOA) is addressed in Section III Air Q uality. References: 11, 17 Page 22 of 4 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 56 1:1 El 13 E] 1:1 b, The potential for naturally occurring asb es t os (NOA) is addressed in Section III Air Q uality. References: 11, 17 Page 22 of 4 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 56 I N ITIAL STU DY M ITI GATE D NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Reprised November 201 SPA 10 -001, TP! 10 -001 CUP 10 -001 IX Hydrology and Water Quality E nvironmental et The project site is located within the incorporated city Limits o Arroyo Grande. The City p rovides water service, which consists of water from various sources (groundwater.. Lopez L ke, etc . The site itself is end - � undeveloped, which results ,n a minimal amount of stormwater runoff; however, the adjacent Poplar � p P nding Basin was designed and constructed to accommodate the increased st rmwater runoff the the proposed project would generate. The project site is not located within a flood zone. Page 23 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 57 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant S ignificant wih S i g ni f icant No Impact Mould the project: Impact Miti a) Violate any water quality standards or waste El ❑ d isc h arg e requirements? b) Substan deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate f pre- existing nearby El El 10 El wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits h ave been granted )? c) S ubstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the � E] � El course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in su bstan tia l on- or off -site erosion r siltation? d) Substantially alter the exis 'ting drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase. ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner w hich wou result in n - or off -site flooding? e Create o contribute runoff water w h ich w excee the capacitor of exi or planned st rrriwat er drainage systems or provide substantial additional � El � sources of polluted runoff? f) Substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ g) Place lousing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or El 1:1 El Flood insurance Bate f or other flood p, hazard delineation p h) Place structures that wound impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-yea flood hazard ar y ea. ❑ ❑ i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding ❑ ❑ ❑ � resulting from the failure of a levee or dare j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 23 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 57 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Reprised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10 -001, CUP 10 -001 Discussion a -e: As part of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP) area, the project site will direct all stormwater runoff to the Poplar Ponding Basin, which is an infiltration basin located directly across South Courtland Street from the project site. The basin was designed and built to accommodate the addition runoff generated by development of the project site. f: The Central Coast water Board requires municipalities, via the Municipal General Storm water Permit, to minim a negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems and degradation of water quality to the maximum extent practicable. Permittees must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the technology -based standard of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) to protect water quality. The goals of post - construction best management practices (BMPs) are to prevent and control erosion and sedimentation, provide source control of potential pollutants., control and treat runoff, and protect wetlands and water quality resources. Post - construction BMPs are required to achieve stormwater quality standards through site - planning measures. Vegetative s wales or other biofilters are recommended as the preferred choice for post- construction BMPs for all projects with suitable landscape areas, because these measures are relatively economical and require limited maintenance. For projects where landscape based treatment is impracticable, or insufficient to meet required design criteria, post - construction BMPs should be incorporated. All post-construction BMPs must be maintained to operate effectively. Implementation of the BMPs listed below will reduce the potential impacts to water quality to a less than significant level: M V11 -1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: • Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system. • Run -off Control. Maintain post - development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre -de elopment levels. • Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Label new storm drain inlets with "No Dumping — Drains to ocean" to alert the public to the destination of s tormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. Vehicle ui ment Cle artin Commercial/industrial facilities or multi - family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either provide a covered, berm d area for washing activities or discourage vehicle /equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle /equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run -ors or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. • Car Was lnir . Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is di sc hanged to the storm drainn system. wastewater from tine facillity shall discharge to the sanitary sewer or wastewater reclamation system. C ommon Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain systern. Page 24 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 58 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION J uly 2010 (Revised November 20 10) SPA 10 -001, TIM 001, cP joo1 • Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned, Refuse Areas Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas should be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self - contained drainage system that d ischarges to the sanitary sewer if wate r cannot be diverted from the areas, Outdoor S toLage Controls. oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment stru tares such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and or drain to the sanitary severer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with beans and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leafs, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. • Cleaning Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. Loading Dock Controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto o from the area. Position roof downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary server, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain. Street arl ri rot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. 1lashwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sealer. g-j: No impacts. References: 10, 5,. 6 X. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is designated as Mixed-Use Specific Plan {f11 U- P} in the City's Land Use Element and zoned Gateway diced -Use Specific Plan (GMU-SP). The proposed type and scale of development is consistent with both the M U-S P land use category and G MU- P zoning district. Page 25 of 4 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 59 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NE ATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Devised November 2010) SPA 1 -001 TP M 10 -001, CUP 10 - 001 Potentia Less Than Less T han S i g nificant N n Mlltll Significant Sign No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigat im pact a) Physica divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ M b Conflict with the applicable r use plan, policy, or Impact regulation of any ag ency wi th jurisdiction over the Impact project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, El ED E] El sp ecific plan, local coastal p rogram, r ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or ❑ mitigawting are environmental effect? E] 0 c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation El El plan or natural ors munit plan? conservation Discussion a, c: No impacts. b: As proposed, the project conflicts with several policies in the Design Guidelines for Mixed- Districts and East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan regard ing building placement, pedestrian scale and streetscape c haracter. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant levek MM -1: The s plan amendment shall be reprised to include language reflecting the goals and policies of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for fled - Use Districts regarding building placement, pedestrian scale and streetscape character. The prop sed development shall b e revised to either place more commercial development at the East Grand Avenue frontage or include other such amenities that satisfy the goals and objectives of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for Mixed -Use Districts. References: 10.. X1. Mineral resources Environmental Setting The project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Page 26 o 4 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 60 Potentially Less Than si r�h ifi Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact [litigation Impact a ) R in the loss of availability of a Known mineral resource that is or would be of value t0 the region and ❑ ❑ E] 0 the residents of the state? b Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated 0 El El ED on a focal general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Page 26 o 4 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 60 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010 SPA 10 - 001, TPM 1 -001, CUP 10 -001 D a -b: No impacts. References: X11, Noi E nvironmental S The project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, north and west, and residential uses to the south. The proposed project includes new residential uses on the southern portion of the ro� 'ect site. P Discussion a: Residential uses are considered to be noise sensitive, and the proposed grocery store loading dock will expose both existing and proposed residential uses to elevated noise levers. An acoustic report was prepared by David D ubbink Associates t ana lyze acoustical issues related to the proposed project. The report concludes that without mitigation, the proposed project will exceed City standards for noise exposure to residential uses. Implementation of the following (mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less than significant level: MM X11 -1; Grocery store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 A to 10:00 m.. and the current parking limitations on either side of South C ourtland Street shall be maintained. Page 77 of 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 61 Potentially Less Than Less Than Signif Significant Sig No Impact with W the proJeot: Impact Impact Mitigation a ) Generate or ex pose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local state or El El federal standards? b) Generate or expose people to excessive El El 11 grou ndborne vibrations or gro undborne noise level c) Create a substantia permanent i ncrease in am noi se leve i n the vicinity of the project ( ab ove leve ❑ [� � ❑ writhout the project)? d) Create a substantial temp orary or periodic I ncrease in ambient noise levels in the vicin of the p roject, in El ❑ ❑ excess of no ise levels existing without the project? e Be located wi thin an a irpo rt lanai use plan or, where such a plan has not been a do pted, wi thin two miles of a public airport or publ use airpo if so, wou the 1:1 El El project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Be in the vi cinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the ❑ 0 project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a: Residential uses are considered to be noise sensitive, and the proposed grocery store loading dock will expose both existing and proposed residential uses to elevated noise levers. An acoustic report was prepared by David D ubbink Associates t ana lyze acoustical issues related to the proposed project. The report concludes that without mitigation, the proposed project will exceed City standards for noise exposure to residential uses. Implementation of the following (mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less than significant level: MM X11 -1; Grocery store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 A to 10:00 m.. and the current parking limitations on either side of South C ourtland Street shall be maintained. Page 77 of 0 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 61 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Juror 2010 (Revised November 20 10) SPA 1 -001 TP M 10 -001, CUP 10 -001 MM X111-2, Construction plans for the grocery store shall include a noise barrier, either a block wall or an extension of the grocery store building, to be not less than twelve {1 feet above the delivery area, tapering to a height of six (6) at the eastern property line back of sidewalk) at a 1:1 ratio. Additionally, any residential structures that, absent the noise barrier, would have a direct line of sight to the del ivery area shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty (30) decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developer of the grocery store. b & & Construction of the proposed project will generate temporary ground borne vibrations and increase ambient noise levels; however, the days and times of construction activities shall be limited per City standards, therefore, this temporary increase is not anticipated to exceed the City's thresholds for noise. c: operation of the proposed project will create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels; however, this permanent increase is not anticipated to exceed the City's thresholds for noise. e -f: No impacts. References: 1 ., , ,1 , 16 XIII. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and had been identified in the City's Housing Element as an "opportunity site' to provide additional housing to the City's housing stock. Discussion a: The proposed project is anticipated to house approximately ninety -four (94) persons. The proposed density .arid anticipated population growth are consistent with the City's General Plan (Land Use and Housing Elements). b -c: No impacts. References: , 1, 3 Page 28 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 62 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirect) for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing E] ❑ elsewhere c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a: The proposed project is anticipated to house approximately ninety -four (94) persons. The proposed density .arid anticipated population growth are consistent with the City's General Plan (Land Use and Housing Elements). b -c: No impacts. References: , 1, 3 Page 28 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 62 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE LA ATI N July 2010 (Revise November 2010) SPA 10 -001 4 F TPIVI 1 CUP 1 -001 XI. Public Services Environmental Setting Public services to the project site are readily provided by the City o f Arroyo Grande and the Lucia Mar School District LMD). Mould the project: a) Result in significant environmental impacts from construction associated with the provision o new o physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any o f the public services: Fire protection? Po lice protection: Schools? Pa other public facilities? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation ❑ o ED o Discussion a: The proposed project would not require the provision of any new or altered government facilities to maintain applicable service ratios for fire, police, schools and parks. References: 1 , Xv. Recreation Environmental Setting The project site is located less than one half rile (considered to be a comfortable walking distance) to both a small neighborhood park and the Soto Sports Complex. Dis cussion The proposed project would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks; however, the increase in use would not cause substantial deterioration of the facilities. Page 29 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 63 Potentially Less Than Sig nificant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Wo the pro I mpact litigation Impact a ) Increase th e use of existing neighborhoo and reg 1onaI parrs o r o recreationa fa aIR es, such that ub to ntial h sica det erioration of the facility p t Wou � � ® ❑ occur or be accel b) Inc lude recreational facilities or require the construction or exp ansion o f recreational f that might have an ad verse phy sical effect on the e nvironmen t? Dis cussion The proposed project would increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks; however, the increase in use would not cause substantial deterioration of the facilities. Page 29 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 63 I N ITIAL STU DY M ITI GATE D N E TIVE DECLARATI 0 N July 2010 (Revised N ovember 2010) SPA 10 -001,1 TPI 110 -001, CUP 1 0 -001 b: N impacts. Ref erences: 10, Xvit Transportation /Traffi Environmental setting The project site is located at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and Short Street, which is a signalized intersection and approximately 250 feet from East Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard, which is also a signalized intersection. Discussion -b: A transportation impact study was prepared for the proposed project. Based on this study, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 7,484 average daily trips (ADT), with 334 AM and 737 PM peak hour trips. Due to imp rovements made ire the vicinity over the past several y ears , which anticipated substantial develot)ment of the Dreiect site. this increase in avera a daily trips is not expected to cause a substantial I impp ct to traffic. In fact, t he g reatest peak hour delay is anticipated to be 9.3 seconds at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street, occurring during the PM peak hour. This delay will reduce the existing level o service Lo at that intersection from 'B' to "C; however, the LOS standard for that 'Intersection is "C" and therefore this reduction does not constitute a significant impact. No other reductions in existing levels of service were identified in the study. Page 30 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 64 Potentially Less Than S igni fi cant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Cause a substant increase its traffic, in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the street system i.e., a substantial increase in either th number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ve hicle t rips, the v olume to capacity ratio on or con gestion at intersect b Exceed, individually or cumulatively, the level of service standards established by the county congestion El 1:1 management agency for designated roads or highways? c Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic lerels or a charge in ❑ ❑ ❑ location, that results in substantial safety risks? d Contain a design feature e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or i uses (e .g.,. El 11 1:1 ID f arm equipment) that wou substantially increase hazar e result I ina dequate emergency access? 1:1 El El 0 f) Result ult in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ � g Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus 1:1 El ❑ turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion -b: A transportation impact study was prepared for the proposed project. Based on this study, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 7,484 average daily trips (ADT), with 334 AM and 737 PM peak hour trips. Due to imp rovements made ire the vicinity over the past several y ears , which anticipated substantial develot)ment of the Dreiect site. this increase in avera a daily trips is not expected to cause a substantial I impp ct to traffic. In fact, t he g reatest peak hour delay is anticipated to be 9.3 seconds at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street, occurring during the PM peak hour. This delay will reduce the existing level o service Lo at that intersection from 'B' to "C; however, the LOS standard for that 'Intersection is "C" and therefore this reduction does not constitute a significant impact. No other reductions in existing levels of service were identified in the study. Page 30 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 64 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Remised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TP M 10-001, CUP 10-001 -g: No impacts. References: 10 1,1 XVIL Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. Ut ilities will be served by both the City and other regional entities. c: The Poplar Ponding Basin, which is adjacent to the project site, was designed and constructed t accommodate the additional storm water discharge from development of the project site as part of the original approval of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BP. d: The City has implemented several water - saving programs, funded primarily by a water neutralization fee, that have resulted in a net decrease in water demand of 10 over the past two ( years. A wat Page 31 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 65 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant rrurtb Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation I a) Exceed wastewater treatment rest rictions or standards of the applicable Regional Water Qual ❑ ❑ � ❑ Contro Board? b R equire or result in the - construction o f new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansi of ❑ ❑ existing facilities? Would the c onstruction of these facilities cause El El 2 1:1 sig nificant envir nment effects, c ) R or result in th construction of new st orm water draina f aci lities or expansion of existin El 1:1 M ❑ f d Have sufficient water supplies available to serge the project from existing entitlements and resources or El ❑ are new or expanded entitlements needed? e Result in aI determination, by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to service the ❑ project's anticipated demand, in addition to the p rovide r's existing commitments? f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ ® 1:1 disposa needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and � E-] z 1:1 regulations as they relate to solid waste? D iscussion a - & e: W g enerate d by the proposed project will be treated by the South County Sanitation District, w has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. c: The Poplar Ponding Basin, which is adjacent to the project site, was designed and constructed t accommodate the additional storm water discharge from development of the project site as part of the original approval of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BP. d: The City has implemented several water - saving programs, funded primarily by a water neutralization fee, that have resulted in a net decrease in water demand of 10 over the past two ( years. A wat Page 31 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 65 INITIAL TUDYMITI GATE D NE ATIVE DE LARATION July 2010 (Reprised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TI 10 -001 CLIP 10 -001 neutralization fee based on estimated water demand of the proposed project will be paid at time of building permit issuance. f- g: The proposed project will be served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has adequate permitted capacity to serve the project. Page 32 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 66 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revise November 201 SPA 10 -001 T P! 1 -O01 CUP 10-001 Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion a: Although undeveloped, the project site does not contain any significant flora or fauna, and because it is surrounded by urban development, the site does not have any potential to serve as a wildlife corridor. Isolated prehistoric materials may be present on the project site; hwever, the site does not serve as an example of a major period o f California history or prehistory. b: There are no short - terra e nvironmental goals, either in the project description or the identified mitigation measures, that will be achieved to the disadvantage of long- terra environmental goals. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan as it relates to future growth, both in general terms and specifically as it relates to the project site. while the proposed project will cumulatively increase traffic and demand for public services and utilities, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, it will not result in any cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. d: with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Page 33 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 67 Potentially . Leis Than Less Than ant S ignificant S ignificant t Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact M itigation Imp a Substantially deg the qua of the environment, substantially re d uce the ha bitat o a fi or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten t o eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially E] ❑ 0 El reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate examples of the major period of Californi history or pr b) Have the potential to achieve s hort -term environmenta g to the disa of long- terra ❑ [] El ED environmenta goals? c ) H ave possible environmental effects that are individually lim but cumulat considerable? ""Cumulatively considerable *' means that the increment effects of an individua project are 0 0 Cl significant w hen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of possible future projects. d Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, � ' ❑ � � � �` either d i rect ly o r i nd frectl . Discussion a: Although undeveloped, the project site does not contain any significant flora or fauna, and because it is surrounded by urban development, the site does not have any potential to serve as a wildlife corridor. Isolated prehistoric materials may be present on the project site; hwever, the site does not serve as an example of a major period o f California history or prehistory. b: There are no short - terra e nvironmental goals, either in the project description or the identified mitigation measures, that will be achieved to the disadvantage of long- terra environmental goals. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan as it relates to future growth, both in general terms and specifically as it relates to the project site. while the proposed project will cumulatively increase traffic and demand for public services and utilities, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, it will not result in any cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. d: with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Page 33 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 67 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE ATIVE DE LARATI I July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001 TP A 10-001, CUP 10 -001 Summary of Mitigation Measures 1. MM II1 -1: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to include an allowable parking reduction to promote bicycle, pedestrian and transit use. 2. MM 111- 2: The site design shall be revised to include a bars turnout to replace the existing east- bound bus stop (East Grand Avenue) adjacent to the site. 3. III II! -: The following cGriditions shall be included on all construction plans and adhered to for all construction- related permits: • Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. • Use water trucks orsprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, Increase wate ring frequency when wind speeds exce ed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (nor- potable) water shall be used whenever possible. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed. Permanent dint - control measures identified in the approved revegetation /landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil - disturbing activities. • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one (1) month after initial grading should be sown with a fast - germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All disturbed shill areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting o other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board (AID. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be pared should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or gash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site. Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if risible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed (non- potable) water should be used where feasible. The contractor /builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 0% opacity and to prevent the transport of dust off -site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (AP CD) prior to the start of any construction- related activities. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. Page 34 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 68 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10 -001, CUP 10 -001 Use of alternative- fueled equipment is recommended wherever possible. Signs that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. 4. MM 111-4: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the AP D. If N A is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board ARB) Air Toxics control Measure (ATOM) for Construction, Grading, QuarrVing and Surface Mining operations. 5. IVIM 111-5: All portable equipment o horsepower or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the GARB or the AP D. 6. MM 111 -6: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the AP CD shall be notified within forty -eight (48) fours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an AP CD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented mented imm diately after contaminated soil is discovered: Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six () inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH — non - permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate. • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. 7. MM 111- 7: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to prohibit the following commercial uses; 0 Nail salons; • Dry - cleaners; 0 Coffee roasters; • Gasoline stations; • Furniture refurbishling/refinishing; • Any use involving the application of spray paint g. MM 111-8: Operation of the proposed grocery store shall include the establishment of a `no idle' zone for diesel - powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible rasing the following techniques: Each delivery vehicle's engine shall be smut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible. Page 35 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 69 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE ATIVE DECLARATION Idly 2010 (Revised November 2010) PA 10-001 TPI 1 10 -001, CUP 10-001 • Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the "no idle" zone, including notification b letter to all delivery companies. Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines. • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. Use of alternative- fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible. • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. 9. MM -1: Any areas where native (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, 'etc) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. If cultural resources are present, - a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. 10. MM VI -1: The project proponent shall submit a revisLM geote hnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions, and recommendations where necessary. 11. MM III -2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and updated ge to hnical study based on the study prepared for the project by CSI Soils Inc. dated April 2006. 12. Hill V11 -1: All construction plans shall reflect the following H - reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based On these measures to the AP CD for review and approval, incorporating the following m asures: 0 Incorporate outdoor electrical Outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. • Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide % tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees. 0 No residential wood burning appliances. • Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 2 employees are recommended. 0 Trusses for south- facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight roads of standard solar - heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20 rating cannot be double counted. Plant drought tolerant, nature shade trees along southern exposures Of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. [utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable ) available locally if possible. Page 36 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 70 INITIAL. STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE TIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10-OO1 CUP 10-001 0 Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. • Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water treaters. Utilize built -in energy efficient appliances i.e. Energy Star ". • Utilize double -paned windows. • UtiIi ze low -en er y street lights i.e. sod 1um) • Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. • Install energy - reducing programmable thermostats. • Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA DOE Energy StarlD rating to reduce summer cooling creeds. 0 Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are lour R G emitting. • Provide on-site bicycle prying both short term (racks) and long terror (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet pearls season maximum demand. one bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended. • Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TRUs at the loading docks. Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks lockers to service the residential units. 13. MM VII -1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: Root Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies o the municipal storm drain system. Run-off Control. Maintain post - development peals runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to post-development levels. Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Label new storm drain inlets with ` #loo Dumpling — Drains to Ocean to alert the public to the destination of storrnwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. Vehicle /Equipment Cleaning Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-family residential developments of 50 units r greater should either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. • Car W a hin m ercial car gash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to tine sanitary sewer o r waste grater reclamation system. Page 37 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 71 INITIAL STUDY MiTI ATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10 -001, CUP 101 • Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large -scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and du mpster areas should be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self - contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. • outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from , drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and corers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage a rea s. C leaning, Maintenance and Processing C ontrols. -- Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. • Loading Dock Controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the area. Position roof downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, o r diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain. StreetharWing lot Swe e in : Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any clearing agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. 14. MM X -1: The specific plan amendment shall be reprised to include language reflecting the goads and policies of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for fixed -lase Districts regarding building placement, pedestrian scale and streetscape character. The proposed development shall be reprised to either plane more commercial development at the Page 38 of 4 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 72 I INITIAL STUDY VIII GATE D [NEGATIVE DE LAI ATI ON July 2010 (Revised November r 010) SPA 10 -001, TPM 10 -D01 CUP 10-001 East Grand Avenue frontage or include other such amenities that satisfy the goals and objectives of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for Mined -Case Districts. 15. MM X1C -1: Grocery store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of South Courtland Street s hall be maintained. 16. MM X11-2: Construction plans for the grocery store shall include a noise barrier, either a block gall o an extension of the grocery store building, to be not less than twelve 1 feet above the delivery area, tapering to a height of six (6) at the eastern property line (back of sidewalk ) at a 1 ratio. Additionally, any residential structures than, absent the noise barrier, would have a direct line of sight to the delivery area shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty ( ) decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developer of the grocery store. Page 39 of 40 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 73 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2010 (Revised November 2010) SPA 10-001, TPA 1001, CHIP 1 -001 References Documents & Maps 1. Arroyo Grande General Plan 2. