Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC 2022-02-08 Agenda Package
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY Tuesday, February 8, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Please click the link below to join the Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846 Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council meetings will be conducted by video/teleconferencing through Zoom Webinar until further notice. Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s website and www.slo-span.org. Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting by joining the Zoom meeting or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Council at publiccomment@arroyogrande.org. 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.MOMENT OF REFLECTION 4.FLAG SALUTE CENTRAL COAST COPS 'N KIDS 5.AGENDA REVIEW 5.a.Closed Session Announcements None. 5.b.Ordinances read in title only Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. 6.SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 6.a.Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts (McDONALD) Recommended Action: Receive update, accept public comments, discuss, and provide direction as necessary. 6.b.City Manager Communications (McDONALD) Recommended Action: Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City Manager and Provide direction, as necessary. 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. Members of the public may provide public comment in-person or remotely by joining the Zoom meeting utilizing one of the methods provided below. Please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment. Click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846; Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 • Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Press * 9 to “raise hand” for public comment • 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.Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification (VALENTINE) Recommended Action: Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of January 1 through January 15, 2022. 8.b.Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits (VALENTINE) Recommended Action: Receive and file the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande Page 2 of 350 as of December 31, 2021, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b). 8.c.Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Updated CalPERS Required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Effective as of January 7, 2022, to Incorporate Changes Approved by the Five Cities Fire Authority Board of Directors (VALENTINE) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the updated CalPERS required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Effective as of January 7, 2022. 8.d.Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic (McDONALD/CARMEL) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. 8.e.Consideration of Approval of Minutes (MATSON) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 25, 2022, as submitted. 8.f.Consideration of a Resolution Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts and an Amendment to the FY 2021-22 CIP Budget Transferring $115,800 from ARPA funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 E Grand Ave, PW 2021-12 (ROBESON) Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution finding that there is a need to continue the emergency action for the storm drain system repairs at 251 East Grand Avenue in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050; and 2) Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program budget to add $115,800 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue, PW 2021-12. 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a.Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. (PEDROTTI) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review 21- 029. 9.b.Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 (PEDROTTI) Page 3 of 350 Recommended Action: Introduce the Ordinance amending the accessory dwelling unit regulations and establishing regulations for tiny homes on wheels. 9.c.Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 (PEDROTTI) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving projects to be funded with the City’s allocation of CDBG funds for the Year 2022 as shown in Exhibit A to the Resolution. 10.OLD BUSINESS 10.a.Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021- 22 (McDONALD) Recommended Action: Receive an update regarding progress toward the City Council’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals and Priorities. 11.NEW BUSINESS None. 12.COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council policies and procedures, Council Members may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any request to place a matter of business for original consideration on a future agenda requires the concurrence of at least one other Council Member. 13.CLOSED SESSION None. 14.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, 300 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 805-473-5400 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 If you would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature. Page 4 of 350 City Council 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. Page 5 of 350 Item 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Review and ratify cash disbursements. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There is a $1,052,983.24 fiscal impact that includes the following items: Accounts Payable Checks $673,181.05 Payroll & Benefit Checks $379,802.19 RECOMMENDATION: Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of January 1 through January 15, 2022. 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 that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing Polici es and Procedures Manual. 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 2021 -22 budget. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: Page 6 of 350 Item 8.a. City Council Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification February 8, 2022 Page 2 1. Approve staff’s recommendation; 2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The Administrative Services Department monitors payments of invoices for accountability, accuracy, and completeness using standards approved by the City Council. Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants. Discounts are taken where applicable. DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages identified in this recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. January 1 – January 15, 2022 – Accounts Payable Check Register 2. January 14, 2022 – Payroll and Benefit Check Registers Page 7 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Name1 01/07/2022 292548 $ 2,581.44 01/22 DELTA DENTAL PREMIUM RETIREES 010.4099.5132 DELTA DENTAL2 01/07/2022 292548 8,228.34 01/22 DELTA DENTAL PREMIUM 011.0000.2110 DELTA DENTAL3 01/07/2022 292549 752.74 RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE 220.4303.5136 PERS - ACTIVE MED4 01/07/2022 292549 605.17 RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE 010.0000.1111 PERS - ACTIVE MED5 01/07/2022 292549 6,947.18 RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE 010.4099.5136 PERS - ACTIVE MED6 01/07/2022 292549 98.24 ACTIVE HEALTH ADMIN FEE-FIRE 010.0000.1111 PERS - ACTIVE MED7 01/07/2022 292549 215.07 ACTIVE HEALTH ADMIN FEE 010.4145.5131 PERS - ACTIVE MED8 01/07/2022 292549 125,302.03 ACTIVE HEALTH INSURANCE 011.0000.2109 PERS - ACTIVE MED9 01/07/2022 292550 7.98 ACTIVE HEALTH ADMIN FEE-PT NON 010.4145.5131 PERS - ACTIVE MED10 01/07/2022 292550 3,190.79 ACTIVE HEALTH INS-PT NONPERS 011.0000.2109 PERS - ACTIVE MED11 01/07/2022 292551 3,133.22 01/22 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 011.0000.2113 STANDARD INSURANCE CO12 01/07/2022 292552 672.69 01/22 VISION PREMIUM RETIREES 010.4099.5133 VISION SERVICE PLAN13 01/07/2022 292552 2,100.93 01/22 VISION PREMIUM 011.0000.2119 VISION SERVICE PLAN14 01/07/2022 292553 115.84 UB REFUND CST #00026634 640.0000.2301 CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY15 01/07/2022 292554 80.60 UB REFUND CST #00026605 640.0000.2301 JACOB CONTRERAS16 01/07/2022 292555 67.27 UB REFUND CST #00003374 640.0000.2301 LAURIE GIRARD17 01/07/2022 292556 141.59 UB REFUND CST #00027350 640.0000.2301 JEREMY HUTT18 01/07/2022 292557 52.01 UB REFUND CST #00027739 640.0000.2301 ELIONA LOPEZ19 01/07/2022 292558 4.43 UB REFUND CST #00028251 640.0000.2301 MAUEL LOPEZ20 01/07/2022 292559 29.86 UB REFUND CST #00027384 640.0000.2301 JONATHON OSORIO21 01/07/2022 292560 180.00 UB REFUND CST #00024496 640.0000.2301 NATALIA VICORY22 01/07/2022 292561 18,613.75 ANIMAL SVCS CONTRACT-QTR 2 FY21-22 010.4201.5321 ANIMAL SERVICES23 01/07/2022 292562 156.71 COMM MAINT-SVC CALL OUT010.4204.5606 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC24 01/07/2022 292562 167.92 01/22 COMM MAINT010.4204.5606 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC25 01/07/2022 292563 960.00 CASH FOR GRASS- 960 SQFT 226.4306.5554 DEAN ARAKAKI26 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES27 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES28 01/07/2022 292564 14.01 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES29 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES30 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES31 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES32 01/07/2022 292564 23.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES33 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES34 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES35 01/07/2022 292564 14.01 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES36 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES37 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES38 01/07/2022 292564 28.50 CORP YARD MATS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES39 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES40 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES41 01/07/2022 292564 14.01 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES42 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES43 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES44 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES45 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES46 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES47 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES48 01/07/2022 292564 14.01 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESPage 8 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 149 01/07/2022 292564 $ 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES50 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES51 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES52 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES53 01/07/2022 292564 8.70 AUTO SHOP TOWELS 010.4305.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES54 01/07/2022 292564 28.50 CORP YARD MATS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES55 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES56 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES57 01/07/2022 292564 13.83 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES58 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES59 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES60 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES61 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES62 01/07/2022 292564 10.45 AUTO SHOP TOWELS 010.4305.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES63 01/07/2022 292564 28.50 CORP YARD MATS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES64 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES65 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES66 01/07/2022 292564 13.83 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES67 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES68 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES69 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES70 01/07/2022 292564 8.70 AUTO SHOP TOWELS 010.4305.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES71 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES72 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES73 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES74 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES75 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES76 01/07/2022 292564 13.83 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES77 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES78 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES79 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES80 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES81 01/07/2022 292564 10.45 AUTO SHOP TOWELS 010.4305.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES82 01/07/2022 292564 28.50 CORP YARD MATS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES83 01/07/2022 292564 3.51 AUTO SHOP UNIFORMS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES84 01/07/2022 292564 7.01 BLDG MAINT UNIFORMS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES85 01/07/2022 292564 13.83 PARKS DEPT UNIFORMS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES86 01/07/2022 292564 3.36 SEWER DEPT UNIFORMS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES87 01/07/2022 292564 7.00 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX UNIFORMS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES88 01/07/2022 292564 14.00 STREETS DEPT UNIFORMS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES89 01/07/2022 292564 17.34 WATER DEPT UNIFORMS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES90 01/07/2022 292565 9.80 PARKS MATS/MOPHEADS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES91 01/07/2022 292565 9.80 PARKS MATS/MOPHEADS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES92 01/07/2022 292565 9.80 PARKS MATS/MOPHEADS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES93 01/07/2022 292565 9.80 PARKS MATS/MOPHEADS 010.4213.5303 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES94 01/07/2022 292566 994.00 CASH FOR GRASS-994 SQFT 226.4306.5554 SOJ ARONSON95 01/07/2022 292567 44.13 BAN#9391033181 ALARM 640.4710.5403 AT&T96 01/07/2022 292567 22.91 BAN#9391033186 CC MACHINE010.4145.5403 AT&T97 01/07/2022 292567 31.90 BAN#9391033183 805-473-2198010.4201.5403 AT&TPage 9 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 198 01/07/2022 292567 $ 242.35 BAN#9391033184 805-473-5100010.4201.5403 AT&T99 01/07/2022 292567 63.11 BAN#9391033187 805-481-6944010.4201.5403 AT&T100 01/07/2022 292567 30.72 BAN#9391033183 805-473-2198010.4201.5403 AT&T101 01/07/2022 292567 236.43 BAN#9391033184 805-473-5100010.4201.5403 AT&T102 01/07/2022 292567 63.71 BAN#9391033187 805-481-6944010.4201.5403 AT&T103 01/07/2022 292567 22.91 BAN#9391033180 805-473-0386010.4145.5403 AT&T104 01/07/2022 292568 126.68 01/22 TOWER LEASE 010.4201.5303 ATC SEQUOIA LLC105 01/07/2022 292569 331.76 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PLAQUES 010.4201.5504 BADGE FRAME, INC.106 01/07/2022 292570 9.00 CAR WASH-PD ADMIN 010.4201.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH107 01/07/2022 292570 264.00 CAR WASH-PD PATROL 010.4203.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH108 01/07/2022 292570 30.00 CAR WASH-PD SUPPORT SVCS 010.4204.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH109 01/07/2022 292570 30.00 CAR WASH-ENGINEERING PW-4, PW 010.4301.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH110 01/07/2022 292570 12.00 CAR WASBLDG B-409 010.4212.5601 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH111 01/07/2022 292571 163.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES-MAILING LABELS 010.4201.5201 BOONE PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC112 01/07/2022 292571 232.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES-BUSINESS CARDS 010.4201.5201 BOONE PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC113 01/07/2022 292572 150.00 ADV SEARCH/SEIZURE INV.-POST PER DIEM 010.4203.5501 JEREMY BURNS114 01/07/2022 292573 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 TERESA BURROWS115 01/07/2022 292574 31.64 FLEET-DUI TRAILER BULB 010.4203.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS116 01/07/2022 292574 28.99 PD-4602 COOLANT010.4203.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS117 01/07/2022 292574 63.72 PD-4622 LIFT SUPPORT 010.4203.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS118 01/07/2022 292574 46.85 PD-4622 LIFT SUPPORT 010.4203.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS119 01/07/2022 292574 174.46 PW-60 ALTERNATOR 640.4712.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS120 01/07/2022 292574 141.76 PW-60 BATTERY 640.4712.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS121 01/07/2022 292575 163.11 BOOTS-GARRITY 612.4610.5148 CARR'S BOOTS & WESTERN122 01/07/2022 292576 78.00 CVT-21-9702 AGPD CASE#2101758 010.4204.5324 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC123 01/07/2022 292576 78.00 CVT-21-9801 AGPD CASE#2101804 010.4204.5324 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC124 01/07/2022 292576 313.00 CVT-21-9023 AGPD CASE#2101613 010.4204.5324 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC125 01/07/2022 292576 245.00 CVT-21-9642 AGPD CASE#2101655010.4204.5324 CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC126 01/07/2022 292577 45.73 ACCT#8245100960211791 REC TV010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS127 01/07/2022 292577 710.64 ACCT#8245100960211791 REC DARK010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS128 01/07/2022 292577 1,349.00 ACCT#8245100960301246 215 E BRANCH 211.4101.5330 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS129 01/07/2022 292577 736.80 ACCT#8245100960211288 PW DARK010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS130 01/07/2022 292577 327.16 ACCT#8245100960216667 WOMENS CENTER010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS131 01/07/2022 292577 1,349.00 ACCT#8245100960302509 IT BROADBAND010.4140.5303 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS132 01/07/2022 292577 194.98 ACCT#8245100960104152 PD INTER010.4201.5403 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS133 01/07/2022 292577 179.89 ACCT#8245100960223572-PD TV010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS134 01/07/2022 292577 95.17 ACCT#8245100960129431 215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS135 01/07/2022 292577 26.72 ACCT#8245100960129431 215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS136 01/07/2022 292578 550.00 PRE-EMPLOY POLYGRAPH & PSYCH EVAL 010.4201.5315 CUESTA POLYGRAPH137 01/07/2022 292579 372.59 ACCT#2901-1271650-01 METRO INTERNET010.4140.5303 DIGITAL WEST NETWORKS INC138 01/07/2022 292579 372.59 ACCT#2901-1271650-01 METRO INTERNET010.4140.5303 DIGITAL WEST NETWORKS INC139 01/07/2022 292579 372.59 ACCT#2901-1271650-01 METRO INTERNET010.4140.5303 DIGITAL WEST NETWORKS INC140 01/07/2022 292580 4,815.00 DSA FEES FROM BUSINES LICENSE 010.0000.4050 DIVIS. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT141 01/07/2022 292580 (4,396.50)LESS 90% THAT CITY RETAINS 010.0000.2231 DIVIS. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT142 01/07/2022 292581 150.00 GEO CELL INVEST-POST PER DIEM 010.4204.5501 PHILLIP DOLLMAN143 01/07/2022 292582 1,442.77 TRASH CAN LINERS, TP 010.4213.5604 FASTENAL COMPANY144 01/07/2022 292583 630.00 NEEDLE ARTS RUG 10/29-12/17 010.4424.5351 ELIZABETH FRYER145 01/07/2022 292584 34,120.00 OLOHAN ALLEY PRIVATE PROPERTY 350.5608.7001 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO146 01/07/2022 292585 165.24 01/22 AETNA RESOURCES -EAP 010.4145.5147 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CTRPage 10 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 1147 01/07/2022 292585 $ 41.31 01/22 AETNA RESOURCES -EAP 010.0000.1111 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CTR148 01/07/2022 292586 341.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PW ADMIN 010.4307.5201 INDOFF, INC149 01/07/2022 292587 65.34 FUEL-PD-4620, 4621 010.4203.5608 JB DEWAR, INC150 01/07/2022 292587 28,170.43 7583 GALL 87 OCTANE GASOLINE 010.0000.1202 JB DEWAR, INC151 01/07/2022 292588 900.00 TRAINING TUITION-LAPD LEADERSHIP 010.4201.5501 LAPD REVOLVING TRAINING FUND152 01/07/2022 292589 18.52 HARDWARE 010.4305.5255 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC153 01/07/2022 292590 691.60 SHORETEL PHONE CHRGS-CITY HALL 010.4145.5403 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC154 01/07/2022 292590 691.60 SHORETEL PHONE CHRGS-PD 010.4201.5403 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC155 01/07/2022 292591 850.00 LAPD LEADERSHIP PROGRAM-JAN-AP 010.4201.5501 MICHAEL MARTINEZ156 01/07/2022 292592 38.71 PW-44 SWITCH 612.4610.5601 MULLAHEY FORD157 01/07/2022 292593 8.21 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4102.5201 OFFICE DEPOT158 01/07/2022 292594 91.00 MAINT AGREEMENT-COPIER 010.4204.5602 OFFICE1159 01/07/2022 292595 26.89 DELIVERY CHARGES 010.4201.5208 ON TRAC160 01/07/2022 292596 47,359.56 ELECTRIC-STREET LIGHTING 010.4307.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO161 01/07/2022 292596 17,295.12 ELECTRIC-STREET LIGHTING 010.4307.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO162 01/07/2022 292596 1,422.47 ELECTRIC 010.4307.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO163 01/07/2022 292596 5,689.96 ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO164 01/07/2022 292596 4,888.37 ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO165 01/07/2022 292596 2,013.81 ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO166 01/07/2022 292596 8,728.75 ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO167 01/07/2022 292596 12.12 ELECTRIC 217.4460.5355 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO168 01/07/2022 292597 27.00 UNIFORM CLEANING-ADMIN 010.4201.5303 PARAMOUNT CLEANERS169 01/07/2022 292597 562.00 UNIFORM CLEANING-PATROL SVCS 010.4203.5303 PARAMOUNT CLEANERS170 01/07/2022 292597 62.25 UNIFORM CLEANING-SUPPORT SVCS 010.4204.5303 PARAMOUNT CLEANERS171 01/07/2022 292598 225.00 NETWORK SVC-ANTENNA RE-ALIGNMENT 010.4201.5403 PEAK WIFI LLC172 01/07/2022 292599 220.30 11/21 PARKING CITATION PROCESS 010.4204.5303 PHOENIX GROUP173 01/07/2022 292600 2,412.00 CASH FOR GRASS-2412 SQFT 226.4306.5554 RICHARD PORTESI174 01/07/2022 292601 48.17 SWEATSHIRT FOR J GARRITY 612.4610.5255 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC175 01/07/2022 292602 500.00 ADV TRAFFIC COLLISION-POST PER DIEM 010.4203.5501 TIMOTHY RAMIREZ176 01/07/2022 292603 15.00 REVERSE OSMOSIS RENTAL:11/21 010.4201.5303 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER177 01/07/2022 292604 660.00 FLEET-TRANSPORT NEW ADMIN FLEET 010.4203.5608 RIVERA CAR HAULING178 01/07/2022 292604 660.00 FLEET-TRANSPORT NEW ADMIN FLEET 010.4203.5608 RIVERA CAR HAULING179 01/07/2022 292605 164.00 11/21 PARKING CITATION REVENUE 010.0000.4203 SLO COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER180 01/07/2022 292606 150.00 ADV SEARCH/SEIZURE INV.-POST PER DIEM 010.4204.5501 JEFFREY SMITH181 01/07/2022 292607 16.53 GAS SERVICES-1500 W BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS182 01/07/2022 292607 119.90 GAS SERVICES-211 VERNON ST 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS183 01/07/2022 292607 57.68 GAS SERVICES-215 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS184 01/07/2022 292607 328.09 GAS SERVICES-111 S MASON 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS185 01/07/2022 292608 975.68 FLEET MAINT TOOLS 010.4203.5601 TCA TOOLS INC186 01/07/2022 292609 193.71 UNIFORMS-DONOVAN 010.4203.5272 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS187 01/07/2022 292609 661.23 UNIFORMS-CHAVEZ 010.4203.5272 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS188 01/07/2022 292610 881.22 PUBLIC RELATIONS AGPD FLAGS 010.4201.5504 THE FLAG FACTORY189 01/07/2022 292611 204.00 PUBLIC NOTICE-PLANNING COMMISSION 010.4130.