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code 3. Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 4. Arroyo Grande Exi Ling Settings Report & Draft Arroyo Grande Exist i ng Settings Report (2010) B. Arroyo Grande Urban Water Management Plan 6. Arroyo Grande Stormwater 11 anag ment Plan 7. San Luis Obispo Important Farmland Map (California Department of Conservation, 2006) 8. CE QA & Climate Change White ite Paper (CAPCOA,, 200 8) 9. Air Quality Handbook (SLO APCD, 2009) 10. Project Plans - 11. Site Inspection 12. Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Districts 13. East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan 14. Final Berry Gardens Specific Plan —Tract 2280 Environmental Impact Report (FIRMA,, 1998) 15. Geotechnical Investigation (GSI Soils, 2006) 16. Acoustic Report (David Dubblrrl Associates, 2010) 17. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Buena Resources, Inc., 20 7) - 1 . Transportation Impact Study (Grosz Engineering Group, In ., 2009) 19. Diesel PM Screening Healthy Risk Assessment (Marine Research Specialists, 2010) Consultations A. Jason Gillespie, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (LRTA B. Fred Collins, Northern Chuma h Tribal Council C. Aeron Arlin - Genet, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control Board (SLO APCD) D. Cary Arcemont,, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control Board (SLO APCD) Page 40 of 4 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 74 INCORPO RA inEd y 10, loll k q l Vt I4 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL � FROM: TE ESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL NTAL I NF RMATI IN NOVEMBER , 201 , CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 9.a., 9.b., . . DATE: NOVEMBER , 201 Attached are three letters received fr Peoples' Self -Help H Corporation regarding the public hearing items on tonight's Agenda. c; City Manager City clergy " City Attorney AT Peoples' Self -Help Housing Corporation November 5, 2010 RECEIVED Ms. Teresa McCfish, Director NOV o s 2010 Community Development Department CITY OF City of Arroyo Grande oM[�uNmrp� �E 214 E Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: PSHH Court land Apartments Zoning Code Concessions Possible under State Density Program Dear 11s. McClish, We are providing you some background information regarding concessions available to affordable housing developments under ate Density Bonus law. We are providing this inforimatin to you to show how it applies to our Courd nd a ffordable housing development, in the event you feel it is necessary t o cite Density Boners law as a vehicle for the concessions w e are requesting. Our development proposal includes 36 apartment units, playground area, recreational space, and a community building with office and multipurpose meeting rooms. PSHH's development proposal asked for concessions to the City's parking and setback requirements. Density Law is contained in Govt. Code Section 65915 and Title 16 of the City's Municipal Code. finder the Density Bonus law the City may grant Peoples' Self -Help Housing's requested concessions without requiring an amendment to the Specific Plan. (Govt. Code Section 59150. When a project meets the affordability requirements of the State's Density Bonus Program, the project must be granted an increase in a llowed density, if requested and certain concessions depending on the level of affordabillity within the project. As stated in § 65915 Section (b)1 t' city... shall grant a density bonus an incentives or concessions described in subdivision when the applicant for the housing development seeks and agrees t construct ... [subsection A] ten percent o fthe tota units ofa housing development fo r lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health an Safety C ." Under § 65915 Section (k)(1), a concession i defined as "a reduction in site development standards o a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission. including but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio o vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. " 3533 Empleo Street San Luis obNm, CAA 93401 Tel: (805) 781 -3088 Fax (805) 544 -19D1 E- aH admix @pshho.org www .pshhe.org Wowta W, " 14 25 East VK:to la Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Tel: (805) 952 -5152 Fax (805) 952 -8152 E -mark; boiae cshh.org www.pshhc.o Page 2 November 5, 201 Under current zoning of CPDIR, the 1.63 acre site has the potential to be developed with 45 unit 2 unbJacre x 1.63 acres). PSHH is not seeking a density increase, but is seeking relief from specific code requirements. minimum of 20% of the units will be provided to those earning 30 %, or less, of the area median income. Based on this level of affordability, the project is anticipated to be eligible for three concessions under state law [fee § 65915 Section 1 d2]. PSHH is currently seeking two concessions to gain relief from: A. Chapter 16.56 of the Municipal Code which requires the provision for parking of "2 covered spaces per unit + 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit + 0.5 uncovered guest spaces per bedroom for units with over two bedrooms ". PSHH has requested a concession to allow a total of 54 parking spaces for the project, which represents a ratio of 0.65 parking spaces per bedroom. It should also be noted that under the State's Density Bonus Program alteabve parking requirements are identified [Govt. code Section 65915 lion 1 p]. B. Chapter 16.32 of the Municipal Code which requires setbacks "20 foot minimum street yard, 10 foot minimum side yard, and average 15 foot minimum near yard ". The Mate's Density Bonus Program allows a modification to this requirement as an incentive for the production of affordable housing. We have requested a 10 foot minimum street yard, 5 foot minimum side yard, and average 15 foot minimum rear yard. PSHH believes this project will address a great need for affordable lower wage earning workforce and family housing within the Arroyo Grande community and wi11 substantially improve the availability of long term of road ble housing in this prune location for the community's benefit If you have any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate to contact me at 733 -4475. Sin r I , Ken Tdgueir Director of Rental Housing Development toj Peoples' Self -Help Housing �CE�ED Nov 20io ARc Yo LERKD To: Arroyo Grande City Council From: Peoples' Self -Help Housing Date: November 8, 2010 Subject: November 9th City Council Public Hearing: Item . Specific Plan Am endment Honorable Council: Are approved Berry Gardens Specific Plan amendment will suable Council action on the proposed 36 unit People's Self Help Housing project before you later in your November 9, 2010 agenda. The Specific Pfau amendment language has been the guideline for our deveicipment proposal in area 4. People's Self Delp Housing concurs with the Specific Plan area environmental mitigations. we believe the amendment provides the necessary Specific Plan changes and related environmental mitigations required to maximize the opportunity for new safe and affordable housing in the City o Arroyo Grande. Sincerely, •�'� {fir _' " Dieter Eckert, President 3533 Emp Strut San Luis 6' T o, C a lif ornia 93401 TEL. (805) 7 1-3088 FAX: 80.5) -1901 E -mJ: admin@ W .psh 26 E. Victoria Street S anta Barbara, California 93101 TEL (8051962 -5152 FAX: (805) -8152 Email: s 16 10 Peoples' Se lf-Help Housing NOV 20io City Council T Arro l 'eo Fromm: Peoples' Self -Help Housing � Date. November 8, 2 Subject: November 9th City Council Public Hearing: Item 9.113 Commercial D evelopmen t Honorable Council: People "s self Help Housing strives for and anticipates a successful neighbor relationship with the Gourd rrd Plaza project. N T has spent much time and effort on the p before the Council. F uture courtl nd Plaza retail offerings will likely be used by People's self Help Housing residents. The Pad 3 building proposal adjacent to the PSHH project site has been modified from a o' setback to a 1 o' setback from the property line in the spirit of attempting distance to accommodate to natural light and overall comfort of + * adjacent PSHH families. Additionally, rt is anticipated that landscaping of tall trees will screen the new development from the rear of units directly adjacent to the N T site. We would like to request coordination of a complimentary landscape plan bet ween the two properties to assure a natural and attractive screening remedy. The Noise Study that was conducted for Courtland Plaza recommended conditions to create consistency with the City's Noise Element and supporting codes. These included g n g i isp ecial acoustical treatme nt to the facades of the PSHH residential units that have a line of site to the truck loading area. N T had agreed to compensate PSHH for our costs associated with noise mitigation of the commercial activity and we ask that this become a condition of approval for are commercial l development on the site. Sincerely, M.- Dieter Eckert, President 3533 Emp leo street San Luis b's C alifornia 93401 E. Victoria greet TEL: (805) � 3088 Santa Barbara, California 93101 FAX: (805) 544 -1 901 TEL (8 5) 962-5152 E -mail: admin@ps FAX: (805) 962-8152 www.pshkc.or Email, s6office@pshhc.or t f)j Peoples' Self -Help Housing RECE Nov 0 9 2010 To: Arroyo Grande City Council ARCO Y0 L E RKNDE From: Peoples' Self -Help Housing Date: November 8, 2010 S ubject: lover er 9 th City Council Public Hearing: Item g,C Affordable Housing Development Honorable Council: Sll appreciates the City #s support of the, many affordable housing p ro jects in Arroy Grande. sixty- two Arroyo Grande families and seniors live at Juniper, Caweltr Court, and oak Forest apartments. Without the Count support these projects may not have been po ss i ble. It is the board goal for the 36 unit Courtland project to provide the safe, affordable., a nd high quality of l ife housing enjo by the other PSHH and neighboring err3 Gardens homes. We respecffully respectfully request Council approval of our proposed 36 unit an ent p roject We look forward to project completion and future projects in Arroyo Grande, that may fur her the PSl- H and City mutual affordable housing goals. Sincerely, Dieter E ert, President 3533 Emp leo Street San Luis Obispo, olil:orn a 93401 � �c r a tr eet TES.: (805) 781 -3088 Santa Barbara, C alif ornia 93101 FAX. (805) 544 -1901 TEL: (805) 962 -5152 E -mail: admin@pskkc.org pskhc.or FAX: (805) 962.8152 www.pshkc.org Email. s6office@pshhc.or PAR A. INCORP014ATE imy Ia. toll MEMORANDUM To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR of LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES./CITY CLERK 1--ow SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NOVEMBER 9, 2010, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS .a., 9.1b. are 9.C. DATE: NOVEMBER , 1 Attached is correspondence received today from Fussell S. Read, representing Cookie Crock Warehouse Alpine colony Enterprises, Inc., regarding the public hearing items on the November 9, 2010 City Council Agenda. c: City Manager Director of community Development City Attorney 11 11:54 8059272344 SS.$ELL E D PAGE 01 RUSSELL S. READ Attorney Mediator 8z Counselor PO Box 910 Cambria, CA 93428 Tel &pax: (905) 927-2344 rscottread@gmaii.com Dated: /// e 46 � *Vvt 4:7vpoyo) 10 - Name: )4r7wk)0 ttCAA Address: � Please makc an appointment Please telephone. I hav bem unable to contact you. Please sign w here indicated and return to . In accordance w ith your ire ue t. REC�� Nov 08 2010 ARCp Y CL,ER'��E E ARE SENDING HE E91 ". i PAGES, j CAE THIS PAGE - Ir THESE ARE NO RE CEIVED, 'PLEASE CALL (845) 927 -2344_ The Pwa mallen :oallalmA 'n 1% Nm rnosaW is inr : rsd Cray ro# Me � I and Qw lm %at of the 40%0'%W1% MCO5hu newt e6awe, Tift fn rmay be an elomey -dom4 cummAP - - anI a:atrhJW, D,�ederkl0WOMlaf. iru*mo car iatlhismemw @L W Inc erne ed 19CV0 or an agem mWqV D it r2; QtHwMV 1 lO It IQ irANW &a t you we hyray notf W " yce Rave -oce"d 1W 4tournfinl in ear aad 4hal WV mv*w. &% rngim fthlbi 6n, or moymp of lhir, ma uqp 15 w=ly prLMUO. I you here ravOvad P& Comm umeoll in onw, " +n? * oe 1mmeffiately by w~(nc Aryl mwn tho QVRW Fsi nip to was by +rs�l. TW—R you. file original(s) CpX1�pT�'X1 CO � Please � °iG py {ies), and return in enclosed v stamped envelope. � � Q- 7Sa— P 01 For your information. For your review. - v -p,CA lai, 0 Q-� � � � L ``' Please tape axe if you have any questions. . cheek in the mount of enclosed. .En closcd please �1.t.�lcs Poe Other: Very Truly Yours, Russell S. Read ee; 4 ze 7 :S 3P6 11/0 1 1 ■ 5 8059472344 LISSEL READ PAGE 0 Cookie Crock Warehouse Alpine Colony E Inc. 1221 E. Grand Ave. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Tel: (805) 927 -1303 FAX. (805) 427 -1629 11/ 1 Arroyo Grande City Council . rro •o Grande. C Mr ( B y personal delivery; and e-mail Rey Meeting of 11/9/201 Consideration of Specific P1 are Amendment 10-00 1 -, Agenda Item 9 (This statement is also subs s irted and should be made a pert of ` the record for Items 9 and 9C. Dear Council Members Sun rn ry of Position: We ask the Councl-I t • Decay the s pecific plan ame ndment. Alternative 4 1. Ilie amendment obviously contradicts the General Plan as stated in the Staff Memo and is unnecessary and undesirable. • Disapprove the Mitigated Negative Declaration. MN . It is flawed is some vffy significant respects. Den the Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and Tentative Parcel Map. Items and . We think- the housing project should have been given priority in the planning oft is whole pr Q ject. Affordable housing is a priority uader both State and low law. Sri much so fai t concessions are a llowed such as set achy. and parking sp aces b ut only t ensure th e financial i ill # o f the housing p roject. Any. rLbef in terms of setbacks or pares will benefit only NKT (aka Ni Tompkins) a nd a] lo w it to build its Food 4 Less project. There is zero evidence the requested relief will ensure the financial feasibility of the PSHH project. NKT allocated the entire Parcel betw the two Subareas for its benefit not to ensure the vi of die P SHH p roject- Because NKT is proposing this Specific Man Amendment, it is not too late to d emand a more livable housing . project, one that is not `` tt i ed' by inadequate parking �, proximity to a Food ' required (with 68 covered) vs. 54 urcovered in the proposal; A 30% reduction overall and 100% reduction in co vered spaces, with no spaces f T guest parking. ,8 2 010 11: 5 4 8059272344 RUS L LRE D PAGE 03/0 4 Less, and a 3 ' ft =a l ess than 0' f some rear w nid , which, in tm, will cxeate tunnel, or canvo , effect for the ov%imers of homes whose rear walls face north. It would fit the General Plan and enhance the existing neighborhood to allocate another 5% to Subarea 4. Adding an additional 30' -50# to Subarea 4 would make an enormous difference in the aesthetic value. livability and marketability of the homes. The reason this Specific Plan Amendment is being proposed is simple: NKT grants its Food Less. We ask the Council to not be s Aratyed b y the millions of dollars that has chang hands between NKT and the City (200 East Branch, 208 East Branch, Soo Ew Branch, etc.) Because NKT sold Subarea 4 to the City who. ixi turn sold it to PSG, the City can force NKT to allocate between the two Subareas ire a way that would be e ru e enbancement for the City. To do ot er rlse wou be a d e f f ac to and fl legal amtandment of the General Plan. A-b out Us: The p Food 4 less N11 have a dev astating im on our grocery business, especially because the area is already saturated Vnth g rocery stores. our store, Cookie Crock Warehouse, is located 3 blocks east. We are a maior employer in San Luis Obispo County with stores in Morro Bay and Cambia. Our Arroyo ode store has been in operation since 1997 when we subleased the facility from V on s . We arc located two blocks cast of Spencer's Market on Grand Avenue which also will be damaged by the project. ne sarne can be said for many existing restaurants and businesses in the area, some of which already are experiencing blight & the result of NKT. (F example, he will not grant Mores in our center anything more than a one year lease.) It a ppears to us that NKT is acting for the City's I ede - velop .ent Ag ency by causing blight and d riving down the v alue of businesses so the City doesn't need to pear their owners fair market value. If the City approves this application under these circumstances, we must consider it t to inverse condemnation. N ick Tompkins is our landlord. FOT months he's made hall'- hearted offers to boxy us out. Even those offers have dried -up now t .at he has a Food 4 Less in his sights. O Ther Defects. Separate Environmental S urveys are required for the P SHH and NkT `o d Less proi ct . Cal.Pub.Re .C. Section 21065. The City has an obligation to investigate potential enT.ironmental i mpacts of each project and cannot weigh those impacts without a survey. G ive n the permanent nt and substantial en rotme t impacts of the NKT /Food 4 Les project, an E nvironmental Impact Report should be prepared. Ca .Pub.Res.C. Section 21151. We believe N.4ND shoves are undue bias touwd N K' _ The mass and scare ofthe NKr' Food Less project will have significant permanent injuries to surrounding conmerci l and .residential uses (especially the PSHH project) in terns of air duality, odor, noise., glare, and traffic. The Council should note that the 4 I . Transportation Impact Study' on which the Staff relie t determine the project will have no o r less than significant impact on traffic, did not consider the possibility of a 24 hour Food 4 Less. In fact, the "grocery store" in the study was assumed to be 14,000 square Meet, not the 50,000 - 59,500 NKT proposes. Also the Council should mote that Staff determined the NKT/Food 4 Less project would have "I s than significant impact with mitigation" w ith respect to the exis6mg land use plans only if .0. The Council shou in a reta�inin ail will b bu��t � i�t bounda �� betwee tl� ubar+eas. 2 11:54 8059272344 RUSSELLREAD PACE 04/98 the p roject were to conform to the guidelines for Mixed Use, or element L of the General Plan including Provide for diversity is - grocery store in an area already saturated with roes stores obviously does not.) L -1 B e compatible in size and scale with the rural setting and small town setting of the CI . U 5 � .26 a Not adversely erect existing commerc4al commercial uses. U - . In this respect, it is incredible fl at NKT continues to provide zero discussion of the project's adverse impact on existing businesses such as our own. This was a major point of discussion at the Plannin C Y.)Ii The P S1414 development w ould need to conform to 1 2- , including orienting multi -- family buildings as right an g ]. es. LU12-4. 1. Finally* it is impo rtant to note that no E nviro nmental Study was ever done with respect to the commercial and housing projects separately and any weaknesses in the MND rn be attributed to both projects. We are submitting sepairate s tatements on Items 9B and 9C and ask mat they he made Fart of th o record from Itern 9A. We ask the Council to reject the Plan Amendment and ask NAT to redraw the boundary line between the t wo Subareas so th those who occupy the SHH can truly enjoy their homes and the citizens of o ra, de end up with a development that truly enhances the City. `tful Al C%e+dy Ent 'ses, Inc. b* Russell S. Read P, its Gen Council c: Vons Companies 3 11/08/2010 11:54 8059272344 RUSSELLREAD PAGE 05/08 Cookie Crock Warehouse Alpine Colony Enterpn'ses, Inc. 1221 E. Grand Ave. Anatro Grande, CA 93420 Tel: (805) 927 -1302 FAX: (805) 927 -1629 11/8/2010 Arroyo Grande Clay Council An-oyo Grande, C (B personal delivery. and e-mail) ffl Re: Meeting of 11 /9/2010 Tentative Parcel Map I -o 1: CUP 10-00 1 Agenda Ite B (This statement is also bait and should be made apart of the record for Items and 9C.) Dear Couricil Members: Sum ary of Position: We ask the Council to deny the Tentative Parcel Map 10-0001 and the CUP. Altemative#1 . We agree NNith the lanning Commission and with Staff that the project - violates the Cite 4 s General Plan, the Berry* Gardens Specific Plan (including the 2005 Amendment) and the .fast Grand Avenue r ancement Plan (EGEP) but suggest the Council reference those violations in the Resolution. including, • Inadequate Minimum Lot Size. 13GSP. Inadequate l air in . CTSP . Inadequate setbacks from streets and ad j a ent properties. L 1 -2. GA P; BGSP • Failing to provide for diversity (which addling a mega-grocery store in an area saturated ith grocery stores obvlousl { does not.) LU - l Incompatible in size and scale dth the rural setting and small town sefting sifting of the City. LU • Adverse affect on existing eon ner ial uses. L - . In this respect, it is incredible that NKT continues to mvid e-r o discussion of the project" s adverse impact on existing businesses such as our own. This was a major point of discussion at the Planning Commission. • Inadequate buffering between commercial and residential use. L111 1. . The additional ] W strip being offered between the Food 4 Less and the pS H project will not avoid the fact that the S project is - "gh tt led" by .inadequate parking proximity to a Food Less, and a 30'ft wall less than) 20" frorn their windows, which., tUM, will create a canyon, or tunnel, effect for the owners of homes whose rear walls face north. Adding an ' require. (with 6 8 covered) vs. 5 4 uncovered in the proposal- A .30% reduction overall and 100% reduction in covered spaces, with no spaces for guesi parking. 1 1 r' 08 .tF 201 11:54 8059272344 R U� LL R E A D PAGE 06/08 additional 30"-50' to Subarea 4 wou mak an enormous difference in the aesthetic value. livability and marketabilitv of the homes, Conflicts with existin . } l nts in tenns of size and scale. LU 11-2-2. Failure to p rovide mixed residential and commercial uses along Mixed Use Corridors. Lu - l1, Separate Envirorumental Surveys are re uit d for the PSHH and NKT ood 4 Less projects. Cal, ub.l e . . Section 21065. The C v. has an obligation to investigate potential environmental impacts of each project and cannot weigh those impacts w it ,out a surrey. Given the permanent and substantial nvironmental impacts of the NKT/ Food 4 Less project, an nviron ent l Impact Report should be e r ... Cal.Pub. l . . Section 2 1151 . We request that the Council disapprove this application due to the flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration VVINB) for the pr}ct. See our statements on Items 9A and 9C for details. We have submitted separate letters with respect to Agenda Items 9A and 9 C and ask that each b e made a part of the official record on t his Item 9B. We ask the Coon r o d r the Tentative Parcel Map 10-0001 and the CUP. lsc ne o me ri s, oc. pu ll S. Read Its General Council cc: Vons Companies 2 11/0a/2010 11:54 8059272344 ELLREAD PAGE 07/0 Cookie Crock Warehouse Alpine Colony E Inc. 1221 E. Grand Ave. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 T el: (80 927 -1 302 X: 927 -1629 11/8/2010 Arroyo Grande City Council Arroyo Grande, C (By personal deliver; and a -ma . R. Mee of 11/9/20 CUP 10-003; Agenda Item 9 C - Mis statement is also submitted and should be made a pmt o the record for Items 9Ak and B. Tear Council Members: We ask the Council to deny the OUP and not adopt the MN D. We agree With the l r . C ommission and Staff that the proiect contravenes the Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP) due to: Inadequate P arking . BGSP. 86 requ ired (with 68 o ere ) ors. 54 uncovered in the p rop osed plan. A 3 0% reduction overall and 1 reduction i covered spaces, with n spaces for g uest parking. Inadeq setbacks from streets and adjacent residential properties. LU 11-2.3; EGA EP; GS • Inadequate buffering between commercial and presidential use. LLB I 1 - . The additional l o" strip between the Food 4 Less and the PSHH project will not avoid the fact that the PSHI project is "ghettoized" b * inadequate parking proximity to the Food Less (especially its lauding doc k), and a 3 ' gall less than 20' from some w indows. creating uunnel or can on, of t _for homes whos rear w alls face north. adding an additional o' -Soy to Su barea 4 would make an enormous difference in the aesthetic va lue, livability and marketability y of the PSHH homes. Inadeq co for it y w ith LLB 4, it clod orienting multi-family buildings as right angles LU 12 _ 1 W e request that the Council disapprove the CUP due to the flawed Mitigated Negativ Declaration MN for the project. It-is noteworthy that no nviromnental Spey for the P SHH project has been done. Separate nN�ronm ntal S vey are required for the PSHH and NKT F od 4 Less projects. C l- Pub.Res.C. Section 21065. The City has an obligation t investigate potential environmental impacts of each project and cannot weigh those impacts without a survey. Without such .a s urvey, certain adver impacts oaxmot be weighed such as the 0 rn aot of the project on local property values, the im t on p roperty values if the Councl � ' t 201 0 11: 5 4 8059272344 RUSSELLREAD PAGE allows the project to be gb ttol ed, and certain environmental darna a to the PSHH project caused by KT's Food Less project. A survey would need to consider altematives such as increasing the size of Subarea. 4 by d r asing Subarea 3 and the option of ttying not to jars too much commercial development on Subarea 3. See our staternent for Item 9A for more details. We have submitted separate statement with respect to Agenda Item 9 A and 9B and ask that each b e made a part of the record on this Item 9C. W e ask the C oun ci l to reject the CUP and re quire NKT to redraw the boundary line bet ween the two Subareas s that hose who occupy the P SHH project can truly enjoy their homes and th e eifi ens of Arroyo Grande crud up with a development that truly enhances the City. We ask that the it r demand a e environmental report for the PSG project and disapprove o the existins�-�D. Iy; Sfbmitteof I Al e Colo*W r scs Inc. y Russell S, Read its General Cowicil ores Comp anies 2 A NRRO�6 W POAATE :II ky 10, l o ll , / * c+` %44; MEMORANDUM To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES CITY CLERK *Z SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N OVEMBER 9, % CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 9^ .b., and 9 . C . DATE: NOVEMBER 8,2010 Attached is correspondence received today from Tony Ferrara regarding the public gearing items on the November r g, 2010 City Council Agenda. c: City Manager Director of Community Development City Attorney Tony Ferrara 1490 Blackberry Avenue Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ....... CD CD Date: November 8, 2010 To: M Pro=Tem Guthrie ~ =' Council Member Costello *# { Council Member Fellows Council Member Bay ;- From: Tony Ferrara Subject: Public Hearings Regarding Courtland and Grand Ave. INTRODUCTION Once again, please rote that I are submitting this letter as a "private citizen" and not as a member of the Council. I am hopeful that you have given this matter good deal of thought and that your decision will be to support the Planning Commission's unanimous denial. Perhaps the most compelling reason as Mated by the Planning Commission, is the gross inconsistencies with the Arroyo Grande General Plan, existing Berry Gardens Specific Plan, as well as the objectives and principles of the Gateway Mixed Use district as relates to pedestrian activity and the promotion of the "boulevard" development of Grand Avenue. a The proposed amendment to the B SP that allows for a 51,000sf Food -4- Less, demonstrates the clear abandonment of planning principles as relates to `size, scale, and intensity of use." The lack of adherence to the BGSP sans the amendments has resulted in the submittal of two projects that are radically incompatible with each other as well as the surroundinn existing development. ECONOMIC IMPACT: The city's General Plan - Economic Element sets forth the following edict on page ED -1: "First and foremost the existing job base needs to be nurtured an p rotected" Regarding economic impacts, please keep in mini the following: Page Two November 8, 201 The Economic Element is a tool the City can and has used to determine the specific category and location of commercial development as well as its size and scale. Existing grocery stores within the immediate area currently employ over 130 Arroyo Grande residents. Many of these employees have tenure, benefits, and heed -of- household jobs. They and their families contribute to our community and our economy. • It is logical to envision the loss of those jobs and even store closures with the opening of a Food 4 Less in an area already saturated with grocery stores. Food 4 Less will hire new employees at the "entry level' with few benefits. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS: 'l. 1 believe that both the PSHH and N T projects should live within their means with regard to the available space within their respective sub - areas. This is clearly not the case with these project submittals. 2. The traffic and noise impacts have not been adequately explored, the submitted study notwithstanding. Turning movements, the configuration of Courtland both north and south of Grand, the queuing of traffic on Grand between Courtland and Oak Park, and the large delivery truck circulation relative to Courtland Street, have not been thoroughly studied. The IVIN does not accurately portray these impacts CONCLUSION: 1. The city should commit to working with N T and PSHH to ensure that a better project is brought forth for both sub - areas. 2. The project as submitted represents a drastic departure from the basic philosophy of the City as relates to size, scale, and intensi 3. The project as submitted is in conflict with our General Plan and other planning doctrine. 4. This council and the City will drastically and negatively chance the character of Grand Avenue forever. This is a pivotal decision that will shape the leqacy of the Council. 5. Please uphold the Planning Commission's decision. There is a better project out here. Let's work hard to find it. W tO MEMORANDUM ANDUM M .ULV 10, 1011 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERE A MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: RYAN FASTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER I�f S UBJECT: hl IDERATI I OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10 AND CO NDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 -001; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER of EAST GRAND "Ehl E AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLICANT — NKT COMMERCIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 9 201 RECOMMENDATION: The Pla Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map 10-001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001. If the City C ouncil app roves the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the City Cou ncil refer the altern site plan to the Planning Commi ssion for review. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has developed reprised sales tax projections, h i h are now based upon typical per sq uare are foot sa les tax figures by use provided by the Citys redevelopment consulta These figures are conservative because staff used the low end of the range provided b the consultant for each use. Pad A and D are assumed to be retail, but sales tax can v ary substantially based upon the specific tenant. Based on this data the proposed project 'I's estimated to generate r $100,000 annually in sales tax revenue. The alternative plan is projected to generate approximately 1 0, 000 in sales tax revenue. Under either scenario, staff estimates that somewhere in the range of $30,000 to $40 , 000 of the revenue would be transferred f rom other businesses in the Cily and would not be new net reven However, this is based on staff's prelimina assumptions regarding where shoppers would transfer from and is not based on any statistical su rvey i nformation . Therefore, it should be presumed to be a less reliable estimate than the overall sales tax projections,, It is also estimated that the project will provide $25,000 in annual property tax reven to the City $36,000 in annual tax increment revenue to the Redevelopment Agency, and a one -time payment to the Redevelopment ment Agency of approximately 1 , 000 for reimbursement of oosts for constructio of the Poplar Pending Basin. Finally, the total estimated permit and development impact fee reven is $1.32 million. This revenue is Agenda Item 9.b. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10-001 AND CUP 10-001 NOVEMBER 9 PAGE 2 desi to reimburse the Cit for It's expenses, and to cover, the, co,sts to mifi CUMUlatIve impacts, of development, In the comimunit A Item 9.b. Pa 2 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10 -001 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 3 Prom,ect Description The proposed project will develop a total of 58,831 square -feet of commercial space. This consists of a 3,750 square -foot commercial building in the northwest portion of the site, a 4,2D0 square -foot restaurant in the northeast portion of the site, at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street and a 50 881 square- foot commercial building located at the rear of the site, with Food 4 Less having been identified as the anchor tenant. The Food 4 Less building will operate 24 hours a day and includes a loading area on the eastern side of the building, adjacent to South Courtland Street. R combination pedestrian path/emergency access road runs along the western side of the Food 4 Liss building, which includes Fire Department - approved bollards at each end. The proposed project includes a total of 196 off - street parking spaces, which is consistent with the provisions of Speck Plan Amendment 10-001. The proposed project includes two (2) revisions that were not considered by the Planning Comm issivn: a ten (110) foot rear yard setback and a reconfigured driveway on South Gaurtland Street, Architectural Review Committee Review The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed proposed plans for development of Subarea 3 at its meeting of July 6, 2010 Attachment 1), recommending approval of the project with the following conditions: ■ Defer approval of signage for Pads A and 6 until the tenants are known Incorporate alternative patio design with fountain on corner "Pad B" (conceptual landscape altern tive . Maximize articulation on the southeast exterior Food4less wall to minimize A ual impact to s properties. • Incorporate additional screening measures for rooftop equipment on project buildings (place any noisy equipment as far away from property line as possible ). • Place truck delivery sound barrier wall in position that allows softening landscaping on the south side as well as the north side. • Encourage the City to look at one more Pad site (located in between Pad A and Pad B along Grand Ave.) through adjusting parking requirements based upon the ether features of the project. Specific project plan text is accepted, although recog nize that plan tent may have to be amended to be compatible with ARC recommendations. Return rn p roje t to AFDC for informational update once current CEQA document is re a lved , Agenda Item 9.b. Page 3 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10.001 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9 2010 PAGE 4 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed proposed plans for development of Subarea 3 at its meeting of September 7, 2010 (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed project due primarily to concerns with the mass and scale of the anchor building (Food 4 Less), its visual impacts on Subarea 4 and it inconsistency with the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (EGAEP). The following findings are from the Planning Commission Resolution ution that recommends denial of Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10-001: The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character of the Gateway Mixed -Use zoning disftict as it is not consistent with adjacent development with regard to mass and scale. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: Legislative vs. Judicial Acts Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one of three categories legislative, quasi-judicial or ministerial: Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates, zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local lair — rules that apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California law, legislative acts are subject to initiative and referendum. Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created th rough legislative acs ) to projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are d isoretionary based on the decision-makers ers interpretation and application of policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or referendum. • Ministerial acts are these that requ ire no discretion on the part of the local government, such as the mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are met. The proposed project is aquasi- judicial action — if approved, it will grant the property owner entitlements to develop the property in substantial conformance with the approved plans, subject to any conditions of approval. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 4 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10 -001 AND CUP 10.001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 5 Consistency with 2005 Specific Plan Amendment Staff has analysed the proposed project to determine its consistency with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan (BGSP) as it was amended in 2005. The proposed project is inconsistent with the following development standards for Subarea 3 as amended in 2005: Minimum Lot Size The minimum lot size in the 2005 amendment is , 000 square-feet. The proposed project includes an 11, 616 square-foot lot, which is below this minimum standard. • Front Yard Setback The minimum (rant yard setback in the 2005 amendment is 5'. The two (2) buildings proposed at the front of the site adjacent to East Grand Avenue are set back less than 5' from the property line. • Parking The parking ratio in the 2005 amendment requires a total of 243 spaces based an the sizes and uses of the proposed buildings. The proposed plan includes a total of 196 parking spaces based on a parking ratio of one ('I) space for every 340 square -feet of building area, regardless of use. The proposed project i s consistent with the development standards for Subarea 3 as described in Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 (processed concurrently). Deli n Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts and East G rand Avenue Enhan Plan The Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts DGSM U were adopted by the C ity Council in 2004, after the City's mixed -use zoning districts were created. The DGSMU DG references the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan E AEP , which was drafted and circulated in 2002, prior to creation of the Cit mixed -use zoning districts. The design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed -Use Districts (DGSMUD) provide site and building design requirements and architectural concepts. The following excerpts pertain to the commercial development of Subarea 3: Include special l treated pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to buildings. Buildings should enclose streets, plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined and walkable blocks. Building placement, s treetscape elements and landscaping Agenda Item 9.b. Page 5 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10 -001 AND CUP 10.001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 6 each define the public realm. Consideration should be given to connectivity between adjacent developments. Projects should integrate porches, balconies, decks and seating areas that are located to promote pedestrian use of the street edge by providing weather protection, comfort security. and safety. Design shall incorporate handicap accessible access, considerations for walkers (e.g. lockers), bicyclists (e.g. bilge racks) and transit patrons. Parking rig shall be located array from East G rand A venue and shared by multiple owners/users,, The desired configurations and locations for off - street parking lots, in order of preference are; Shared double- loaded aisle to side or rear of building partially en -site and partially off -site on neighboring panel; o Shared off -site or public parking lot within Soo feet; o Double-loaded aisle to side, rear, above or below building on -site. Buildings shall be two to three stories with active fronts e.g. articulated entries, detailed facades). A three -story component may be appropriate within a project located on a large lot and when it can be appropriately integrated considering adjacent buildings and uses. The maximum height of a building should not exceed 35 feet except if additional height is needed to accommodate a design . feature that contributes to both the character of the building and the surrounding area, and if upper - floors are recessed a nd /o r mass i ng is well articulated. For example, an additional story or tower element on a building at a Ivey intersection may delineate a corner landmark building. • Ground floors should have clear articulation and a tall ceiling height (e.g. 10-15 feet.), and have a high percentage fenestration (arrangement of windows/doors — 40 -fib ° /a of the facade ). Awnings and overhangs are encouraged. Emphasize three-dimensional detailing on fa ades such as corn ioes, window moldings, and reveals to cast shadows and create visual interest on the fa ade. The purpose of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (EGAEP) is to "define a design framework for both future public improvements and further private developments that will enhance the functions and aesthetics of this particular area [properties adjacent to East Grand Avenue] "' The following objectives of the EGAE P apply to the commercial development of Subarea Agenda Item 9.b. Page 6 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10 -001 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 7 Provide for a diversity of reta i I and service commercial, offices, residential and other compatible uses, in size and scale to fit the "rural setting and small town character" of Arroyo Grande, without duplication of the function or character of other commercial areas Plan for a revitalized East Grand Avenue iced -lase corridor that has less of a strip commercial aspect and more consistent, coordinated mixed-use boule a rd ambiance with district activity su bareas; Highway, Midway and Gateway. include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encou travel by walking, bicycling and transit as well as automotive access, along the entire corridor. Prcrnote development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage with rear yard and side street parking. ing. Include substantial landscaping and str etscape improvements. Propose functional design including specialized open space such as square courtyards and plazas whose frequent use is enoou th rough placement and design such as proximity to public transit stops. Allow density bonuses and shared or public parking reduction to increase development intensity and enable more efficient utilization. Propose designs for aft ract i re streetscape including street trees and other landscaping, building fa ade improvements, better signage and more consistent and coordinated development design, including fearer driveways and enhancement of off- street parking areas. When the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed pro ject, it cited concerns with the proposed site plan being inconsistent with the DGMUD and E AER primarily due to the placement of a large building at the rear of the site, behind a large parking lot rather than concentrating buildings at the front of the site to hide parking and create a pedestrian - friendly atmosphere along East Grand Avenue. The Commission did not provide specific recommend for an appropriate buffer distance or appropriate building sizes /placement. Any restrictions relating to setbacks, building sire and/or placement should be incorporated into the specific plan; however, these issue can be considered as part of the Conditional Use Permit review, sinoe one of the required findings for approval relates to how the proposed project will impact the existing character of the surrounding area. In response to these concerns, the applicant has revised the site plan to provide a ten ( 10) foot rear yard setback, which also necessitated revision of the South cou rtfand Street d ri ve way (Attach rye nts . Agenda Item 9.b. Page 7 CITY COUNCIL TPM 10 -001 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2070 PAGE Traffic Impacts Complete build -out of both Subareas 3 and 4 'I's anticipated to generate a total of 7,484 average daily trip DT , with 334 AM and 737 PSI peak hour trips. Due to improvements made in the vicinity over the past several yea rs, which anticipated substantial development of the project site, this increase in average daily trips is not expected to cause a substantial impact to traffic. In fact, the greatest peak hour delay is anticipated to be g. 3 seconds at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland S treet, occurring during the PM peek hour. This delay will red uce the existing level of service (LOS) at that intersection from '13' to 'C'; however, the LOS stand for that intersection is 'C' and therefore this reduction des not constitute a significant impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act E A . The traffic engineer Sri I l be present at the meeting to answ any questions related to traffic impact. Rear Setback Reguirements The proposed project now includes a 10" rear setback to address concerns identified by the Planning Comm ission. This setback is consistent with both the existing Berry Gardens S pecific Plan (BGS P and Specific P la n Amendment 10 -001. Specific Plan standards supersede zoning requirements. As identified in the Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 staff report, the Gateway Mixed-Use MU ) zoning district a I logs a o' -1 ' rea r yard setback, u n less adjacent to a resid ential district, i n which case the residential setback shall apply. Therefore, if this standard were applied to Subarea (considering Subarea 4 is essentially a Multi-Family Apartment FA district), an average setback of 15' would be required (15' is the minimum required rear y ard setback in the M FA zoning district). Operating Hours (Food 4 . Less The proposed Feed 4 Less grocery store would operate twenty-four 4 hours a day- The it "s Development Code defines extended hour retail as "any business that is open to the public between the hours of 11: oo PM and 6:00 AM." Extended hour retail uses are allowed in the Gateway Mixed-Use (GM U) district with approval of a M inor Use Permit, or in this case, Conditional Use Permit higher levels of review can be substituted for lager levels of review, but not vice versa). Alternative Site Plan In response to concerns identified by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed proj-ect, staff req uested the applicant provide an alternative site plan that would add these concerns (Attachment . In response to this request, the applicant has submitted an alternative site plan (Attachments that has been deemed feasible, but is not the Proposed project. No specific tenants have been identified to occupy the buildings in the alternative plan at this time. Food 4 Less would no longer be the anchor tenant; however, the an chor would likely be another grocery stone accord ing to the applicant. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 8 ciTr COUNCIL TPM 10 -007 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 9 The alternative plan is more consistent with the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan (EGAEP), as it decreases the size of the building at the rear of the property, increases the size of both buildings at the East Grand Avenue frontage, and adds a 7,000 square- foot building that provides frontage along Courtland Street. In addition, it provides for a more conventional driveway at South Courfland Street, aligned with the driveway to the commercial center on the other side of the street. As with the proposed project, the alternative provides a to n 10 foot rea r yard setback i n an attempt to add ress. Plan n i rig Commission concerns regarding a buffer between com mercial and residential uses, but it does not fully address the Commission"s Commission" conce regarding the visual impacts of a 310+ long gall to Subarea 4. In order to further expand the setback, staff investigated with the applicant the potential of either roving the building forward or relocating the building to the crest side of the property. The building cannot be moved forward on the site without creati a conflict between the d riveway and the driveway of the commercial center on the other side of South Courtland Street. Moving the build ing to the west side of the property likely eliminates the practical feasibility of the Pad A building as proposed, as there would be no parking adjacent to that building. Moving the building all the way to the front of the property is difficult given the grade of site. Meanwhile, the applicant believes that any further reduction of the size of the Pad C building rou ld likely eliminate the ability to attract an anchor store that would he sufficient to attract desirable tenants to the Pad A Pad E and Pad D buildings. Groce[y Shopper Su Trey The applicant has commissioned a survey to determine grocery shopper preferences in south San Luis Obispo County. The methodology used to conduct the s u r~vey is attached (Attachment . The applicant will present the results at the meeting after they receive the final report from the survey consultant. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the project would address the Planning Commission's concems with the proposed project relating to setbacks, building m ass and scale and consistency with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts i D and East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan E AEP . Referral of the alternative plan to the Planning Commission will provide an opportunity to consider a revised project designed to add these concerns, while potentially enabling the site to be developed in order to rovid We an important economic development opportunity. DISADVANTAGES: While lc the project has raised concerns regarding its consistency with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed-Use Districts DGSM U D and East G Avenue Enhancement Plan E AEP , denial Will preclude development of proposed street front buildings, including a restaurant, which are clearly encouraged in the DGSMUD and EGAE P. Denial of the project will forestall an economic development opportunity during very difficult economi conditions, precl uding tine creation of new jobs and sources of Agenda Item 9.b. Page 9 cirY couNciL TPM 10-001 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 RAGE 10 revenue. Finally, while the alternative plan with a smaller anchor tenant would be more consistent with the DGSMUD and E AE P, it would also be likely to attract most of its customers from a isti ng local g rocery s to res whereas Food 4 Less would be more likel to attract some of its customers from stores outside of the area, such as Costco and Food 4 Less in San Luis Obispo, thus helping to bring new business traffic to the East Grand Avenue corridor. ENVIRONMENTAL F E IE : In aec rd ante with the California Environmental ual it Act (CE QA) staff has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIND) for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001. Because the proposed project is consistent with the project described in the i I D prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001, no further environmental re fe r is required, as the potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified and reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation measures in the MND,, If the MND is not adopted, the proposed project cannot be approved at this time. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS. notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project site and also published ire the Tribune on Friday, ctoper 22, 2010. As of November } 010, staff has received eig ht 0 letters reg arding the p roposed p ro ject (Attach ment . ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution, den i ng Tentative Pa rcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 without prejudice as recommended by the Planning Commission; 2. if Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 is approved, do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to a pprove Tentative Parcel Map 10-001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 as proposed and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; 3. If Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 is approved do not adept the attached Resolution ution and direct staff to present the alternative plan to the Planning Commission for consideration; 4. De not adopt the attached Resolution, direct the applicant to make revisions to the project and Continue consideration of the project to a date uncertain; or Provide direction to staff. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 10 CITY COUNCIL TRM 10 -001 AND CUP 10 -001 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE '11 Attachments: 1. ARC meeting rotes, July 6, 2010 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes, September 7, 2010 3. Letter from eppli a nt, dated October 29, 2 010 4. Letter from traffic engineer, dated September 24, 2010 5. Letter to app lira rat, dated October 5, 2010 6. Letter from applicant, dated [November 1 , 10 7. Alternative site plan S Grocery shopper surrey methodology 9. Public comment letters 10, Draft conditions of e p prova I Agenda Item 9.b. Page 11 1�3�1M ;l:Ce7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO F AI DE DENYI TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-001 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND ADEN U E ADD SOUTH COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR N KT COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the applicant has subm ittod an application for Tentative Parcel Map 10-00 1 and Conditional Use Permit 10-001 to subdivide 4.47 acres into three parcels and construct a 3,750 square -foot commercial building, a 4,200 square-foot restaurant and a 50,881 squ grocery store its Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo G has adopted a Resolution reoom ending that the City Council deny Tentative Parcel Map 10-001 and Conditional Use Permit 10-001,, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Tentative Panel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Perm it 10 -001 at a d my noticed public head ng in accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Arroyo Grande on November 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, EAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, as follows: Co nditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo G rande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the city. The proposed use does not comply with the de lop on t policies containe in B erty Gardens Specific Plan — specifically as they rela to implementation of the Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use D is tricts and the East Grand Avenu Enhancement Plan doe to the placement of a large building at the rear of the site, away fmm the Eas Grand Avenue tentage and behind a parking lot, whereas those d ocumen ts dire t that buildings be sited to "'enclose the s treet a n d contribute to Drell- defined and wai blocks and that parking lots be located behind buildings 2. The proposed use would n impair the integrity and cha racter of the district in which it is to be estab lished or located Agenda Item 9.b. Page 12 RESOLUTION LUTI ON . PAGE The proposed use would impair the inte r y and character of the Gateway Mixed -Use GM zoning district, whose stated purpose is to 'Provide for the combination of financial institutions, retail, office and commercial arses and multi-family residences with retail and other pedestrian-oriented arses on the ground floors f structures fronting East Grand Avenue, and residential units or offices allowed on upper floors as placing the majority ommer is l sp a ce a t the rear e t the site , 881 square -fee t p rovides only minimal a estri n ra n to d uses fronting East Grand Avenue. W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Tentative Parcel flap 10-001 and Conditional Use Permit 10-001 based on the above findings. On motion by ou n it Member fol l n roll ,call vote, to wit: sanded by oun it Member * and by the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 9 th day of November, 2010. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONIC FERRARA MAYO ATTEST. KELLY WETMORE,, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT; STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM TIMOTHY J. CARMEL,, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 9.b. Page 14 ATTACHMENT I GRAFT MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ARC) TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2010 The meeting of the City of Arroyo G Ar h ite t u ra l R eview Committee was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Chair Hoag. ROLL CALL! P resent were Committee Members Marcy Betita, Toni Goss, Kyle Harris, Vice Chair alike Pea hey, and Chair Hoag. APPROVAL SAL of MINUTES: Minutes from June 7,2010 Mr. Harris moved and Ms. Betita seoonded approval of minutes as submitted. Motion ap proved: /o voice vote. 1. PUBLIC old MENT: None [I. PROJECTS: A. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 10-001, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP '1 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 -001; APPLICANT — N T COMMERCIAL /o NICK TOMPI IN ; REPRESENTATIVE E ENTATIVE — CAROL FLORENCE, OASIS ASSOCIATES INC.; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER of EASE' GRAND AVENUE AN OUTH COU TLAND STREET Mr. Peachey stepped down for this item, as he is the one of the architects for the project. Associate Planner Fn Foster presented the staff report. Carol Florence, representative of applicant, described and spoke in support of the project. Project a rch ttect M ika P each e of MW Arch ite to re described the pr eat . f Project architect Timothy Sheal of Sheall and Associates described the pro'ec!- Scott Smith of the Peoples Self Help Housing development on the neig hboting southern. property presented a letter detailing a list of concerns associated with the project. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 15 AFDC MINUTES JULY 6 2010 PAGE Bruce Fraser o f Fraser Seiple Architects., representing Peoples Self Help Housing, described arch itectu ral concerns with the pro jest. ARC members asked questions and made comments regarding the project. Mr. Harris made a motion, seconded by Mr. Goss, to recommend to the City Council approval of the p roject with the following cord itionsire ommendations: Defer approval of signage for Pads A and B until the tenants are known. Incorporate alternative patio design with fountain on comer "Pad B" (conceptual landscape alternative). . Maximize articulation on' the southeast exterior Food4less wall to minimize visual impact to surrounding properties. • Incorporate additional screening measu for rooftop equipment on project buildings (place any noisy equipment as far away from property line as possible). • Place truck delivery sound barrier wall in position that allows softening landscaping on the south side as well as the north side. • Encourage the City to look at one more Pad site (located in between Pad A and Pad B along Grand Ave.) through adjusting parking requirements based upon the other featu of the project. Specific project plan text is accepted, although recognize that plan text may have to be amended to be compatible with ARC recommendations. Return project to ARC for informational update once current E A document is received. The motion was approved on a -o voice vote. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 # VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 10- 00 ; APPLICANT --- N T COMMERCIAL CIO NICK ToIIIIPI INS; REPRESENTATIVE — CAROL FLORENCE, E, OASIS ASSOCIATES IN .IMW ARCHITECTURE /o MIKE PEACH EY; LOCATION — SOUTHEAST CORNER of SNORT STILE ET AND EAST B ANC H STREET Mr. Peachey stepped down for this item as he is an architect for the project. Planning Manager Jim Bergman presented the staff report. Carol Florence described and spoke in support of the project. Mike Peachey described the architectural aspects of the project. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 11, PUBLIC HEARIN ITEM ATTACH M ENT A. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 10 -001, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 10-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 10-001; APPLICANT N T COMMERCIAL /o NICK T MPI INS; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORN Eft Mr. Foster indicated that this item was continued from the August 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting and presented the staff report for the C ommission to consider a Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit (adopt Resolution with preferred and Lion of Approval #5) southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and south Courtland Street. Ir. Foster clarified that subareas 3 and 4 are up for discussion tonight regarding the Specific Plan Amendment and stated that staff has received numerous comments on the conditional Use Permit. M Foster responded to Commission questions regard pedestrian access, runoff, parking and affordable housing. Chair Brown opened the meeting for public comments: Carol Florence, Principal, Oasis Associates, Inc., stated that the applicant, architect, real estate agent, and owner are present on behalf of Food 4 Less; asked the Commission to adopt the resolution with Condition of Approval #5. B. and thanked Building Official Hurst, Fire Chief Hubert; Community Development Director po lish and Planner Foster. Mils* Florence ad dressed the fire issues; gave a brief history of the let line adjustment for sub areas 3 arid ; gage names of businesses that were approached to facilitate this site; in 01 Food 4 Leas was contacted; changes in response to People's Setf Help were madet and m od ifi ations for the proposed project were rnade as reoammended by AFDC. Richard Sa iris, Directo o f Peal Estate, Food 4 Less, Mated that Food 4 Less will create 1 20 125 jobs; will hire locally; covered employee benefits; and stated the store returns money back to the corner u n 4. Commissioner Barneich inquired about moving the building to the East Grand Avenue frontage. Mr. Barns indicated that they did not want customers to park in the rear of the building and walk to the front to enter. In answer to Commissioner Brown, 1 — 20 percent of customers core from the Five Cities area to shop in the Sari Luis Obispo Food 4 Less; the smallest Food 4 Less stare is 43,000 sq. ft., located in Stockton; addressed moving all the property line issues Mating that your will lose parking and would make the business intangible; the franchise wound not agree to , operate unless the store is open for 24 hours. Commissioner Brown Mated that most food items do not have sales tax. Mr. Sarris reported that approximately 5 is taxable. In response to Commissioner Brown, Community Development Director M cClish reported that $67,000 in sales tax is based on what the applicant has submitted. In response to Commissioner Bameich, the night crew restocks the store and delivery hours can be restricted. Tim Sheil, Architect, addressed building design. Nick Tompkins, T, gave the history of the property; said $500,000 per creek in groceries are leaving this area. In answer to Comm6sioner Brown, Mr. Tompkins stated that the highest and best use for the property is hotels; and indicated he has no other tenant/option for the back part of this site but has interest for the front of the site. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER T, 2010 PAGE In answer to Commissioner Keen, Mr. Tompkins indicated that architecture flits well with what is designed at the back of the site. In answer to Commissioner Barneich, Mr. Foster said the store could be moved a little bit to the front and Mr. Linn stated the driveways were the best compromise. The Commission took a break at 8:15 pin, and reconvened of 8:26 pm. The meeting was opened to the public: Carolyn Johnson, Member, Board of Directors, Peoples Self -Help Housing Corporation (PSHC), indicated thart PHSC is proposing to develop 34 of 50 u n its; ref a rre d to her letter above dated e ptem t er 3, 2010. Michael Byrum, Dodson Way, Produce Manager, Spencer's Market, opposed Food 4 Less_ Del Clegg, Cookie Crock Mar et said the Food 4 Less in San Luis Obispo was not a 24 hour store *In the beginning; trucks will be sitting out in the street; there will be a 22.6% market leakage; suggested to look at sales tax number; concern with parking and back wall will have an economic impact with the businesses in the shopping center; concern with signage, and the 8P roll up door. Benadene Ruffin, asked why the developer did not talk to the residents that live in the area and the adjacent stores; and suggested recreational and specialty stores for th is site. Scott Smith, Empleo, San Luis Obispo and Bruce Fraser, San Luis Obispo, PSH , said when they bought the site next door, the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, they did not anticipate large building on property line; indicated this is an unpleasant living environment with no setback; the Specific Plan said 48 houses and that they Will be lucky to get 36, which may go down to 28 and would like to see cooperation on property line, In answer to Commissioner Brown he indicated that the building are set backs are 10' m inimum to a 1i We less than g'; has ve ry little room to move, indicated that he is working with Community Development Department on a parking red uction; have an issue with Statutory 9 of the Fire Code adopted and have not been able to meet the objective; and the buildings will need to come down to two stories. Chad Sorenson, Maple Street stated he is not opposed to a commercial project, government agencies should not bead rules; concern with loading area, conoem with quality of life and safety, he supports the multiple walkway from East Grand Avenue to the grocery store; concern with left hand turn from East Grand Avenue; the proposed fire access lane on west side of building has no tum around; in favor of developing smaller stores; concern with tragic and adding trucks; them should have been more advertisement for the hearing and oppose the project: Russell Read, East Grand Avenue, Cookie Crock Warehouse, said there are six employees here that are in opposition to the store and stated Nick Tompkins is the owner of the building occupied by the Warehouse. R Ruffin, Newport Avenue, said there only so many dollars you can divide between the seven with Isar -dart; suggested the area be developed of smaller stores; and is- opposed to Food 4 Less. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 18 PLANNING COMMI SIO MINUTES SEPTEMBER , 2010 PAGE Mr. Spencer, Coll ado orte, representative of Spencers Market, said approximately si years ago he was contacted by Mr. Strong to change the retail encroachment of East Grand Avenue, in which many changes were made at the shopping center; talked about gateway project; this would cause an economic impact to his employees; concern with the other smaller businesses that surround his center; challenged design groin to look at other options; Mated businesses are searching for revenue; and feels that the shopping dollars going out of the area are going to ostco. Beatdoe p ncer,' F ancho Parkway, opposes Project; concern with driveway on Courtland going across to other driveway and opposes the project. Jennifer Steele, Arroyo Grande and Chris I nsalacat Elm Street, oppose the project. Wendy B eckom, Hi l Icrest Drive, is concerned with traffic; and said there should have bee n more advertisement for this gearing and opposes the project. Carol Florence, referenced to ordinance for Berry Gardens Specific Plan, will revise signage and would life PSHC as a neighbor. In response to Commissioner Ruth Mr. Bawls said parking varies during the day, 50 — 60 parking spaces will be used by employees* Mr. Tompkins said in the process o f purchasing/dividing there was always an assumption to a zero setback until about 30 days ago. To solve fire plan they did not want conflicting crossing to CVs d riveway. I n answer to Commissioner Barneich, Food 4 Less is not bigger than Albertsons. The Commission took a break at 9:45 pm and reconvened at 9:50 pm . Carol Florence responded to additional questions and said Food 4 Less is looking forward to coming into this area. Commissioner Earnei h referenced the Cookie Crock letter indicating there is no conspiracy. There is a problem with the size of the store. The setbacks, size, and use they are asking for are allowed; the pros of the project is developing a vacant lot} restaurant site will be nice; the tax revenue may increase a little at ghat expense? At this site, Food Less does not seem like a cohesive project; and agrees with Carolyn Johnson's letter regarding 2007 Strategic Plan. In answer to Commissioner Keen, Mr. Foster clarified that the proposed sig page is under Arch itectural Guidelines for the subareas. He said he would like to see the PSHC reverse the project; moving forward will cause problems for traffic i n /out of the two pro jects; opposes moving off of zero and circular tower; in favor of a new plaza at ourtland /East Grand; concern with economic impact. Commissioner Ruth said the dire access needs to be ironed out before approving anything; would have to see some Find of buffer between Food 4 Less and P H t cannot support the resolution due to not making the findings_ Agenda Item 9.b. Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE Jennifer Martin thanked ed the and ienee for coming out and the applicant for the new development; prefer to keep line where it was and then buffer; support tower but not color; cannot see putting Food 4 Less in front of sidewalk; supports the property line and does not feel the projects blend together. Commissioner Brown stated the project cannot be taken separately, they have to come in together and as Planning Commissioners we must eon ider the businesses already established. Commissioner Barneich made a motion, seconded by omrnis loner Ruth, to direct staff to return with a resolution to deny Specific Plan Amendment Case No, 10 -001; Tentative Pa rcel Map Case No. 10 -001, Conditional Use Perm it Case No. 10 -001. The motion passed upon roll call note AYES: Commissioner Bamelch, Ruth and Chair Brown NOES: Commissioners Martin and Keen ASSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7 day of September 2010. IV. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION A TIONIN TIC Es OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 17,2010: None V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Community Development Director Mc lisp stated that staff tallied to owner of the Liquor Store located at Fair Oaks Avenue and Traffic Way and the owner will install concrete wheel stops to protect v ehicles encroaching on the sidewalk from the parking lot on the Fair Oaks Avenue side and reported that St. Patrick's School will plant the new trees with their next phase. I. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM AND COMMENTS Commissioner Bar rneieh will not be at the next regular meeting of the Commission. V11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOI -B F# None Vi 1 1, ADJOURNMENT: Upon ration by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth and unanimously carried the meeting adjou at 10:30 pm,, ATTEST: DEBBIE WEI HIN ER SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION TIM BR WN CHAIR As TO CONTENT: TE RE A McC LI H, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the Ober 5, 2010 meeting) Agenda Item 9.b. Page 20 ATTACHMENT OASIS i OC IATE LANDSCAPE ARCHIT ECTURE PLANNING 29 Oc tober 2010 M s. Tere N4cClish, A1CP Director CO MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY E ARROYO RANDS 00 tast B ranch Street Ar Arroyo Grande, C 9 321 RE: COURTLAND PLACE — SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -001, TENTATIVE rA CEL MAP 1 0-001 , CONDITIONAL US PERMIT 10-001 Dear T The Applicant, N KT Conmercia and the design team members appreciate the opporttmi t to re g*nd to the conunents expressed by the Planning Co mm ission during the 07 September 2010 hearing and your c orrespondence daW 05 October 20 We d1 so want to 'ackn staffs original recur nendation for approval of the proposed Courtland Place prolect and look forward to the Ci Council review of the recent modifications that may result in pmject approval. PLAN CO MIPLUN CE There has been much di regard in the proj proposed revisions to th e ' Berry Garden Spec i ff e P l an and c omphance with the G en al Plan Land Use policies, spec i f i call 5-2, L U I I - I.2; L U 112.3 a n d 11 -2.2. While the best pla in polio ies and related enablin g l are gua a rcqu ires sore I eve I of interpretation, we fivid that stafr s anal ysis misrepresents and confuses the stated pol ioies and the it re lat i on shi p to the proposed prof ect. wh i le th a Genera l PI an " s Mi xed Il se C'M U " catego ry g enerally describes the goals and obj ectives regarding the cha'ae ter o f c ommerc ial •use and development, the Municipal Code provides implementing rnp lementin language s p eci fic to mixed -use development to the various co d istricts Industrial, Village and Gateway MU). The Gateway M Ll se rMU District site development standard together with the Design Guidelines and Standards for M ixed Use Districts, cts, provide a more specific level of guidance to the pry Ject than the broad policies of th e G Plan and importantly ntly set measurable criteria to shape the project with regards to buildin size, setbacks, location of parking, street scape improvement e tc. low . r f Not only is the project subject t the GMU site d evelopment standards and design guidelines, the Bemy Garden Specific Plan plays an even more i mportant role its shaping devel oprnent w i thi n th e 5 0 � I acres located south of Grand Avenue, east 'f Oak Pakk Boule at the west edge of the City, surpassing the guidance found in the General Pkin and GMU District standard i. Sta alleges the proposed Specific Plan Amendment "creates an illogical land use pattern by allowing a commercial bu ilding to be placed on the property l 0 yard setback) adjacent t o a resident use an does not pro rHe an adequate buffer between the two uses nor comply with the California Fire Code"". To be clear about the requested ainendmeos, the i - najority of th modi fications re present "e lean - language to better reflect the division between S ubateas 3 and 4, parkipg modifications and rear yard setbacks suggested by staff, general comment reg ardi n g architectural themes, - and statements regarding utility tie -i n locations. Attached r s a track changed set of tl�e proposed an - ien dments (o the 4 3427 Mliguelito Court San L uis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541,4509 p 805.546.0525 f +�v vvtir. s i s s c,c CP Ok -0-415 . PLA .2,240 . CLARS 00 Agenda Item 9.b. Page 21 OASIS ASSOCIATES, l i . October 2010 URTLAND PLACE Page 2 of 3 Berry Gardens Specific Plan (April 30 2010, rev. 29 October 2010). The Applicant proposed change art represented in red, while the C ity" s recom me iid at i om are represented i n bIue. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS To,clarify the reprised project description, the Applicant and design teaM members have rmde the following re i sions 'that directly address the Planning Commission recommendations our collaborative efforts with Peoples"• Self Help housing ("P HI-i "), the project's substantial eon formane e with the Gateway Mixed Use District site standards and design guidelines and the East rand Avenue Enhancement PI an. These rnodi f ca tions are depi cted on th a attached drawings and wi I I be presented to the City Council at the hearing. ■ A 10 -foot lands capc d rear yard se tback on the south property adj ac ent to the P SHH prof ec t. N Modifications to the emergency access road between the F HH pro f eet along the west proper line) to be more attractive and pedestrian friendly. . Maintenance of the project's ourfland Street driveway alignment with the 4riveway on the east side of Courtland Street (includffig roadway improvements to Courtland met). Please see the attached consulting traffic engineer's I etter report review of the proposed alignment, ■ Enhanced pedestrian access and circulation through the site. Enhanced pedes t an activity areas (patios/plazas) adj ae ent to both building s fronting on East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street. ■ Modifications to the East Grand Avenue streetseape — enhanced pavement, site furniture, lighting, and tree islands. Modifications to Buildings ` # and ` B' — additional articulation along Grand Avenue and inclusion of additional patio areas and enhanced planting areas. Moa ificat ions to t he so uth fa ade of th a FooMLess b u i I d i rig — add i tional artic ulati on, trellises, tower elements, and enhanced planting. Compliance with the Fire Code through construction of a four -hour fire wadi along the south property line, building modifications to provide for Fire Departmentaccess from roadways no furtbrr than 150 feet From either side of the building, and increased fire sprinklers density. See the attached Preliminary Fire plan. 0 PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORT At the Planning Conunission, there was public testimony expressing opposition to the project. Based upon those co the Applicant retained Opinion Studies to perform a telephone survey to determine not only how pervasive those attitudes are within the community, but Fnoren ver to obtain an accurate ineasure of public sentiment. Attached are Robyn Olsen Letter's biography and the background for the telephone survey — Survey Purpose, Methodology and Sample Integrity. Results from the surrey will be presented at the Council hear* n , We appreciate staffs continued efforts to w6rk with the Applicant and design team members to design a project that balances the goals and objectives of the City's various planning documents, accommodates the City's 11OUsing objectives, completes the deve loplilent within the Berry Garden Spec i fic P an, provides for opt 0' nai sh ppi n opportunities, creates Sobs and bti ngs nceded revenue to the City. 'Fliank you in advance for your time and consideration. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 22 OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC, October 201 U T LA D PLACE Page 3 of s t Res pectfully su IS ASSOCIATES, IN C . M. Florence, AI P Agent NKT COMMERCIAL ti Attachmen a Berry Gardens Spec i fie P1 are Amendment , Oasi s Assoc 1 ate s, Inc., 3 0 Apr i 120 10 ■ Berms Glens Spec ific Plan Amendment, O as i s Assoc i ante s, Inc. . 3 0 April 20 10, rev] s ed October 20 1 ■ 24 " Plan Set — Architectural, Civil Engineering & Conceptual Landscape Plans, Oc to be r 2010 , ■ 1 ] "x 17" Color Plan Set — Elevations 13ui ldin `A' & T & Food4Less, Perspectives Conceptual Lands P lab d 3 0" " Food4 Le s s P1 an S e t — El & Roof Plan, Ti mothy S hci l Architects, 2 1 July 2010 nurtl an d Street D Alignment Letter Repw, Grosz Engineering Group, 24 September ._ 20 10 - Preliminary Fire P I an, MW Architects, October 2010 ■ Robyn, Olsen Letters Biography 'r oo s — CoWland Place Project: A Survey of ' D ear Shoppers in South San Luis his o ors , Opinion tudie s, c tbcr 0 10 NKT Commercial Food Less W Architects T. Sheil Archi D. Newton, P Opinion Studies } 0 -0113 � r3rs_.�c'��•�'�•hr�� u ,.r r�trr 094; fMR/ C4 ( ; r4rrrrf ?f0 - 'y.(XSub+ ni rrf - 2 7,Ru.+cpoim w 'T: dffC 45 hifrafffi d. rffni Agenda Item 9.b. Page 23 ATTACHMENT 4 O�(k:7 01052 Engineltri nq GF PL inC_ September 2 4, 2010 N KT Comm a rcia i LE o CM Florence, AICP Agent Oasis Assoc 3427 Miguerito C urt S a n Luis O C 9340 S ubject: urtland Street Driveway Alignment Dear GIs. Florence; 0E G Refe rence 09 -90309 O ro 5z E ng 1 n ee ri ng Group., Inc (0E ) Is pleased to provide Y u with this letter summarizIn8 our eva Iuation of the revised alignment of tyre Ccurtiand Plaza access to Courtlarrd Street and the eAstiing access to the east. 0 EG has visited the project site acrd colleted existing PM peak hour turNng movement counts at the a isti rig d rivcway. This letter has been prepared to update our June 3 ., 2010 letter with the 'revised building location after the Planning Commimlon review. Existln& Roadwa v Conditions ourdand Street Severally Provides ore travel iarie In each d i re ct 1 o n with a separate left tarn Zane northbound at Grand Avenue. Parking is prohibited along this segment south of Grand Avenue. The posted speed for this segment of Courtland Street is 25 MPH. The pavement width varies between feet (near the proposed site access) acrd 40 feet just south of G rand Avenue. The pro proposes to widen Courtland Street to a consistent 40 feet along the entire project frontage. This pavement width would a 11 w a center two-way left turn lane of at learst 12 feet in w!dth a n two 14 foot wide travel lanes ( one in each d erection). Parking would co Unue to be prohibited along the p roject frontage. Traffic V o lu me s On W e dnesday Ma 26, 2010, p eak hour turning movement counts were collected by OEG at the existing shopping cente r d riveway directly opposite fro nn the proposed access. The resultant peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 10, As seen -in this exhibit the existing driveway volumes and the project driveway volumes are of similar m agnitude. Both d rivewa y accesse have D-80% of the driveway traffic volume oriented to the north. With the distribution of traffic in this manner and the roadway stripinio, Loth driveways would tend to function as a narma l intersection. No safety Concerns wo exi st. Qriyewa AliRnmant The northern edge of the project drIve wray was located about 36 feet to the north of the existing shopping ce rater driveway on the easts'rde of 0ourtia n Street. Th@ revised d riveway a1ig rime nt, shown in Exhibit 1, angles the project access and a U 19 ns the center of the project driveway with the center of the existing driveway across C ourtland Street. A s there is a heavy orientation of traffic volumes to f f rom the north, the alignment of left turns out of the project and left turns into the existing stropping center is very important. This reprised alignment provides good circulation for left tuming vehlcles into and out of 1627 Ca Izada Aven ue t San ta Y n ez . CA . 934 . 8 05-688-7814 . ' oe g@oegsite.com Agenda Item 9.b. Page 24 M s. Carol Florence S e pt ember 2 2010 P age both drivewa y accesses to C o urtland Street. Wi th the proposed roadway stri pil ng on Court[and Strut (Center two - way left turn la rye and one travel la In each direction), traffic Now will f unction similar to a norrna l intersection. Sight distance is relatively unobstructed to the north and south. With the heavier traffic volumes t rrt the north the visIblfity t o the sa utb gill be less restr due to the ewer traffic volumes oriented in that direction, SUM Ma The combination of these access and roadway striping improvements would provide Improved Iraffic circula a long Courtlarid Street for both exi sting a rid Project d riveways. Should you bane any questions, feel free tocontart me. An , A. ros z, PTOIE rOsz Englneedng Group, In Att �CA►►� O EO 4L it Ae . 12 E W . Agenda Item 9.b. Page 25 oil Courdand 151ze Accen 4 loom PROJECT EXISTING 5ITE SHOPPIN 3W CENTER "- - 41 1 Courtland St. Driveway Volumes PM Peak Hour 0FQss Er g] nearing Gre up 1 n r� C ou rtland Pl aza Agenda Item 9.b. Page 26 LZ a - q - 6 WON BPUGB r o core t I u T u ourtlond Dr iu��u�uu� Fa 0*0 i all) 0 711117�1U + r ------------ - - -... ExiS Li ng WorehouSe Existing R pr O ctober 5, 2010 M r. Nick Tompkins T Comm ercial 6 94 H ig uer Street Baru Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ATTACHMENT 5 -e F PAX: (W 47"3M ]I ail: Me i ty ar reyogra Su bject: Specific Plan Amendment 1 -001 � Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Ponnit'10- 'I; Southwest Corner of South Courdand and East Grand A Gear Mr. Tompkins. This letter is to follow up on project processing issues discussed at our nmeeting on Thursday, September 3 0, 20101P At the Plan om i ion public heartng on September 7, 2010, the Commission recommended that the City Council deny the project based on the following concerns. 0 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment conflicts with General Plan Land Use policies L 5-2, LU 11-1.2; LU 112.3 and 11 -2.2, a The ifiu Plan Amendment creates an illogical land use pattern by allowing a commercial building to be placed on the property line yard setback) adjacent to a residential use and does not provide an adequate buffer between the two uses nor comply with the California Fire Code_ a The o osed Specific Plan Amendment does not meet the provisions of the � p General Plan in that it does not incorporate design elements required by the East Grande Avenue Enhancement Plan and the Design Guidelines and_ Standards for Mi districts. 0 The project d oes net result in ar superior development as required through the use of Specific Plans. I We are in receipt of draft modifications to the project design submitted since the Plan g Commission Hearin that include 1 ) a ten foot setback on the southern property ` lira adjacent to the People *s Self Help project; 2) a reconfigured driveway � access on South Courtiand Street across from the C store; and 3) slightly reduced and m od if ied com meroial bu iIding area on ' E. Graf rid Ave rr ue. it i s stafF belief that this P proje ro et does not adequately address all of the Planning Commission's concerns i n P articular, the disproportionate amount c f commercial building area (over~ 50, 000 s . ft. that remains on the southern section of the property. Staff reoom mends ro'eot alternative be de retoped that ill add Tess these con erns, peeff liy: pace a p ro substantially more commercial building area at the E. Grand Avenue frontage Wi th g ood p ed stdan accessibility and leave the majority of parking behind the buildings, allow ap ro riate modifications s to alleViate the awkward and potentially unsafe do a way Agenda Item 9.b. Page 28 access on South courtland Street, and break up or reduce the Food 4 Less building area to reduce the commercial area near the southern property lire in order to provide a better transition to the People's Setf Help Housing project. Staff has out Ii reed the following alternatives for co Min ued project processing; 0 Schedule for public hearing for City Council consideration. The recommendation will be to decry the project in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation. 0 Provide an alternative design that add resses issues identified by the Planning Commission and prooeed to a public bearing for City Council consideration of the preferred project design nth the alternative presented for information. Should the City Council take action to deny the preferred project without prejudioe, they will have the opportunity to offer direction concerning the design alternative. The likely cou for continued project processing in this scenario would be to reschedule the altemati a project for re- consideration by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council consistent with Development Code Section 16.16.030.D.5. However, if it is determ that the alternative plan is in substantial conformance with the preferred project (approximately sane commercial building area, setback, parking, etc.) but only reconfigu red., and that the alternative design meets requirements In accordance with c E A as well as those previously identified during Staff Advisory Committee, Architectural Review mm ittee, and Planning Commission review, the City Council may take action on a project alternative in accordance with Development Code Section 16.16.030.6. Provide are alternative design that addresses issues identified at the Planning Commission and return to the Planning Commission for re- consideration of the preferred project and the alternative design in conjunction with the People's eff Help conditional use permit. The Planning Commission may tape action on project components separately or as a whole, including the specific plan amendment, the tentative parcel map, the conditional use permit for the preferred project de ig n or altemative design, and the People's conditional use perm"t separately. Staff is happy to 'meet with you further to discuss these options. Please do not heskate to call or arrange a meeting. sincerely, . #I moll. ,. r Ter a Mc l ish t AI P Community Development Director Cc: City Manager City Attorney Carol Florence, Oasis Agenda Item 9.b. Page 29 ATTACHMENT OASIS IiT E LANDSCAPE ARCH1TECT URE + PLANNI { M s. Teresa McCl1sh, AICP Director COMM UN - rrY DEVELOPMENT DEP RT IENT C ITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - 00 East Braneb S treet Army0 Grande, CA 9342 RE: COURTULND PL ACE — A LTERNATIVE SITE PITT Dear Teresa, O n Friday, 29 October 2010, IKT Commercial ;c ppl ica rat" an d th a des i gn tearn membe rs suhm itted a modified project that addresses the .P1 nin oinmission's a p�' s d ornrnents as `outlined in your October # 010 a orrespondenee. we 1 i I e that the i set project i in substantial compl with the City* s goals, objectives, design guidelines and standards. To re state our position the project that includes Food Tess, a restaurant pad and addition retai square Footage is the A preferred a1tc rr ti e. Support for this project will �be cnu meted during the r s tati 0n to the City Council at the upcoming bearing. . Non th less, pursuant to your request, we have prepared the attached alternative site plan for your rcvIew. The site plan alternat i e i ncludes the following components as outlined below. Parking for th alternative s ite plan i ba sed upon the ratios establ i shed in the existing en-y Gardens Ski tf ie Plan. Parcel I remains at 11,616 square feet ("SF"), with a new 6,600 - F retail pad located at the northwest a mmer of the pr operty. 0 F arc el 2 re=lns at 2 2,3 65 s quare feet wi th a new 7,000 SF restaurant p ad located at the corn of East Grand Avenue and Courtl S treet. 0 Parcel 3 remains at 151,451 SF (3.47 acres inc ludin a new 7,000 SF reta pad on Couriland _ r Street and a 3 7 5 00 SF pad 1 ocated a1 Ong the s ninth Property l in e. Whil tb App licant d oes no currently have tenants for any of the structure depicted on this alternative., the intention would be to pursue a full s ervice grocer with butcher and bakery components to Occupy the 37,500 S structure, as well as a restauran to oc cupy at a min imum, the P `B' location. Thank you, as always, for your consi deration. Please contact` me directly shoul you have any questions. Respectfully, I �'E} * 1 f . * 1 ce,1 agent N T COMMERCIAL Attachments -- Seven (7 ) 11 x 17" Alternat S ite Plans } e: N T 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo. CA 9 34 01 $05.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f a► WW- oa5isas5ac.com -A genda Item 9.b. Page 30 ATTACHMENT F o o d 4 L e s s = C o u r t a n d Place Project: A Survey of Grocery Shoppers in South San Luis Obispo County Prepared for: NKT Commercial Oasis Associates Prepared by: Robyn Letters 01111111111111111INION *`, _ October 29, 2010 Agenda Item 9.b. Page 31 Telephone Survey: Background Survey Purpose N ITT Commercia I is de elopi rig a reta it comp lex at the corner of Cou rtla nd and Grand Avenue in Arr G rande. Food4ess will b e the primary tenant; a restaurant and other retailers will occupy oth er b u ildings. The d evelopment a lso includ es th a construction of som e o to 38 low hones. Arroyo Grande City Council wil be voting to accept reject N KVS application on N ovem ber � In an effort to stop th development, some business owners o Arroyo G rande have launched a campaign to foster negative attitudes toward the project. NKT elected to co a telephone su among area resid ents to determine just how pervasive such attitudes are but moreover to obtain an accurate unbiased measure of pu blic sentiment th rough out Arroyo G ra nde as well as the n earby cony mu n ities of N ipu mo G roger Beach and ceano. The ultimate purpose of the p roject eras to generate data that wi bolster Promotio of the project to the community at large a to co uncil members. The u rvey's m ethodology is descri bed below along with 1 nformation regardin the u Treys sa mple. A total o 4 00 grocery shoppers luring in co m un itles located in south S a n Luis Obispo Counter, Fo &Less' trading area., were interviewed over the telephon Interviews were equally d iVided between Arroyo Gra residents (n :200) and residents of N ipomo, G rove r Beach and Oceano (n =200). The s u rvey was designed to gather information about people's current shopping habits, their opinions of the p roposed project, their reactions to specific components of the project and some message points that night be used to promote th e project. An additional goa was to determine what impact Food Less mig have on people's sh opping habits (Le., how likely th are to shop F od Less if it eaters the market place) Methodology All 400 i nterviews were completed between October 14 and 20 ., 2010. To qu alify for the interview, respon had to indicate that they personally do a significant amount of their household's grocery shopping. Anyone currently employed in the grocery industry was Z OPINION Agenda Item 9.b. Page 32 exclu ded from th a su rvey as well as anyone l i i ng outside the design ated sample area (Arroyo Grande Nipomo., Grover Beach and ceano). Phone nu mbers from zip codes in the sample area were purchased from a sample house and were dialed at random using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) s stem which reduces interviewer error and makes dialing and interviewing in more efficient. initially selected phone nu rnbers were called back five times during different days and at different times before they rere replaced with another phone number. This procedure ensured that respondents who are home less frequently than others h ad a n eq ual opportun ity to be in lud ed i n the sam p le. I nterviews averaged 12.5 m inutes. A total of 200 interviews were conducted among Arroyo Grande residents; the remaining 200 interviews were divided as follows: 75 among N ipomo residents, 75 among Grover Beach residents and 50 among Oceano residents. This sample distribution is consistent with the relative populations of these latter three communities. Through this report, for b revit s sa Ise th is ter ree -city group is referred to as "Not Arroyo Grand a resid ents." The survey protocol and instrument were ca.refully designed to represent the population of interest (see Sample Integrity below) and to avoid interview and order biases. In all aspects,. the project adheres to current best standards in su rvey research. Consistent with threw best practices, 10% of all intervie rere interviews were validated. In order to accommodate Span ish-speaking respondents, the su rvey instru n ent was tra re laced i nto Spa n i h; bi- lingual interviewers were available to conduct interviews in Spanish if a respondent indicated a preference to be interviewed i n Spanish. Fifteen such Interviews were conducted. The surveys overall sample in = 400) has a margin of error of 4.94 at a 95% confidence level. This means that there is a 95 probability that the actual percentage in the population of interest is +/- 4.9% of the percentage reported in the current sample. This presumes that the percentages in question are close to the midpoint of % (the most unpredictable situation). As a general rule of thumb, the further proportions are from 50, the smaller the mar of error the closer proportion are to SO %, the lamer the margin of error (Le. 4.9 %). What this means is that when proportions are more extreme like 35%/65% or 10%/90% then the margin of error is less than 4.9%. The margin of error for the two resident g (Arroyo Grande and Not Arroyo G ra nde (n = 00) is 6.9% at a 95% confidence I evel., presuming a proportion of 50%, 3 OPINION Agenda Item 9.b. Page 33 Sample Integrit Hoar well d id the su rvey sample m at h the popu lation of interest (which in this case i grocery shoppers living in Foo&Less� trading area)? Th is is a very im portant question and sh u Id always be asked wh en evaluating the resu Its of a ny survey. I Table I below summarizes the demographics of th e sam ple. The s ample is an exce llent match to the demography of south San Luis Obispo Cou nty. An los and Hispanics are represented more or less in proportion to their presence ihn the sur communities. All age g rou ps a re represented— again, more or less in proportion to each group's presence. About half of all su rveyed households a r one and tiro person homes (co n siste n t rith the area's demography). Men make up about one-third of the sample. As expected, households in the Arroyo Grande sample tend to be slightly smaller and to have slightly higher income Those in the Not Arroyo G ran de sa mple are more l ike ly to be Hispanic or so other ethn i cit ,l respondents in this group tend to be younger than those in the Arroyo Grande sample. 4 OPINION : . h. I Agenda Item 9.b. Page 34 Table 1: Sam D Total Affoyo Grande Re sidents Not Arroyo G ora nde Reside [n = 400) in = 2JO01 (n = 200) Sex Male 37% 37% 37 Female 63% 63% 63% Age 56+ 46 5 4 Refused 5 5 4 Ethni An gla 710% 7 Hispanic /other 23% 16 30% Rased 7 9 6 HouseWd In a <S25 - $4 9 ,999 27 24 30% Refused 31 29 34 HouseWd Size One person 52 57 48% Three or more people 46 42 5ft Refiuwd 2% 1 2 4 OPINION : . h. I Agenda Item 9.b. Page 34 Robyn Olsen Lofters RESEARCH CONSULTANT Robyn Letters has worked in public opinion polling and in litigation and consumer research for more than 25 years, bolding numerous management positions and participating in a vide ra nge of short and long -terra projects for Boda ken Associates, FTr Consulting., University of Southern California's School of Preventive Medicine, Annenberg School of Communications and the Los Angeles Times, his. Letters currently owns and operates O pinion Studies, a full service research company which provides consulting and data collection services to govern agencies, ma retailers, financial institutions, healthcare institutions, academic institutions, news media, trial consultants, law firms and a variety of major corporations. GIs. Letters is particularly adept at executing and analyzing quantitative methodologies such as telephone surveys, business to business surveys and one on one interview projects, Her expertise in designing meaningful surve questionn and reliable sampling protocols is particularly helpful when Gonstructing large complex projects or dealing with controversial issues. Her work has been applauded by leading academicians and has been used b Exxon Mobil to argue successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court.. Ms. Letters is also an effective focus group rr derator capable of facilitating creative and productive sessions with many d ifferent popu latio n s. 1 n San Lu is Obispo Cou nt Ms. Levers has been engaged by CalPoly, local businesses and government agencies to cond not a nu caber of diffe rent stud ies. B he recently completed a study for the San Lute Obispo County's Public Works Department among Los osos residents to determine community attitude toward the city's controversial Waste Water r Facility. Ms. Letters frequently guest lectu on survey research methods at Cal Poly's rfalea School of Business and Department of Statistics and at the University of Southern California's Scheel of Preventive Medicine and Annenberg School of Communications. Ms. Letters received her degree in psychology from bit e r College, one of the Claremont Colleges, and did graduate work in research methods and statistics at UCLA. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 35 Kitty Norton F rom. pmdcons Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:40 PM To: Ditty Norton S u bjec t: 1 bsite Message F. a � � 1 4 � k IV I could not find a link to the city counc but I wanted to weigh in o the food for les we need it, there is only one dis count grocery store cookie crock which i like, that is in the fire cities Please give us the o to choose which stare we wart to go to and gigs us t s ame ch oice that s an luis an d som maria have had for a long time. L the public decide by whe they g oi to buy food net so me pol t cal proces that is dominat by the ot markets in th a rea. Thank you fo your consideration and ' f this i s th wrong place to send this thi's please forward to the counci . I Agenda Item 9.b. Page 36 3 AM j 11420 n -el �rt 1 � t 4 1.0 I L..o a -6- 1jx F 1 t F od. zf dL y ti r F t c_ Agenda Item 9.b. Page 37 Kelly Wetmore ENNOW From: Mery S. Bustarnante Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 :06 AM To; Kelly etmore Subject: Food 4 Less - Arroyo Grande Mayor Ferrara Mayor Pro Term Guthrie Council Member Joe Costello Council Member Chuck Fellows Council Member Flay Gentlemen /Lad ie: I have been a resident of Arroyo Grande since 1995 and have seen markets mine and go. I appreciate having a variety of stores to shop at especially a so many of the market we do have are expensive. Thera are s o many families that have been 1 paeted by the current a onamio do nturn that he ing a m arket Ilke Food 4 Less would ha a boon for the neighborhood. CompetWon nearer hurt — if anything it might make markets like Spencer's, Vons and CDekle Crock revisit their pricing. I and my family totally support Food 4 Less coming to AG. Very Truly Yours, Mary Busmante Agenda Item 9.b. Page 38 Kelly Wetmore From: Jim Bergman Sent; Friday, September 17, 2010 1:09 PSI To: Cc: Ryan Poster; Kelly Wetmore Subject: RE: Website Message Mr. Stuart, Thank you for your inprtit. i have forwarded your message to the City Clerk to be distributed to the Mayor and ity C o unci 1 1 - nembers as Drell as to the ppoi eet p anner. If you lave any other commei - its, p I ease feel free t contact the City thr u gh e -mail or vi siting City lull. Sincerely, iI *M .Jim Bergman, AI P Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande (805) 473-5420 From: ndstewart Sent; Friday September 17, 2010 12:10 PM T: Jim Bergman Subject: Website Message Ir. Mayor, and City Councilmen, Reg and i n y tl pro po sed change to the i t P l an, to add a Fo od Le ss roo r" store n rand Aven n e at ou rt 1 an d; I oppose the proposition. I arrived in Arroyo Grande from San in 1987 and have watched in dismay as the city has gradually forfeited its srnal l to w n i d entity_ Adding such a larg a complex to this already compacted area would further di lute the C it ' identity. The traffic floar at Courtland and Grand would oo from bad to worse. i sti 11 visit Sari Diego on a regular basis, and oamYot thinly of an area ccimparable in size wi th four grocery stores. Another store t he i ze o f co ok ie cro ek or Spencer's would chat i erg ge the I oval market se gm erg t, noth er Von's would h e gorse, wid a 50,,000ft super store is unthinkable. The re m ay be a short to rm spi ke in property tax or s ales tax rear enu e, but on ce you l o se another boric tow n store to this lame chain, those gains will be lost. The net loss will be even worse. Please Grote NO Norm Stern- Arroyo Grande Agenda Item 9.b. Page 39 September 20, 2010 Tbe Honorable Tony Ferrara Mayor of The City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Mayor Ferrara; I am writing to share with you nly objections to the proposed Food 4 Less development at th a out h e t Co me r o f E s t ra nd Avenue and o urtl and treet. I have several or r s with this project, which are out] i ned below. The proposed development will dramatically increase traffic i not only on East Grand Avenue and Courtland Streets, but on Oak Park Boulevard and the surrounding residential streets as well., The rear gall of the Foods 4 Less building will sit on the property line of the proposed residential development to the south. The current placement of the bus l di ng on the site wi II not al I ow emer enc y vehicle access to the rear of the bui Idi n { The noise and vibration from the Food 4 Less building' s rnee hanica I and refriaeration systems will create noise issues for the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The lack of parking planned for the project Will create riot only e i rcul ti n issues, but will eventually lead to employees — and shoppers and the resulting abandoned shopping carts - parking in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. orhoods. It is my opinion that the proposed development does not meet the criteria established by the City of Arroyo Grande's East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan. The pro p used developm ent wi 11 I ead to futu re b I i g ht alon g the E ast Grand Ave n ue gateway, his a fornn r ret ai l exeeu t i ve w it h ove r 36 yew o f ret a i I exile r i ence with both Lucky Stores, Inc. and Scolari's Food and Drag Company,, I predw t that wi tH o two gears, two East G rand Avenue su p near a is w i I I c t o se, a c l Brat i n the det riorat *ton of th e ex i st i n g strip centers the markets are located in; Both the existing rare ourtl and and Grand/Elm strip centers currently are in decline and in need of redevelopment, without factoring the impact of the proposed development. Page 40 1 i surnmary, the project, as proposed; is imply too large for the site_ The city Council's u It innate decision on this project wi l 1 affect the qual i ty of 1 ife of the surrounding Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach residents for ninny rnan years to conic. It i nay hop that you and your fellow council member will re a t this proposal. Sincerely, Donald K. Edwards 1806 Alma Court Grover Beach, CA 93433' (805) 489-8950. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 41 L7 yer. 6 �Vr pAbI -,0, 2k-wr—W4 IF (0 � .09 AAC IL, -117 ;� � 40 l. "`e If pr �M 0 i 6� A000-w`"X� —t A 40004 d l Vrlo�� f AT a,I Agenda Item 9.b. Page 42 -00 dr cat^ 6 " 1 W-� A/ /V � r4 rd I � C& . 130x1 low Agenda Item 9.b. Page 43 Oct. 6, 2010 Dear Council Member Jim Guthrie, Concerning the proposal for the Food 4 Less coming to Arroyo Grande, I'm for it. I often go to San Luis Obispo and while I'm there I always shop at the Food 4 Less in that location. The reason for my decision is very simple and that it is more groceries for your money. I would rather shop in Arroyo Grande and gimme the city the tax money instead of fan Luis Obispo. Also it is always possible if Arroyo Grande doesn't allow this project another city, like Pismo Beach or Grayer Beach will. Could one of the existing grocery stores be hurt by this change? Absolutely. But wouldn't you kick yourself if one of these existing stores would go out of business anyways. An In -hut Burger has been allowed and who knows what impact that will have on the Village Grill and ether restaurants. Now as far as the traffic conditions, you have the experts for that. If you decide against this project, I will still shop at the Food 4 Less in San Luis Obi", so it's not really a big for me. But I would again rather give my city and community the business and the tax money. But for those people against this new development, I would like to know haw many of them have Costco cards? Shopping now a daysis about getting the best deal. Sincerely Yours, Richard Anderson Arroyo Grande, CA rranderson50@hotmail.cam 7,1 , 9 ". -, Ir) P A- -% {,. C I Agenda Item 9.b. Page 44 10/22/2010 Food For Less Project To the City Of Arroyo Grande Planning Comissioners, My name is Linda Mazzaufo. I live at 756 Dodson Way Arroyo Grande. I have lived in Arroyo Grande and SLO County (Paso Robles) for 42 years. The reason far this letter is oonceming the building of a Food For Less an Courtland Drive. The last time checked the reason America is so GREAT is because of compution. We'are a nation who competes, a capitalist country! We'need more campetion in this town in grocery prices. I was not aware that Food For Less was trying to came here, or I would have attended the first meeting. I watched it an public TV and the only people who were opposing it were grocery stares who will have to compete (THE AMERICAN WAY). I am sure all the phone calls #a the planning commission against the project is the other grocery store empalyees. I drive to SLO at Food For Less to grocery shop because I find the prices at these other grocery stores in this area to he vutrageousl It is worth my drive to save $3Q.40 dollars per week. The stores here are one to two dollars higher on alert of items, they are gouging the consumers. In this economy that is fidcuious! 1 have been asking Food For Less to come to South County for a very long time, because we need some competNe shopping. Kmart has survived Walmart and these other grocery stores w have to compete which is what made America great. THEY WILL SURVIVE! I lived in Paso Robles for 15 years and they have a very nice Food For Less and ALL the other stores have survived. My point is that would beautify that comer, bring in local revenue, and give us consumers a great choice. I hope you will take this letter into consideration and let them build. Alot of locals feel the same way I do, t just spoke up. You do not plant a beautiful tree (like Arroyo Grande) and then stunt its growth! It will never bear fruit. This town wilt always have its small town flavor to all the locals even with a Food For Less. Thank -you for listening. Sincerely, Agenda Item 9.b. Page 45 EXHIBIT `A' DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPA 10 -001 , TPM 10-001 & CUP 10 -001 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH CDIJRTLAND STREET GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply With all Federal, State, County and Cit requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Specific Plan Amendment 10-G01, Tentative Parcel Map 10-001 and Conditional Use Permit 10-001. 3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 9 2010. 4_ The applicant shall, as a condftion of approval of this tentative or final 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, fts past or present agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is brought ith i n the time period provided for by law. This condition is subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 66474. g, which are incorporated b reference herein as though set forth in fu II. PLANNING DIVISION: 5. Fire access shall be provided by either of the following nditlons. a. Prior to final City Council action, the proposed site plan shall be revised to provide access to the ream of the grocery store building to comply with the California Fire Code, subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief. Moving the grocery store building to comply w th the Califomia Fire Code shall be considered to be in substantial conformance with project approval and subject to design review by the Director of Community Development. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 3, the applicant shall provide altemative means and methods to comply with the Californian Fire Code, subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 6. P ro id a the recorded docu me nts t h at c rented the lot to be s u bd ivid ed . Agenda Item 9.b. Page 46 7. Verify that the existing lift station in Tract 2260 has adequate capacity to serge the proposed development. If not, design and fund the upgrade or the lift station to the satisfaction of the C Development Director. 8. Extend the ' sewer lire in Courtland Street to serve the project. Connection to the Grand Avenue sewer line is impeded by existing water and gas lines. g. All on -site sewer lines will be noted as "private." 10_ The "grater main loop through the project site shall be located in a 15' wide water main easement. 11. Remove and replaoe any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk on the Grand Avenue frontage. 12. Install full frontage improvements including street widening', curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and street -- lighting on courtland Street to it Standards. 13. Prig to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall reimburse the Redevelopment pment Agency for the proportionate costs associated with expansion of the Poplar Pond ing Basin. 