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC190 01/07/2022 292611 357.00 ORDINANCE SUMMARY SB1383 010.4002.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC191 01/07/2022 292611 90.10 NOTICE TO BIDDERS 21 ST REPAIR 010.4002.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC192 01/07/2022 292611 93.50 PROPOSED ORDINANCE SUMMARY SB1383 010.4002.5301 THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC193 01/07/2022 292612 352.77 PD-4607 REPAIR 010.4203.5601 TOM'S AUTO SERVICE194 01/07/2022 292613 3,653.69 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY UPDATE 640.4710.5303 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES195 01/07/2022 292613 913.43 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY UPDATE 612.4610.5303 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATESPage 11 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 1196 01/07/2022 292613 $ 1,211.30 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY UPDATE 640.4710.5303 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES197 01/07/2022 292613 302.83 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY UPDATE 612.4610.5303 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES198 01/07/2022 292614 84.53 COPY MACHINE MAINT 12/21 010.4102.5602 ULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS (DBA)199 01/07/2022 292615 3,000.00 POSTAGE BY PHONE 010.4145.5208 US POSTAL SERVICE200 01/07/2022 292616 304.08 ACCT#472480460-00002 CITY IPAD 010.4145.5403 VERIZON WIRELESS201 01/07/2022 292616 848.06 ACCT#208620661-00002 PD CELL PHONE010.4201.5403 VERIZON WIRELESS202 01/07/2022 292617 519.21 COPY MACH LEASE PYMT 010.4201.5803 WELLS FARGO VENDOR FINANCIAL203 01/07/2022 292618 17,155.00 10/21 PROF LEGAL FEES-WATER RIGHTS 640.4710.5575 WHITE BRENNER LLP204 01/07/2022 292618 922.50 10/21 PROF LEGAL FEES-SM ADJ IMPLEMENTATION 640.4710.5575 WHITE BRENNER LLP205 01/07/2022 292618 1,870.40 11/21 PRF LEGAL FEES-WATER RIGHTS 640.4710.5575 WHITE BRENNER LLP206 01/07/2022 292619 53.14 (1) SAFETY RAIN JACKET 612.4610.5255 WINEMA INDUSTRIAL &207 01/13/2022 292620 40.00 CA NOTARY EXAM 010.4002.5501 CA SECRETARY OF STATE208 01/14/2022 292621 1,037.69 FLEET-DRONE EQUIPMENT 010.4203.5601 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES209 01/14/2022 292621 8.18 PETCOCK FUEL SHUTOFF 010.4420.5603 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES210 01/14/2022 292621 150.12 (3) SAFETY RAIN JACKETS 220.4303.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES211 01/14/2022 292621 59.84 (1) SAFETY RAIN JACKET 010.4420.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES212 01/14/2022 292621 21.53 HONDA GENERATOR AIR FILTER 010.4420.5603 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES213 01/14/2022 292621 284.45 PW WATER FILTERS 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES214 01/14/2022 292621 161.61 SCHOOL YEAR SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES215 01/14/2022 292621 213.30 COVID SUPPLIES 010.4919.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES216 01/14/2022 292621 521.51 TURKEY TROT & B'FAST W/SANTA S 010.4424.5252 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES217 01/14/2022 292621 33.25 FEBREZE AIR FRESHENER 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES218 01/14/2022 292621 22.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PENS 010.4130.5201 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES219 01/14/2022 292621 16.15 PAPER TOWEL HOLDER FOR KITCHEN 010.4102.5201 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES220 01/14/2022 292621 234.86 PERF PAPER, SORTKWIK, LETTER OPENER 010.4102.5201 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES221 01/14/2022 292621 135.63 (8) SAFETY VESTS 220.4303.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES222 01/14/2022 292621 30.55 (3) TYVEK SUITS 010.4420.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES223 01/14/2022 292621 29.67 HAND WARMERS 010.4430.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES224 01/14/2022 292621 95.09 (5) TP DISPENSERS 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES225 01/14/2022 292621 386.54 (6) CASES TORK TOWEL ROLLS 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES226 01/14/2022 292621 463.33 (2) CASES NITRIL GLOVES 220.4303.5613 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES227 01/14/2022 292621 418.03 (2) CASES NITRIL GLOVES 010.4420.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES228 01/14/2022 292621 298.17 (6) CASES SCOTT PAPER TOWELS 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES229 01/14/2022 292621 59.37 (2) GERMX HAND SANITIZER010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES230 01/14/2022 292621 96.96 NAVY JACKET 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES231 01/14/2022 292621 161.61 DEFIB PADS-PW 010.4213.5604 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES232 01/14/2022 292621 137.19 (12) PW HATS 220.4303.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES233 01/14/2022 292621 10.72 COFFEE MUG 010.4420.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES234 01/14/2022 292621 91.46 (4) FLASHLIGHTS 010.4420.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES235 01/14/2022 292621 91.46 (8) PW HATS 010.4430.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES236 01/14/2022 292621 44.07 FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES 010.4420.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES237 01/14/2022 292621 344.12 (4) WYPALL TOWELS 010.4420.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES238 01/14/2022 292621 57.44 (8) CASES COPY PAPER 612.4610.5201 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES239 01/14/2022 292621 57.44 (8) CASES COPY PAPER 220.4303.5201 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES240 01/14/2022 292621 57.44 (8) CASES COPY PAPER 010.4307.5201 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES241 01/14/2022 292621 29.04 PW-16 PORTABLE CHARGER 220.4303.5255 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES242 01/14/2022 292621 12.80 SOFTSOAP FOR PARKS SPRAYERS 010.4420.5605 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES243 01/14/2022 292622 72.07 HATS 010.4305.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES244 01/14/2022 292622 72.07 HATS 010.4213.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESPage 12 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 1245 01/14/2022 292622 $ 72.07 HATS 010.4420.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES246 01/14/2022 292622 72.07 HATS 612.4610.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES247 01/14/2022 292622 72.07 HATS 010.4430.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES248 01/14/2022 292622 72.07 HATS 220.4303.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES249 01/14/2022 292622 72.07 HATS 640.4712.5143 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES250 01/14/2022 292623 210.00 12/21 VILLAGE WATERING 010.4420.5605 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM INC251 01/14/2022 292624 717.56 PD FLEET STOCK BATTERIES 010.4203.5601 BATTERY SYSTEMS252 01/14/2022 292625 500.00 PROVIDE JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR AGPD 010.4201.5615 BRENDLER JANITORIAL SERVICE253 01/14/2022 292625 1,135.00 PROVIDE JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY BLDGS 010.4213.5615 BRENDLER JANITORIAL SERVICE254 01/14/2022 292626 96.00 PEST CONTROL: WOMENS CLUB 010.4213.5303 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC255 01/14/2022 292626 181.00 PEST CONTROL: PD 010.4213.5303 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC256 01/14/2022 292627 301.00 10/21-12/21 DIESEL FUEL TAX RE 010.0000.1202 CA DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMIN257 01/14/2022 292628 32.00 PRE-EMPLOYMNT FINGERPRINT LIVE 010.4204.5329 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE258 01/14/2022 292628 64.00 PD FINGERPRINT LIVESCAN IN/OUT 010.4204.5329 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE259 01/14/2022 292628 49.00 PRE-EMPLOYMNT FINGERPRINT/LIVESCAN 010.4002.5503 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE260 01/14/2022 292628 222.00 PRE-EMPLOYMNT FINGERPRINT/LIVESCAN 010.4425.5316 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE261 01/14/2022 292629 1,491.27 14.35 TON COLD MIX ASPHALT220.4303.5613 CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION262 01/14/2022 292630 444.00 01/22-06/22 ALARM MONITORING 010.4201.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS263 01/14/2022 292630 600.00 SVC CALL-PROP & EVID ROOM 010.4201.5604 CAME SECURITY ALARMS264 01/14/2022 292630 444.00 ACCT#Z1101063 01/22-06/22 ALAR010.4213.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS265 01/14/2022 292630 294.00 ACCT#CSA140 01/22-06/22 ALARM 010.4213.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS266 01/14/2022 292630 204.00 ACCT#CSA288 01/22-06/22 ALARM 010.4213.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS267 01/14/2022 292630 534.00 ACCT#Z1101029 01/22-06/22 ALAR010.4213.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS268 01/14/2022 292630 228.00 ACCT#CSA245 01/22-06/22 ALARM 010.4213.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS269 01/14/2022 292630 408.00 ACCT#CSA2015 01/22-06/22 ALARM 010.4213.5303 CAME SECURITY ALARMS270 01/14/2022 292631 23.39 PW-23 BULBS, AIR FRESHENER 010.4305.5601 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS271 01/14/2022 292632 51.11 ACCT#8245100960221923 PW TV010.4307.5303 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS272 01/14/2022 292633 455.00 ENGINEERING SUPPORT-ANTIMALWARE 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP273 01/14/2022 292633 3,570.96 THREAT PREVENTION SUBSCRIPTION 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP274 01/14/2022 292633 5,556.85 PALO ALTO PREMIUM SUPPORT-CITY 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP275 01/14/2022 292633 5,356.44 SUBSCRIPTION ADV URL FILTER-CITY 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP276 01/14/2022 292633 2,940.00 SUBSCRIPTION ADV URL FILTER-PD 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP277 01/14/2022 292633 1,960.00 THREAT PREVENTION SUBSCRIPTION 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP278 01/14/2022 292633 3,258.90 PALO ALTO PREMIUM SUPPORT-PD 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP279 01/14/2022 292634 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 JEANNETTE COOK280 01/14/2022 292636 112.00 12/21 SR FITNESS 010.4424.5351 GAYLE CUDDY281 01/14/2022 292637 13,873.57 ADMIN/SUPPORT FLEET UPLIFTING 010.4201.5601 DANA SAFETY SUPPLY282 01/14/2022 292638 400.00 12/21 NETBILL MONTHLY MAINT 640.4710.5303 DATAPROSE LLC283 01/14/2022 292638 111.16 12/21 NETBILL CC TRANSACTIONS 612.4610.5555 DATAPROSE LLC284 01/14/2022 292638 444.64 12/21 NETBILL CC TRANSACTIONS 640.4710.5555 DATAPROSE LLC285 01/14/2022 292638 2,954.46 12/21 UTILITY BILL MAILING 640.4710.5208 DATAPROSE LLC286 01/14/2022 292639 414.12 REIMBURSE FOR HOTEL-12/5-12/8 010.4203.5501 STEPHEN DOHERTY287 01/14/2022 292639 62.23 GAS-12/5-12/8 TRAINING 010.4203.5608 STEPHEN DOHERTY288 01/14/2022 292639 920.00 REIMBURSE TUITION & TECH FEE 010.4201.5502 STEPHEN DOHERTY289 01/14/2022 292640 2,261.37 PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES OAK BAR/ECR STORM DRAIN 350.5795.7501 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP290 01/14/2022 292640 1,673.63 PREPARE CALTRANS DAR & DSDD 350.5795.7501 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP291 01/14/2022 292641 14,482.50 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES GRANT 010.4301.5303 GHD INC292 01/14/2022 292641 3,418.75 HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS 010.4301.5303 GHD INC293 01/14/2022 292642 24.79 FUEL-OTS 010.4209.5501 CHAD GIESMANNPage 13 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 1294 01/14/2022 292643 $ 500.00 FY 21/22 SUBSCRIPTION-RECORDS 010.4002.5303 GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL SVCS INC295 01/14/2022 292644 3,447.29 PREPARATION OF THE 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 640.4710.5303 GSI WATER SOLUTIONS296 01/14/2022 292645 86.08 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 12/12-01/09 220.4303.5552 HARVEY'S HONEY HUTS297 01/14/2022 292646 1,014.00 CASH FOR GRASS-1014 SQFT 226.4306.5554 JOSEPH IANNEO298 01/14/2022 292647 968.00 HP PRODESK 600 G6 211.4101.5330 ITSAVVY LLC299 01/14/2022 292647 75.02 SALES TAX 211.4101.5330 ITSAVVY LLC300 01/14/2022 292648 600.00 FY21/22 COMM BASED ANTI-LITTER 010.4301.5301 JPW COMMUNICATIONS LLC301 01/14/2022 292649 6.11 HEX CAP SCREW-1 BOX 010.4305.5255 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC302 01/14/2022 292650 49.00 REFUND-BRIDGE CARD 010.0000.4605 SYLVIA LIVINGSTON303 01/14/2022 292651 3,919.67 ASSESSMENT-YRS 1993-2008, INST 010.4145.5141 LOCAL AGENCY WORKERS COMP.304 01/14/2022 292652 800.00 PRE-EMPLOYMT EXAM-CHAVEZ010.4201.5315 LOMPOC VALLEY CARDIOVASCULAR305 01/14/2022 292653 1,196.25 CONSULTANT SERVICE FOR MANAGEMENT 010.4120.5303 MANAGEMENT PARTNERS INC306 01/14/2022 292654 1,716.80 11/21 ZUMBA, BARRE 010.4424.5351 HEIDY MANGIARDI307 01/14/2022 292655 179.40 (3) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC308 01/14/2022 292655 71.54 OUTDOOR TIMER, BATTERIES 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC309 01/14/2022 292655 12.91 (2) SPRAY PAINT 010.4430.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC310 01/14/2022 292655 17.20 (4) KEYS 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC311 01/14/2022 292655 38.76 (2) FAST SET CONCRETE, LEVEL 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC312 01/14/2022 292655 17.22 LIFT STN#5 GASKET MATERIAL 612.4610.5610 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC313 01/14/2022 292655 2.79 QUICK LINK CHAIN 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC314 01/14/2022 292655 16.15 DAP PATCHING PLASTER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC315 01/14/2022 292655 220.84 (3) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC316 01/14/2022 292655 150.83 (2) SPACE HEATERS FOR OFFICES 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC317 01/14/2022 292655 64.63 POWER DRUM AUGER 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC318 01/14/2022 292655 17.23 ANGLE BROOM 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC319 01/14/2022 292656 104.80 12/21 YOGA IN THE PARK 010.4424.5351 NICCOLA NELSON320 01/14/2022 292657 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 SARA NESPER321 01/14/2022 292658 131.58 BAR OIL, FUEL, CHAIN 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC322 01/14/2022 292658 225.10 COMMERCIAL BLOWER 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC323 01/14/2022 292658 187.44 FUEL, OIL, LINE GLOVES 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC324 01/14/2022 292658 54.16 AIR FILTER 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC325 01/14/2022 292658 1,360.45 CHAIN SAW 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC326 01/14/2022 292658 46.20 FELT, AIR FILTERS 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC327 01/14/2022 292658 212.60 COMMERCIAL BLOWER 220.4303.5273 NOBLE SAW, INC328 01/14/2022 292659 89.03 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PAPER 010.4102.5201 OFFICE DEPOT329 01/14/2022 292659 24.89 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4102.5201 OFFICE DEPOT330 01/14/2022 292660 277.00 BLD PERMIT REFUND-820 GOLDEN HAWK 010.0000.4181 OROZCO ROOFING331 01/14/2022 292660 1.00 BLD PERMIT REFUND-820 GOLDEN HAWK 010.0000.2223 OROZCO ROOFING332 01/14/2022 292660 3.00 BLD PERMIT REFUND-820 GOLDEN HAWK 010.0000.2208 OROZCO ROOFING333 01/14/2022 292661 400.00 11/21 SOTO SPORTS COMPLEX GOPHERS 010.4420.5303 PACIFIC GOPHER CONTROL334 01/14/2022 292662 6,198.75 GE MOTOR-WELL#8 75HP 1800RPM 640.4712.5610 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS335 01/14/2022 292663 72.00 REIMBURSE-DRYCLEANING, ALTERATION 010.4203.5272 GREGORY PIERCE336 01/14/2022 292664 7,054.08 QUINCY SWINGING BRIDGE CONTRACT 350.5620.7501 QUINCY ENGINEERING INC337 01/14/2022 292664 24,732.69 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement 350.5679.7501 QUINCY ENGINEERING INC338 01/14/2022 292664 (4,960.00)QUINCY SWINGING BRIDGE 350.5620.7301 QUINCY ENGINEERING INC339 01/14/2022 292665 1,201.41 QUINCY SWINGING BRIDGE 219.4460.5304 RAINSCAPE340 01/14/2022 292665 484.37 TRAFFIC WAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 216.4460.5304 RAINSCAPE341 01/14/2022 292666 2,408.29 ANDERSEN MEMORIAL BENCH 010.0000.2204 RECWEST OUTDOOR PRODUCTS INC342 01/14/2022 292667 135.98 RAINBIRD IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 010.4430.5605 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLCPage 14 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGJANUARY 1 - JANUARY 15, 2022ATTACHMENT 1343 01/14/2022 292667 $ 328.66 (4) HUNTER I-40 ROTORS 010.4430.5605 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC344 01/14/2022 292667 210.25 (2) 2.5 GALL HERBICIDE 010.4420.5274 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC345 01/14/2022 292668 135.29 2022 DIESEL ENGINE PERMITS-AIR 220.4303.5603 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION346 01/14/2022 292668 406.70 2022 DIESEL ENGINE PERMITS-AIR 640.4712.5603 SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION347 01/14/2022 292669 430.24 SAFETY VEST, (6) AQUAPHALT 220.4303.5613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGNS INC348 01/14/2022 292669 99.45 (6) ASPHALT COLD PATCH 220.4303.5613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGNS INC349 01/14/2022 292669 42.07 (3) ASPHALT COLD PATCH 220.4303.5613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGNS INC350 01/14/2022 292669 (554.40)CREDIT RETURN-OTS FLAG STAND & 010.4209.5255 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGNS INC351 01/14/2022 292670 42.35 BUSINESS TV-300 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 TIME WARNER CABLE352 01/14/2022 292671 16.87 SIGN-NO PKG STUDENT DROP OFF 220.4303.5613 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS353 01/14/2022 292671 785.25 ROADMAX PAINT-(2) WHITE, (2) Y 220.4303.5613 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS354 01/14/2022 292671 806.69 (8) SQ POSTS 220.4303.5613 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS355 01/14/2022 292672 280.00 12/21 ART FOR KIDS 010.4424.5351 PEGGY VALKO356 01/14/2022 292673 68.60 ACCT#808089883-00003 CIM CELL010.4425.5255 VERIZON WIRELESS357 01/14/2022 292674 2,643.46 FATS, OILS, & GREASE PROGRAM 612.4610.5303 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF CORP358 01/14/2022 292674 741.80 WALLACE STORMWATER MGMT 010.4301.5303 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF CORP359 01/14/2022 292675 1,860.78 STAFF EXTENSION SERVICES 640.4710.5303 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC360 01/14/2022 292676 250.00 ASH ST WOMENS RESTROOM-CLEAR CLOG 010.4213.5303 WATERBOYS PLUMBING361 01/14/2022 292677 75.08 15 GALL ARBUTUS MARINA TREE 010.4420.5605 WEST COVINA NURSERIES362 01/14/2022 292677 (26.81)CREDIT ON ACCT 010.4420.5605 WEST COVINA NURSERIES363 01/14/2022 292678 1,440.00 11/21 SIGNAL MAINT-12 INTERSECTIONS 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC364 01/14/2022 292678 60.00 OAK PARK & JAMES WAY 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC365 01/14/2022 292678 60.00 OAK PARK & EL CAMINO REAL 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC366 01/14/2022 292678 75.00 OAK PARK & W BRANCH 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC367 01/14/2022 292679 49,778.94 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE368 01/14/2022 292679 12,116.72 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE369 01/14/2022 292679 44,660.59 FEDERAL TAX WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE370 01/14/2022 292680 17,384.16 STATE TAX WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT371 01/14/2022 292680 2,371.20 STATE SDI CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT372 01/14/2022 292681 298.84 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT373 01/14/2022 292681 133.38 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT374 01/14/2022 292681 150.46 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT375 01/14/2022 292681 154.15 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT376 01/14/2022 292681 16.15 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT377 01/14/2022 292682 3,895.44 EE DEFERRED COMP % 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP378 01/14/2022 292682 11,032.48 EE DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP379 01/14/2022 292682 866.66 ER DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP380 01/14/2022 292682 275.00 EE ROTH CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP381 01/14/2022 292683 967.57 EE PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA382 01/14/2022 292683 241.95 ER PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 01/14/22 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA $ 673,181.05 Page 15 of 350 ATTACHMENT 2 . General Fund 334,487.73 5101 Salaries Full time 131,847.07 Streets Fund 17,685.53 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement - Sewer Fund 7,342.16 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 4,391.27 Water Fund 20,286.77 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 9,636.84 379,802.19 5105 Salaries OverTime 8,416.74 5106 Salaries Strike Team OT - 5107 Salaries Standby 1,446.05 5108 Holiday Pay 74,586.34 5109 Sick Pay 6,009.07 Administrative Services - 5110 Annual Leave Buyback - Information Services - 5111 Vacation Buyback - Community Development - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback - Police 6,679.88 5113 Vacation Pay 11,115.77 Public Works - Maintenance 1,136.60 5114 Comp Pay 6,432.82 Public Works - Enterprise 600.26 5115 Annual Leave Pay 11,335.08 Recreation - Administration - 5116 Salaries - Police FTO - Recreation - Special Events - 5121 PERS Retirement 29,786.41 Children In Motion - 5122 Social Security 20,081.76 8,416.74 5123 PARS Retirement 241.95 5126 State Disability Ins. 1,016.12 5127 Deferred Compensation 741.66 5131 Health Insurance 48,590.94 5132 Dental Insurance 2,985.16 5133 Vision Insurance 787.06 5134 Life Insurance 356.31 5135 Long Term Disability 774.38 5137 Leave Payouts 7,202.75 5142 Unemployment Insurance - 5143 Uniform Allowance - 5144 Car Allowance 837.50 5146 Council Expense - 5147 Employee Assistance - 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 35.64 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 150.00 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 997.50 379,802.19 OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 12/24/2021 - 01/06/2022 1/14/2022 BY FUND BY ACCOUNT Page 16 of 350 Item 8.b. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Presentation of the City’s investment deposits as of December 31, 2021. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There is no funding impact to the City related to these reports. However, the City does receive interest revenue based on the interest rate of the investments. No or minimal future staff time is projected. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande as of December 31, 2021, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b). BACKGROUND: The Administrative Services department has historically submitted to the City Council a monthly report, providing the following information: 1. Type of investment. 2. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc). 3. Date of maturity. 4. Principal amount. 5. Rate of interest. 