14. Pnor to issuance of a grading permit the developer shall submit two copies of the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board L R E requirements. 15. Underground all overhead utilities per City standards. GENERAL AL hl D ITIONS 16. Clean all streets, curies, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or as directed by the Director of Community Development or the [erector of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance. 17. Perform construction acb itiea during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7 + . l * to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance outside of these hours, 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. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 18. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 47 1 g. Submit four full -size paper copies and one 1 full -size mylar copy of approved improve ent plans for inspection purposes d u ring construction. o. Submit as -built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as d 1rected by the Director of Pa rks, recreation a n Maintenance. 1. One (1) set of m lar prints and an electronic version on CD In Auto AD format shall be required. 22. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works D epartment. a. Grading, drainage and erosion control, b. Street paving, cu rb, gutter and side raII , o. Public utilities, d. Water and sewer, e. Landscaping and irrigation, f. Any other improvements as required by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance. 23. The site plan shall include the fello%ing: a. The location and size of all exi ti ng and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting s treets or a lleys. 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 paged areas. f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. 4. Improvement pleas shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets, utilities and retai ning walls. 25. Landscape and irrigation plans are required for landscaping within the public right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation tion and Maintenance Departments., In addition, The Director of Packs, Recreation and Maintenance shall approve any landscaping or irrigation within a public right of way or otherwise to be maintained by the City. Water Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande does riot allow the use of h dra nt meters. 27. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the proj ect b either: Agenda Item 9.b. Page 48 Im plement an i ndividual grater program consisting of retrofitt�n existing ofd site g g high -flow plumbing fixtures with low flog devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the C p d or # C ounc i l for approval prior to i mplementation; OR, The applicant may pay a n in lieu fee. 28 . F i re hyd ra nts s h a 11 be i n sta I led at locarti o n s de ig n aced by the Fl re dep a rime nt. Sewer g. All serer mains or laterals crossing or para llel to public water facilities shall be eorrstruoted In accordance with California Mate Head Agency standards. PUBLIC UTILITIES U nderground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the Development Code. 1. Submit all improvement plans to the public utility companies for approval and oomment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of C ommunity Development for approval. G RADI NG 32 . Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance. 33 . Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered C ivil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed 'in accordance with the approved soils report. 34. Submit all retai ning wall calculations for review and approval by the Director of C ommunity Development for walls not constructed per City standards. DRAINAGE 35 . S ubnnit updated calculations to verify that the Poplar Ponding Basin can accommodate post I op m e nt d rainage from the project site. DEDICATIONS AND EASE IEt TS All easements, abandonments, or s imilar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1 /2 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure Agenda Item 9.b. Page 49 calculations, and a current prel iminary title report. The applicant shall be respon for all required fees, including any additional required Cit processing. PERMITS 7. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing' a ny of the fo Ilcwi ng: 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. g. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading Operations on site. FEES 0. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due. 0. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval: a. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. b. Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. C. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate, d. Inspection fee of public works construction plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. AG REEMENTS 1. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the req uired improvements. IMPROVEMENT E U RITIES 42. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in DevelopmenI Code Section 16.68.090, Improvement a riti e . 43. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review b the Director of Community Development. 44. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction coat e fimate approved by the Director of Community Development: a. Faithful Performance: 100 of the approved estimated cost of all project improvements, b. Labor and Materials: 0% of the approved estimated cost of all project Agenda Item 9.b. Page 50 improvements C. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all project improvements. This security is required prior to acceptanoe of the project improvements. PRIOR To ISSUING A BUILDING H PERMIT 45. The Public Works plans shall be approved by the Assistant City Engineer. PF 1 OR To ISSUI NG A CERTI FI ATS OF OCC PAN N 4. All utilities shall be operational. 47. All essential proj-e t improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non- essential im provemen , guaranteed by are agreement and financial securities, may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Director of Cornmunity Development. BUILDING DIVI ON: 48. Provide fire sprinklers per NFPA 13 standards. 49. Comply with the latest adopted California Codes. 50. Obtain County of San Loris Obispo Hea Ith Department approval. RECREATION F EATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES: E: 51. A final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Director of Recreation eation and Maintenance S ervices for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building perm it. POLICE DEPARTMENT: [T* 5. A final lighting plan and all proposed safety measures shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permilt. MITIGATION MEASURES: 53. ISM 111-1: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to include an allowable parking red uction to promote bicycle, pedestrian and transit use* Monitoring: Review of Specific Plan Amendment Responsible Parma: Planning Division Timeline: Prior to final City Council Action Agenda Item 9.b. Page 51 5 . INI M 111-2: The site design shall be revised to 'Include a bus turnout and transit shelter to rep lace the existing east -bound bus stop (East Grand Avenue adjacent to the site subject to review and approval b the Regional Transit Authority (IOTA) and Director of Community Development. Monitoring: Review of construction plans Responsible Party: Planning Division Timeline; Prior to issuance of grading permit 55. MM 111-3: The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and adhered to for all construction- related permits: Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. Use water truck or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non - potable) water shall be used whenever possible. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed. Permanent dust - control measures identified in the approved reve etation /landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil - disturbing activities. • g Exposed round areas that are planned to be reworked more than one (1 R month after initial grading should be sown with a fast -genii inating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized usin g approved rowed chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution control Board (APCD). All roadways, driveways, idewa l i s and other areas to be pared should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used_ Vehicle speed for all con tructicn vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site. All trucks haulin g dirt sand, soil or o ther loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. Wheel-washers shall be installed where v ehicles enter and exit unpaved reads onto streets or gash off truck and equipment prior to leaving the construction site. Streets shall be wept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Dater sweepers with reclaimed (non- potable) water should be used where feasible. The contra€:torlbuilder shell designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport Agenda Item 9.b. Page 52 of dust off -site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District APCD prior to the start of any construction- related activAies. • Staging and queuing areas s hall be located as far away as possible from any sensitive receptors. a Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted . 0 Use of alternative-fueled equipment is recommended wh enever possible. o Sign that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. Monitoring. Review of construction plans Responsible Party. Building Division Ti mel l ne: Prior to issuance of building permit 56. MM 11111-4: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is Bend acted to determine if naturally oocu rring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. if NOA is not present, an e e im pt i on reg nest must be fi led with t he APC D. If N OA is fou nd at th e s ite, th e applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board ( ARB) Air Te ics Control Measure (ATM ) for C onstruction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. Monitoring: Review of geologic evaluation Responsible Party; SLOAPCD Timell rye: Prier to issuance of grading permit 57. MM 111-5: All portable equipment (50 horsepower or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the GARB or the AP D. Dion itoH rig: Review of construction plans Responsible Party: SLOAPCD Ti mellne: Prior to issuance of grading permit 0. M M 111-6 : Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APD shall be notified Vithin forty-eight 0 hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an AP D permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediatel after contaminated soil is discovered: Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in sail addition or removal. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed, uncontaminated snjl or other TP H — non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp; No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could aocumulate. Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 53 During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. Monitoring: Site inspection Responsible Party. Building Division Ti mel i rye: During any site grading activities 59. MM 111-7: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to p rohr ibit the following commercial uses: Nail salons 0 Dr 0 Coffee roasters; • Gasoline stations; 0 Furniture refurbish ing /refin i hing; 0 Any use involving the application of spray paint M nit ring. Review ie w of Specific Plan Amendment Responsible Party: Planning Division Ti reline: Prior to final City Council Action o. MM 111 -: Operation of the proposed grocery store shall include the establishment of a 'no idle' zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques: a Each delivery vehicle's engine ine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible. a Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the `no idle' zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. 6 Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off heir engines. • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. Use of alternative- fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1 ,000 feet of hive receptors se n . Monitoring. Site inspection Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of oertificate of occupancy Agenda Item 9.b. Page 54 1. M V-11: Any areas where native (non-stockpiled) soil will be disturbed b construction a ti i e (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. if cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted b a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. Monitoring: Site inspection Responsible ble Parma: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit 62. MM V11-1: The project proponent shall submit a reprised geotechnioal study or addendum to the original study that either states that all condusions and recommendations in the original report are v or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. Monitoring: review of construction plans Responsible Party: Building Division Ti rrrel ine., Prior to issuance of grading permit 63. MM V1-2: All construction plane shall incorporate the recommendations of and updated geotech n icel study based on the study prepared for the project by I Soils I no. dated Apri1200 6. Monitoring: Review r of construction plans Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM V11 -1: All construction plans shall reflect the following H - reducing measures where applicable. The project sponsor shall rake a good faith effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by submitting documentation to the AP CD for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits showing which of the following measures have been implemented to exceed Title 24 standards: Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to enco the use of electric appliances and tools. • Provide shade tree planting in parking lets to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 0 tree coverage within 10 years of construction using lour ROG a i#ting , lour maintenance native drought resistant trees. No residential wood burning appliances. • Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers ers for every 25 employees are recommended. Trusses for south- facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar- heated water and photovoltaic panels. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 55 Roof design shall include sufficient south - facing roof surface based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. 0 Increase the building energy rating by 0% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 0% rating cannot be double counted. 0 Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. 0 Utilize green building material (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. 0 Install high efficiency ency heating and cooling systems. 0 Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). 0 Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters- 0 Utilize built -in energy efficient appliances i.e. Energy Star). 0 Utilize double -paned windows. 0 Utilize low energy street lights i.e. sodium). Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. Install energy - reducing programmable thermostats. Use roofing material w h a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy SWO rating to reduce summer cooling needs. Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use nature plants that do not require watering and are low ROG em i#tiog . Provide on -site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long temp (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peals season maximum demand. One bile rack space per 10 vehiclelemployee space is recommended. Require uire the installation of electrical hookups at loading deeps and the con neon of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TFs at the loading docks. Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. Monitoring: review of construction plane leepne*l ble Party: SLOAPCD Timeline: Prior to issuance of building permit 64. MM I1 -1: The following Erb Ps shall be incorporated into the project: Roof Downs out S. steal Direct roof drains to pervious areas where feasible to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or municipal storrn drain system. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 56 Run -off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre - development levels. Submit a water quality management plan to the Cdr. Stormwater runoff that cannot be retained on Subareas 3 and 4 for percolation or use rust be treated through the use of bioswales or fossil filters and directed to the Poplar bonding Basin. Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Label new storm drain i n lets with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean" to alert the public to the destination of stornnwater and to prevent direct discharge of Pollutants into the storm drain. I ehi le gu ipment Cie C ommercial nd u trial facilities or multi- family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either P ro He a covered, bermed area for washing activities or di con rage eh isle /egu ip ent washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs proh ibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas s hall be paved designed to prevent run -ors or. run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanita sewer. Car . Was . Commercial oar gash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitar sewer or wastewater reclam ation system. Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease i ntercept r prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and durnpster areas should be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self - contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary serer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored ouW oors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners vaults or roof covers and /or drain to the sanitary serer system. Bull Agenda Item 9.b. Page 57 materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors rust be inspected for proper function and leafs, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of s weeping and litter control a nd develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. Cleaning, Mai ntenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, atearn cleaning, maintenanoe., repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and /or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. Loading Dock Controls Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage erne or from the area. Position roof downspouts to d r rect storrnwater away from the loading area. Water from leading dock areas shall be drained to the sanita sorer, or d iverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanita sewer. Door s kirts between the trailers and the building should be installed to prevent exposure of loading aotivi#ies to rain. treet/�ar` in- lot a ire : Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks s and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from preseu re washing should be trapped and colleded to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent o degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sever. Monitoring: Review of construction plans Responsible Pam: Engineering Division Ti meri ne: Prior to issuance of building permit 65 . MM X -1: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to include language reflecting the goals and policies of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Districts regarding building placement, pedestrian scale and street ape character. The proposed development shall be revised to ither place more commercial development at the East Grand Avenue frontage or include other such amenities that satisfy the goals and objectives of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Di tn*ct . M onitori ng . F ev i ew of Specific Plan Amendment e ponsibl Party. I Planning Division Tirnel i ne: Prior to final City Council action Agenda Item 9.b. Page 58 66 . MM XII -1: Grocery store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of oo AM to 10. PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of South ourtland Street shall be maintained. Monitoring. Site inspection Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy 67. MM X11-2: Construction plans for the grocery store shall include a noise barrier, either a block wall or an extension of the g roery store building, to be not less than ale 1 feet above the delivery area, tapering to a height of six at the eastern property line (back of s ide aI at a 1 :1 ratio. Additionally, any residential structures that, absent the noise barrier, would have a direct line of sight to the delivery area shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty 0 decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developer of the grocery store t l l nit ri rig: Review of construction plans Responsible Party; Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of building permit ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OM ITTEE: 68. Sig nage for future tenants sha II be subject to AFDC review and app r vaI- 9. The project shall incorporate the conceptual landscape alternative as it relates to development of the restaurant. 70. The project shall incorporate additional screening measures for rooftop equipment on the grocery store and place noise -generating equipment as far away from adjacent residential propel as feasible. 71. The project shall incorporate landscaping on bth sides of the noise barrier ad jacerd to the grocery store loading dock to minimize fts visual impact. Agenda Item 9.b. Page 59 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PARO�6 Q W C, j OR RATED 7. l 10 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: BELLY 11 ETM RE, LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NOVEMBER 9, 10, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 9.b. DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 201 Attached is correspondence received via email after 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 8, 2010 through 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 9 2010 regarding the Food 4 Less Courtland Place project on tonight's Agenda. Any correspondence received after 4:00 p.. will be presented at the retire. City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Kelly Wetmore From: Shirley - Blueprint Express Sent: Mon d a , November 08, 2010 5:07 P M T: Jinn Guthrie; Joe Costello; Chuck Fellows; Caren Rey : Teresa McCli h; Kelly Wetmore Subject: N KT Commercial Food 4 Less As a tenant of N KT p ropert i s we have firsthand know I edge of Nic k Tho m pso 's f ai rness and responsiveness a a landlord. We wholeheartedly support his proposed Food 4 Less project. BLUEPRINT EXPRESS 805-481-1655 128 5 Elm Street, Arroyo Grande CA 93420 s hirlev@blueprintexp.com http w ww.blu rint xp. om Keliv Wetmore more From: Rudy Ba hmarnr Sent: Monday, November ember 08, 2010 5:42 P To. belly Wetmore Subject: support Letter for Food for Less project A ttachments: Food for Less Support Letter.doc Dear Ms Wetmore, Please find attached my letter of support for circulation to the Mayor and Council members. Thank you, Rudy Bachmann r / ti I ; `..'.. ..a �6,Y .+...• .1. .. t. �.. . * � * f{�I r � � �. +� �+ �•Y[• r , � . 4 � �' I... r .. � Y fi � � I � ��C'f 'C'�� l� � �� f �i. '. i� � die + f, k r I s f 1 1 i ' J + 5 1 f { Y } s/1 - I I November 8, 2010 Kelly Wetmore City Clerk City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Mayor and Council members, 1 strongly support the proposed Food for Less project at the corner of Coartland and Grande Avenue. My family has continuously shopped at the San Luis Obispo Food for Less store since it opened. We have found it to have very competitive pricing and great selection of products, especially fresh duality local produce. Food for Less gives shoppers a real locally owned alternative to value shopping in comparison to national grocery chains, Costco, and Wal-Mart. rt. T"he proposed location is ideally situated for access by the citizens. of South County. The five cities area is in great need of value based grocer and the proposed Food for Less meets this need. For all of these reasons I strongly support and recommend that the Council approve the proposed Food for Less project. Sincerely, Rudy Bachmann San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ke I Iv Wetmore ore From: Anita Wasserman Seat: Monday, November 08, 2010 6.33 PM To: Teresa f c lisn; belly Wetmore Subject: Fw: In SUPPORT T of Food 4 Less Dear Teresa and belly, I was asked to forward my email IN SUPPORT of the Food 4 Less project to both of you as there was s ome concern that the City Council members were not receiving their ernails. Thank you. Anita Wasserman From: Arita Wasserman Sent: Monday, N ovember 08, 2010 3;59 P To; Jguthirie a@arroyogrande.org'; `jcosteilo @arroyogrande.org'; Velrows@ rroy rande.or '; 'cray@arro ro r n de.org' Subject: I n SUPPORT of Food 4 Less Dear city Council Member, My name is Anita Wasserman and I have been a resident of Arroyo Grande since 1394. I love my community and can't imagine living anywhere else. I: any writing to you today to voice my SUPPORT for the Food 4 Less at the corner of courtland and Grand Avenue. I often shop at the Food 4 Less in San Luis Obispo. Not only would it be more convenient for me to shop in Arroyo Grande, I would prefer to see my hard earned dollars benefiting ray own home town rather than San Luis Obispo - and I would think you would prefer that as well. I have heard that the people at Spencer "s Market are concerned that a Food 4 Less would take business away from them. I disagree with this. I don't currently shop at Spencer's so obviously ray business would not move from Spencer's to Food 4 Less (rather from SLO to Arroyo Grande). But additionally, I think a "Food 4 Less" and a `'Spencer's Market' serve two very different needs and clientele. Your go to Food 4 Less for bulls, inexpensive and basic items for the most part. You shop at Spencer's for specialty, unique or local items, or when you just need a fever of something rather than bulk. I do NOT feel that the current Spencer's shoppers are going to abandon them and head out in droves to Food 4 Less. I thinly the Food 4 Less would benefit Arroyo Grande in so many ways. It would provide many new jobs for our own community as well as additional revenue for our city. It would provide a much needed affordable alternative to grocery shopping for the many folks in our own community, as well as some surrounding communities, who are suffering in our current economic downturn. For the sake of many needy people and for the great benefit to nay beloved Arroyo Grande, I urge you to vote to allow this project to go forward. Thank you for your time and attention to my comments. Sincerely, Anita Wasserman Kelly Wetmore From: fuvthebee h4� Sent: Noonday, November 08, 2010 7 PI VI T Kellar Wetmore Subject: W Message I wanted to voice na SUPPORT for the CUP Application t o a llow Food 4 L ess in the 5 Cities area. This application should NOT be denied, just because the other grocery stores do not want competition. I live in Grover Beach, and currently shop at the Food 4 Less in SLO. I want to spend my food dollars here locally, but can't afford the prices of these other supermarkets. PLEASE allow Food 4 Less to build and develop in our community.. Sincerely, Laurie Bair Aar(Air Wefly where you want to go. November 2010 Arroyo Grande City C uneilmember Jinn Guthrie Re: Food 4 Less project in Arroyo Grande on the comer of Courtland and Grand Avenue Lear Sirs, Please register my support of the o d for Less project pup for review in Arroyo Grande. As a resident and shopper of this area, i find nay self traveling to San Luis Obispo Food for Less to buy Groceries at a reasonable price. The cost in my time and fuel expended into the environment is substantial. I'm sure that others are motivated to shop this way also. It seems beneficial to for the city of Arroyo Grande to beep it's business local. Jobs are important row, and I'm sure that thee number of people employed by this venture going forward will thank you also. Sincerely Yours, Lloyd Marcum Pres. Mare Air 1129 Pacific Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.782.8111 a fa.0.1. marca irI t ci a 1. com , ww w. marca in coni Kell Wetmore From: Steve Hollister Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 201 7.44 AM To: Kelly Wetmore; Teresa Mc li h Subject: Gourtland and Grand Dear Ms. Wetmore and Ms. McClish, I am writing to urge you to support the proposed project from NIT and Nick Tompkins for a new Food 4 Less center at Courr tlaNnd and Grand In AG I have followed Mr. Tom pkin `s purchase of the property and his subsequent plans to develop this parcel. while many people will question the w�sdon of having such a concentration of grocery stores in the vicinity (Vora' s, Spencer's, Cookie Crock) in limited area, I believe research shows that Food 4 Less actually serves a segment of the market that 1s currently shopping in San L uis Obis and Santa M aria, I have been friends with John Spencer and his family for many years, but I believe Mfr. Tompkins will do an excellent job of positioning his center to be an asset to the community, rather than a detriment to other shops. His ownership of other properties along the Grand Avenue corridor and his plans to upgrade them will ultimately be an improvement to the shopping environment of Grand Avenue and Arroyo Grande, bringing in much needed sales tax. Thank your for your time and, hopefully, support of this project, Steven W. Hollister, Vice President Sunrise Mortgage & Investment Co. 1159 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone (805) 781 -6160 x18 Cell (805) 331 -9352 Fax (805) 544 -8058 s hollister(@sunrisemorteaee.com CA DRE x#01807332 Kelly Wetmore From: jennifer thornpson Seat: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 7:57 A To: Teresa cClish; Kelly Wetmore Subject: Food 4 less project To Whom It May Concern, Please note that I am in support of the Food 4 Less project. There is a great need In our community for this grocery store, which will not have a negative impact on on's or Spencer's market. Please support this project for the good of our community. Bost Regards, Jennifer Nogle Thompson Arro Grande, CA 93420 Kelly Wetmore From: SARA CLEARY Seat: Toesd ay, November 09, 26 10 o. J12 AI'1 To: Kelly Wetmore Subject: Food 4 Less Dear Kelly. Knowing that you have a meeting tonight, I would like to lend support to the proposed shopping center that will include Food 4 Ness. I have lived in Arroyo Grande over 27 years and have driven several miles to and from San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria to shop as our com unit just doesn't have the competitive super markets like Food 4 Less. I think having this store locally will be t win -win situation" for our community as it will add jobs and bring in much needed revenue. Pease know. that I am one of man local citizens that support this y pp slopping center, Sincerely, Mike Cleary Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Kelly Wetmore From: Tien Souehek Sent: Tuesday, N overnher 09, 2010 8:37 AM To: Teresa McCli h; Kelly Wetmore : Jim Guthrie; Joe Costello; Chuck Fellows; Caren Rarer Subject: Re: Courtland and Grand project Dear Council Members Guthrie, Costello, Fellows and Ray, I am writing in support of the proposed project in AG at Courtland and Grand. Having lived in this area for over 15 years, I have watched the slow wheels of change move in our city. I aim not normally a proponent of modernization, but 1 feel this project adds value to the local area. We would see an increase in jobs, some competition amongst the grocers we have, which would generally benefit the c onsumer in lower prices and add an option to the local area we do not currently have. Most of us that live in AG and work In SLO might routinely stop at Food 4 Less. But adding this option to our pity would mean others might enjoy the cost savings. I frequent Spencer's Market as well, for the deli selection and certain sales they might have. As a consumer, options are important. I feel this is a god fit for our area. Please vote in favor of this project. Sincerely, Tim Souchek Kelly Wetmore From: Penelope Schwartz' Sent: Tuesday, November u , 2010 9:18 AM To: Jim Guthrie; Joe Costello; Chuck Fellows; Caren Flay, Teresa McClIsh: Kelly Wetmore Subject: Food for less proposed development November 9, 2010 Dear City Council Member, Fie: Food For Less — Opposed to the Proposed Development at Grand and Courtland Avenue I am a resident on the west side of Highway 101 in Arroyo Grande. I am encouraged to see the City of Grover Beach revitalizing Grand Avenue to make it more attractive, pedestrian friendly, and attracting a variety of new and different businesses. fly objection to the proposed development is that there are already three grocer] store on Grand Avenue between S. Elan and Oak Park Drive. The Cookie Crock store is a budget supermarket, Spencers is a raid -sized locally owned supermarket, and eons is a large national chain. Does Grand Avenue in that vicinity really need another supermarket Will another budget chain supermarket add to the character and charm of Arroyo Grande? 1 support growth and business development, but believe there are many other businesses that would serge the community better and would thrive in the proposed location. As a member of the City Council, you have the power to decide how Grand Avenue is shaped and if proposed businesses meet the needs of the community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Penelope Schwartz . Keliv Wetmore re From: gar Eisner _ Sent: Tuesday, N ovember 09, 2 010 9 AM To: Teresa McClishx belly lletmore Subject: food 4 Less Teresa & Kelly This e -mail is mfr way of letting you know that I'm supporting the Food 4 Less Project in Arroyo Grande. I hope that the Arroyo Grande City Council will take into account the need that food 4 less will fill in our community. With the economy the way it is we need to have an affordable option to purchasing groceries in our area. Food 4 Less will bring multiple assets to our community in buying its produce locally helps our local farmers as well as increasing our sales tax. These are just a fear benefits that this project will bring to our area. l have heard that Spencers and Coolie Crock are worried that they will lose horsiness and we can look to our neighbors to the north and see that this is not true Atascadero has Albertson' , Food 4 Less and Spencers in a two block area and they are all very busy. Thank you for your time Gail Kissinger Kelly Wetmore From: Barbara Hoelle _ Sent: Tuesday, N ove Aber 09, 2010 0 :21 AI M To: Teresa McClish; belly Wetmore Subject: 1=W: Food 4 less project in Arroyo Grande From: Barbara Hoelle Sent Tuesday, Novem 09, 2010 : 51 AM To: Barbara Hoelle Subject: FW Food 4 less project in Arroyo Grande From: Barbara Hoelle Seat: Monday, November ember o , 2010 2:21 PM To: J uthrie @arroyo r nde. r ', Jcostello@arroyogrande.org'; 'mellows@ rro ogr nde.org', ' r y@arro y rande.or ' Subject: Food 4 less project in Arroyo Grande Bear Arroyo Grande City Council, 1 am a residence of Arroyo Grande and I any verb much in favor of bringing the Food 4 Less project to our community. I frequently shop at Food 4 less in San Luis Obispo. This is not only are inconvenience but an added expense with gars. I have heard that Spencer's and Cookie Crock are worried that they will be run out of business if this should take place. With our current economy 1 think each of these markets bring something different to our community. As shown in Atascadero, they have a Spencer's, Food 4 Less, and an lbertson's within a two block area and ALL markets are busy all the time. And they also support a Von's market as well. I feel that if Atascadero can do this, then why shouldn't Arroyo Grande? I can assure you that I am not the only Arroyo Grande resident who drives to San Luis Obispo to shop and with that our community is losing the tax dollars. Having a Food 4 less its our community will also bring many new needed job opportunities. Again, I am in favor of the Food 4 Less corning to Arroyo Grande and l am asking you to PLEASE PASS this project. Thank you very uch, Barbara Hoelle R Nov o3 2010 ARROYp GRANDg CITY CLERK To; The City council members and fellow community members of Arroyo Grande, My mane i s Jay and I Iive lust past the Vi llage of Arroyo Grande. i am a life long member of the central coast and have lived in the 5 cities for the past 20 years. I am writin today because I have to work out of the area the night the public opinion is being beard on the mater of Food 4 Less in Arroyo Grande and I truly wish to have my humble opinion heard. Ifyou travel to San Leis to the Food 4 less you will notice that Trader Joe (right next to Food 4 Less) doesn't seem to have any problem filling the lanes with happy customers. why is that? Because they offer a different product than the one offered by Food 4 Less. Food for less offers a product that I see as a much different product than, that of a boutique store like Spencer's. Food 4 less is not a customer service orientated product. It is a product that allows you to get the best deal forgoing the expense of bagging help and shelf stockers. . As a consumer I don't see Spencer's and Food 4 less as direct competitors. I see them as similar and complementary products to a corridor of retail, restaurants and consumer services. I# Food less where to open I would continue to shop at Spencer's. I like the fact that I can get in and out of Spencer's in no time flat. I love the sandwiches I get at lunch from the Deli at least once week) and because the butchers know what they are doing. I would view Food 4 less as more of competitor of Vons for an dollar. I f Food 4 less sloes open in AG and I am spending less on groceries I will have extra funds to take my f m iiy to M& i ntock's for dinner, to have a coffee in the horning at A ndreinis or maybe enjoy a glass of wine with my wife at Gather, all contributing to the cities bottom line. If Food 4 less is such a threat to Spencer's how must Spencer's view the Dollar store? A store which offers many grocery items for a dollar or less; why isn't there a surge to get them removed as a competitor to Spencer's'? How did the city allow Subway to open with Spencer's Deli paying the price? I have one last question for the city council; how much revenue does the city of Arroyo Grande receive from a vacant lot and haw can you turn., your head to a property owner and business that are able and willing to contribute to our cities bottom line°? I understand the desire to preserve what you know and what has been. Change is hard but change is what gives us the opportunity to grow and succeed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Truthfully, Jav Peet Arroyo Grande, Ca. Kitty Norton From: hl llini Sent; Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:55 AM To: ditty Norton Subject: Website Message e The proposed Food 4 Less goes against the general plan and the planning commission recommendation. It does not fit in with our small town character and would look out of place in the p p r ose location. It's too big and too close to the street. We don't need another grocery store. We already have 3 within a few blocks: Spencer's, Von and Cookie Crock. I think the developer should do some "outside the box's thinking, maybe a hire a consultant to target some "A -List fideal tenants" with a proposed idea, concept or plan. Perhaps Sunset Magazine is looking for another test kitchen location and being that they were just here for "Savor the Central Coast ", the. climate and timing would be perfect to approach them. or how about a Central Coast Culinary Academy /Cooking School Cafe open to the public for lunch and dinner? I any, envisioning 1, 2 or 3 commercial kitchens offering cooking classe6 and an indoor /outdoor courtyard cafe open to the public offering Italian, French and Mexican... St Aran From: L ori Hall _ A Seat: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:02 A To: Joe C oste ll o, Steve Ad ams; Tong F errara Subject: P roposed Food for Less Dear Mayor Ferrara and Members of the A.G. City Council, I don't know that I make it as a presenter tonight but here are my ruin points and I'd be happy to have there expressed: The proposed Food 4 Less goes against the general plan and the planrdng commission recommendation. It does not fit in with our small town character and would look out of place in the proposed location. It's too big and too close to the street. Besides, we don't need another grocery store. We already have 3 w ithin a few blocks: Spencer's, Vons and Cookie Crock. I think the developer should do some "outside the b ox" thinking, maybe a Hire a consultant to tar get some "A �List ideal tenants" with a p ro posed idea, concept or plan. 1. Perhaps Sunset Magazine i looking for another test kitchen location and being that they were just here for "Savor the Central Coast ", th c limate an tu wou be per fect to a pproach there. 2 . How about a Central Coast Culinary Academy Cooking School and Cafe open to the public for lunch and dinner? I am envisioning 1, 2 or 3 commercial kitchens offering cooking classes and a indoor outdoor courtyard cafe open to the public offering Italian, French and Mexican specialties to nw a few... W e have a number of local chefs and good cooks, farms, and wineries in the area to help support such a concept. It could be a win / vin for e veryone: the developer, the nearby grocers, the farmers, the Wineries, the public and good for tourism, our hotel business, etc. These are just two ideas I thought of this morning while I was taking a shower but I am sure there are a number of other good ideas to explore. San Luis Obispo was just chosen as the end best place to live in the world and I think the downtown charm, the trees, the creek and pedestrian friendly Mission Plaza, the no- smoking policy, sign. ordinance, weather, low crime, charming stores, bike and pedestrian friendly and ou dining ail had something to dog with it -- it was not because of the Food for Less on the South end o f town. Our county i s a s p ecia l and urdque place. My Grandparents knew that when they settled here long ago. I are► a third generation native. We are certainly not Anywhere, USA. Please Vote No on Food 4 Less. 'hank you, Lori llinini I fall Arroyo Grancte, C 93420 P.S. Please forward my letter to the other City Council Members, Thank you! Arroyo Grande Community Hospital RECEIVED A member of CH W November 8, 2070 NOV 0 9 2p10 ARROYO GRANDE CITY CLERK Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I am sending this letter to you in support of the Courtland Place project, which will cone before the city council for approval this Tuesday night. Representing the community's not -for- profit hospital, we think it is important to serge all of our residents, and a discount supermarket would provide more options both within the city of Arroyo Grande and throughout the Five Cities and l ipomo area, as well as bring additional sales tax revenue to our city. I feel that we are fortunate to have the opportunity to brine a community partner t o the area such as Food4lLess, a discount supermarket. Food4Less has built relationships in other cities within the county already, supporting many local nonprofit organizations, schools and our youth. I also strongly support a business that uses as many local suppliers and vendors as possible which Food4lLess has demonstrated at their other stores in the county. Additionally, the Food4Less project will provide hundreds of jobs to our area during these tough economic tines; both construction jobs and permanent, lead of household jobs that are key to our community' well- being. I hope you'll consider all of the reasons I've given and vote yes to approve Courtland Place, and approve the development of a Food4Le s to Arroyo Grande. Sincerely', /Va q, &--- Rick Castro President &CEO Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Kelly Wetmore - From: ALinscott Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 12:20 PM Subject: Food for Less in Arroyo Grande My family and I shop at Food for Less and would appreciate being able to have a location closer to us in Arroyo Grande. Please support the building of Food for Less in Arroyo Grande. Thank you. At ie Linscott Nipomo, CA 93444 To: City Council Comments from: Betty English Maple Street Arroyo Grande Re: Food 4 Less Mrs. English contacted City H a II by telephone o n Tuesday, '11/09/1 o, at approximately 12:0 p.m. She stated she objects to the Food 4 Less corning into Arroyo Grande because she feels it would make Cookie Crock go out of business. She stated she does not like that kind of store because it is too big. She said she prefers s maller stores because she is 86 years old and smaller stores are easier for her to get around in. Mrs. English stated she was speaking on behalf of approximately 20 other seniors in her neighborhood that do not want Cookie Crock to close. Information taken by: Kitty Norton City of Arroyo Grande Kelly Wetmore From: Adam h rdin Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:44 P To: Kelly Wetmore; Teresa Mc fish Subject: For Distribution to Arroyo Grande City Council and City Manager Please distribute, to City Council Members and e r r Manager! Dear Members of the Arroyo Grande City Council: M name is Adam verdin and I any a partner in Old Juan's Restaurant and Cantina, located in oceano. Although the business is not located in Arroyo - Grande, nay wife and I live here, as do many of the restaurant's employees and customers. we are a part of this community. I an in favor of the Food4Less project because I believe it will provide convenience and value to our employees and our community but I am more concerned with some aspects of the political process regarding the project. Although f firmly believe the city's intentions are good, I believe there may be unintended bad consequences in the manner in which the city is managing this project, which appears counter to the city's economic development efforts. Previously, we have been contacted by Mr. Rob Strong, a representative of the city of Arroyo Grande, to see if we have any interest in opening a second restaurant here. We have explored locations both in the village of Arroyo Grande and the Courtl nd project as locations for a second restaurant and have discussed it with Nick Tompkins, However, in following the Courtland project, concern that I expressed to Nick is the appearance of city protection of one or two businesses by way of unusually aggressive application of the ntitl ment process directed at the prospective new business. M concerns and questions, which I now pose to the members of the council for consideration, is if we were to pursue a restaurant location in the city of Arroyo Grande, and opposition was voiced by another restaurant, would we be subjected to heightened scrutiny? would we be forced to spend limited resources on an entitlement challenge that was driven by a would -be competitor? Or would we be the favored business and our competitor would be faced with challenges' Either way, I don't believe it would be a fair process. To my mind, the notion of Business A versus Business B is more properly played out in the free market, and not in the entitlement process. In 35 years of business, our family mil has never opposed the approval of a competitor. Whether my perception is factually true or not, it is a negative factor. And as a member o f the community, 1 would be remiss in not sharing a reason of why we may choose not to open a business within the city, even though we live here. Our concerns could be a deterrent for other potential businesses as well. I am strongly in favor of this project, but more importantly, I encourage you to do all you can to make sure that all projects that cone before you are governed b an approach premised in fairness, and not by passions or preferences that can hijack the process. Thank You, Adam Verdict - Kel . ly Wetmore From: Mike Laird Seat: Tuesday November 09, 2010 2:50 PM To. Nick Tompkins Cc: Kelly Wetmore; re; Teresa McClish Subject, a :Food 4 Less project in Arroyo Grande Mr. . T mpkins and members of the Arroyo Grande City Council. I am very much in favor of the proposed project and think it will fill a much needed void in our community. I will not be able to attend the meting tonight but please consider this an endorsement of the project for the Food 4 Lass at Courtland and Grand Ave. Sincerely, Michael Laird, M.D. I IN ORPOPIATED JK .AMY 10 M i 1F 0 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE DIRECTOR F LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICESICITY CLERK SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NOVEMBER 9,2010, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 9.b. DATE. NOVEMBER 8 201 Attached is correspondence received today from NIT Commercial Via Carol Florence from Oasis Associates regarding the Food4Less Courtland Place Project on the November 9, 2010 City Council Agenda. City Manager Director of Community Develo ment City rn A 5 1 5 LAND5CAP_E AR CHITECTURE AND PLANNI Via Delivery LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 8 November 2 0 10 TO: Mr. Steve Adams, City Manager FFILIA TI ON. , CITY of ARROYO GRAN RE: C and Grand Avenue, arroyo Grande, California WE ARE SENDING YOU X ATTACHED SEPARATE COVER THE F X For Your Review For Signature For Your Files For Your Use For Payment For Final Map Requirement COMMENTS: St e ... For your review. Should you have any questions about the survey, Ms. Letters w ill be making a presentation during the City Council hearing. If y re a ny additional inf please don't hesitate to contact u. Th you. SIG 4� Z2 � M U�2 V4,.D - ov t'.*M'O . Florence, AICF Agent NKT COMMERCIAL c: 08-011 805e541-4509 FAX 805.54 *0525 3427 MIGUELITO CT SAN LUIS OBISP CALIFORNIA 93401 PLA .22 01A + GLAPB •4117 C opies Sh eets Dated D escription - For Less Courtland Pla Proj 1 multi November 2 1 Survey � ' Grocer Shopp in South .parr Lars Obispo County Prepared by Ro L etters X For Your Review For Signature For Your Files For Your Use For Payment For Final Map Requirement COMMENTS: St e ... For your review. Should you have any questions about the survey, Ms. Letters w ill be making a presentation during the City Council hearing. If y re a ny additional inf please don't hesitate to contact u. Th you. SIG 4� Z2 � M U�2 V4,.D - ov t'.*M'O . Florence, AICF Agent NKT COMMERCIAL c: 08-011 805e541-4509 FAX 805.54 *0525 3427 MIGUELITO CT SAN LUIS OBISP CALIFORNIA 93401 PLA .22 01A + GLAPB •4117 t 6 F o o d 4 L e s s Courtiand Place Project: A Survey of Grocery Shoppers in South San Luis Obispo County F o r P r e s a n t a t l o n Arroyo Grande City Council M e m b e r M Prepared for: NKT Commercial Oasis Associates Prepared by: Robyn Letters OPINION November 9, 2010 Table of Contents Page PREFACE f0 150 f.0 15..0 a,t f15*,# f0 0,■0f■■.......0 #.0 #..00.. *.. *.* Sao 000■■e 00■ mom 0f150,15f *066*.r1■■r0000f ■00■Most 3 Section 1: INTRODUCTION ■FF000 6000 rr 0 &F r . 0 0015# Dfs fff 00 *ff *a * #. # #. * *M4* •r see 000151-9 6600 Survey Purpose Methodology # #.•iiiii # ■15 #fi.f iii•.#.#•..#.# s■...rrr aa..■ a. fi■ a■ aa■.a■rss.■.. .•....iiiii4 # #. #irrrararr..f... Sample Integrityrity •i*.*.r##..*.* 15.. 15.i 151....#..4. 15f. ...rrrfs ....................... .........iii. * iiiii..FFrr...... Section * EXECUTIVE UMMA Y OF SURVEY FINDINGS .ff0ff000 ago 00* *f *0 **a r. Gas a"a Section 3* DETAILED FINDINGS ..00*0ffil *iit doom i6*iri rfi riy ffi fi a ifi r of 000 a ff ff f f# 0* i# f!w#ff f s# of r i rr*i r f 1 Gums■ ■ Grocer ho pe■ * Patterns .........n ism fffif4 6014 WSi too i*i ioodpsm EME emiam■ 10 Stores Shopped Recently .*.iM f.#fiF#.#Ff#FSi..... rs.. ai ra ... ............r...i..r 0 Percent of Stores Shopped Located in and Outside Arroyo Grande..... l Attitudes toward Food4ess and outland Place Project iii.iWi. #ir * * #rifii.i # # # ;rrrie 1 Awareness *less. of Food4ess y f.y f...F..FSSS ra.. rs.... r sri..ff...r.i.. #rr #.iiiiiiii.ii Mi #i # #iifii.3 s #a #r Pa* 1. Ratingof Food L s * *. *f* 000 -0.. **... *.r. *r00004*f■■■ ■0.0 ■•000 ■,000,■fa000000000898 solo 60#0010 1 Reactions to Courtland Place Project ii...rii.r iiiii.ffiiiff.i000 1 Reactions to Various Components of the Project ...................... 1 Impact of Project on Future Shopping a# rais■ ..rai■ a■ r.■... r.■.. .rr a ■..aaaiaa.rai....far.iai...•... 1 Likelihood of Shopping Food I ......fF #rfi 6666666. rrrrrrrff0•, ,........ #i...FF #.rsisafasisrsr 061 Comparison of Customer Profiles 22 Council Vote 23 Section • CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS fOi F *0 aof 14* a #F0O0 *#0 DOE # #i #0# 40i m 6 rrririi ir0040 000 000 0f■ 2 OPINION Preface Robyn Olsen Letters PRINCIPAL. OPINION STUDIES Robyn Letters has worked in public opinion polling and in litigation and consumer research for more than 25 years, holding numerous management positions and participating in a wide range of short and long -term projects for Bodaken Associates, FTI Consulting, University of Southern California's School of Preventive Medicine, Annenberg School of Communications and the Los Angeles Times. Ms. Letters currently owns and operates Opinion Studies, a full service research company which provides consulting and data collection services to government agencies, major retailers, financial institutions, healthcare institutions, academic institutions, news media, trial consultants law firms and a variety of major corporations. 1s. Letters is particularly adept at executing and analyzing quantitative methodologies such as telephone surveys, business to business surveys and one on one interview projects. Her expertise in designing meaningful survey questionnaires and reliable sampling protocols is particularly helpful when constructing large complex projects or dealing with controversial issues. Her work has been applauded by leading academicians and has been used by ExxonMobil to argue successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. Letters is also an effective focus gaup moderator capable of facilitating creative and productive sessions with many different populations. In San Luis Obispo C ounty, Ms. Letters has been engaged by alPoly, local businesses and government agencies to conduct a number of different studies. She recently completed a study for the San Luis Obispo County's Public Works Department among Los Osos residents to determine. community attitude toward the city's controversial waste Water Facility, Ms. Letters frequently guest lectures on survey research methods at Cal Poly's orfai a School of Business and Department of Statistics and at the University of Southern Ca Iifornla's School of Preventive Medicine and Annenberg School of Communications. Ms. Letters received her degree in psychology from Pitzer College, one of the Claremont Colleges, and did graduate work in research methods and statistics at UCLA. 3 OPINION Section 1: Survey Background Purpose NKT Commercial is developing a retail complex at the corner of Courtland and Grand Avenue in Arroyo Grande. Food4Less will be the primary tenant; a restaurant and other retailers will occupy other buildings. The development also includes the construction of some 30 to 38 low -cost homes. Arroyo Grande City Cou nciI will be voting to accept or reject N T's application on November 9th. In an effort to stop the development, some business owners on Arroyo Grande have launchrd a campaign to foster negative attitudes toward the project. NKT elected to conduct a telephone survey among area residents to determine just how pervasive such attitudes are but moreover to obtain an accurate unbiased measure of public sentiment throughout Arroyo Grande as Drell as the nearby communities of Nipomo, Grover Beach and t ceano. The ultimate purpose of the project was to generate data that will bolster promotion; of the project to the community at large and to council members. The survey's methodology is described below along with information regarding the survey's sample. A total of 400 ,grocery shoppers luring in communities located in south San Luis Obispo County, Fod4ess' trading area, were interviewed over the telephone. Interviews were equally divided between Arroyo Grande residents (n=200) and residents of Niporno, Grover Beach and Oceano (n=200). The survey was designed to gather information about people's current shopping habits, their opinions of the proposed project, their reactions to specific components of the project and some message points that might be used to promote the project. An additional goal was to determine what impact Food Le s aright have on people's shopping habits i.e., how likely they are to shop Food4ess if it enters the market place). Methodology All 400interviews were completed between October 14 and 20, 2010. To qualify for the interview, respond had to indicate that they personally do a significant amount of their household's grocery shopping. Anyone currently employed in the grocery industry was excluded from the survey as well as anyone luring outside the designated sample area (Arroyo 4 OPINION Grande, Nipomo, Grover Beach and eano). Phone numbers from zip codes in the sample area were purchased from a sample Douse and were dialed at random using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) system which reduces interviewer error and makes dialing and interviewing more efficient, initially selected phone numbers were called back five times during different days and at different tines before they were replaced with another phone number. This procedure ensured that respondents who are hie less frequently than others had an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. Interviews averaged 12.5 minutes. A total of 200 interviews were conducted armong Arroyo Grande residents; the remaining 200 interviews were divided as follows. 75 along Iipomo residents, 75 among Grover Beach residents and 50 among Oceano residents. This sample distribution is consistent with the relative populations of these latter three communities. Throughout this report, for brevity's sake, this three -city group is referred to as "Not Arroyo Grande residents,.' The survey protocol and instrument ment were carefully designed to represent the population of interest (sae Sample integrity below) and to avoid interview and order biases. in all aspects, the project adheres to current best standards in survey research. Consistent with these bast practices, 10% of ali interviewers' intervie wrs were validated. In order to accommodate Spanish- speaking respondents, the surrey instrument was translated into Spanish; bi- lingual interviewers were available to conduct interviews in Spanish if a respondent indicated a preference to be interviewed in Spanish. Fifteen n such interviews were conducted. The survey's overall sample (n = 400) has a margin of error of 4.99 at a 95 confidence level. This means that there is a 95% probability that the actual percentage in the population of interest is +/- 4.9% of the percentage reported in the current sample. This presumes that the percentages in question are close to the midpoint of 509 (the most unpredictable situation). As a general rule of thumb, the farther proportions are from 509, the smaller the margin of error; the closer proportions are to 50%., the larger the margin of error (i.e, 4.9%). what this means is that when proportions are more extreme like 35%/65% or 10%/90% then the margin of error is less than 4.9%. The margin Of error for the two resident groups (Arroyo Grande and Not Arroyo Grande (n = 200) is 5.9% at a 95 confidence level, presuming a proportion of 50°x. 5 OPINION Sample Integrity How well did the survey sample match the population of interest (which ire this case is grocery shoppers living in l~ood less' trading area)? This is a very important question and should always be asked when evaluating the results of any survey. Table 1 below summarizes the demographics of the sample. The sample is are excellent match to the demography of south San Luis Obispo County. Anglos and Hispanics are represented more or less in proportion to their presence in the surveyed communities. All age groups are represented — again, more or less in proportion to each group's presence. About half of all surveyed households are one and two- person homes (consistent with the area's demography). Men make up about one -third of the sample. As expected, households in the Arroyo Grande sample tend to be slightly smaller and to have slightly (nigher incomes. Those in the Not Arroyo Grande sample are more likely to be Hispanic or some other ethnicity; respondents in this group tend to be younger than those in the Arroyo Grande sample. Table 1 Sample Demographics 6 OPINION Total Arroyo Grande Not Arroyo Grande (n = 400) Residents Residents (n = 200) (n = 200) Sex Male 37% 37% 37% Female 63% 63% 63% Age 18- 49% 43% 56% 56+ 46% 52% 40% Refused 5% 5% 4% Ethnicity Anglo 70% 76% 64% Hispanic other 23% 16% 30% Refused 7% 8% 69 Household Income 5r000 • $49,999 27% 24% 30% $50"000+ 42% 48% 37% Refused 31% 29% 34% Household Size One person 52% 57% 48% Three or more people 46% 42% 0% Refused 2% 1% 6 OPINION Section : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of SURVEY FINDINGS This survey is based on 400 completed interviews among grocery shoppers living in southern San Luis Obispo County. A total of 00 interviews were conducted among presidents of Arroyo Grande and 200 among residents of l iporno, Grover Beach and Gceano (Le., Not Arroyo Grande residents). Listed be low are the survey's major findings: C URRENT SHOPPING HABITS Residents of both Arroyo Grande and nearby communities typically patronize a number of stores to meet their grocery shopping needs. O average, Arroyo Grande residents have shopped 2.3 stores and Not Arroyo Grande residents have shopped 1. 9 stores in the last few months. Only 8% ofArroyo Grande residents shop in only one store. Vdns (Grover Beach and Niporno) and Albertson primarily Arroyo Grande foIlowed by Trader Joe's (primarily Arroyo Grande) and Cosec (San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria) have the lamest market shares among all the stores operating in south San Luis Obispo County. The share of shoppers who shop each of these st ore ranges from 59% for 1 ons d own to 20% for Costco. Among Arroyo Grande residents, Albertson's is the most frequented store. ■ 42% of Arroyo Grande shoppers and 7 0% of Not Arroyo Grande shoppers do their primary shopping outside Arroyo Grande. Overall, only 8% of survey respondents ever shop Spencer's and 119 ever shop Cookie Crock. Not surprisingly, both Mores are more popular among Arroyo Grande residents than they are among N of Arroyo Grande residents. Ho wrever, even among this group, only 10% do the majority of their shopping at Spencer's and only 6% do the majority of their shopping at Cookie Crock. An additional 13 shop at Spencer's sometime and 139 shop at Cookie Crock sometimes. Residents of both groups patronize stores outside Arroyo Grande in large embers. Among Arroyo Grande residents, only 1 % do all their* slopping in Arroyo Grande while 5 d some of their stopping there and 19 do none of their shopping there. Not Arroyo Grande residents are even less likely to spend dollars at stores located in Arroyo Grande. Forty -six percent of this group never shop In Arroyo Grande for groceries, 42% do some of their sho pping there and only 12% do all of their shopping there. Table : Percent o f Shoppers patronizing Mores In /Gut of Arroyo Grande ZA All Residen 320 r° ti .�+.y.-... t.r_ AG R esidents I B/ BanO - r � � :• 4 % Residents 0 10% 0% 0% % 0% GCS% 7�o oho 90 100% E3 Do all shopping in AG ■ Do some shopping in AG o Do no shopping in AG Read table as: 16 of all respondents do all their shopping in AG, 52% do some of their shopping in AG and 32% ' do none of their shopping in AG. 7 OPINION ATTITUDES TOWARD FOOD4LESS AN D COU RTLAND PLACE PROJ E 'T Food4Less enjoys very high awareness among survey respondents. dearly all respondents (97x) are fam1liar with the sure and many (81%) have stropped it. Residents living outside of Arroyo Grande are slightly more likely to have shopped the sure. Seventy -three percent of Arroyo Grande residents and 0% of Not Arroyo Grande residents have a favorable impression of Food4Less. Sixty-five percent of respondents who have an opinion about the Food4Less project support the project while 35% oppose it. Among Arroyo Grande residents, 569 support the project and among Not Arroyo Grande residents, 74% support the project. Among both groups, strong proponents outnumber strong opponents -529 14% among Not Arroyo Grande residents and 36% to 259 among Arroyo Grande residents. Generally speaking, those who support the project most are customers of lower priced, discount stores located outside of Arroyo Grande. Factors that resonate most with respondents are the number of jobs that will be created by this project, the fact that Food4ess purchawses produce and other items from local vendors. and that Food4Less vwrilI offer a low priced alternative closer to home than some other options, IMPACT ON FUTURE SHOPPING Two - thirds (66%) of all respondents say they are likely to shop the Food4ess store "'at least once in a while" if it is developed. Fifty -nine percent of the Arroyo Grande residents and of he Not Arroyo Grande group say they are likely to shop the store. F od4LesV most likely customers are currently shopping Food4ess (Sari Luis Obispo), FoodMaMxx (Santa Maria), Costco (Santa Maria and Sari Luis Obispo) and Voris (Grover Beach and Niporno) —all stores located outside Arroyo Grande. Read table as. 75 of people currently shopping Costco are likely to shop Food4ess at least once in a while. OPINION V. Table : of Each Store's Shoppers Who Are Likely to Shop Food4Less,, At Least Once in a While F o L s ' 11kely customers are demographically different from Spe n ce rPs and Cookie Crock's customers. percents highlighted in the table below indicate major differences. Table 4; Comparison of Customer Profiles COUNCIL VOTE About two - thirds (63%) of those who have an opinion about the project think Arroyo Grande's City Council should approve the project. 9 OPINION Food4LesV Spencer's Cookie Crock's Likely Current Current Custoffners* Custome Custome CE CO MMUNITY OF RESIDENCE Arroyo Grande 45% 63% 62% Not Arroyo Grande 55% 37% 38% AGE 18-34 11% 3% 109 35-54 47% 29% 33% 55+ 42% 69% 57% Y ETHNICITY Cauc ian Anglo 57% 81% 69% Hispanic 23% 12% 13% Other 79 79 18% HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1-- 2 persons 449 69% 61% 3 + people 56% 31% 39% HOUSEHOLD INCOME <$50,,000 44% 33% 579 $50,,000+ 56% 67% 43% IMPACTED BY ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 53% 379 639 • Defined as those who they are very likely to shop Food4ess Nate: Excludes refused/no answers COUNCIL VOTE About two - thirds (63%) of those who have an opinion about the project think Arroyo Grande's City Council should approve the project. 9 OPINION Section : [DETAILED FITS This section -- Detailed Findings, the crux of this report -- divided into four separate sections and se eraI of those sections are d lded into su b- sections. The first section — Current GroceEy Shol2ping Habits—Identifies the supermarkets and other stores where respondents are doing the majority of their shopping as well as "other" stores they shop. The second section Attitudes toward Foodless and courtlarnd Place Pro`ect— includes information about shoppers' familiarity with Foodless and provides an accounting of those who support the project and those who oppose the project. Also included in this section is information about reactions to various corn ponents to the project (I.e., does the k n owl edge of such components make someone more or less favorable to the project?). The third section -- Impact on Future Shopp — provides information about how likely people are to shop Food 4+ess if it is constructed. Also included in this section Is a comparison of the demographics of Foodless' most likely customers to those of Spencer's and Cookie crock's current customers. The fourth and last section— council Vote--describes respondents' recommendations regarding the Arroyo Grande City council Grote. Current Grocery Shopping Habits Stores Shopped Recently To better understand reactions to the Fo d Less development, respondents were queried on their current grocery shopping habits. First, they were asked to identify the store where they or others In the household have dome the majority of the household's grocery shopping in the past few months. Following that, they were asked to identify any other stores they have shopped in for groceries in the same time period. Tables 5 to 7 below summarize respondents' shopping patterns. Table S provides a summary of all stores shopped by all respondents and by Arroyo Grande and Not Arroyo Grande residents. Table 6 which focuses on Arroyo Grande residents only and Table 7 which focuses on Not Arroyo Grande residents provide detailed information about primary and secondary stores shopped. All three of these tables should be considered together, 10 OPINION Table 5, tine sure many table, shows tine total percent of respondents in each resident group rho shop each store. In other words, it combines the percent of people who shop a store as their primary store with the percent of people who shop it as secondary store. The table indicates than Vons and Albertson's are shopped more often than any other stores by both Arroyo Grande residents and non residents. Fifty -nine percent of all survey respondents have shopped a Vons store at some point in the past fever months while 0% have shopped at are Albertson's. The Albertson's in Arroyo Grande is particularly popular among Arroyo Grande residents -659 consider it a primary or secondary store. Among this group, Vons in Grover Beach ranks second with 439 shopping it primarily or secondarily. Vons in Grover Beach is also popular among survey respondents living outside Arroyo Grande. In fact, with 389 shopping it either as a primary or secondary store, it ranks as the most frequented store among the Not Arroyo Grande group. Vons in Ni porrno (33 %) and Albertson's in Arroyo Grande % ran second and third, respectively, among this group. Trader Joe's acrd Costco also enjoy significant patronage among area residents. Thirty - on e percent of Arroyo Grande residennts shop at a Trader Joe's (Arroyo Grrnde or Sari Luis Obispo) and another 1% shop Costco (San Luis Obispo or Santa Maria). Non - Arroyo Grande residents favor C ostco o %) over Trader Joe's 1 %. Spencer's Fresh Market ranks fifth among all residents -18% of all residents have shopped Spencer's at some point in the last few months. Spencer's is clearly more popular arnorng Arroyo Grande residents than it is among Not Arroyo Grande residents. Twenty -three percent of Arroyo Grande residents have patronized the store in the fast fever months while only 14% of Not Arroyo Grande residents have shopped the store. Among Arroyo Grande residents, Spencer's ranks fourth behind Al be rtson's A rroyo Grande, Vons rove r Be ach,TraderJoe's Arroyo Grande and just ahead of Costco San Luis Obispo. Among Not Arroyo Grande residents, Spencer's ranks fifths behind Vons in Grover Beach and Niporn , Albertson's Arroyo Grande and Trader Joe's Arroyo Grande and ahead of Costco in Santa Maria. With 11% patronage overall, Cookie Crock ranks sixth. Like Spencer's, Arroyo Grande residents 14% are more likely to shop it than are Not Arroyo Grande residents (9%). Interestingly, % of surrey residents are currently shopping Food less. Most of these patrons are going to the Food4ess store located in San Luis Obispo. OPINION It is clear from this data that residents of both Arroyo Grande and other nearby communities are shopping at a variety of stores. Arroyo Grande residents slop an average of 2 stores while Not Arroyo Grande residents shop an average of 1,9 stores. Table S: Summary of Shopping Habits Q: Thinking over the last few months, where have you and others in your household done the majority of the household's grocefy shoppingi Where else have you and household member's shopped for groceries in the last few months? ALL RESPONDENT Table 6 below shows detailed information about the shopping habits of Arroyo Grande residents. As seen II n the previous table, Alberton's and Mons dominate the rnrlet place. More than half of the city's residents do the majority of their shopping at o ne of these two stores. 12 OPINION All Stores Shopped: All Stores Stropped: Arroyo Grande Not Arroyo Grande All Stores Shopped; TOE STORE LOCATION Residents Residents All Respondents VONS: 46% 72% 59% Grover Beach 43% 38% 41% I ipomo 2% 33% 17% San Luis Obispo 1% 1% 1% ALBERTSOI ' : 67% 33% 50% Arroyo Grande 65% 28% 47% San Luis Obispo 2% 1% 1% Santa Maria -- 4% 1% TRADER JOYS: 31% 16% 23% Arroyo Grande 29% 14% 21% San Luis Obispo 2% 2% 2% COSTCO: 21% 20 20% San Luis Obispo 17% 9% 12% Santa Maria 4% 11% 696 SPENCEWS FRESH MARKET: 23% 14% 18% Arroyo Grande 22% 14% 18% San Luis Obispo 1% -- 1% COOKIE CROCK WAREHOUSE*: 14% 9% 11% FOOD4LESS: % 10% 9% San Luis Obispo 7% 9% 8% Santa Maria 1% 1% 1% SCOLARIS. 89 7% 8% OTHERS": 13% 18% 15% TOTAL + + + Average # of stores shopped 2.3 1,9 2.1 Only Arroyo Grande location mentioned * Indudes Avila Grocery, Central Ma FoodMaxx, Guadalajara Market, J1's Market, Santa Maria Grocery Outlet, Wal -Mart, Whole Foods and others + Totals more than 100% due to multiple mentions Table 6 below shows detailed information about the shopping habits of Arroyo Grande residents. As seen II n the previous table, Alberton's and Mons dominate the rnrlet place. More than half of the city's residents do the majority of their shopping at o ne of these two stores. 12 OPINION Thirteen percent do the majority of their shopping at Trader Joe's and 11%, at Cost o. Only 10% do the majority of their Shopping at Spencer's and 6 at Cookie Crock. A Very large share 42%— are doing their major shopping at stores located outside Arroyo Grande. As rated earlier, Arroyo Grande shoppers are shopping a Variety of stores. In fact, only 9 shop only one sure wh ile 929 shop two or more stores. Table 6: Grocery Shopping habits— Arroyo Grande Residents Q: Thinking over the last few months, where have you and others in your household done the majorky of the household's grocery shopping? Where else have you and household members shopped for groceries in the #ast flew months? ARROYO GRANDE RESIDENTS Not Arroyo Grande residents also shop a Variety of stores but are slightly more loyal to their primary store than are Arroyo Grande residents. Thirteen percent of It Arroyo Grande 13 OPINION y Teal Primary Other Stores All Stores STORE STORE LOCATION Grocery Sto ShoRced VON S: 21% 2596 46% Groner Beach 20% 23% 43% Nipomo 1% 1% 2% San Luis Obispo -- 1% 1% ALBER7"SON'S: 31% 36% 67% Arroyo Grande 30% 35% 65% San Luis Obispo 1% 1% 2% Santa Maria -- -- TRADER JOE'S: 13% 19% 31% Arroyo Grande 12% 17% 29% San Luis Obispo 1% 1% 2% STCO 11% 10% 21% San Luis Obispo 9% 8% 17% Santa Maria 29 2% 4% SPENCER'S FRESH MARKET: 109 13% 2396 Arroyo Grande 10% 12% 229 San Luis Obispo -- 1% 19 COOKIE CROCK WAREHOUSE *: 6% 13% 14 FOODUESS: 3% S% 89 San Luis Obispo 3% 4% 7% Santa Maria -- 1% x% S OLARI : 1% % 8% OTHERS: 4% 13% 13% No other store /only shop in one store na 896 Ana TOTAL 100% + + * only Arroyo Grande location mentioned + Totals more than 1DD% due to multiple mentions Not Arroyo Grande residents also shop a Variety of stores but are slightly more loyal to their primary store than are Arroyo Grande residents. Thirteen percent of It Arroyo Grande 13 OPINION y residents compared to only % of Arroyo Grande residents shop only at one store. lions shoppers are the exception; they appear to be particularly loyal shoppers. Only 6% and 4% of Not Arroyo Grande residents do the majority of their shopping at Spencer's or Coolie Crock. S ixty nine percent do their major shopping at stores located outside Arroyo Grande. ■ ■ ■ ■ . a i • _ a ■ a JrS f V% ■ . 