6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months. 7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy. Page 17 of 350 Item 8.b. City Council Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits February 8, 2022 Page 2 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: This report represents the City’s investments as of December 31, 2021. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, investment type, book value, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of December 31, 2021, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City’s investment policy. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Recommended Alternative - Approve staff’s recommendation to receive and file the attached report listing the investment deposits; 2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments are undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. DISADVANTAGES: Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due to market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non-negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the default of an issuer. To minimize such risks, diversifications of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment instruments are being used as much as is practical and prudent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Portfolio Summary: December 31, 2021 Page 18 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1City of Arroyo Grande300 E. Branch St.Arroyo Grande, CA 93420Phone: (805) 473-5400CITY OF ARROYO GRANDEPortfolio ManagementPortfolio SummaryDecember 31, 2021Investments Principal ValueCurrent Market Value Interest Rate Date of PurchaseTerm Maturity Date% of PortfolioLocal Agency Investment Fund9,087,279.97$ 9,087,279.97$ 0.212%40.592%Certificates of DepositPacific Premier Bank 106,582.94 106,582.94 0.200% February 21, 2021 12 mos February 21, 2022 0.476%Texas Exchange Bank 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.000% March 25, 2020 24 mos March 25, 2022 1.108%CIT Bank NA 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.050% March 28, 2020 24 mos March 28, 2022 1.108%Firstbank Puerto Rico 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.700% October 25, 2019 30 mos April 25, 2022 1.112%Ally Bank 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.150% July 22, 2019 36 mos July 22, 2022 1.103%TIAA FSB Jacksonville247,000.00 247,000.00 2.100% July 12, 2019 36 mos July 12, 2022 1.103%Sallie Mae Bank/Salt Lake 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.900% October 3, 2019 36 mos October 3, 2022 1.103%Eaglebank Bethesda Maryland 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.850% October 4, 2019 36 mos October 4, 2022 1.112%Goldman Sachs Bank USA 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.850% October 24, 2019 36 mos October 24, 2022 1.103%1st Security Bank Washington 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.700% October 4, 2019 42 mos April 4, 2023 1.112%Morgan Stanley Private Bank 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.250% July 11, 2019 45 mos July 11, 2023 1.103%Merrick Bank 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.800% October 16, 2019 48 mos October 16, 2023 1.112%BMW Bank North America 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.500% July 16, 2021 36 mos July 16, 2024 1.112%Enerbank USA 247,000.00 247,000.00 1.850% October 25, 2019 60 mos October 25, 2024 1.103%Flagstar Bank 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% May 15, 2020 60 mos May 15, 2025 1.094%New York Community Bank 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.550% July 1, 2021 48 mos July 1, 2025 1.112%UBS Bank USA 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.900% July 21, 2021 60 mos July 21, 2026 1.112%Toyota Financial Savings Bank 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.950% July 22, 2021 60 mos July 22, 2026 1.108%Bank United NA 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.350% December 8, 2021 60 mos December 8, 2026 1.112%Capital One Bank USA 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.250% December 8, 2021 60 mos December 8, 2026 1.108%Total Certificates of Deposit4,817,582.94 4,817,582.94 21.520%Agency BondsFederal Farm Credit Bank 2,500,000.00 2,551,747.50 1.600% November 1, 2019 48 mos November 1, 2023 11.167%Federal Farm Credit Bank 1,999,314.00 1,975,226.00 0.350% December 4, 2020 42 mos May 16, 2024 8.931%Federal Farm Credit Bank 998,431.00 984,979.00 0.430% March 17, 2021 48 mos March 3, 2025 4.460%Federal Natl Mortgage Assn 1,000,000.00 975,385.00 0.500% October 20, 2020 60 mos October 20, 2025 4.467%Federal Home Loan Bank 999,500.00 975,600.00 0.800% March 17, 2021 60 mos March 10, 2026 4.465%Total Agency Bonds7,497,245.00 7,462,937.50 33.490%Treasury ObligationsU.S. Treasury Z-2026 Series 984,728.00 979,609.00 1.100% December 6, 2021 53 mos May 31, 2026 4.399%Total Agency Bonds984,728.00 979,609.00 4.399%TOTAL INVESTMENTS22,386,835.91$ 22,347,409.41$ 100.000%Page 19 of 350 Item 8.c. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Updated CalPERS Required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Effective as of January 7, 2022, to Incorporate Changes Approved by the Five Cities Fire Authority Board of Directors DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the proposed Resolution will approve the updated CalPERS required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22, effective as of January 7, 2022, and consistent with salary adjustments approved by the Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) Board of Directors (Board). IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There is no fiscal impact. All changes have been previously approved and incorporated into the FCFA’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 Operating Budget and into the City’s adopted Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2021-23. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the updated CalPERS required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Effective as of January 7, 2022. BACKGROUND: In April 2016, CalPERS conducted a standard agency audit of the City’s practices related to financial reporting for pension plans (Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) Statement No. 67). As a result of that audit, CalPERS now requires that the City adopt a resolution re-approving any previously approved individual employee groups’ salary schedules into a single City-wide schedule, in a format approved by CalPERS. The most current salary schedule was approved by the City Council on December 14, 2021, which incorporated increases to the hourly pay rate for certain part-time positions in compliance with the new minimum wage law in California. Additionally, the December 14, 2021 salary schedule reclassified the Neighborhood Services Technician position to Community Services Specialist to support the Community Development Department’s Page 20 of 350 Item 8.c. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Updated CalPERS Required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Effective as of January 7, 2022, to Incorporate Changes Approved by the Five Cities Fire Authority Board of Directors February 8, 2022 Page 2 needs for recruitment and retention of qualified staff performing elevated job duties in this role. Since that time, the FCFA Board approved salary adjustments for its staff for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Pursuant to the terms of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement that created the FCFA, all FCFA employees are employees of the City of Arroyo Grande. As a result, the City’s Salary Schedule must be amended to incorporate the salary adjustments approved by the FCFA Board. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The Government Code and California Code of Regulations require the City to maintain a single, duly-approved and adopted pay schedule that identifies the positions for every employee classification. The proposed Resolution adopts a revised salary schedule incorporating adjustments approved by the FCFA Board as follows: FCFA unrepresented Management employees: The pay schedule reflects the reclassification of the current Administrative Assistant/Clerk to the Board position to the title of Administrative Operations Manager/Clerk to the Board effective as of January 7, 2022 as approved by the FCFA Board on January 21, 2022 by Resolution 2022-01. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the proposed Resolution; 2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution will ensure that the City is in compliance with the Government Code and California Code of Regulations and will provide one location for the public to see the City-wide schedule. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages are identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Page 21 of 350 Item 8.c. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Updated CalPERS Required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Effective as of January 7, 2022, to Incorporate Changes Approved by the Five Cities Fire Authority Board of Directors February 8, 2022 Page 3 Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution approving the updated CalPERS required Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021-22, effective as of January 7, 2022 Page 22 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE UPDATED CITYWIDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) deems it in the best interest of the City and in order to ensure compliance with State law, that the Citywide Combined Salary Schedule reflects the adjustments recently approved by the Five Cities Fire Authority Board of Directors. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that: 1. The Citywide Combined Salary Schedule shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted, to be effective as of January 7, 2022. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of February, 2022. Page 23 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 24 of 350 GROUP: SEIU Position A B C D E Office Assistant I Biweekly 1,476.79 1,550.63 1,628.16 1,709.57 1,795.05 Monthly 3,199.71 3,359.70 3,527.69 3,704.07 3,889.27 Annual 38,396.57 40,316.40 42,332.22 44,448.83 46,671.27 Accounting Clerk I Biweekly 1,513.71 1,589.40 1,668.87 1,752.31 1,839.93 Monthly 3,279.71 3,443.69 3,615.88 3,796.67 3,986.50 Annual 39,356.49 41,324.31 43,390.53 45,560.05 47,838.06 Maintenance Worker I Biweekly 1,590.34 1,669.86 1,753.35 1,841.02 1,933.07 Monthly 3,445.74 3,618.03 3,798.93 3,988.88 4,188.32 Annual 41,348.91 43,416.35 45,587.17 47,866.53 50,259.86 Office Assistant II Biweekly 1,630.10 1,711.61 1,797.19 1,887.05 1,981.40 Monthly 3,531.89 3,708.48 3,893.90 4,088.60 4,293.03 Annual 42,382.63 44,501.76 46,726.85 49,063.19 51,516.35 Accounting Clerk II Biweekly 1,755.44 1,843.21 1,935.37 2,032.14 2,133.75 Maintenance Worker II Monthly 3,803.45 3,993.63 4,193.31 4,402.97 4,623.12 Annual 45,641.46 47,923.53 50,319.71 52,835.69 55,477.48 Administrative Secretary Biweekly 1,937.68 2,034.56 2,136.29 2,243.10 2,355.26 Monthly 4,198.30 4,408.22 4,628.63 4,860.06 5,103.06 Annual 50,379.63 52,898.61 55,543.54 58,320.72 61,236.76 Senior Accounting Clerk Biweekly 1,986.12 2,085.43 2,189.70 2,299.18 2,414.14 Building Permit Tech.Monthly 4,303.26 4,518.42 4,744.34 4,981.56 5,230.64 Plan/Engineer Permit Tech Annual 51,639.12 54,221.08 56,932.13 59,778.74 62,767.67 Sports Facility Coord. Recreation Coordinator Maintenance Worker III Water Services Worker Biweekly 2,086.67 2,191.00 2,300.55 2,415.58 2,536.36 Monthly 4,521.11 4,747.17 4,984.53 5,233.75 5,495.44 Annual 54,253.35 56,966.02 59,814.32 62,805.04 65,945.29 Fleet Maint. Coordinator Biweekly 2,192.30 2,301.92 2,417.02 2,537.87 2,664.76 Community Services Specialist Monthly 4,749.99 4,987.49 5,236.87 5,498.71 5,773.65 Annual 56,999.93 59,849.92 62,842.42 65,984.54 69,283.77 Public Works Lead Worker Biweekly 2,247.11 2,359.47 2,477.44 2,601.31 2,731.38 Parks Lead Worker Monthly 4,868.74 5,112.18 5,367.79 5,636.18 5,917.99 Annual 58,424.93 61,346.17 64,413.48 67,634.15 71,015.86 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 Position A B C D E GIS Technician Biweekly 2,419.89 2,540.89 2,667.93 2,801.33 2,941.40 Monthly 5,243.10 5,505.26 5,780.52 6,069.55 6,373.03 Annual 62,917.25 66,063.12 69,366.27 72,834.59 76,476.32 Recreation Supervisor Biweekly 2,480.39 2,604.41 2,734.63 2,871.36 3,014.93 Streets Maintenance Supervisor Monthly 5,374.18 5,642.89 5,925.04 6,221.29 6,532.35 Parks, Tree & Landscape Supervisor Annual 64,490.19 67,714.70 71,100.43 74,655.45 78,388.22 Utilities/Water & Sewer System Supervisor Soto Sports Complex Maint. & Coord. Supervisor Citywide Fleet Coordinator Biweekly 2,542.40 2,669.52 2,803.00 2,943.15 3,090.30 Monthly 5,508.54 5,783.96 6,073.16 6,376.82 6,695.66 Annual 66,102.44 69,407.56 72,877.94 76,521.84 80,347.93 IT Specialist Biweekly 2,671.11 2,804.67 2,944.90 3,092.14 3,246.75 Assistant Engineer Monthly 5,787.41 6,076.78 6,380.62 6,699.65 7,034.63 Engineering Inspector Annual 69,448.88 72,921.32 76,567.39 80,395.76 84,415.54 Program Analyst Associate Engineer Biweekly 3,022.12 3,173.22 3,331.88 3,498.48 3,673.40 Monthly 6,547.92 6,875.32 7,219.08 7,580.03 7,959.04 Annual 78,575.03 82,503.78 86,628.97 90,960.42 95,508.44 Senior Engineer Biweekly 3,254.49 3,417.21 3,588.07 3,767.48 3,955.85 Monthly 7,051.39 7,403.96 7,774.16 8,162.87 8,571.01 Annual 84,616.71 88,847.55 93,289.93 97,954.42 102,852.14 Page 26 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 GROUP: POA Position A B C D E Police Officer Biweekly 2,727.80 2,864.18 3,007.39 3,157.76 3,315.65 Monthly 5,910.22 6,205.73 6,516.02 6,841.82 7,183.91 Annual 70,922.67 74,468.81 78,192.25 82,101.86 86,206.95 Sr. Police Officer Biweekly 3,012.18 3,162.79 3,320.93 3,486.98 3,661.33 Monthly 6,526.40 6,852.72 7,195.35 7,555.12 7,932.88 Annual 78,316.77 82,232.61 86,344.24 90,661.45 95,194.52 Police Sergeant Biweekly 3,491.23 3,665.79 3,849.08 4,041.54 4,243.62 Monthly 7,564.34 7,942.56 8,339.68 8,756.67 9,194.50 Annual 90,772.06 95,310.66 100,076.20 105,080.01 110,334.01 Records Clerk Biweekly 1,900.99 1,996.04 2,095.84 2,200.63 2,310.67 Monthly 4,118.81 4,324.75 4,540.99 4,768.04 5,006.44 Annual 49,425.76 51,897.05 54,491.90 57,216.50 60,077.32 Records/Property Evidence Tech.Biweekly 2,100.21 2,205.23 2,315.49 2,431.26 2,552.82 Monthly 4,550.47 4,777.99 5,016.89 5,267.73 5,531.12 Annual 54,605.58 57,335.86 60,202.65 63,212.79 66,373.43 Police Trainee Biweekly 2,375.99 2,494.78 2,619.52 2,750.50 2,888.02 Monthly 5,147.97 5,405.37 5,675.63 5,959.42 6,257.39 Annual 61,775.61 64,864.39 68,107.61 71,512.99 75,088.64 Page 27 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 GROUP: FCFA IAFF Position A B C D E Fire Fighter Biweekly 2,252 2,365 2,483 2,607 2,738 Monthly 4,880 5,124 5,380 5,649 5,932 Annual 58,560 61,488 64,562 67,791 71,180 Fire Engineer Biweekly 2,612 2,742 2,880 3,024 3,175 Monthly 5,659 5,942 6,239 6,551 6,879 Annual 67,908 71,303 74,869 78,612 82,543 Fire Captain Biweekly 3,105 3,260 3,423 3,594 3,774 Monthly 6,727 7,063 7,417 7,787 8,177 Annual 80,724 84,760 88,998 93,448 98,121 GROUP: FCFA MANAGEMENT Position LOW MID HIGH Administrative Operations Manager/Biweekly 3,162 3,504 3,845 Clerk to the Board Monthly 6,851 7,591 8,331 Annual 82,212 91,092 99,972 Battalion Chief Biweekly 4,679 5,184 5,688 Monthly 10,138 11,232 12,325 Annual 121,659 134,780 147,900 Fire Chief Biweekly 5,428 6,014 6,600 Monthly 11,761 13,031 14,301 Annual 141,126 156,366 171,606 Page 28 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 GROUP: MANAGEMENT Position LOW MID HIGH Office Assistant I Biweekly 1,507.38 1,670.08 1,670.08 Monthly 3,266.00 3,618.50 3,618.50 Annual 39,192.00 43,422.00 43,422.00 Office Assistant II Biweekly 1,663.38 1,843.62 2,023.85 Monthly 3,604.00 3,994.50 4,385.00 Annual 43,248.00 47,934.00 52,620.00 Administrative Secretary Biweekly 1,929.69 2,137.62 2,345.54 Monthly 4,181.00 4,631.50 5,082.00 Annual 50,172.00 55,578.00 60,984.00 Executive Secretary Biweekly 2,183.08 2,419.15 2,655.23 Monthly 4,730.00 5,241.50 5,753.00 Annual 56,760.00 62,898.00 69,036.00 Assistant Planner Biweekly 2,410.15 2,670.46 2,930.77 Monthly 5,222.00 5,786.00 6,350.00 Annual 62,664.00 69,432.00 76,200.00 Associate Planner Biweekly 2,659.85 2,947.38 3,234.92 Deputy City Clerk/ Monthly 5,763.00 6,386.00 7,009.00 Communications Coordinator Annual 69,156.00 76,632.00 84,108.00 Planning Manager Biweekly 3,162.00 3,503.54 3,845.08 Accounting Manager Monthly 6,851.00 7,591.00 8,331.00 Annual 82,212.00 91,092.00 99,972.00 Public Works Manager Biweekly 3,406.15 3,773.31 4,140.46 Utilities Manager Monthly 7,380.00 8,175.50 8,971.00 Annual 88,560.00 98,106.00 107,652.00 Information Technology Mgr Biweekly 3,489.69 3,866.31 4,242.92 Monthly 7,561.00 8,377.00 9,193.00 Annual 90,732.00 100,524.00 110,316.00 Page 29 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 Position LOW MID HIGH Capital Improvement Projects Biweekly 3,577.38 3,963.46 4,349.54 Manager Monthly 7,751.00 8,587.50 9,424.00 Annual 93,012.00 103,050.00 113,088.00 Human Resources Officer Biweekly 3,667.38 4,062.92 4,458.46 Dir of Legis and Info Services Monthly 7,946.00 8,803.00 9,660.00 Dir of Recreation Services Annual 95,352.00 105,636.00 115,920.00 Building Official Biweekly 3,758.31 4,164.46 4,570.62 Monthly 8,143.00 9,023.00 9,903.00 Annual 97,716.00 108,276.00 118,836.00 Police Commander Biweekly 4,274.31 4,735.62 5,196.92 Monthly 9,261.00 10,260.50 11,260.00 Annual 111,132.00 123,126.00 135,120.00 City Engineer Biweekly 4,578.46 5,073.69 5,568.92 Monthly 9,920.00 10,993.00 12,066.00 Annual 119,040.00 131,916.00 144,792.00 Director of Public Works Biweekly 5,053.85 5,599.62 6,145.38 Dir of Administrative Services Monthly 10,950.00 12,132.50 13,315.00 Dir of Community Develop Annual 131,400.00 145,590.00 159,780.00 Police Chief Biweekly 5,469.69 6,060.46 6,651.23 Monthly 11,851.00 13,131.00 14,411.00 Annual 142,212.00 157,572.00 172,932.00 Assistant City Manager/Public Biweekly 6,090.46 6,747.46 7,404.46 Works Director Monthly 13,196.00 14,619.50 16,043.00 Annual 158,352.00 175,434.00 192,516.00 City Manager Biweekly 7,561.38 Monthly 16,383.00 Annual 196,596.00 Page 30 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMBINED SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/07/2022 GROUP: PART-TIME POSITIONS POLICE DEPARTMENT Step A Step B Step C Step D Administrative Intern (Cadet)$15.75 $16.54 $17.37 $18.24 Records Clerk $20.20 $21.21 $22.27 $23.39 Fleet & Equipment Technician $24.41 $25.63 $26.91 $28.25 Neighborhood Services Technician $21.78 $22.87 $24.01 $25.21 Training Technician $24.41 $25.63 $26.91 $28.25 Police Reserve Officer Trainee $23.29 $24.45 $25.67 $26.96 Police Reserve Officer $26.74 $28.08 $29.49 $30.96 Designated Level I Reserve Officer $33.43 $35.10 $36.86 $38.70 RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT AM/PM Assistant I $15.00 $15.21 $15.98 $16.77 AM/PM Assistant II $15.94 $16.74 $17.57 $18.45 AM/PM Assistant Teacher $17.53 $18.41 $19.33 $20.30 AM/PM Teacher $19.28 $20.25 $21.26 $22.32 Pre School Teacher $19.28 $20.25 $21.26 $22.32 Facility Attendant $15.00 $15.21 $15.98 $16.77 Senior Facility Attendant $15.94 $16.74 $17.57 $18.45 Sports Facility Attendant $15.00 $15.21 $15.98 $16.77 Volunteer and Program Coordinator $24.62 $25.85 $27.15 $28.50 MISCELLANEOUS Administrative Intern $15.75 $16.54 $17.37 $18.24 Office Assistant I $16.42 $17.24 $18.10 $19.00 Office Assistant II $19.19 $20.15 $21.16 $22.21 Sr. Office Assistant $20.20 $21.21 $22.27 $23.39 Administrative Secretary $23.08 $24.23 $25.45 $26.72 Executive Secretary $27.29 $28.66 $30.09 $31.60 Building Permit Technician $24.77 $26.01 $27.31 $28.67 Assistant Engineer $30.23 $31.74 $33.33 $35.00 Associate Engineer $33.25 $34.92 $36.66 $38.50 Planning Technician $24.77 $26.01 $27.31 $28.67 Assistant Planner $28.82 $30.27 $31.78 $33.37 Associate Planner $31.18 $32.74 $34.38 $36.10 Custodian $16.75 $17.58 $18.46 $19.39 Maintenance Worker $16.75 $17.58 $18.46 $19.39 Student Intern (seasonal)$15.00 FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY Office Assistant II $18.17 $18.71 $20.02 $21.03 Reserve Firefighter $15.00 $16.00 $17.00 HOURLY RATE Page 31 of 350 Item 8.d. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the Resolution will continue the declared local emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the proposed ac tion; however, adoption of the Resolution will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 pandemic. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. BACKGROUND: As the City Council is aware, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency on March 16, 2020, regarding th e COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council ratified the proclamation at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020, and adopted resolutions declaring a continued local emergency since that time as the pandemic has persisted. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to “Review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated.” Accordingly, the City Council has adopted the appropriate Resolutions declaring a continued local Page 32 of 350 Item 8.d. City Council Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic February 8, 2022 Page 2 emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic within the required 21-day time period since the ratification of the proclamation at its March 24, 2020 meeting. This item is being presented to the City Council to satisfy the requirements of Section 8.12.065(C). Given the ongoing state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, the ongoing public health orders issued by the State and local public health officers, and the ongoing work required of City staff to respond to the pandemic and these proclamations and orders, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the emergency declaration. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the declared local emergency; or 2. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution will satisfy the requirement of the Arroyo Grande Muni cipal Code regarding the periodic review of the declared local emergency related to the COVID- 19 pandemic. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages have been identified to adopting the Resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not required. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachment: 1. Proposed Resolution Page 33 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID- 19) PANDEMIC WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency on March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the City Council ratified the emergency proclamation through adoption of Resolution No. 4974 at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020; and WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolutions declaring a continued local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on April 14, April 28, May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, August 11, August 25, September 8, September 22, October 13, October 27, November 10, November 24, December 8, 2020, January 12, January 26, February 9; February 23; March 9, March 23, April 13, April 27, May 11, May 25, June 8, June 22, July 27, August 10, August 24, September 14, September 28, October 12, October 26, November 9, November 23, December 14, 2021, January 11, and January 25, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Director issued a Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists and has existed as of January 27, 2020; and WHEREAS, the President of the United States declared a State of National Emergency; the Governor of the State of California has proclaimed a State of Emergency for the State of California and issued Executive Orders and direction regarding measures to mitigate the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California; the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director has proclaimed a local emergency; and the San Luis Obispo County Public Health Director has declared a public health emergency related to the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California and all recitals set forth therein, are included as though fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly worldwide and in the U.S., continuing to present an immediate and significant risk to public health and safety, and resulting in serious illness or death to vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Page 34 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that: 1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein. 2. A local emergency is declared to continue to exist throughout the City of Arroyo Grande, and the City has been undertaking, and will continue through termination of this emergency to undertake necessary measures and incur necessary costs, which are directly related to the prevention of the spread of COVID -19 and are taken in furtherance of: the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ determination that a public health emergency has existed since January 27, 2020; the Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020 ; the President of the United States’ Declaration of a National Emergency on March 13, 2020; the County Emergency Services Director’s Proclamation of Local Emergency and the County Public Health Director’s Declaration of a Public Health Emergency on March 13, 2020; and the City Director of Emergency Services’ Proclamation of Local Emergency on March 17, 2020; and related orders and directives. On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was approved this 8th day of February, 2022. Page 35 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 ______________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ______________________________________ WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 36 of 350 1 Item 8.e. ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL January 25, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Zoom Virtual Meeting Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 ByTelephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, Council Member Paulding Council Members Absent: Brian Pedrotti, Patrick Holub Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Bill Robeson, Administrative Services Director Nicole Valentine Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference. _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Matson took roll call. 3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION 4. FLAG SALUTE Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute. 5. AGENDA REVIEW 5.a Closed Session Announcements None. Page 37 of 350 2 Item 8.e. 5.b Ordinances read in title only None. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 6.a Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts City Manager McDonald provided a brief update on COVID-19 and highlighted the recent COVID-19 County press release regarding case numbers. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. No action was taken on this item. 6.b City Manager Communications City Manager McDonald discussed upcoming items for Council consideration, and highlighted a new app designed by CalPoly in collaboration with San Luis Obispo County to help prevent opioid overdose deaths. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. No action was taken on this item. 6.c Honorary Proclamation Declaring February 2022 Black History Month Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Declaring February 2022 as Black History Month. Courtney Haile, RACE Matters, accepted the proclamation. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Preston Allen. No further public comments were received. No action was taken on this item. 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. City Manager McDonald acknowledged the Supplemental Staff Report for Item 8.h. and highlighted the revised recommended action. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. Moved by Council Member Paulding Seconded by Council Member Barneich Approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.i., with the recommended courses of action. Page 38 of 350 3 Item 8.e. AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 8.a Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of December 16 through December 31, 2021. 8.b Consideration of Approval of Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX". 8.c Consideration of Adjustment of Sewer Connection Fees Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING SEWER CONNECTION FEES BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX". 8.d Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC". 8.e Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)". 8.f Consideration of Approval of Minutes Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of January 11, 2022, as submitted. 8.g Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12 Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING A NEED TO CONTINUE WORK UNDER EMERGENCY CONTRACTS TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST GRAND AVENUE". 8.i Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Update Page 39 of 350 4 Item 8.e. Received and filed the Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Report. 8. h. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit an Application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program 1) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE CALRECYCLE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM"; and 2) Authorized the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the IWMA, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney, enabling the City to obtain from the IWMA its non-competitive share of Grant Program funds currently estimated at $24,046 for projects authorized under the Grant Program. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi Community Development Director Pedrotti introduced the item and Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner, provided a presentation. Staff responded to questions from Council. Sharon Valienzi, Appellant, addressed the Council and responded to questions. Ken Steitz, Applicant, and Dirk Poeschel, addressed the Council and responded to questions. Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Alex Hughson, Laura, Paul Erb, and Jason Motter. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing. Council comments ensued regarding driveway/garage parking, and a possible three month trial period. City Attorney Carmel read into the record additional conditions of approval to be included in Exhibit A of the Resolution as follows: 16. Guests leasing the vacation rental will be required to use the interior of the garage as parking. 17. Parking of vehicles in the driveway other than in the designated guest parking space is prohibited. The applicant shall place signage in two (2) conspicuous places on the property with that wording. 18. Conditions 16 and 17 referenced above, will be incorporated in any applicable lease agreement and house rules and on the listing of the vacation rental for the short-term vacation rental. Mayor Ray Russom moved to deny Appeal Case No. 21-006 and approve Plot Plan Review 21- 033. Council Member Barneich seconded the motion adding conditions to include "quiet time" in the listing and signage posted inside the house with specific times identified, and requiring Page 40 of 350 5 Item 8.e. wording to reflect that the deposit may be at risk if rules are not followed. Mayor Ray Russom stated that she is not willing to amend her motion. Council Member Barneich withdrew her second. Council Member Storton seconded Mayor Ray Russom's original motion. Moved by Mayor Ray Russom Seconded by Council Member Storton Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 21-006 AND APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 21-033; LOCATED AT 263-D SPRUCE STREET; APPLIED FOR BY KEN STEITZ; APPEALED BY SHARON VALIENZI," with the addition of Special Condition No.'s 16, 17, and 18 to Exhibit A of the Resolution. AYES (3): Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding NOES (2): Mayor Pro Tem George, and Council Member Barneich Passed (3 to 2) 10. OLD BUSINESS 10.a Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 9:04 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m. City Manager McDonald presented the staff report and recommended that the Council: 1) Consider and authorize the City Manager to execute a Cost Sharing Agreement for the Central Coast Blue project; and 2) Consider and approve the proposed Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for financial assistance from CWSRF administered by the State Water Board for the City’s share of anticipated construction costs for the Project. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Manley McNinch. No further public comments were received. Council Member Paulding suggested that the agreement include a provision that was in the CCB project framework stating: "at least one public meeting will be held prior to procurement to discuss methods for implementing local hire provisions including discussions of various agreements". Council discussion ensued. Moved by Council Member Storton Seconded by Council Member Barneich Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Cost Sharing Agreement for the Central Coast Blue project. Page 41 of 350 6 Item 8.e. AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) Moved by Council Member Storton Seconded by Council Member Barneich Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND ASSISTANCE FOR THE CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT AND DESIGNATING THE CITY’S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE". AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Community Development Director Pedrotti introduced the item and Kathryn Kleinschmidt, GHD, provided a presentation on the LRSP process and guiding principles. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. Moved by Council Member Paulding Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem George Receive the project update and adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE LOCAL ROADS SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)." AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS The City Council provided brief reports from the following committee, commission, board, or other subcommittee meetings that they attended as the City’s appointed representative. 12.a MAYOR RAY RUSSOM: 1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) 2. Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) Page 42 of 350 7 Item 8.e. 3. City Selection Committee 4. South San Luis Obispo Sanitation District 5. Tourism Business Improvement District Board 6. Other 12.b MAYOR PRO TEM GEORGE: 1. Community Action Partnership SLO County 2. County Water Resource Advisory Committee 3. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board 4. Other 12.c COUNCIL MEMBER BARNEICH: 1. Audit Committee 2. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) 3. Zone 3 Water Advisory Board 4. Other At 10:52 p.m., Mayor Ray Russom stated that pursuant to Council policy, the Council must vote unanimously to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Moved by Mayor Ray Russom Seconded by Council Member Storton It was moved to continue the meeting to 11:06 p.m. AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 12.d COUNCIL MEMBER STORTON: 1. Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee 2. Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) 3. Governmental Affairs Committee 4. Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA) 5. Other 12.e COUNCIL MEMBER PAULDING: 1. Air Pollution Control District Page 43 of 350 8 Item 8.e. 2. Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee 3. SLOCOG/RTA 4. REACH SLO Advisory Commission 5. Other 13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Storton requested staff help coordinate Council attendance at the Arroyo Grande Chamber Business meeting. Mayor Ray Russom commented on the recent tragic passing of an Arroyo Grande teen and mentioned the GoFundMe campaign where donations can be made to help the family with funeral expenses. 14. CLOSED SESSION None. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the meeting at 11:06 p.m. in honor of Tyler Marie. _________________________ Caren Ray Russom, Mayor _________________________ Jessica Matson, City Clerk Page 44 of 350 Item 8.f. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director BY: Jill McPeek, Capital Improvement Project Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts and an Amendment to the FY 2021-22 CIP Budget Transferring $115,800 from ARPA funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 E Grand Ave, PW 2021-12 DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of a Resolution by the required four-fifths vote and approval of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget transferring $115,800 from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding will allow for the continuance of emergency repairs to the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue . IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes $410,000 of ARPA funds for emergency repair of the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project. It is estimated than an additional appropriation of $115,800 from ARPA Funds is needed to fully fund the project due to unanticipated concrete obstructions encountered during the underground/boring phase of the project. Staff time has been and will continue to be necessary to coordinate construction activities with the property owners, consultant engineer, and contractors. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution finding that there is a need to continue the emergency action for the storm drain system repairs at 251 East Grand Avenue in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050 ; and 2) Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program budget to add $115,800 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue, PW 2021-12. BACKGROUND: Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 22050 allows a public agency, in the case of an emergency, to repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and Page 45 of 350 Item 8.f. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts and an Amendment to the FY 2021-22 CIP Budget Transferring $115,800 from ARPA funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 E Grand Ave, PW 2021-12 February 8, 2022 Page 2 supplies for those purposes without going through a formal bid process. On November 9, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5124 declaring an emergency and authorizing the immediate expenditure of funds to repair the storm drain system located at 251 East Grand Avenue, which had failed following a storm that occurred in October 2021. The urgency for the repairs is to prevent storm water from entering the deteriorating corrugated metal pipe (CMP) which undermines the soil surrounding the CMP and causes voids under the pavement leading to surface depressions and eventually sink holes . PCC Section 22050 requires that after proceeding with an emergency project, the City Council shall review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency action is terminated, and if it is determined that there is a need to continue the action, authorize continuation of the emergency action by a four-fifths vote. On January 25, 2022, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5147 determining a need to continue work under emergency contracts to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Since the January 25, 2022 City Council meeting, the status of the project, as of February 1, 2022, is as follows: The design engineer evaluated and provided direction regarding a second obstruction within the path of the boring; California Auger Boring completed the installation of the new 36” storm drain pipe which included critical additional work at the standby/extra work rate to move through two obstructions; CalPortland began removal of the bore pit trench boxes; and Staff continued research regarding costs and timing of lining the new storm drain pipe. As of February 1, 2022, the project costs are estimated as follows, including expended plus anticipated costs: Plug and fill existing CMP storm drain $ 47,200 Installation of new storm drain pipe 336,300 Extra work due to new storm drain obstructions 102,600 Site restoration, fencing & barricade rental 15,600 Before/after testing of fuel lines 2,800 Consultant services – design, construction, testing 21,300 Total $ 525,800 Page 46 of 350 Item 8.f. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts and an Amendment to the FY 2021-22 CIP Budget Transferring $115,800 from ARPA funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 E Grand Ave, PW 2021-12 February 8, 2022 Page 3 During boring operations, the contractor encountered two buried concrete obstructions at 9 feet under the grade level. Based on drawings obtained from the City’s files for the property, it was determined that the obstructions were part of the footings for the service station canopy that were constructed deeper than the design depth shown on the original construction plans and/or represented over-pour of concrete when the footings were constructed. Following consultation with a structural engineer, it was determined that boring could proceed through the excess material to allow the new storm drain pipe to remain within the existing storm drain easement and to salvage about 70 feet of the new storm drain pipe installed at that point. In order to complete this work, hand removal of the excess material over the course of eleven days was required, which was extremely labor intensive and performed at the standby/extra work rate contained in California Auger Boring’s contract. The other option identified, but not pursued, was to move the alignment of the new storm drain pipe a few feet away from the footings. This would have required the execution of a new storm drain easement, abandonment of the new storm drain pipe installed t o date, relocation of the bore pit, and the purchasing, remobilization and installation of all new storm drain pipe. Besides the potential costs, this option was the least desirable for several reasons, including difficulty in locating additional pipe due to supply chain shortages, the possibility of additional rain events occurring before the additional work could be completed, and the navigation and avoidance of the complex network of piping, fuel tanks, monitoring wells, and above and below ground struct ural components in the service station area. With the failed CMP being filled, the potential for directed storm water flow into the failed CMP and surrounding voids no longer exists and storm water will now enter the new permanent storm drain pipe. However, prompt actions still required to complete the project and ensure protection of the new storm drain pipe include lining of the new pipe, construction of headwalls at the inlet and outlet, and site restoration. For these reasons, staff recommends continuing the emergency action. As required by statute, staff will continue to bring a similar item to the Council on all subsequent regular meeting agendas until all emergency repairs have been completed and the emergency action is terminated by the Council. Staff will continue to work with the contractors and design engineer to complete the emergency repairs. Budget Adjustment Request Staff is recommending the additional fund s for this project be funded by reallocating ARPA funds from two other stormwater projects. Currently all ARPA Fund have been allocated to COVID-related City expenditures, Infrastructure Projects, and Qualified ARPA Projects (non-infrastructure). Within the ARPA-funded Infrastructure Projects, six Page 47 of 350 Item 8.f. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts and an Amendment to the FY 2021-22 CIP Budget Transferring $115,800 from ARPA funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 E Grand Ave, PW 2021-12 February 8, 2022 Page 4 stormwater projects have been identified to date, including the $410,000 for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project. The Table below identifies the six Stormwater Projects that have been allocated ARPA funding: Under applicable US Treasury Rules, the City must commit ARPA funds by way of contract/PO by December 31, 2024, and must spend its funding by December 31, 2026. In light of these deadlines and the sta tus of the at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, the recommendation is to reallocate a portion of the ARPA funds from the Stormwater Master Plan Update/Watershed Management Plan and the Corp Yard Stormwater Compliance Plan Implementation. The Stormwater Master Plan Update/Watershed Management Plan is currently budgeted to cost $172,500; this reallocation will reduce ARPA funding for the Plan by $55,800, bringing the updated allocation of ARPA funds to $116,700. The Corp Yard Stormwater Compliance Plan Implementation reallocation would remove all $60,000 of ARPA funding for this project. These projects are still needed and will be included in the Mid-Year Budget Financial Status Report with a recommended updated budget allocation from the City’s Local Sales Tax Fund. The updated proposed ARPA Stormwater Infrastructure Project allocation is reflected in the table below: ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Approve staff’s recommendations; 2. Do not approve staff’s recommendations and direct staff to prepare a Resolution to terminate the need to continue work under emergency action; or 3. Direct staff to utilize Local Sales Tax Fund Balance to fund the completion of this Stormwater Infrastructure Projects Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Lining 500,000 Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue (Chevron Station)410,000 Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real Storm Drain System 400,000 Trash Capture Devices 214,000 Stormwater Master Plan Update/Watershed Management Plan 172,500 Stormwater GIS Layer (incorporate into the Stormwater Master Plan Update)50,000 Corp Yard Stormwater Compliance Plan Implementation 60,000 1,806,500 Stormwater Infrastructure Projects Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Lining 500,000 Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue (Chevron Station)525,800 Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real Storm Drain System 400,000 Trash Capture Devices 214,000 Stormwater Master Plan Update/Watershed Management Plan 116,700 Stormwater GIS Layer (incorporate into the Stormwater Master Plan Update)50,000 Corp Yard Stormwater Compliance Plan Implementation - 1,806,500 Page 48 of 350 Item 8.f. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts and an Amendment to the FY 2021-22 CIP Budget Transferring $115,800 from ARPA funds for the Storm Drain System at 251 E Grand Ave, PW 2021-12 February 8, 2022 Page 5 project and approve the modified budget adjustment accordingly; 4. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution and approval of the budget amendment will allow for the continuance of emergency repairs to the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue and will eliminate a serious threat to public health and safety and minimize disruptions to the Chevron station’s operations. Additionally, the budget adjustment of $115,800 from ARPA Funding will ensure that the City spends the ARPA allocation within the allotted timeframe. DISADVANTAGES: An appropriation of ARPA funds to this project will remove $115,800 in available funding for other potential projects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This emergency project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15269. (b). Emergency repairs to publicly or privately owned service facilities necessar y to maintain service essential to the public health, safety or welfare. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. ATTACHMENT: 1. Proposed Resolution Page 49 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING A NEED TO CONTINUE WORK UNDER EMERGENCY CONTRACTS TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST GRAND AVENUE WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, pursuant to Public Contract Code (PCC) Sections 20168 and 22050, the City Council deemed it was in the public interest to immediately authorize the expenditure of City funds needed to safeguard the health, safety and welfare and to proceed immediately with emergency repairs of the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council deemed that the emergency repairs would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and that prompt action, including authorization to expend all funds required for such repairs without competitive bidding, was necessary to respond to the emergency; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5124 declaring an emergency and authorizing the immediate expenditure of funds to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, PCC Section 22050 requires that after proceeding with an emergency project, the City Council shall review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency action is terminated; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5130; on December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5137; on January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5140 and on January 25, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5147 determining a need to continue work under emergency contracts to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, if it is determined that there is a need to continue the action , PCC Section 22050 requires a four-fifths vote to authorize the continuation of the emergency action. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that the storm drain system emergency declared by the City Council on November 9, 2021, shall be deemed to continue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the storm drain system emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is declared by the City Council. Page 50 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 On motion by Council Member _________, seconded by Council Member _______, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of February, 2022. Page 51 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 52 of 350 Item 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) would deny the appeal and approve the proposed vacation rental project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on September 28, 2021, and upheld on appeal by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. To cover the costs of staff’s time to prepare the appeal hearing documents, the appellant paid a fee of $491 to appeal the Community Development Director’s decision to the Planning Commis sion and a fee of $1,163 to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -007 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-029. BACKGROUND: Vacation Rental Ordinance On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City Council considered potential issues associated with short term rentals, including noise, parking, Page 53 of 350 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. February 8, 2022 Page 2 and other general problems that could be associated with vacation rentals. Ultimate ly, both bodies concluded that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and general disturbance i ssues that may arise from operation of a short term rental. Additionally, a 300 -foot buffer between short term rentals on the same street is required to prevent the overconcentration of short term rentals in a neighborhood. The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permitted seventy-one (71) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including the subject application. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for two (2) vacation rentals and one (1) homestay. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, nine (9) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission and one (1) of these approvals have been appealed to the City Council. All nine (9) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission affirming the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. Similarly, the single appeal to City Council was also denied and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Plot Plan Review 21-033 The applicants for Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-029 submitted their application on August 2, 2021, for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. The subject property is a single family residence in the Berry Gardens neighborhood west of South Courtland Street and north of Blackberry Avenue. Additional materials necessary to provide a complete application were received by the City on September 12, 2021. After reviewing the materials provided, the Community Development Director approved Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-029 on September 28, 2021 (Attachment 3). Notice of the Director’s approval was sent to forty-five (45) property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The notice included the name and phone number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information abo ut how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. The approval mailer also listed the name of a secondary emergency contact person. Planning Commission Review An appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of the Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review was filed on October 11, 2021. The appellants submitted additional documents outlining the grounds justifying their appeal on November 12, 2021. The Planning Commission heard the appeal at its meeting on Decem ber 7, 2021 (Attachment 4). Issues raised in the appeal included completeness of the application, impacts on Page 54 of 350 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. February 8, 2022 Page 3 availability of parking and circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. After hearing comments from the applicant, appellants and members of the public, the Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal due to the determination that they were unable to make sufficient findings to uphold the appeal. The appellants submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on December 20, 2021. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Vacation Rental Performance Standards Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.52.230 sets forth performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City. These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow an upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. Basis of the Appeal The subject appeal indicated concerns about (1) due process, (2) the application not meeting the required performance standards, and (3) the Planning Commission not addressing material errors raised in that appeal (Attachment 5). 1. Due Process The appeal raised concerns with the notification of adjacent property owners as required per Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.16.080.C.6. Notice of the Community Development Director’s approval of the application was provided to property owners within a 300’ radius on September 28, 2021. It was later determined, following the Planning Commission hearing, that eleven (11) property owners within the required radius were not notified included in the original mailing list and did not receive notice of the Community Development Director’s approval. However, each of these eleven property owners, as well as all of the other property owners within the required 300’ radius , were notified of the Planning Commission hearing. Additionally, the notice of this hearing before the City Council was also mailed to all of the required property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, including the eleven properties missed with the original mailing. Because the Community Development Director’s approval of the permit was eventually appealed to the Planning Commission, and because notices of the two hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council have been provided properly, the City Attorney has advised that no property owner has been deprived of their rights in this case. Government Code Section 65010(b) states: Page 55 of 350 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. February 8, 2022 Page 4 No action, inaction, or recommendation by any pub lic agency or its legislative body or any of its administrative agencies or officials on any matter subject to this title shall be held invalid or set aside by any court on the ground of the improper admission or rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect, or omission (hereafter, error) as to any matter pertaining to petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, or any matters of procedure subject to this title, unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining or appealing suffered substantial injury from that error and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred. There shall be no presumption tha t error is prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown. As the error in the original notice of the Community Development Director’s approval of the permit was not discovered until after the Planning Commission hearing, staff did not notify the Commission that the original notice had inadvertently excluded 11 properties. However, because all of the property owners who should have been originally notified were subsequently noticed properly for the appeals to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, no property owners were deprived of their rights , no prejudicial errors occurred, and a different result was not probable if the error had not occurred. Therefore, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. 2. Performance Standards The appeal contends that the application does not meet the required performance standards, specifically in regards to the listed emergency contact persons. The application originally included an emergency contact person that was beyond the required 15-minute drive time from the rental property. The applicants later provided an emergency contact person that was within the required distance and that person’s contact information was provided as the property’s primary emergency contact in the notices mailed to nearby property owners. Because the applicants had already contracted with a vacation rental management company, the applicants requested that the original emergency contact person included in the application be provided as a secondary contact person. The appeal contends that this person would not otherwise qualify as the primary contact person, and, therefore, should not be allowed to be listed as a contact person for this rental. Staff believes that the presence of a second emergency contact person will o nly serve to benefit the neighborhood should any issues arise. Because the applicants have provided an emergency contact person who meets all of the necessary performance standards, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. If the City Council denies the appeal and upholds approval of the vacation rental permit, notice of the approval listing the emergency contact persons will be mailed to all property owners within a 300’ radius of the property. Page 56 of 350 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. February 8, 2022 Page 5 3. Planning Commission Hearing The appeal states that the Planning Commission did not address some of the errors that were raised during that hearing. These errors mentioned include the notification error with the original Community Development Director approval of the permit and that a secondary contact person should not have been provided due to the fact that the secondary emergency contact person does not reside within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The appeal further states that the Planning Commission should have continued the item to a later date to allow these errors to be corrected. During the hearing before the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021, the Commissioners in attendance had the opportunity to review the materials provided by City staff, the applicant and the appellants and concluded that sufficient materials were provided to make a determination on the appeal. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and to approve the vacation rental as submitted. Because the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and heard input from all parties, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutio n denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029. In order for the City Council to uphold the appeal and deny the vacation rental permit, a majority of the quorum would need to identify substantial evidence supporting findings that the requirements of the Ordinance for approval of a vacation rental have not been met, as follows: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In accordance with finding #2, the vacation rental must conform to the following performance standards and conditions listed in the Municipal Code: 1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit -plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood. 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. Page 57 of 350 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. February 8, 2022 Page 6 5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fiftee n-minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. 6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the community development department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). 7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on -site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the nonemergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited. 9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week. 11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay transient occupancy tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 12. Establishment of a vacation rental within three hundred (300) feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted. 13.Violations. Violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to uphold Appeal Case No. 21-007, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate supporting resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. Page 58 of 350 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. February 8, 2022 Page 7 ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal and approval of the Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income. The applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals, which would be used to help maintain City services and infrastructure. DISADVANTAGES: The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in a residential neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. Impacts to noise, traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed. However, concentration limitations and performan ce standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to address negative impacts to neighbors and prevent overburdening City services. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, January 28, 2022. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Ordinance 663 3. Approval Letter dated September 28, 2021 4. Minutes and Staff Report from the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Appeal Documents Page 59 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 21-007 AND APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 21-029; LOCATED AT 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY BRENDA GOROSKI; APPEALED BY STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review in order to ensure conformance with performance standards developed to protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods in which these uses would be located; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, the applicant submitted an application for Plot Plan Review No. 21-029 for the establishment of a vacation rental in an existing, three-bedroom residence located at 1562 Strawberry Avenue; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review No. 21-029 based upon the findings for approval of the permit; and WHEREAS, notice of the Community Development Director’s determination was mailed to fourty-five (45) of the fifty-six (56) property owners within 300’ of the project site to alert them of the approved request to establish the vacation rental; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2021, an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval was filed with the Community Development Secretary by Stew and Francine Errico, et al. in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.150; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal at a duly notice public hearing on December 7, 2021 and adopted a Resolution denying the appeal and approving the project; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval was filed with the City Clerk by Stew and Francine Errico in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.150; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande considered the appeal at a duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has found and determined that the project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines for existing facilities; and Page 60 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Due Process Findings: Although eleven property owners within 300’ of the project did not receive notice of the Community Development Director’s original approval of the project, all property owners within 300’ of the project received timely notice of the Planning Commission’s public hearing for the appeal of the project and could have participated in the appeal hearing. As a result, the City Council finds that no property owners were deprived of their due process rights, no prejudicial errors occurred, and a different result was not probable if the noticing error had not occurred. Plot Plan Review Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan; Vacation rentals are allowed in the City’s residential zoning districts with approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the approving body to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property as a commercial business. 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health, safety or general welfare. The existing residence meets the requirements of the Municipal Code and conditions of approval developed for this project ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed vacation rental is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use, as conditioned, is harmonious and compatible with the existing uses within the neighborhood. 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in the Single Family zoning district, which is available for use as a vacation rental. The vacation rental will be located in an existing Page 61 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 residential structure that is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use. The subject property where the vacation rental is located is greater than 300 feet from an existing vacation rental on the same street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approves Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029 based on the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 8th day of February, 2022. Page 62 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 _______________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _______________________________ WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 63 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval authorizes the establishment of a vacation rental in the three - bedroom residence on property located at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The project shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department dated August 5, 2021. 4. This permit shall automatically expire on February 8, 2024 unless a business license is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 5. The applicant shall apply and be approved for a busines s license prior to conducting any business transactions on the premises. 6. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 7. The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The identified primary contact person is Nancy Tucker and she can be reached at 805-748-6880. The secondary contact person is Kathy Kelly and she can be reached at 310-717-8750. 8. The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business license renewal. 9. The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental Page 64 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person. The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage collection, and the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 10. Based upon the size of the three (3) bedrooms in the main dwelling unit, a maximum of eight (8) guests may stay in the vacation rental at any one time (2 per bedroom and 2 additional guests). 11. No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental. 12. Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION CONDITIONS: 13. The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions. 14. A safety inspection will be required prior to business license approval. Contact (805) 473-5454 for inspections. Page 65 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") currently does not regulate vacation rentals or homestays; and WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as bed and breakfast inns; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, vacation rentals and homestays can result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals and homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City the implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City; and WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and homestays; 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 revisions to Title 16 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 revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16 and satisfy the intent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal consistency. D. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are exempt under per Sections 15061(b)( 3) and 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 66 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as follows: SECTION 16.52.230 —VACATION RENTALS A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards of the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in Section 16.52.230.C. C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals. 1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit- plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, -either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3) hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Page 67 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 3 6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the Community Development Department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. 7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited. 9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week. 11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted. 13. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as follows: SECTION 16.52.240 — HOMESTAYS A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that homestays located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. B. Applicability. Homestays may be permitted only with approval of a minor use permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the Page 68 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 4 underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in Section 16.52.240.0. C. Performance standards and conditions for homestays. 1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed homestay shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements far the level of occupancy of the homestay shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator shall reside on the premises. 6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven- day period between stays. 7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited. 8. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the L Building Code. 9. The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 10. Establishment of a homestay within 300 feet of an existing homestay on the same street shall not be permitted. 11. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. SECTION 4: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.04.070.C. are hereby amended or added as follows: 16.04.070.C. Definitions Bed and breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where three (3) or more short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensation or onsite signage is desired. r Page 69 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 5 Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short- term lodging rooms are provided for compensation. Vacation rental" means a structure being rented for less than thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the short-term lodging is provided for compensation. SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.16.080 is hereby amended to add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows: 16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacation rentals or homestays in applicable zoning districts identified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A). 16.16.080.C.6. For plot plan reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section 16.16.080.C.5. The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150. SECTION 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.32.040-A, entitled "Uses Permitted Within Residential Districts", Section A. Residential Uses is hereby amended to add Subsection A.17. as follows: USE RE RH RR RS SF VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP A. Residential Uses 17.Vacation Rentals MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP and Homestays SECTION 7: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A), entitled "Uses Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts", Section B. Services -General is hereby amended to add the following use: USE VCD VMU HCO D-2.11 OMU1 TMU D- HCO D=Specific IMU D-2.11 2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU 2.20 RC2 Use Stds B.Services -General Vacation Rentals and NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230 Homestays 16.52.240 SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason'held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. Page 70 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 6 SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062. SECTION 10: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014. Page 71 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. (0493 PAGE 7 TONY F MAYOR ATTEST: Wgkitet'L-- KELLY ET j RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: S E ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7n/V- TIMVIO111Y J. CARME"C, CITY ATTORNEY 1 Page 72 of 350 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached is a true, full, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 663 which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 27, 2014; was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June 2014; and was duly published in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806). WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12th day of June 2014. i 1 I KELL WE/ ORE, CITY CLERK Page 73 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org September 28, 2021 Brenda Goroski 1562 Strawberry Avenue Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVE; APPLICANT – BRENDA GOROSKI Dear Ms. Goroski: On September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved the above-referenced project for the establishment of a Vacation Rental in an existing residence in the Single Family (SF) zoning district. This approval is based upon the following findings for approval: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – PLOT PLAN REVIEW 1.The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan; a.Vacation Rentals are allowed in the City’s Single Family (SF) zoning district with approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review. b.Approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the Community Development Director to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. c.Approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property as a commercial business. 2.The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; a.The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health, safety or general welfare. b.The existing dwelling unit on site meets the requirements of Section 16.52.230 of the Municipal Code. c.Conditions of approval developed for this project ensure compliance with Section 16.52.230 of the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. 3.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. a.The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in the Single Family zoning district, which is available for use as a Vacation Rental. b.The existing residence is available for Vacation Rentals, and is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use. c.The subject property where the Vacation Rental is located is greater than three hundred feet (300’) of an existing Vacation Rental on the same street. In approving a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review, the Community Development Director may impose reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code. This approval is subject to the following conditions of ATTACHMENT 3 Page 74 of 350 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 PAGE 2 approval. Please review the conditions carefully. As the applicant, you are responsible to see that the conditions are implemented. This will involve working with the various departments that conditioned the project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2.The applicant shall apply and be approved for a business license before conducting any business transactions on the premises. 3.The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4.The project shall substantially conform to the plans and descriptions on file in the Community Development Department dated August 5, 2021. 5.This permit shall expire on September 28, 2023, unless a business license is issued for the project. 6.The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The identified primary contact person is Nancy Tucker and she can be reached at 805-748-6880. 7.The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business license renewal. 8.The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person. The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage collection, and the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 9.Based upon the size and location of the three (3) bedrooms in the single family residence and the character of the neighborhood, a maximum of eight (8) guests may stay in the single family residence as a vacation rental at any one time in accordance with Municipal Subsection 16.52.230.C.9 (2 occupants per bedroom and 2 additional occupants). 10.No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental. 11.Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46. Page 75 of 350 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 PAGE 3 BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION 12.The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions. 13.A safety inspection will be required prior to business license approval. Contact (805) 473-5454 for inspections. The decision will be reported to the Planning Commission on October 11, 2021. Per Municipal Code Subsection 16.16.080.C.6, a notice of the decision will also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred feet (300’) of the vacation rental. If you disagree with the Community Development Director’s decision, you may file an appeal to the Planning Commission no later than October 11, 2021 at 5:00 pm. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 473-5420. Sincerely, Brian Pedrotti Community Development Director Patrick Holub Assistant Planner cc: Building Official Accounting Manager Page 76 of 350 1 ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 7, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Zoom Virtual Meeting Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 ByTelephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Commission Members Present: Chair Glenn Martin, Vice Chair Frank Schiro, Commissioner Jamie Maraviglia, Commissioner Jim Guthrie Staff Present: Associate Planner Andrew Perez, Assistant Planner Patrick Holub, Community Development Director Brian Pedrotti Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference. _____________________________________________________________________ 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2.ROLL CALL Commissioner Buchanan absent. 3.FLAG SALUTE Chair Martin led the flag salute. 4.AGENDA REVIEW None. 5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Chair Martin invited public comment. No public comments were received. 6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS One supplemental memorandum received for items 8.a. and 8.b. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 77 of 350 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA Moved by Chair Martin Seconded by Commissioner Guthrie Approve the minutes of the October 19, 2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Passed 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8.a APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 AT 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE Assistant Planner Holub presented the staff report, which included information about the vacation rental ordinance, processing of vacation rental applications, and performance standards for vacation rentals. He also addressed objections raised by the appellant, including completeness of the application, the structure’s adherence to Building and other Code requirements, availability of parking and perceived impacts on circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. Stew and Francine Errico, appellants, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the vacation rental permit should be denied because the project application was incomplete, the approval was not notified according to the Municipal Code, and the emergency contact was incapable of performing the necessary duties required by the Municipal Code. Patrick and Brenda Goroski, project applicants, spoke in opposition of the appeal and stated that they followed the city process. Kathleen Kelly, project representative, spoke in opposition to the appeal and explained the roles of the emergency contact and how they satisfy the Municipal Code requirements. Chair Martin opened public comment and the following comments were received: Michelle Chariton, stated that an application cannot be changed after submittal, spoke about police activity responding to the vacation rental at 1170 Linda Drive, and inquired about the noticing for the short term rental at 1150 Linda Drive. Jami Fordyce, inquired about the status of their refund for the appeal of the vacation rental approval at 1170 Linda Drive. Chair Martin closed public comment. The Commission discussed the staff process for reviewing vacation rental applications. The Commission recognized that vacation rentals are in important issue and urged staff to agendize a discussion about the ordinance with City Council as soon as possible. Moved by Chair Martin Seconded by Vice Chair Schiro Page 78 of 350 3 Adopted a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review 21- 029. AYES (4): Chair Martin, Vice Chair Schiro, Commissioner Maraviglia, and Commissioner Guthrie Passed (4 to 0) 8.b APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-005; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-033 AT 263 SPRUCE ST, UNIT D Commissioner Maraviglia recused herself. Assistant Planner Holub presented the staff report, which included information about the vacation rental ordinance, processing of vacation rental applications, and performance standards for vacation rentals. He also addressed objections raised by the appellant including concerns about availability of parking, an unpermitted structure in the garage of the residence where the rental is proposed, and parking within a fire lane. Sharon Valienzi, appellant, spoke in favor of the appeal stating parking issues, emergency access, failure to comply with private covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the subdivision, and neighborhood disturbances are grounds for upholding the appeal. Ms. Valienzi expressed her disappointment with the permitting process because she feels that the neighbors should be notified with the submittal of an application, not after a decision has been rendered. Chair Martin opened public comment and the following comments were received: Alex Hughson, spoke about parking issues created by the short term rental. Jason Motter, spoke about concerns about traffic, guests speeding on the private driveway, and disturbances caused by short term renters. Laura spoke about parking issues caused by short term renters that were not problems with long term renters. She spoke about noise issues and safety issues due to lack of adequate lighting at the subject property. Francine Errico, stated her disappointment with the permitting process and worried about the vacation rental permitted near her home. Jami Fordyce, spoke about the differences between short term and long term renters and disappointment with the permitting process. Stew Errico, spoke about concerns with the permitting process. Alex Hughson read comments prepared by Paul Erb, stating parking issues and disturbance of the neighbors caused by short term renters are reasons to uphold the appeal. Chair Martin closed public comment. Ken Steitz, project applicant, stated that the appellants presented information that was not true and that his property is ideal for a vacation rental. He spoke about the parking situation and how the storage room in the garage was used for personal storage. He stated that the guests do not Page 79 of 350 4 block the fire lane when parked in the driveway and that his guests do not use the guest parking spaces on a full-time basis. Elaine Steitz, project applicant, spoke about the unpermitted storage room and how it was constructed by the previous owner. They stated that the pictures presented by the appellants are inaccurate and do not accurately portray the parking situation. The Commission agreed that the appellants bring valid concerns about vacation rentals in general, and that this is a poor location for a vacation rental, however they could not make the findings for denial. The Commission discussed the idea of conditioning the project to require guests to park in the garage to alleviate concerns regarding obstruction of the fire lane. Moved by Commissioner Guthrie Seconded by Vice Chair Schiro Adopted a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-005 and approving Plot Plan Review 21- 033. AYES (2): Vice Chair Schiro, and Commissioner Guthrie NOES (1): Chair Martin ABSENT (1): Commissioner Maraviglia Passed (2 to 1) 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None. Commissioner Maraviglia rejoined the meeting. 10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 2021 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Guthrie inquired if there were any more appeals that needed to be heard by the Commission. Vice Chair Schiro thanked the public for the fundraising efforts that allowed for the installation of the holiday lights in the Village. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Page 80 of 350 5 _________________________ Patrick Holub Assistant Planner _________________________ Glenn Martin, Chair Page 81 of 350 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21- 004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. DATE: December 7, 2021 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the proposed Resolution would deny the appeal and approve the proposed project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on September 28, 2021. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-029 (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: Vacation Rental Permitting On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commis sion and City Council had discussions about potential issues related to noise, parking, and other general nuisances, due to concerns expressed by some members of the public. The performance standards by which a vacation rental application is reviewed were generated from those discussions. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and Page 82 of 350 Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 2 general disturbance issues that may arise from a short term rental. A 300 -foot buffer between rentals on the same street is required to prevent the oversaturation of short term rentals in a neighborhood. Ultimately, both bodies came to the conclusion that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. Additionally, these issues were found to be similar to instances when long-term renters, homeowners, and even private guests of homeowners are the cause of these types of nuisances. A vacation rental includes additional protections, whereby the local contact is available to address any complaints and a property owner is motivated to comply with the conditions of approval to avoid possible revocation of the permit. Under the requirements of the Ordinance, the new vacation rental is conditioned to meet performance standards to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties, ensure appropriate conditions are implemented, and prohibit overconcentration of these uses in residential districts. The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permit ted seventy-one (71) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including this application. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for four (4) vacation rentals. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, seven (7) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission. All seven (7) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission being able to make the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. Property History On September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved Plot Pl an Review 21-029 for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. At the time of approval, notice of the Director’s approval were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The notice included the name and ph one number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information about how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. The approval letter is included as Attachment 3. On October 11, 2021, the appellants submitted an appeal of this determination to the Planning Commission. On November 12, 2021, the appellants submitted additional documents outlining the grounds for their appeal. The appellants’ appeal documentation is included as Attachment 4. Page 83 of 350 Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 3 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Basis of the Appeal The subject appeal indicated concerns about the completeness of the application, the structure’s adherence to Building and other Code requirements, availability of parking and perceived impacts on circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. Vacation Rental Performance Standards Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 outlines performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City. These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. Completeness of Application The appellants have raised issue with the alleged incompleteness of the application for Plot Plan Review 21-029. For example, the appellants contend that the plans submitted as part of the Plot Plan Review application are inadequate. The checklist referenced by the appellants is intended for projects that propose new construction , rather than permitting a new use in an existing, permitted structure. Staff believes that the information included on the application provides staff with the required information in order to make the necessary findings for approval of the application. Recognizing that the “Minor Project Application” form is used for a wide array of application types, staff has made adjustments to the application form in order to more clearly indicate which fields are required to be completed for different permit types. These changes include clearly indicating that Section III, found on page three of the application, is not required to be completed for short term rental applications, which include vacation rental and homestay applications. Code Compliance The appellants have alleged that due to the information provided on the application, staff would be unable to verify whether the existing structure meets provisions of the California Building Code (CBC). During the review of the application, information provided by the applicant was cross referenced with City documentation to confirm that the existing structure was permitted, constructed and inspected according to standard City procedures. Furthermore, after approval of the application and before the applicant is able to rent the unit, the Building Division of the Community Development Department will conduct a safety inspection to confirm that the necessary life safety devices are installed and in working order. This inspection includes verification that the structure is in Page 84 of 350 Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 4 conformance with the City’s records regarding the structure as well as verifies that smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and fire extinguishers are installed as required by the current version of the CBC. Should any deficiencies become known before or during the safety inspection, the applicant will be required to address those deficiencies prior to obtaining their Business License, and therefore, will be unable to rent the unit until such deficiencies are corrected. Parking The appellants’ submittal included concerns that guests of the rental parking on the street could have impacts on circulation within the cul-de-sac and that parked vehicles could have impacts on emergency response or trash collection for the street. Strawberry Avenue is classified as a local street, and as such, is designed to accommodate sidewalks, two lanes of traffic with driveway access, and on-street parking within the right- of-way. As a local road, the Strawberry Avenue was designed to provide emergency access with the presence of on-street parking. Furthermore, the appeal documents