4 - - - rabie : Grocery nopping Hawts -1401E Arroyo Grande Resiaens Q: Thinking over the last few months, where have you and others In your household done the majority of the household's grocery shopping? Ct where else have you and household members shopped for groceries in the last few months? N OT ARROYO! GRANDE RESIDENTS Percent of Stores S hopped Located In rid Outside Arroyo Grande Table 5 below provides information about the percent of respondents who are patronizing Mores located in and outside of Arroyo Grande i.e., "leakage''). This table clearly 14 OPINION Total Primary Other Stores �AII Stores STORE STORE LOCATION Grocery Story Shopp Sho VONS: 47% 25% 72% Grover Beach 22% 16 38% ipo o 25% 8% 33% San Luis Obispo -- 1% 1% ALBEi TS N'S: 159 18% 33% Arroyo Grande 14% 14% 28% San Luis O bispo -- 1% 1% Santa Maria 1% 3% 4% TRADER JOE'S: 7% 9% 16% Arroyo Grande 6% 8% 14% San Luis Obispo 1% 1% 2% C OST CO: 7 % 13% 20% San Luis Obispo 4% 5% 9% Santa Maria 3% 8% 11% S EN ER'S FRESH MARKET: 6% 8% 14% Arroyo Grande 6% 8% 14% S an L uis Obis -- -- C OOKIE GROG( WAREHOUSE*: 4% S% 9% FOONLESS: 5% 5% 10% San Luis Obispo 4% 4% 9% Santa M aria 1% 1% 1% S OLARIS": 4% 3% 7% O THERS: 5% 13% 1896 No other store/only shop In one store na 13% na TOTAL 100% + + * Only Arroyo Grande location mentlone + Totals more than 10 % due to m ultiple mentions Percent of Stores S hopped Located In rid Outside Arroyo Grande Table 5 below provides information about the percent of respondents who are patronizing Mores located in and outside of Arroyo Grande i.e., "leakage''). This table clearly 14 OPINION shows that a significant amount of grocery dollars are being spent outside Arroyo Grande both Arroyo garde residents as well as by people livi ng in nearby communities. More than eight in ten shoppers (8 in the area are traveling to stores located outside of Arroyo Grande to do some or all of their grocery shopping. Only 16% spend all their grocery dollars in Arroyo Grande. Even among Arroyo Grande residents, those who do all of their shopping in Arroyo Grande is relatively small—only r 21 . Another % do some of their shopping in the community but some of it in other communities. And 19 spend all their grocery dollars at stores located outside of Arroyo Grande. Not surprisingly, residents of nearby communities are less loyal to Arroyo Grande stores than are Arroyo Grande residents. Only 12% of this group does all their shopping in Arroyo Grande while 88 spends dollars elsewhere. The largest share of this group (46%) neve shops in Arroyo Grande. Based on these numbers, it appears that Food4lLess has potential to reverse some "leakage" " among Arroyo Grande residents and to bring in additional revenue for the community by attracting shoppers from other communities who are not now patronizing Arroyo Grande stores. Table 8: percent of Shoppers Patronizing stores in /Gut of Arroyo Grande ',' -..5. , •� '� � . r s 11: - fir' A ll Residents 32 % AG Residents 19 Nipomo/G1310ceano Residents 46 0 10 20 % 0 % 0 % 0 60% 70 % 80% 00 %0 100% C3 Do all shopping in AG m Do some s hopping in ACS C] Do no shopping in A 15 OPINION Attitudes toward Food4Less and Courtland Place Project A war n ss of Foo L s To dete rm ine respondents' awareness of Food4ess, respondents were asl ed if they are familiar with Food4Less and if they have ever shopped the store (Table 9 below). Almost all respondents (97%) indicated they are familiar with the chain and 819 have actually shopped in a Food4ess store. Shopping incidence is slightly higher among residents of communities other than Arroyo Grande. Table : Familiarity with Food less Are you familiar with a supermarket called Food4ess, located in Santa Maria, San Leis Obispo and Atascadero Q. Have you ever shopped at a Food4Less store? Not Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande Total Residents Residen Familiar with Food4Less 7% 97 % S Shopped Food4ess 81° 78% 85 Not shopped Food less 16 199 13 Not familiar with F od4Le s 3% 3 2% Rating of Food4Less Respondents were asked to indicate whether they have a favorable or unfavora impression of Food4Less. Table 10 below summarizes respondents' ratings. Eighty -two percent of all respondents said they have a favorable impression of FooMLess. ,About half of these (40%) feel "very favorable` toward Food4Less. only % have an unfavorable impression. Not Arroyo Grande residents rated the store exceptionally high. Among this group,, 909 wave Food4Less a favorable rating with nearly half (48%) giving a "very favorable' rating. Although a little less enthusiastic than Not Arroyo Grande residents, Arroyo Grande residents are nonetheless more likely to give a favorable rating than an unfavorable rating. Seventy -three percent rated the store favorably versus 279 who rated it unfavorably. 16 OPINION Reactions to Courtland Place Project Respondents were asked a number of questions regarding the Food4ess ortland Place project, several o f these questions were designed to measure support and opposition to the project. Others had to do with the Impact of the project on their shopping —in other words, how likely they would be to shop Fo d Less if the project Is developed. Initially, res po ndents were pr vided with the foIlowi ng inforrnatlon about the development: "As you may know /for your information', Food 4 Less is a discount supermarket offering rational brands, everyday low prices, USDA Choice meats, local produce and a best in class private label program. Food 4 Less has applied to the city of Arroyo Grande for permission to develop a Foo&Less at the corner of Courtland and Grand Avenue. It will provide jobs to area residents acrd tuns of thousands of dollars to the city of Arroyo Grande in tax revenue. It will also provide area residents with another option for grocery shopping. Some people support the project; others abject to the project because they thin k it w ill present too much competition to merchants already operating in the area." After hearing this information, respondents were asked to Indicate if they support or oppose the project. I The phrase "as you may know' was used when interviewing respondents who indicated awareness of Food4ess. The phrase "for your information" was used when interviewing respondents who indicated they were not familiar with Food4less. PI 0 r + y N .. l able IU. Katings oT V oQ Less Would you say you have a favorable or unfavorable impression cf Food 4 Less? is that very or SOfT1e111 hat favorable unfavorable? Not Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande . RATINGS Residents e FAVORABLE 82% 73% 90% Very favorable 40% 32% 48% Somewhat favorable 42 41% 42% U NFAVORABLE 18% 27% 109 Very unfavorable 7% 7% 6% Somewhat unfavorable 119 20% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% Base s Respondents familiar enough 318 151 167 with store to rate it of total provkfing a rating 1% 769 84% Reactions to Courtland Place Project Respondents were asked a number of questions regarding the Food4ess ortland Place project, several o f these questions were designed to measure support and opposition to the project. Others had to do with the Impact of the project on their shopping —in other words, how likely they would be to shop Fo d Less if the project Is developed. Initially, res po ndents were pr vided with the foIlowi ng inforrnatlon about the development: "As you may know /for your information', Food 4 Less is a discount supermarket offering rational brands, everyday low prices, USDA Choice meats, local produce and a best in class private label program. Food 4 Less has applied to the city of Arroyo Grande for permission to develop a Foo&Less at the corner of Courtland and Grand Avenue. It will provide jobs to area residents acrd tuns of thousands of dollars to the city of Arroyo Grande in tax revenue. It will also provide area residents with another option for grocery shopping. Some people support the project; others abject to the project because they thin k it w ill present too much competition to merchants already operating in the area." After hearing this information, respondents were asked to Indicate if they support or oppose the project. I The phrase "as you may know' was used when interviewing respondents who indicated awareness of Food4ess. The phrase "for your information" was used when interviewing respondents who indicated they were not familiar with Food4less. PI 0 r + y N .. Table 11 below shows support and opposition to the project among those who have an op1n'[on about the project; those who don't have an opinion (17%) were excluded fro ml the caIcdlations. Here we see that a much larger share of aII respondents support the project (65%) than oppose the project (35%). 1n fact, tho a who support the project outnumber those who oppose the project by a factor of almost 2 to 1 1.9 to 1). More than four In ten respondents (44%) "strongly'' support the project which is more than twice the percentage that "strongly" oppose the project (20%). Support is particularly noteworthy among the Not Arroyo Grande respondents where 749 expressed support and relatively fever -26% -- expressed opposi.t on. Among Arroyo Grande residents, support registers at 56 and opposition, at 44%. "able 11: Support for /opposition to Food4l-ess Project Among Those W Have An pin'ror Ct would you say you support the development of a Food 4 Less In Arroyo Grande, oppose the development of a Food 4 tress 1n Arroyo Grande or would you say you don't have any opinion? [IF SUPPORT OR OPPOSE, ASK :I Do you strongly or somewhat support/oppose the project? Not Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande Total Residents Residents SUPPORT PR JECr 65% 56% 749 Support /strongly 449 36% 529 Support/somewhat 1% 209 229 OPPOSE PROJECT 3596 44% 26% Oppose /strongly 0% 25% 14% Oppose /somewhat 159 19% 12% Total 10096' 100% 100% 6 expressing no opinion /don't know 17% 18% if % Table 12 below breaks out support and opposition by specific stores' shoppers. More than half the people currently shopping at most of Food4less' competitors support the project~ People who are currently shopping at Food ll ax and Food4Less are particularly supportive of the project. Costco, V ns, Cookie Crock and Albertson's shoppers also expressed much more support than opposition. Spencer's shoppers are the most opposed followed by Trader Joe's shoppers and colari's shoppers. However, ever among these shopper groups there are a significant number of supporters. It is interesting to note that the shoppers who are most supportive are frequently those who are shopping at stores located outside Arroyo Grande. 18 OPINION -TP_L�I_ 4 -% . t .___ X I &.r.....: #mejmk . #. er..%.4AI mtr -_%rvnnnrr rAI"Y7n=fltr%rC (~1nnnPrr. As a follow - up question, respondents were asked why they support or oppose the project. Supporters provided a wide range of reasons for the support. The most common reason was "like competition and choice. The second most common reason was 'TooMLess has lower prices /good sales." Other reasons were: "'more convenient, won't have to o eIs where to shop," "like Food4 less 1n general" and "'project will provide jobs; " Those who oppose the project do so for two main reasons--they believe the community has enough stores and or they don't want to see smaller merchants go out of business. Other reasons were mentioned by relatively few respondents. Reactions to V arious Components of the Project To further test respondents' thinking about the project, respondents were given snore specific information about various aspects of the project. Following each information statement, respondents were asked to indicate if the information made them think more 19 OPINION Note: rercencs are uasea omy on rnose responaeniLs wnv exprebbru die upeteivilr din uurr L rtnv■W II%J %J VW�1, excluded from calculations. Read table as: 77% of costco's current customers support the Food4e s project. favorably or less favorably of the project or if the information had no impact on their thinking. The actual statements were: • Statement: "The project will provide 350 to 400 jobs during the construction phase of the project and 150 permanent jobs to area residents. Does this information make you feel more favorable toward the project or less favorable toward the project or does that information trot have any impact on your thinking?" • Statement: "The project design also calls for 30 to 38 low cost homes; this represents more than half of Arroyo Grande's state - mandated obligation to construct affordable housing by 2014. would the inclusion of these homes make you feel more favorable toward the project or less favorable toward the project or does that information not have any impact on your thinking?" • Statement: "The center where the Food 4 Less store will be located will also include a sit -down casual dining restaurant. would the inclusion of this restaurant make you feel more favorable toward the project or less favorable toward the project or does that information not have any impact on your thinking?" Information regarding the number of jobs that will be provided by the project was more impressive to respondents than other information. Half of all respondents indicated that this information would make them feel more favorable toward the project. About a third said that this information would have no impact on their thinking. About one -third of all respondents (37%) said that the Inclusion of low cost homes would make therm feel more favorable toward the project. Not Arroyo Grande residents more than Arroyo Grande residents found favor with this information. However., this statement elicited more negative responses than did either of the other two statements. nearly one in five respondents (19%) said this component of the project would make them feel less favorable toward the project. Arroyo Grande residents were more inclined than Not Arroyo Grande residents to be negatively influenced by this information (23% versus 16%, respectively). Least impressive is the inclusion of a sit -down restaurant. While one -third said this feature would make them feel more favorable about the project, twice as marry (63%) said it would have no impact on their thinking. Table 13: Reactions to Specific Information about Project 20 O.PINION More Less No STATEMENT favorable favorable impact Provision of 350 to 400 jobs and 150 Total 57% 5 39% permanent jobs to area residents AG residents 51% 43% Not AG residents 62% 4% 34% Inclusion of for 30 to 38 low cost homes Total 37% 19% 44% AG residents 30% 23% 47% Not AG residents 44% 16% 40% Include a sit -down casual dining Total 31% 6% 63% restaurant AG residents 27% 66% Not AG residents 369 5' 59% 20 O.PINION Impact of Project on Future Shopping Likelihood of Shopping oo&Less In addition to measuring reactions to the project, the survey queried respondents on hover likely they are to shop Food Less "at least once in a while" if the project is developed (see Table 14 below). Those who say they will shop the store (67%) outnumber those who say that are not likely to shop the store (33%) by a factor of 2 to 1. Expected patronage is especially high among residents of communities outside of Arroyo Grande. Among this group, those who are likely to shop (73%) outnumber those who are not likely to shop % by a factor of almost to 1 (2.7 to ). While not quite as impressive as the support expressed by Not Arroyo Grande residents, the share of Arroyo Grande residents who expect to shop Food less 0 %) is still significantly larger than the share that doesn't expect to shop the store (40%). Table 1 impact of Project on G rocery Shopping — Likelihood of 5hopping Food4Less Thinking again about the Food 4 Less store, if the project is approved and the Food 4 Less store is constructed in Arroyo Grande, how likely are you to shop at the store at least once in a while? Are you....? So which stores are likely to see some customer attrition to FoodLess? Table 15 below shows the percent of shoppers of each store who indicated they are "very or somewhat likely' to shop Food4 less if it is approved and developed. Sho ppers currently shopping Food L ss in San Luis Obispo, FoodMaxx in Santa Maria, C ostco in Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo and Vows in Nipomo and Grover Beach are the stores m ost likely to experience some decline in sales once Food4Less is operating. Cookie Crock more than other Arroyo Grande based stores many experience some decrease in business. Alberts n's may also be impacted. Scol ri's, Spencer's and Trader Joe's are the least likely to be impacted. 21 OPINION Not Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande TOTAL Residents Residents LIKELY 67% 0 739 Very likely 41% 37% 44° Somewhat likely 26% 23% NOT LIKELY 33% 409 779 Very unlikely 22% 6% 1 Somewhat unlikely 11% 14% Excludes don't know, no answers So which stores are likely to see some customer attrition to FoodLess? Table 15 below shows the percent of shoppers of each store who indicated they are "very or somewhat likely' to shop Food4 less if it is approved and developed. Sho ppers currently shopping Food L ss in San Luis Obispo, FoodMaxx in Santa Maria, C ostco in Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo and Vows in Nipomo and Grover Beach are the stores m ost likely to experience some decline in sales once Food4Less is operating. Cookie Crock more than other Arroyo Grande based stores many experience some decrease in business. Alberts n's may also be impacted. Scol ri's, Spencer's and Trader Joe's are the least likely to be impacted. 21 OPINION Co mparison o Customer Profiles comparison of customer profiles for Spencer's, Cookie Crock and FoodLess based on those who said they are very likely to shop Food4e s) indicates that the three stores appeal to very different shoppers (Table 16 below). Customers of Spencer's and Cookie Crock are similar in some respects; they tend to be older (over ), to live in one and two person households and to reside in Arroyo Grande. Spencer's customers live in Nigher income households than do customers of Cookie Crock. Spencer's shoppers are also more likely to be Anglo. Cookie Crock's customers, more than either of the other two stores, have been impacted by the current economic downturn. By contrast, Food4ess custorners are more likely to reside outside Arroyo Grande, to be sunder the age of 55 and to live in households with three or more people. A significant number will be Hispanic or some other ethnicity, similar to Cookie Crock's customers. Household incomes of this group will be lower than those of Spencer's shoppers but higher than those of Cookie Crock's customers. Note: Highlights indicate main differences between three groups. 22 OPINION T =k10 7 K* W. of Fmr-h tnra "c Khnninare 1A hn Ara I deal► M Ckn n I:nnrIAI acc At i anct 0nr p in ;% Whip I a Di e Lo: comparison yr t..w turrnt:r r u iiie r=ood4Less' Spencer's Cookie Crock's Likely Current Current Customers *_ Customerms Customers COMMUNITY OF RESIDENCE 11% 3% 10% Arroyo Grande 45% 63% 62% Not Arroyo Grande 55% 379 38% Niporno 19% 3% Grover Beach 19% 22% 24% ceano 16 12% 14% AGE 18-34 11% 3% 10% 35-54 47% 29% 33% 55+ 42% 69% 57% ICITY ETHNICITY Caucasian nglo 67% 1% 69% Hispanic 23% 12% 13% Other 7% 7% 18% HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1- 2 persons 44% 69% 61% 3 people 56% 31% 39% HOUSEHOLD INCOME 50,000 44% 33% 57% $50 56% 67% 43% IMPACTED BY ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 53% 37% 63 * DO ne d as those who they are ve ry Iikely t0 shop Foo&Less Nate: Excludes refused /no ansvwrer Council Vote To further measure support for the project, respondents were asked how they thin Arroyo G ran de's City Cou nclf members should Grote on I ovember 9 fn Table 17 be Io w, we see that among those who have an opinion those who recommend an approval Grote 3% far outnumber those who recommend a reject vote (37%). Note: Twenty -two percent do not have an opinion o n the issue. As observed in earlier tables, Not Arroyo Grande residents support the project in greater nurnbers than do Arroyo Grande residents Q 2 % versus 28%). I hile not as decisive as the Not Arroyo Grande resident group, Arroyo G rande residents nevertheless recommend are approval Grote more often than a reject Grote (54% versus 46%). 23 OPINION T v: L ity L ouncii vote O n Tuesday, November 9, Arroyo Grande's pity council will be reviewing the project's application and will mote to either approve or reject the application. what do you think the council should do....approve the application or reject the a pplication or don't you know? Arroyo Grande Not Arroyo Grande Residents Residents Approve 3 54% 72 Reject 37% 46% 289 Excludes don't know, no opinion Table 18 below looks at this data by stores currently shopped. Respondents who are currently shopping Food llaxx, Food4ess, Costco and Vons overwhelmingly support an approval vote. And more than half of those who shop Albertson's, Cookie Crock and Sc1arl's also suggest a "yes" vote. Trader Joe's customers are split on the question — support a "yes" vote and support a "nom" vote. The mar jority o f Spencer's shoppers 3 %) support a reject vote. It is interesting to mote that the shoppers who most support an approval vote are all customers of stores located outside of Arroyo Grande. Table 18: of Each Store's Shoppers Ur i ng City C ou nc li t o Ac ept or Reject Application Fo Food4l ess C s V Vons Alb rtson's Cookie roc Scol ari's Trader ,doe's Spencer's r�+rri-_fir "T. "..�y. #r; .l'r�,..y - rt_ _rY= .f*3�""k' <S -:'T ' "r,S. r��• "Y+r —-[i � r "r.�.. }_ { - "+.rw ,4. T.- .�'�+�T�•� `7 s�Y�r �,.�• .� ti" .. •. �.. .. _. .. .. ,.., — r� j-#. .— - .,•. , , ' �. ., .. :� f5: 4— " _ _. t ff y , �• .� + Ny `4 +.., . , k .. +. -�..} 4':" '„ + — � 'TYr iR ` � y ��rt's,l. iL • s }.. �: rv�S4 — 1 f � � Y�LF.. X��" , ,— a�1..r, -" iii % 10% % 30% 40% % 0 % 0 °I 80% % 100% o Approve ■ R Note: Percentages are based only on those respondents who expressed an opinion. 24 N Section 4: CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS Data gathered in this survey will be helpful in a variety of ways. First and foremost, survey findings should be of great interest to Arroyo Grande City Council members as they revie w NI T's application. In essence, the survey indicates that the Food4 ss project is a grin -win for the community. It shows that the project will generate tax revenue for the community that is now benefiting anther communities. It also suggests that current retailers will not be strongly impacted by Fod4Les' presence, that many poterntial patrons are ones that are riot currently shopping Arroyo Grande stores, particularly Spencer's. The surrey data provides council members with a perspective of current shopping patterns. It delineates the largest players (I ons and Albertson's) and provides a measure of each player's current position in the market place. The information that will be of most interest to council members, of course, is the nurnber of shoppers who are spending grocery dollars outside the city of Arroyo Grande. Most compelling (and perhaps surprising) is the number of Arroyo Grande residents (79%) who are doing some or all of their shopping at stores Located outside Arroyo Grande. Second most compelling is the prospect of potential business from people living in nearby communities, Almost half are currently not shopping ire Arroyo Grande and another 42 are doing only some of their shopping there. This data coupled with information regarding these Not Arroyo Grande residents' high awareness of and very positive attitudes toward Food4ess indicates that Food4Less will be successful in garnering a significant amount of patronage fr rn people currently bringing little or no tax revenue to the commurnity of Arroyo Grande. According to survey data,, the stores that will be most impacted by Food4Less' presence are other stores known as "price discounters" and lions —all located outside Arroyo Grande. Some of Food4es `+customer base will be people currently shopping its San Luis Obispo store. The point here, of course, is that Food4Less has the potential to benefit Arroyo Grande without putting other Arroyo Grande businesses out of business. 25 OPINION C ft 0 INCOIRPORATIEO �i IK JULY to. lo tj Oft MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR F LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES/CITY CLEFT 1:d� SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NO 9, 2 'I , CI COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 9-b . DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 201 Attached is correspondence received today from Barbara Fullerton r Agenda Item 9.b. — Conditional Use Permit 10-001,, on the November 9, 2010 City Council Agenda. c: City Manager Director of Community Development City Attorney 1 0 ,'� ' t r #; 0 3 City of Arroy G r ande Attn., City Council 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: CUP 10-00 1, Food Fo Less November 8,, 2010 Dear City Council Members, I live directly beh ind Spencer's Market a they have been good neighbors. We hear the men unloading trucks but it is non-threatening, ing, so we don't even pay attention any more. I don't want to hurt Spencer's, but I am in favor of the Food 4 Less store, because there are a lot of people who need to save money on their grocery bill and I aim one of therm. In looking at the sale papers, Food 4 Less has leer prices that would benefit the citizens of AG, especially since low-cost housing is being encouraged and there's sealer housing already on Courtlarid. I shop at all the stores, but some are very expensive, so I only buy their "loss - leaders ". It would help save me gas and time to be able to go to one store for all my needs. Also, please don't male this a "smaller" big -box store like they chid to valmart. As it is, we own go to Santa Maria valrmart for their better selection that the AG store can't offer due its size. Sincerely, Barbara Fullerton 281 Chelsea Court Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 IApRTEO JULY 10. voll IF MEMORANDUM To* CITE COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NOVEMBER , 201 , CITY COUNCIL CIL AGENDA ITEM 9.b. DATE* NOVEMBER 8, 2010 Attached is email correspondence received today regarding the Food4Less Courtlan Place Project on the November 9, 2010 City Council Agenda. : City Manager City Clerk City Attorney From: Teresa McCl sb Sent: Monday, November 08,2010 5:0 P To: (ally Wetmore Subject: FW6 Please Distribute To the Council Teresa McCli h, AICP Director of Community Development City of arroyo Grande P.O. Box 530 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 473 -5420 fax (805) 473 -5489 t .c hsh6i),arrayo ran e,or Frost: Tong Ferrara Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:35 PM To: Teresa M cl i s h Cc: Steve Adams Subject: Please Distribute To the Council From: Sent: Sat 11/6/2010 :o AM To: Tony Ferrara Subject: Website Message Hello Tony and All Council Members - Please know r that my husband and 1, both residents of Arroyo Grande, f eel strongly a in t the proposition of allowing a Food 4 Less to be located on Grand Avenue. We do shop at the SLO location and have no issue driving there when we choose to, but 3 large grocery stores within such a short distance would not be wise, in our opinion. Thanks for listening! Marci Imes From: Teresa McClish Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:59 PM To Kelly Wetmore Subject: Full: Website Message Importance: High Teresa McGish,, rIP Director of Commuluity Development City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 473 -5420 fax 473 -5489 tmc dish a arroyo grandc .erg From: Tong Ferrara Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:36 P To: Teresa McClish Subject: Full: 1ebsite Message Teresa: For the Council. Tony From: , - -- Sent: Mon 11/8/2010 1 :0 P To: Tong Ferrara Subject: 1ebslte Message Bear Mr. Ferrara, I would like to put in my two cents about the Food 4 Less project, on Courtland and Grand ave. While I don't live within the city limits , Arroyo Grande has been na home for more than 30 years. f love the small town nature of Arroyo Grande. It is unique and not a cookie utter sameness of so many other towns, and that so many are turning into. Please help it continue in it's unique and small town feel, with the VETO of the Food less project. Grand Ave isn't really the right venue for a store that big or of that typo, not to mention the narrowness of urtland in that area.. I foresee many traffic farms and accidents because proposed plans configuration. 'There is also the economic consideration, looking at the numbers by themselves night entice one to jump on the project, but when looking at the big picture such as impact on the businesses already in the community, then I think that hose numbers, will not be as attractive to the community. sincerely, Jana L jepava Kelly Wetmore From: lindable13 @charter.net Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:30 PM To: Kelly Wetmore Subject: Website Message Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmembers: As Grover Beach residents, we want to ask you to please vote against the prospect of a Food For Less store coming to Arroyo Grande. We are loyal customers to all our existing markets in Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande, and do not want competition of this type of mega -store jeopardizing the balance that exists among Spencers, Cookie Crock and Vons. Aesthetically, the huge box of a store would be an ugly blot on our townscape and forever negatively impact the charm the City of Arroyo Grande. Finally, this store will overexceed the shopping needs of our populus, and we respectfully request you answer "no" to Food For Less. Sincerely, Linda and Patrick Morrissey, Grover Beach, CA t RO INCORPORATE II EMORANDU L JULY 10, 1911 c• To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY W__ DEVELOPMENT ELOPMENT DIRECTOR : RAN FOSTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER )2 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-003; LOCATION SOUTHWEST CORNER of EAST GRAND AV ENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAN STREET, APPLICANT — PEOPLES' SELF-HELP HOUSING CORPORATION DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: I ATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 10 -003 based on the its recommendation against adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration ND prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 (the Commission did not provide any findings to deny the proposed project). FINANCIAL IMPACT; The potential property tax revenue that the City will receive from the development of Subarea 4 is unknown and dependent upon whether the proposed project qualifies for a property tax exemption for low and very -low income housing. If approved by the City Council, Peoples' Self Help Housing will be requesting financial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency for the project. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CUP 10-003 NOVEMBER 9,2010 PAGE 2 A Item 9.c. Pa 2 CITY COUNCIL CUP 10-003 NOVEMBER 9, 201 PACE 3 Housing PSHH. The property was sold to PSHH for the same price it was purchased for. As part of this transaction, an affordable housing deed restriction from property owned by PSHH at 205 El Camino Deal was transferred to Subarea 4, which allowed the El Camino Rear property to be redeveloped by the South County V (currently under construction). The specifics of the deed restriction have been incorporated into Specific Plan Amendment 10-001. The Subarea 4 property provides both a larger parcel and better location for the PSHH residential project than the El Camino property. Pro`ect Descrip The proposed project will develop a thirty -six 3 unit multi - family apartment complex consisting of one (1), two 2 and three 3 bedroom units. All units will be deed - restricted for low and very -low income eligible tenants, which exceeds the requirements of the deed restriction recorded on the property. A single -story communit building with manager's office is located at the entrance to the complex and the apartment buildings are both two and three -story -- the three -story buildings are located at the rear of the site, adjacent to the paring let to satisfy California Fire Code requirements. The proposal includes a total of fifty -four off - street parking spaces, which is consistent with the provisions of Specific Plan Amendment 10-00 1. Architectural Review Committee Review The ARC reviewed proposed plans for develo pment of Subarea 4 at its meeting of August 2, 2010 (Attachment 4), recommending approval of the project. The proposed project has since been revised to move the three -story buildings from the northern portion of the property to the middle of the property, adjacent to the parking lot. The overall proposed scale, architectural style, colors and materials have not changed. Planning Commission review The Planning Commission reviewed the plans for development of Subarea 4 at its meeting of October 19, 2010 (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed project due primarily to concerns with the draft (litigated (Negative Declaration III and the development standards for Subarea 3 contained within Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 that the commission felt would not provide for an adequate buffer between commercial and residential uses. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: Legislative vs. Judicial Acts Every decision a local government males can be placed into one of three categories — legislative, quasi-judicial or ministerial Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates, zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local lava — rules that Agenda Item 9.c. Page 3 CITY COUNCIL CUP '1 -003 NOVEMBER 9, 201 PAGE 4 apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California law, legislative acts are subject to initiative and referendum. Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislative acts) to projects, such as consideration of tentative maps o use permits. These acts are discretionary, based on the decision - makers interpretation and application of policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or refe rendum. Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local government, such as the :mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are met. The proposed project is a quasi - judicial action — if approved, it will grant the property owner entitlements to develop the property in substantial conformance with the approved plans, subject to any conditions of approval. Consistency with 2005 Specific Plan Amendment Staff has analyzed the pro posed project to determine its consistency with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP) as it was amended in 2005. The proposed project is inconsistent with the following development standards for subarea 3 as amended in 2005: Front Yard setback The minimum front yard setback in the 2005 amendment is 10 , which the proposed project complies with as the south Courtland Street frontage is considered the front yard. Side Yard setback The minimum side yard setback in the 2005 amendment is 25' for dwelling units. The proposed project includes side yard setbacks of 4' (adjacent to existin single - family residences) and ' (adjacent to Subarea 3). It should be noted that the residential property is narrower than anticipated in the 2005 Specific Plan amendment provisions, which :Hakes it problematic to meet the 25' requirement and potentially difficult even with the proposed 10' setback. Parking The parking ratio in the 2005 amendment requires a total of eighty -sic (86) spaces (sixty-eight 6 covered) based on number of bedrooms per unit. The proposed project includes a total of fifty -four 4 parking spaces, all uncovered. This is based on a parking ratio of one 1 space per every 0.05 bedrooms, inclusive of guest parking. This ratio was derived from observed paring demand at similar projects managed by PSHH over the past several years, all of which are located in Arroyo Grande. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 4 CITY COUNCIL CUP '1 -003 NOVEMBER 9, 201 PAGE 5 Staff has determined that these development standards are difficult to meet if the project is to develop the desired density established for this property (28 units /acre are allowed, 22 units /acre are proposed), particularly while also maintaining additional separation from the existing single - family neighborhood to the south, complying with fire access requirements and providing quality open space and common amenities. Cons istencv with S pecific Plan Amend r ent 10-00 1 Staff has analyzed the proposed project to determine its consistency with Specific Plan Amendment 10-001. The proposed project is inconsistent with the following development standard for Subarea 4 in Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001: Side Yard setback The minimum required side yard setback for subarea 4 on the side adjacent to Subarea 3 is ten 10 feet. The proposed project has a minimum side yard setback of five feet on the side adjacent to Subarea 3. The project could be approved a proposed if a concession (discussed below) were to be granted. Otherwise, the project could be revised to comply with the required 10' side yard setback by moving northwest portions of the building ' to the south, reducing the adjacent common open space proportionately. Any increase in the setback will likely result in either a reduced common open space area or a smaller setback from the Berry Gardens single - family residential area. It should also be noted that the building has been modified so that no units face the Subarea 3 side of the property. As a result, the project is designed to place a higher priority on the interior courtyard than the side yard buffer area. Affordable Dousing Concessions State law and City code allows for concessions to be granted to affordable housing projects that meet certain criteria. The purpose of the concessions is to ensure the financial feasibility of the proposed affordable housing project. Relief from setback and minimum parking requirements are both identified as possible concessions that can be granted under these provisions. The applicant has not formally requested any concessions for the proposed project as Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 effectively includes these concessions in the development standards for Subarea 4. If approval of the proposed project was pursued independent of Specific Plan Amendment 10-001, the applicant would have to formally request, and the City Council approve concessions to deviate from existing setback and parking requirements. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the project will be consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation; however, that recommendation was based on the Commission's inability to adopt the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration IVII D prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 and not any perceived fatal flaws with the proposed project. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 5 CITY COUNCIL CUP 10-003 NOVEMBER 9.201 PAGE 6 DISADVANTAGES: Denial of the project would preclude a significant addition of needed affordable and rental housing stock, as well as progress in meeting the City's and Redevelopment Agency's affordable housing requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) Guidelines, staff has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Specific Plan Amendment ent 1 -001. Because the proposed project is consistent with the project described in the MND prepared for Specific Plan Amendment ent 10-001, no further environmental revie w is required, as the potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified and reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation measures in the MND. If the MND is not adopted, the proposed project cannot be approved at this time. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all pro perty owners within 300' of the project site and also published in the Tribune on Friday, October 22, 2010. As of November 2010, staff has not received any public comment regarding the proposed project. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Deny Conditional Use Permit 10 -003, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation against adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001; 2. Take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration NIND prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 and approve Conditional Use Permit 10-003 as proposed, granting a concessions for required side yard setbacks and parking and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; 3. Take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration MND prepared for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 and approve Conditional Use Permit 10 -003 with a concession for required side yard setback and a revision to increase the side yard setback to 10' and direct staff to return with a supporting Resolution; or 4. Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. ARC meeting notes, August 2, 201 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes, October 19, 20'10 Agenda Item 9.c. Page 6 ATTACHMENT 'I DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ARC) MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 2010 The meeting of the City of Arroyo Grande Architectural Review Committee was called to order at 4:05 PM by Chair Hoag. ROLL CALL: Present were Committee Members Betita, Goss, Harris and Chair Tag. APPROVAL of MINUTES: N/A. I. PUBLIC COMMENT: None Iii PROJECTS: A. CONDITIONAL AL USE PERMIT 10-003, APPLICANT - PEOP'LE'S SELF -HELP HOUSING; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER of EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COU TLA iD STREET Associate Planner Ryan Foster presented the staff report. Bruce Fraser, project representative, discussed the proposed project, including architectural style, colors and materials and the proposed parking reduction. ARC members asked questions and :made comments about the project including: 0 Clarification of setbacks (front side, rear; * Architectural style and :materials; 0 The proposed parking reduction; Use of copulas and overall mass and scale of the proposed buildings. Mr. Goss made a :motion, seconded by 1r. Harris, to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission w ith the following recommendations /conditions: The Berry Gardens Specific Plan should be revised relating to development standards for Subarea 4 to be consistent with the project as proposed. The ARC will review the color and materials board prior to issuance of any building permits. The :notion was approved on a 4-0 voice Vote. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 7 ATTACHMENT IENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER '19, 2010 • South facing sign shall not be permitted due to square footage exceeding l=ive Cities Center Planned Sign Program. RESOLUTION CVO. A RESOLUTION of THE PLANNING COMMISSION ISSION of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE No, 10 -005; ESTABLISHMENT of A 5,100 SQUARE FOOT CHASE BALK; 900 RANCHO PARKWAY The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES. Commissioners Ruth, Barneich, Brown, been, and Martin NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19 day of October 2010. D. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT T CASE No. 10-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. -003; APPLICANT — PEOPLE'S SELF HELP HOUSING; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER of EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH CoRTLAI'D STREET Chair Brown stated he would like to have separate discussion on the Specific Plan Amendment, (litigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Ryan Foster gave a brief explanation and presented the staff report to the Planning Commission to consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and development of Subarea 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan with thirty -six 3 affordable apartment units including one-bedroom, two - bedroom and three - bedroom units. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CE A , the Community Development Department has prepared a draft mitigated negative declaration for the project. Staff responded to questions from the Commission concerning the adoption process of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, State law regarding potential concessions for People Self Delp Housing being built; explained that the Specific Plan needs to be cleaned p; and indicated that the approval of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; addressed the fire lane; and indicated ARC has recommended approval of the project. Associate Planner Foster indicated staff received a letter today from Del Clegg, Vice President of Alpine Colony Enterprises, Inc., which tallied about piecemeal development; ghettoization of horsing project and doing too much with too little. Commission discussion included the set back from the three story building from ferry Gardens and location of three story building; setbacks in the existing Specific Plan versus the changes; questioned the 7,000 vehicle trips per day identified in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and the project description in the negative declaration. Chair Brown opened the meeting for public comments: Agenda Item 9.c. Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 2010 PAGE Scott Smith, representative of People's Self Help Housing, indicated that tuning is critical due to funding; and gage a brief description of the apartments; and hove it would operate. Bruce Frasier, said that in Conditional of Approvals, number 17(e), should be corrected to `landscape architect', talked about the project design, fire code access, landscaping and trees, and supports the conditions of approval and Specific Plan Amendment. He then addressed questions from the Commission regarding the type and location of fences; landscape behind proposed Food 4 Less and rear setbacks. . Scott Smith addressed questions from Commissioners regarding rental terms; management of apartments and parking reductions. Associate Planner Foster addressed questions regarding Subarea 4, access circulation and parking; and fences and walls. Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis, representative for ITT, supports Planning Commission approval and gage some history. Th'e following people spoke in opposition to the Food 4 Less project (Subarea 3 ) and provided the following comments /concerns: high traffic volume and parking on courtland; left turn notion onto Courtland; sight distance northbound on courtland; driveway angle; drainage calculations; type of fence may be a problem; the People's Self Help housing is a good addition to the neighborhood; referring to Specific Plan Amendment, addition of 50,000 square foot building is too big; referred to Food 4 Less having a economic, environmental, and traffic impact; other business in the center will be Impacted, Cookie Crock will suffer an economic impact; negative declaration is inadequate; suggested having a full Ells; lame trucks entering /exciting and will have an impact on the neighborhood; did not know Food 4 Less was going to be addressed tonight and was not appropriately noticed; noise and odor problems; suggested types of business that could occupy the commercial area; proposed apartments will not have adequate room for children to play; in favor of affordable housing but too jammed; gateway plan does not allover a big store in this location; in favor of smaller stores; setbacks; referred to the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan. - Wendell Wilkes, Huckleberry Ave. - John Spencer, South Halcyon Pd. - Del Clegg, East Grand Ave. - B nadene Duffin, Newport Ave. Richard Duffin, Newport Ave. - Patrick Dempsey, eollado Corte - Michael Morrow, Raspberry Ave. - Scott Pace, Doty Drive - Beatrice Spencer, ealle Corte - John Gutierrez, Arroyo Grande Carolyn Johnson-Friedman, Newport Avenue, asked if Subarea 3 could be reviewed separately in the Specific Plan Amendment. O ;notion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Barrneich, unanimously carried to continue addressing this item as the time was 10 :00 prim. In answer to Commissioner Barneich, Fire Chief Hubert stated the fire access is acceptable. Commission discussion included square footage of CVs, V ons, sesloc and Longs; parking for visitors at Peoples self Help Housing; whether the proposed project was adequately covered in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; only addressing Subarea 4 in the specific Plan Amendment and striking Subarea 3 f and supporting the Conditional Use Permit. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 201 PAGE Associate Planner Foster read the notice that was mailed and advertised to the audience for clarification. O n motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth and unanimously carried it was recommended that the City Council not adopt the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration based on concerns relating to Subarea 3 and therefore deny Specific Flan Amendment 1 00001; preferring that Planning Commission be allowed to consider separate amendments for each subarea and . O n motion by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth and unanimously carried, it wa s recommended that the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 based concerns with - Subarea 3 in the environmental determination. IV, REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTIONMOTICES OF ADMINISTRATIVE E DECISIONS SINCE OCTOBER 010: , r �jl��. C 1 � � :� fir.: M •:k:k s �,��5;1 - �* *'' : h'. .•��+'� �.:. s'Addr ri' ��}1• ...�.�.,�. ,•�. F �, '. ... � - y::�.. ' bison t in ci.IQn� Planner 1 . PPR 10-013 Mike R oese 825 East G rand Ave. Conversion of an auto gl re pair Approved D. M imick shop to an aquarium shoptsh wroom. . TUP 10-020 Rabobank 1026 East Grand Temporary Chflstmas Tree Approved S. Shaffer Ave. V . DISCUSSION ITEMS: None 111. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW- Community r Developm nt Director McDlish asked Commissioners if _they would be at the November 2, 201 regular meeting as at this time there is one public hearing Item s cheduled for the meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT O n emotion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously carried tine rrleet i ng adjourned at 1 :00 pm. ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ISSION TIM BROWN, CHAIR As TO CONTENT: TERESA MccLISFI, COMMUNITY NITY DE IEL PMENT DIRECTOR (Approved a t the meeting Agenda Item 9.c. Page 10 ATTACHMENT 3 EXHIBIT 'A' DRAFT CONDITIONS of APPROVAL CUP 10-001 SOUTHWEST CORNER of EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COURTLAND STREET GENERAL CONDITIONS: 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 Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -003. 3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Com mission at Its meeting of October 19, 2010. 4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City, Its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may at Its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense o any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION: SPECIAL CONDITIONS 5 Verify that the existing lift station in Tract 2260 has adequate capacity to serge the proposed development. If not, design and fund the upgrade or the lift station to the satisfaction of the Community D evelopment Director. 6. All on -site sewer lines will be noted as "private." 7. The "grater main loop through the project site shalt be located in a 15' wide grater main easement. 8. Dedicate 10 feet of rig ht -o - way on Courtland Street. g. Install full frontage improvements (including street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, Agenda Item 9.c. Page 11 landscaping and street-lighting) C urtl nd Street to City Standards. 1 0. Implement LID l3MPs into the project design. 11. Comply with new stormwater retention standards impose F by the e ional 1later Q uality control Board. GENERAL CONDITIONS 12. Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or as directed by the Director of Community Development or the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance. . 13. Perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7 A.M. to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than . site maintenance outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or approved by the Community Develop Director. The City may hold the developer or contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14. All ro'ect improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the � p City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 15. Submit three 3 full -size paper copies and one 1 full -size r ylar copy of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes d uring construction. 6. submit as -hunt plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director. One 1 set of mylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required. The following Improvement plans shall be p repared ared by a registered Civil Engineer p p p p and approved by the Community Development Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control, b. Street paging, curb, gutter and sidewalk, . C. Public utilities, d. Wa and severer, e. Landscaping and irrigation, f. Any other improvements as required by the Community Development Director. 18. 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 Agenda Item 9.c. Page 12 b. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed severer 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. 19. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets, utilities and retaining walls. 20. Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development and Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Depar eats. WATER 21. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance must grant permission to dead end grater mains. 22. construction grater is available at the corporate yard. The city of Arroyo Grande does not allover the use of hydrant meters. 23. One domestic use grater meter and one irrigation meter is required for the apartment project. 2. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in grater demand created by the project by either; a. Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing high- flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the city council for approval prior to implementation; OR, . The applicant may pay an in lieu fee for each new residential unit. SEWER 2. A new manhole is required for connection of the proposed 6 " sewer lateral to the severer main in courland Street. 26. All sewer laterals Within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2 %. 2. All sever mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. 2. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the development's Agenda Item 9.c. Page 13 impact to District facilities. PUBLIC UTILITIES 29. Underground all never public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the Development Code. 80. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving. 31. Submit the Utility Plans to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Community Development Director for approval. 82. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. 88. Insert project specific conditions here. STREETS 84. Obtain approval from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance prior to excavating in any street recently over- -laid or slurry sealed. The Director shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal. 38. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned and filled with epoxy. 3. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. 3. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R -Value soil test, but shall not be less than 3" of asphalt and " of Class I I AB. 88. Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal any roads dedicated to the City prior to acceptance by the City may be required as directed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance. CURB, GUTT R. AND SIDEWALK 3. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Durtland Street as directed by the Community Development Director. 40. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 41. Install ADA compliant facilities in accordance with current City and State standards. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 14 2. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. GRADING 3.. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance. 44 Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 45. Submit all retaining gall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development Director for wails not constructed per City standards. DRAINAGE 46. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 1 00-year stomp flog. 47. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan. DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 8. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 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. 49. The applicant shall dedicate pedestrian access easements to the back of the meandering sidewalk. o. 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. 51. A Public Utility Easement PUE shall be reserved a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to all street right of Trays. The PDE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. PERMITS 2. 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 gray, Agenda Item 9.c. Page 15 d. Storing equipment in the City right of way. 3. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site. FEES 54. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due. 55. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval: . Map check fee b. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. C. Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. d. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. e. Inspection fee of subdivision or public works construction plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. 56. Impact fees to specific capital improvement projects as determined by the Community Development Director. AGREEMENTS 57. 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. b. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions as required by the City. IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES g. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code Section 16.68.090, Improvement Securities. 60. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by the Community Development Director. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 16 O THER DOCUMENTATI 1. Tax Certificate: The applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's o ff ce indicating that there are no unpaid takes or special assessments against the property. The applicant may be required to bond for any unpaid takes or liens against the property. This shall be submitted prior to placing the map on the City Council Agenda for approval. 2. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to checking the map. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PE IIIT 3. The Final Map shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval satisfied. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 64. All utilities shall be operational. 5. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non - essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial seurities, may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Community Development Director. 66. Prior to the final 10% of occupancies for the project are issued, all it provements shall be fully constructed and accepted by the City. B UILDING DIVISION: 67. All buildings shall comply with the latest adopted California Building Codes. FIRE DEPARTMENT 8. installation of a NFP ► 13R Fire Protection system shall be required for all residential units. 9. Installation of an NFPA 13 system shall be required for the community building. o. Prior to occupancy, provide a directory map sign shall be installed at the entrance to the site that shows the location of all dwelling units. The directory sign should be of a size that is easily readable and shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. 1. Fire extinguishers shall be located within 75' of all front doors of each residential knit in a protective enclosure with appropriate signs posted. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 17 72. Gas meters shall be labeled with knits seared and signage posted, RED in color, with letters V minimum in height, indicating the location. 73. Electrical rooms electrical meters shall be posted with signage, FEED in color, with letters 1" minimum in height, stating: ELECTRICAL ROM unit serviced. 74. Address number shall be Arabic numerals or Alphabet Letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stoke width of o. 5 inch in residential commercial zones. 75. The driveway shall be designated and posted as "Fire Lane, No Parking ". All designated fire lanes shall be red striped with the words FIRE LANE stenciled every 50 feet. 76. As per CFC 503.2.3, the driveway shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (75,0 00 pounds minimum). . 77. Prior to delivery of combustible building materials on -site, the hydrants and water system shall pass all required tests and be connected to the public grater system. 78. Prior to construction of combustible materials, an all - weather surface shall be in place to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The surface shall be of sufficient thickness to support the imposed load of a fire apparatus. The access for use of firefighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job construction site at the start of construction and maintained at all time until construction is completed. 79. The number and location of all required fire hydrants shall be determined by the Fire Chief. o. The water system for the project shall be looped. RECREATION AND MAINTENANCE AI CE FACILITIES 81. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Director of Recreation and Maintenance Facilities for review and approval. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MM 111 -1: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to include an allowable parking reduction to promote bicycle, pedestrian and transit use. Monitoring: Review of Specific Plan Amendment Responsible Party: Planning Division Timeline: Prior to final City Council Action Agenda Item 9.c. Page 18 MM 111 -2: The site design shall be revised to include a bus turnout and transit shelter to rep lace the existing east -bound bus stop (East Grand Avenue) adjacent to the site subject to review and approval by the Regional Transit Authority TA and Director of Community Development. Monitoring: Review of construction plans Responsible Party; Planning Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM 111 -3: The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and adhered to for all construction - related permits; Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. Use rater trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. increase watering frequency when rind speeds exceed 1 MPH. Reclaimed (non- potable) water shall be used whenever possible. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed. Permanent dust - control measures identified in the approved revegetation /landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil- disturbing activities. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one 1 month after initial grading should be sown with a fast - germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board APC. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paged should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two 2 feet of freeboard minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with C C Section 23114. Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site. Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed non - potable grater should be used where feasible. The contractor/builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport Agenda Item 9.c. Page 19 of dust off -site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) prior to the start of any construction- related activities. 0 Staging and queuing areas shall be located as far away as possible from any sensitive receptors. 0 Diesel idling within 1 ,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. Use of alternative- fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible. Signs that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. Monitoring: 11 Review of construction plans Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline; Prior to issuance of building permit SIAM 111-4: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos ( NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements Outlined in the Air Resource B oard {AID Air Tonics control Measure ATOM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. Monitoring: F eview of geologic evaluation Responsible nsible Party: SL APCD Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM 111-5: All portable equipment 0 horsepo wer or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the CARE or the APCD. Monitoring: I evie w of construction plans Responsible Party: SLAPCD Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM 111-6: Should hydrocarbon - contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty -eight 4 hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six 0 inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH — non - permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate. Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind Or grater. No openings in the covers are permitted. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 20 During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. Monitoring: site inspection Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: During any site grading activities MM l Ill- : The specific plan amendment shall be reprised to prohibit the following commercial uses: 0 Nail salons; Dry- cleaners; Coffee roasters; • Gasoline stations; Furniture refurbishing /refinishing; 0 Any use involving the application of spray paint Monitoring: F eview of Specific Plan Amendment Responsible nsible Party: Planning Division Timeline: Prior to final city Council Action MM 111- 8: Operation of the proposed grocery store shall include the establishment of a `no Idle' zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized ed to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques: Each delivery vehicle's engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum um a tent feasible. • Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the `no idle' zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. 0 Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines. 0 Diesel idling within 1 ,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. Use of alternative- fueled vehicles is recommended w henever possible. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,o o feet of sensitive receptors. M ni oring: Site inspection Responsible nsil le Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy Agenda Item 9.c. Page 21 MM 11 -1: Any areas where native non stockpiled soil will be disturbed by construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a q ualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. If cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be conducted by a g ualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified and implemented. Monitoring: Site inspection Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM V1-1: The project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and recommendations where necessary. Monitoring: Review of construction plans Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM 111 -2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and g updated eotechnical study based n the study prepared for the project by GSI p Soils Inc. dated April 2006. Monitoring: Review ie of construction plans Responsible nsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of grading permit MM V111-1: All construction plans shall reflect I the following GHG- reducing measures where applicable. The project sponsor shall make a good faith effort to reduce g reenhouse gas emissions by submitting documentation to the APCD i i for review and approval pri or to ssuance of b rid i n perm its showi n wh ich of the following measures have been implemented to exceed Title 24 standards: Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide % tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, to ur maintenance native drought resistant trees. No residential wood burning appliances. Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended. Trusses for south - facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar - heated grater and photovoltaic panels. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 22 Roof design shall include sufficient south - facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. 0 increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted. Plant drought tolerant, nature shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. 0 Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows passive solar design). Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters. • Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances i.e. Energy Star@ . Utilize double -paned windows. Utilize low energy street lights i.e. sodium). Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. Install energy- reducing programmable thermostats. Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the SPADE Energy star@ rating to reduce summer cooling needs. Eliminate high water consumption landscape e.g., plants and lawns in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting. Provide on-site bicycle paring both short terra racks and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum u demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended. Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel - powered TRUs at the loading docks. Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks 1 lockers to service the residential units. Monitoring: Review of construction plans Responsible Party; SL APCD Timeline: Prior to issuance of building permit MM 1111 -1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas where feasible to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or municipal storm drain system. Agenda Item 9.c. Page 23 Run-off control. Maintain post�developrnent peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre�development levels. Submit a water quality manageMent plan to the City. Stormwater runoff that cannot b e retained on Subareas 3 and 4 for percolation or use must b e treated through the use of bioswales or fossil filters and directed to the Poplar Ponding Basin. Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with "No Dumping -- Drains to Ocean" to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. V ehicle/Equipment cleanin . Commercial/industrial facilities or multi - family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either provide a covered, termed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. V ehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run - ors or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. Car Wash n commercial car gash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary sewer or wastewater reclamation system. Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large -scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and durnpster areas should be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self- contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. Outdoor Stora a controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk Agenda Item 9.c. Page 24 materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. Cleaning Maintenance and Processing controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment terms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may .require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. Loading Dock controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the area. Position reef downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. later from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be Installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain. Street parking lot Sire Implement a program to 'regularly sweep streets sidewalks and arkin lots to prevent the accumulation of litter p g and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary severer. Monitoring: F eviev of construction Mans Responsible Party: Engineering Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of building permit MM X -1: The specific plan amendment shall be revised to include language reflecting the goals and{ policies of the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for Mixed -Use Districts regarding wilding placement, pedestrian scale and street cape character. The proposed development shall be revised to either place more commercial development at the East Grand Avenue frontag or 'Include other such amenities that satisfy the goals and objectives of g the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan and Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Districts. Monitoring: Review of Specific Plan Amendment Responsible ible Party: Planning Division Timeline: Prior to final City Council action Agenda Item 9.c. Page 25 MM X11-1: Grocery store deliveries shall be restrlcted to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10 :00 PW and the current parking limitations on either side of South ourtland Street shall be maintained. Monitoring: Site inspection Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy MM 11-2: Construction plans for the grocery store shall include a noise barrier, either a block gall or an extension of the grocery store building, to be not less than twelve 0 2 feet above the delivery area, tapering to a height of six at the eastern property fine (hack of side walk ) at a 1 :1 ratio. Additionally, any residential structures that, absent the noise barrier, mould have a direct line of sight to the delivery area shall include acoustical treatment to reduce exterior noise levels by thirty 30 decibels, the cost of which shall be borne by the developer of the grocery store. Monitoring* F evie w of construction plans Responsible Party: Building Division Timeline: Prig to issuance of building permit Agenda Item 9.c. Page 26