allege that presence of game tables in the garage preclude the use of the garage for guest parking. The Municipal Code does not include a parking standard for vacation rentals, therefore the presence of any obstructions in the garage is not a basis for denial of a vacation rental application. However, because the game tables are not permanently installed in the garage, staff believes this to be a non-issue and parking vehicles within the garage is possible. Lastly, the appellants have taken the presence of these games tables to constitute a “home occupation” of the garage. The section of the Business License application that the appellants have taken to prohibit this use of the garage is in reference to businesses that have obtained a Home Occupation Permit, which is not applicable in this situation. A Home Occupation Permit is meant to allow a business owner to conduct more typical business activities from their home. These activities include contractors who store vehicles on their property or home office related activities. The prohibition of utilizing a garage as a home occupation does not apply in the scenario of a vacation rental. Furthermore, the use of a garage as part of a vacation rental is to be expected based upon the fact that a vacation rental most closely imitates a residential use of the structure. Occupancy Limitations Condition of Approval No. 9 limits overnight occupants of vacation rentals to two (2) persons per bedroom, and an additional two (2) people. This is to ensure rentals are not over occupied and detrimental to surrounding residences. An applicant is required to submit a floorplan as part of the application so staff can verify the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. At 1562 Strawberry Avenue, the single family residence has three (3) bedrooms, therefore the permit was conditioned to have no more than eight (8) overnight occupants (Attachment 5). Page 85 of 350 Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 5 Noticing Requirements The appellants’ submittal on November 11th makes the claim that noticing requirements were not followed for this project. Specifically, the appellants allege that properties within the required 300’ radius were not notified. After conducting a thorough analysis of the properties notified of the Community Development Director’s decision, staff has concluded that owner of all of properties within a 300’ radius of the subject property were sent a copy of the approval mailer previously mentioned. The County of San Luis Obispo’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information indicates that there are thirty (30) parcels within 300’ of the subject property (Attachment 6). Staff believes that the forty- five (45) parcels notified actually exceeded the noticing requirements of the AGMC. Furthermore, staff believes that the appellants arrived at the total of sixty-nine (69) parcels in error due to the fact that “property owner” and “resident” labels were included in their mailing list. Only mailing labels for property owners within 300’ are required to be submitted with an application for a vacation rental, pursuant to AGMC Section 16.12.030. Local Contact Person Condition of Approval No. 6 requires the vacation rental operators to maintain a local contact person or entity, within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property, to be available to resolve any issues resulting from the use of the residence as a vacation rental. This is meant to give neighboring property owners a primary means of addressing issues with the rental instead of relying solely on City services, such as Police, Neighborhood Services, and Community Development. If in the future the local conta ct changes, the applicants are required to notify the City of the new local contact and property owners within 300 feet would be mailed a postcard with the new contact information. As part of their application, the applicant identified two emergency contacts. The primary emergency contact is Erika McCann and the secondary emergency contact is Kathy Kelly. The appellants expressed concerns regarding the listing of two emergency contacts, stating that Ms. McCann was listed in an attempt to circumvent the City’s vacation rental performance requirements. Staff has spoken with the applicant and is confident that Ms. McCann is able to perform the requirements of being listed as the primary emergency contact. Should community members have issues with the emergency contacts’ ability to abate concerns related to the rental unit, revocation of the permit could be a solution, subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The AGMC does not prohibit an applicant from providing additional emergency contact pe rsons that can assist in addressing concerns from neighbors. Concentration Limitations During the Council’s consideration of Ordinance No. 663, concerns were raised regarding the possibility that an overconcentration of vacation rentals and homestays cou ld negatively impact the residential character of neighborhoods. In order to address this issue, the Council included separation requirements in the regulations that prohibit the establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation rental on the Page 86 of 350 Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 6 same street. The nearest permitted vacation rental is located at 1515 Elderberry Court, which is located approximately 175 feet northeast of the subject property (Attachment 7). Although this property is within 300 feet of the subject property, the previously approved vacation rental is on a different street than the current application. Therefore, the address at 1562 Strawberry Avenue is eligible to be entitled as a vacation rental. Megan’s Law The appellant has reiterated concerns from a previous appeal that guests of the vacation rental could potentially be registered sex offenders and the proximity of the rental to school sites or locations where children congregate could cause safety issues. Staff would like to again state that while the safety of schoolchildren is of utmost concern, the transitory nature of vacation rental guests does not meet the reporting requirements of Megan’s Law. The law was intended to compel individuals to register their permanent (or semi-permanent) address with law enforcement so that they, and the public, would know where offenders are residing. Additionally, this gives law enforcement the opportunity to check up on registered individuals and allows residents to check if any registered offenders reside in their neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -004 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -004 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal Case No. 21-004, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21 -029; or 4. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal and approval of the requested plot plan review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations, and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income. The applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals which would be used to help maintain City streets and services. DISADVANTAGES: The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in an established neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. Impacts to noise, Page 87 of 350 Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 7 traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed. However, concentration limitations and performance standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to manage neighbor complaints and prevent overburdening City services. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, November 22, 2021. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received beyond what was contained in the appeal forms. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Ordinance No. 663 3. September 28, 2021 Approval letter 4. Appeal form 5. Floor plan 6. 300’ notification radius 7. Vacation Rental vicinity map Page 88 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 21-004 AND APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 21-029; LOCATED AT 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY BRENDA GOROSKI; APPEALED BY STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review in order to ensure conformance with performance standards developed to protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods in which these uses would be located; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2021, the applicant submitted an application for Plot Plan Review No. 21-029 for the establishment of a vacation rental in an existing, three-bedroom residence located at 1562 Strawberry Avenue; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review No. 21-029 based upon the findings for approval of the permit; and WHEREAS, notice of the Community Development Director’s determination were mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site to alert them of the approved request to establish the vacation rental; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2021, an appeal of the approval was filed with the Community Development Secretary by Stew and Francine Errico, et al.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the project is exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made: Plot Plan Review Findings: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan; Vacation rentals are allowed in the City’s residential zoning districts with ATTACHMENT 1 Page 89 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the approving body to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property as a commercial business. 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health, safety or general welfare. The existing residence meets the requirements of the Municipal Code and conditions of approval developed for this project ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed vacation rental is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use, as conditioned, is harmonious and compatible with the existing uses within the neighborhood. 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in the Single Family zoning district, which is available for use as a vacation rental. The vacation rental will be located in an existing residential structure that is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use. The subject property where the vacation rental is located is greater than 300 feet from an existing vacation rental on the same street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approves Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029 based on the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by , seconded by , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 7th day of December, 2021. Page 90 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 _______________________________ GLENN MARTIN CHAIR ATTEST: _______________________________ PATRICK HOLUB SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: _______________________________ BRIAN PEDROTTI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Page 91 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 1170 LINDA DRIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval authorizes the establishment of a vacation rental in the three-bedroom residence on property located at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The project shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department dated August 5, 2021. 4. This permit shall automatically expire on December 7, 2023 unless a business license is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 5. The applicant shall apply and be approved for a business license prior to conducting any business transactions on the premises. 6. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 7. The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The identified primary contact person is Nancy Tucker and she can be reached at 805-748-6880. The secondary contact person is Kathy Kelly and she can be reached at 310-717-8750. 8. The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business license renewal. 9. The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental Page 92 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person. The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage collection, and the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 10. Based upon the size of the three (3) bedrooms in the main dwelling unit, a maximum of eight (8) guests may stay in the vacation rental at any one time (2 per bedroom and 2 additional guests). 11. No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental. 12. Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION CONDITIONS: 13. The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions. 14. A safety inspection will be required prior to business license approval. Contact (805) 473-5454 for inspections. Page 93 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") currently does not regulate vacation rentals or homestays; and WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as bed and breakfast inns; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, vacation rentals and homestays can result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals and homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City the implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City; and WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and homestays; 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 revisions to Title 16 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 revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16 and satisfy the intent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal consistency. D. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are exempt under per Sections 15061(b)( 3) and 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 94 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as follows: SECTION 16.52.230 —VACATION RENTALS A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards of the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in Section 16.52.230.C. C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals. 1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit- plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, -either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3) hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Page 95 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 3 6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the Community Development Department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. 7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited. 9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week. 11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted. 13. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as follows: SECTION 16.52.240 — HOMESTAYS A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that homestays located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. B. Applicability. Homestays may be permitted only with approval of a minor use permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the Page 96 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 4 underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in Section 16.52.240.0. C. Performance standards and conditions for homestays. 1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed homestay shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements far the level of occupancy of the homestay shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator shall reside on the premises. 6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven- day period between stays. 7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited. 8. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the L Building Code. 9. The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 10. Establishment of a homestay within 300 feet of an existing homestay on the same street shall not be permitted. 11. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. SECTION 4: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.04.070.C. are hereby amended or added as follows: 16.04.070.C. Definitions Bed and breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where three (3) or more short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensation or onsite signage is desired. r Page 97 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 5 Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short- term lodging rooms are provided for compensation. Vacation rental" means a structure being rented for less than thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the short-term lodging is provided for compensation. SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.16.080 is hereby amended to add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows: 16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacation rentals or homestays in applicable zoning districts identified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A). 16.16.080.C.6. For plot plan reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section 16.16.080.C.5. The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150. SECTION 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.32.040-A, entitled "Uses Permitted Within Residential Districts", Section A. Residential Uses is hereby amended to add Subsection A.17. as follows: USE RE RH RR RS SF VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP A. Residential Uses 17.Vacation Rentals MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP and Homestays SECTION 7: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A), entitled "Uses Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts", Section B. Services -General is hereby amended to add the following use: USE VCD VMU HCO D-2.11 OMU1 TMU D- HCO D=Specific IMU D-2.11 2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU 2.20 RC2 Use Stds B.Services -General Vacation Rentals and NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230 Homestays 16.52.240 SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason'held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. Page 98 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 6 SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062. SECTION 10: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014. Page 99 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. (0493 PAGE 7 TONY F MAYOR ATTEST: Wgkitet'L-- KELLY ET j RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: S E ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7n/V- TIMVIO111Y J. CARME"C, CITY ATTORNEY 1 Page 100 of 350 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached is a true, full, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 663 which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 27, 2014; was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June 2014; and was duly published in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806). WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12th day of June 2014. i 1 I KELL WE/ ORE, CITY CLERK Page 101 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420 Fax: (805) 473-0386 E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org Website: www.arroyogrande.org September 28, 2021 Brenda Goroski 1562 Strawberry Avenue Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVE; APPLICANT – BRENDA GOROSKI Dear Ms. Goroski: On September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved the above-referenced project for the establishment of a Vacation Rental in an existing residence in the Single Family (SF) zoning district. This approval is based upon the following findings for approval: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – PLOT PLAN REVIEW 1.The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan; a.Vacation Rentals are allowed in the City’s Single Family (SF) zoning district with approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review. b.Approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the Community Development Director to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. c.Approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property as a commercial business. 2.The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; a.The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health, safety or general welfare. b.The existing dwelling unit on site meets the requirements of Section 16.52.230 of the Municipal Code. c.Conditions of approval developed for this project ensure compliance with Section 16.52.230 of the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. 3.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. a.The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in the Single Family zoning district, which is available for use as a Vacation Rental. b.The existing residence is available for Vacation Rentals, and is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use. c.The subject property where the Vacation Rental is located is greater than three hundred feet (300’) of an existing Vacation Rental on the same street. In approving a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review, the Community Development Director may impose reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code. This approval is subject to the following conditions of ATTACHMENT 3 Page 102 of 350 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 PAGE 2 approval. Please review the conditions carefully. As the applicant, you are responsible to see that the conditions are implemented. This will involve working with the various departments that conditioned the project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2.The applicant shall apply and be approved for a business license before conducting any business transactions on the premises. 3.The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4.The project shall substantially conform to the plans and descriptions on file in the Community Development Department dated August 5, 2021. 5.This permit shall expire on September 28, 2023, unless a business license is issued for the project. 6.The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The identified primary contact person is Nancy Tucker and she can be reached at 805-748-6880. 7.The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business license renewal. 8.The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person. The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage collection, and the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 9.Based upon the size and location of the three (3) bedrooms in the single family residence and the character of the neighborhood, a maximum of eight (8) guests may stay in the single family residence as a vacation rental at any one time in accordance with Municipal Subsection 16.52.230.C.9 (2 occupants per bedroom and 2 additional occupants). 10.No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental. 11.Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46. Page 103 of 350 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 PAGE 3 BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION 12.The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions. 13.A safety inspection will be required prior to business license approval. Contact (805) 473-5454 for inspections. The decision will be reported to the Planning Commission on October 11, 2021. Per Municipal Code Subsection 16.16.080.C.6, a notice of the decision will also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred feet (300’) of the vacation rental. If you disagree with the Community Development Director’s decision, you may file an appeal to the Planning Commission no later than October 11, 2021 at 5:00 pm. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 473-5420. Sincerely, Brian Pedrotti Community Development Director Patrick Holub Assistant Planner cc: Building Official Accounting Manager Page 104 of 350 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 105 of 350 Section 5: Appeal Cover letter statement: We, the appellants and neighbors, strongly appeal and call for an application denial to 1562 Strawberry Avenue’s application to become a Vacation Rental (VR) property. The application submitted does not meet the performance standards for vacation rentals in multiple areas as this appeal will demonstrate. It is our intent to cause this application to be met with the result of a denial. We do not wish for our appeal efforts to serve as an opportunity to collaborate with the applicant or City’s efforts to help point out shortcomings to the applicant that lead to cooperative corrections based upon our appeal content, as appears to have occurred in a number of previous VR appeal actions in Arroyo Grande. It is our position that this VR is not an appropriate or legitimate development to our neighborhood, and that the application does not meet the standards required to be approved. Beyond significant concerns relating to inappropriateness and unsuitabilies between VR’s with Neighborhood communities in general, there are additional substantial issues between this VR and our specific neighborhood. There exist a number of relevant restrictions and limitations that should have been addressed relating to this application, but do not appear to have even been considered through the process so far. There is also the major fact that the PPR VR application filed for 1562 Strawberry Ave contains multiple seriously disqualifying attributes as outlined in this appeal package including violations of: due process, notifications, performance standards and requirements and of the VR application itself. We, and our neighbors, did not move into this very special custom designed, and approved as such, family suitable neighborhood with a desire or expectation to live in close proximity to hotels, motels or short-term vacation rentals and thank you for your attention to this extremely important matter. This VR application also violates the intent and purpose of code for VR properties in close proximity to residential single family zoned neighborhoods. The fact that the city are currently reassessing code and processes relating to VR’s only further highlights that the present processing for possible approvals of VR applications is out of synchronization with what VR’s are inappropriately trying to become. Appendix A1 contains a copy of the Berry Gardens Specific Design Plan. Appendix A2 is a small sampling of well documented typical VR complaints. A general outline is listed on next page for your reference and convenience: Page 106 of 350 5.Appeal re: 1562 Strawberry Ave (PPR 21-029) a.Invalid/Inappropriate/Flawed application i.PPR checklist: issues, violations, & failures 1.Issues a.Table I (form and comments) ii.PPR application: issues, violations, & failures 1.Issues a.Table II (form and comments) b.Also violates terms of associated business license 2.Mailing list utilized is disqualifying a.Tables III and IV 3.Local contact(s) is not valid iii.Unique considerations/objections 1.Appropriate conditions and restrictions 2.VR usage conflicts with approved neighborhood design iv.Global considerations/objections v.VR already exists within 300’ of the property application b.VR approval process presently in place is not appropriate i.Process and implementation is not appropriate 1.Motel style usage of VRs is a very negative development 2.Due process has not been followed 3.Time given to file an appeal is insufficient 4.Complaints and problems not properly processed or known about 5.VR’s are not adhering to city code 6.Specific VR suitability and conditions not being considered 7.Updated appropriate ordinances are needed 8.Offsite parking should not be allowed similar to county code 9.VR’s result in further losses to available and affordable housing which is already a serious problem in AG. c.Appendix a.Appendix A1: Berry Gardens design plan b.Appendix A2: small sampling of well documented typical VR complaints. Appeal General Outline: Page 107 of 350 Plot Plan Review 1562 Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande, 93420 Application is incomplete resulting from the following items missing from PPR checklist completion: 2A. No location and dimensions mentioned on supplied drawings 2B. No scale or north arrow on drawings 2C No area location map with the distance to nearby cross streets and showing natural made landmarks on drawings 2D. No location, name, width and pavement type of adjacent street or alleys, and no location of existing curbs, gutter or sidewalks on drawings 2E No location, dimensions and use of existing and proposed structures on the property, including accessory structures, trash enclosures, deck, balconies, exterior lighting, structures, and other structural elements that protrude into the yard area (no inclusion of the hot tub and fire pit) noted on the drawings 2F. No location, dimensions, and types of existing and proposed utilities, including water supply, sewage disposal facilities, electricity, gas, or other utilities, Existing and proposed public and private easements missing from the drawings. 2 G. No location and dimensions of existing or proposed driveways and parking areas on the drawings 2 G1. No type of surfacing materials, parking spaces, aisles and flow of traffic noted on the drawings 2 G2. No parking spaces noted on drawings 2 G 5 No flow of traffic noted by arrows on the drawings 2 H No general location of any topographic or man made features o the site noted on the drawings. 2I No approximate location and general description, including species and trunk and canopy diameter of all trees upon the property noted on the drawings 3. No grading plans 5. No preliminary title report included -Additional items that may have been missed by this assessment are likely. 5 a i 1 Page 108 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLOT PLAN REVIEW 300 E. BRANCH STREET | ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 |(805) 473-5420 www.arroyogrande.org | agcity@arroyogrande.org PAGE 1 OF 2 0The following list includes all of the items you must submit for a complete application. Some specific types of information may not apply to your particular project and, as noted, some items may only be required in certain circumstances. If you are not sure if a specific requirement applies to your project, please ask the Community Development Staff. A copy of this list will be used to check your application for completeness after it is submitted. If your application is not complete, a copy of the list will be returned to you with additional requirements noted. FOR STAFF USE ONLY DATE SUBMITTED DATE DEEMED COMPLETE CHECKED BY CASE NUMBER Applicant City REQUIRED ITEMS ☐ ☐ 1.Completed application form and payment in full of applicable fees for processing the application. ☐ ☐ 2.Seven (7) copies of a plot plan drawn using a standard engineer’s scale. (Approval necessary for use of scale smaller than 1:30, i.e., 1:40 or 1:50.) Plot plans shall be neatly and accurately prepared, enabling ready identification and recognition of submitted information, and folded to 9” x 12” size, showing: ☐ ☐ A.Location, exterior boundaries, and dimensions of the entire property that is the subject of the application. ☐ ☐ B.The scale of the drawing and a north arrow shall be indicated. ☐ ☐ C.An area location map showing the proposed project site and its distance from nearby cross streets and natural or man-made landmarks, as necessary to readily locate the site. ☐ ☐ D.The location, name, width, and pavement type of adjacent street(s) or alley(s), as well as the location of existing or proposed curbs, gutter, or sidewalk improvements. ☐ ☐ E.The location, dimensions, and use of all existing and proposed structures on the property, including accessory structures, trash enclosures, decks, balconies, fences, walls, exterior lighting structures, signs, and other structural elements that protrude into yard areas. ☐ ☐ 1.When the use of a proposed structure is not certain at the time of application, the occupancy-type, as defined by the Uniform Building Code, may be submitted for use. ☐ ☐ F.The locations, dimensions, and types of existing and proposed utilities, including water supply, sewage disposal facilities, electricity, gas, or other utilities. Existing and proposed public and private easements shall be shown. ☐ ☐ G.The location and dimensions of existing or proposed driveways and parking areas (enclosed or open), including: ☐ ☐ 1.Type of surfacing materials, parking spaces, aisles, and identification of any driveway grades over ten (10) percent. The flow of traffic should be noted by arrows. 5 a i 1 a Page 109 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLOT PLAN REVIEW 300 E. BRANCH STREET | ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 |(805) 473-5420 www.arroyogrande.org | agcity@arroyogrande.org PAGE 2 OF 2 Applicant City REQUIRED ITEMS ☐ ☐ 2.Parking spaces. ☐ ☐ 3.Aisles. ☐ ☐ 4.Identification of any driveway grades over ten (10) percent. ☐ ☐ 5.The flow of traffic noted by arrows. ☐ ☐ H.The generalized location of any major topographic or man-made features on the site, such as rock outcrops, bluffs, streams and watercourses, or graded areas. A topographic map may be required by the Community Development Director. ☐ ☐ I.The approximate location and general description, including species and trunk and canopy diameter, of all trees upon the property or off-site but affected by the project. Include notations regarding their proposed retention and destruction, and notations regarding general type of vegetation in areas not occupied by trees. ☐ ☐ 3.Seven (7) sets of a grading plan and drainage plan (folded to 9” x 12” size). ☐ ☐ 4.Seven (7) sets of preliminary floor plans (folded to 9” x 12” size), drawn using standard engineer’s or architect’s scale, for each story of each building or structure, showing the following: ☐ ☐ A.Location of walls, doors, and windows. ☐ ☐ B.Identification of activity areas. ☐ ☐ C.Placement of window and door locations on floor plans in coordination with the elevations. ☐ ☐ 5.Preliminary landscape and irrigation plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect or as approved by the Community Development Director. ☐ ☐ 6.An Administrative Sign Permit application may be required to be processed concurrently with the Plot Plan Review for any use proposed to have signs. ☐ ☐ 7.An Architectural Review application may be required to be processed concurrently with the Plot Plan Review if modifications to the exterior of a building are proposed. ☐ ☐ 8.Two (2) copies of a preliminary title report for the subject property dated within the last six months, as determined by the Community Development Director. ☐ ☐ 9.All plans submitted shall be collated and stapled on the short end of the plans. ☐ ☐ 10.Electronic copies of all document submittals in PDF format on USB or CD. Electronic plans shall include one (1) high-quality version for reproduction and one (1) version optimized for web posting. Page 110 of 350 5.a.ii.1.a: application notes (also see copy of application (table II)) Violations of application of the plot -permit required for approval of Vacation Rentals include: 1)The application for 1562 Strawberry Ave is incomplete. See notes and attachments. a) Dimensions are missing from the required floorplan. See attachments. Additionally: This plot plan does not provide sufficient information to assess Item 3. performance criteria specifically All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met: Knowing The International Residential Code (IRC) includes requirements for building a bedroom and covers requirements, such as minimum square footage, ceiling height as well as emergency exits and electrical outlets, Fire life safety devices, carbon monoxide detector have been installed and fire protection equipment is installed (fire extinguisher included). And: The California Code of Regulations, IRC Section R304.1 establishes that habitable rooms have a minimum area of 70 square feet, but we do not know the room sizes from the diagram. And: Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood. But no house in this area has 8 people living in it. b) Items missing from the backyard including hot tub and firepit. c) The garage is listed as part of the parking plan, but has been converted into a games room/living space which makes the space unavailable for the use of parking. d) Building size is not indicated. The planner needs this information to understand if it meets All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. e) Regarding omission of zoning and parcel size: Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood. f) Anticipated number of clients is not indicated. g) Night time lighting is not indicated: All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. Night time lighting specifically speaks to the fire code chapter 10 egress + 18.120.080 Lighting in the residential lighting zone including footcandles of .3 5 a ii 1 Page 111 of 350 h) Entities and/or indivduals with a financial interest in this project are not listed in section V as required, even though the property is owned by a trust. i) It does not appear that Kathy Kelly or Digs Vacation Rentals is an authorized agent for this application: Cal. Code Regs. Section 999.326 - Authorized Agent (a) When a consumer uses an authorized agent to submit a request to know or a request to delete, a business may require the authorized agent to provide proof that the consumer gave the agent signed permission to submit the request. The business may also require the consumer to do either of the following: (1) Verify their own identity directly with the business. (2) Directly confirm with the business that they provided the authorized agent permission to submit the request. Because the application is substantially incorrect and was not complete, the application should be denied. Further information Re: Parking: Applicant claims 4 off street parking spots. They have converted the garage into a games room, complete with game tables, with no attempt to use the garage for its intended purpose of parking of cars (see attached photos). The driveway is very short, and any large vehicle will stick out into the pathway obstructing walkers etc. A problem has already recently arisen due to a contractor parking half way into the street obstructing traffic because he could not fit his truck and trailer in the driveway. Being a cul-de-sac, 4 additional parking spots on the road would create parking issues, in addition to creating difficulty for garbage trucks, street sweepers and service vehicles to turn around. The applicants have in effect converted their garage space into a living space. It is noted that the applicant does not include this on the drawings submitted to the City Council. The Arroyo City Council code clearly states that to acquire a business license (which is required for a Vacation Rental) that “No home occupation shall be conducted in the garage. The garage must be kept clear for the parking of vehicles at all times.” In this instance the applicant is operating its business from a home in Arroyo Grande and using the garage for business purposes. Therefore, the applicant is violation and their application for a Vacation Rental should be denied. Also: Per 16.16.210 - Business license clearance: 2a. Reuse of Existing Structures. Approval of a business license application that proposes establishment of a different business in an existing building or structure shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (C)(1) of this section and, in addition, shall be subject to the following: Page 112 of 350 a.The proposed business site shall provide for the number of off-street parking spaces, driveway, and parking lot improvements as required by Chapter 16.56. 16.56.010 - Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the adequate provision of parking facilities proportionate to the needs created by the various land uses within the city. In providing adequate parking facilities, it is the intent of this chapter to: A. Alleviate or prevent on-site and off-site traffic congestion and hazards; B. Ensure the maneuverability of emergency and service vehicles; C. Provide safe, accessible, convenient, attractive, and well-maintained off-street parking areas; D. Protect residential neighborhoods from the effects of vehicular noise and traffic by uses in adjacent nonresidential districts. j) Emergency contacts listed are not valid. One is not associated with the application (Erika McCann), and the other (Kathy Kelly) is further than 15 minutes from the property. Page 113 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION The purpose of this form is to advise the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City can accurately evaluate the proposal for compliance with applicable ordinances and policies. Providing accurate and complete information and plans will help ensure prompt processing of this Use additional sheets when necessary. Please be aware that applications that are inconsistent with the City's General Plan or Development Code application. will not be accepted as complete. The City is available to assist in filling out this form; please refer any questions to the Community Development Department and we will be happy to assist you. FOR STAFF USE ONLY DATE SUBMITTED DATE DEEMED COMPLETE CHECKED BY CASE NUMBER 08/02/2021 September 28, 2021 Patrick Holub PPR21-000029 COMPLETION OF THIS FORM IS NECESSARY FOR THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS. PLEASE INDICATE THE TYPE OF APPLICATION(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING: Permit Type: Plot Plan Review Plot Plan ReviewPermit Subtype: INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION A. Refer to the checklist (available from the Community Development Department) for those items required to be submitted for each type of project B. Include any other information that will help explain your proposal or better clarify your particular situation. I. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Digs Vacation Rentals Phone: (M): (W): 805-975- 8338 Applicant's Address: PO Box 1771Templeton, CA 93465 Email: Kathy@DigsVacationRentals.com Representative: Digs Vacation Rentals Phone: 805-975-8338 Representative's Address: PO Box 1771Templeton, CA 93465 Email: Kathy@DigsVacationRentals.com Property Owner: GOROSKI FAMILY TRUST Phone: Owner's Address: 1562 STRAWBERRY AVE ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 Architect (if any): Phone: Architect's Address: Email: Engineer (if any): Phone: Engineer's Address: Email: Please indicate if correspondence should be sent to:all Applicant Representative Property Owner Architect Engineer4 5 a ii 1 a: Table II Page 114 of 350 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Street Address: 1562 STRAWBERRY AV Zoning: Assessor Parcel No.: 077131042 Parcel Size: General Plan Land use Designation: Legal Description of Existing Lot: CY AG TR 2471 LT 9 Building Sizes in Square Feet: Existing Proposed Describe the Proposed Project in Detail: Vacation Rental EMERGENCY CONTACTS: Erika McCann Kathy Kelly CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECT APPLICATIONPage 115 of 350 III. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY ACRE PERMITS, PLOT PLAN REVIEWS, AND TEMPORARY USE PERMITS ONLY 1. Indicate the proposed hours of operation (DAYS AND TIMES): 2. Estimate the number of employees Total:Maximum Shift:Time of Maximum Shift: 3. Indicate the number of patrons, clients, customers, etc. anticipated: Average per day:Peak Hours: 4. Number of off street parking spaces to be provided: (if applicable show breakdown as to use) Total: 4 Garage (enclosed): Yes Covered:Open: 5. Describe any night-time lighting that will be provided, including the type of lighting to be installed: IV. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, AND LOT MERGERS ONLY Number of existing lots: Size of existing lots (in square feet): Number of proposed lots: Size of proposed lots (in square feet): CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECT APPLICATION V. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR PROJECTSALL Due to recent interpretation and legal amendments to the Political Reform act of 1974, the City needs to be aware of all entities (i.e. corporations, lending institutions, etc. or individuals that may have a financial interest in the proposed project. All LLCs shall provide relevant Articles of Incorporation in order to disclose all financially interested entities. Please complete the following certification and provide your signature: The following entities and/or indivduals have financial interest in this project:Page 116 of 350 Page 117 of 350 5 a ii 1 a: Table IIb Page 118 of 350 5 a ii 1 a: Table IIc 1 Page 119 of 350 Page 120 of 350 5 a ii 1 a: Table IIc 2 Page 121 of 350 Page 122 of 350 Section 5a ii 2: Mailing list used is disqualifying It is an essential part of due (and appropriate) process for the appropriate impacted citizens to be notified of a VR’s application. As per city code, all homes within 300 feet of the subject application property are to be included in notification. That did not occur in this case, and as such is sufficient grounds for denial of the application. Out of the only 45 addresses on the mailing list used by the applicant, including themselves, properties beyond the 300 feet which are not addresses for property owners within 300 feet are included in this total, and incorrect names are listed against addresses. A cursory analysis indicates that a minimum of 69 properties fall within the 300 foot area. This number does not include the large number of individual units at the complexes at Oak Park Village apartments and Courtland Street Apartments. The application approval process requires the applicant to provide a mailing list of ALL property owners with an 300ft radius of the proposed Vacation Rental. A map analysis indicates at least 69 properties fall within this area (including multiple residences). The applicants mailing list of only 45 owners/addresses, leaves a significant number of property owners who did not receive notification and therefore were forfeited the right to appeal. This is in violation of the application process and therefore the application should be denied. Curiously, in the applicant’s 45 addresses provided, a number of them are residential addresses that are outside of the 300 foot buffer, but are not addresses of owners of properties inside the buffer further reducing the amount of correct and effective notification. There are also incorrect names of owners contained in the applicants list. It would also seem at a minimum, reasonable, that tenants that are not home owners have a vested interest in the application for a VR within 300 feet of where they live. In this particular case, that covers in excess of 150 individuals in very close proximity that may not have received any notification at all of this VR application which will seriously impact them. See table III (Properties within 300’ of 1562 Strawberry Ave) See table IV (The actual mailing list used for the VR application for 1562 Strawberry Ave) Page 123 of 350 5 a ii 2 Table III Page 124 of 350 ----------Applicants mailing list---------- ----------Applicant utilized mailing list---------- 5 a ii 2 Table IV Page 125 of 350 ----------Applicant utilized mailing list---------- ----------Applicants mailing list---------- 5 a ii 2 Table IV Page 126 of 350 Section 5a ii 3: Local single contact is invalid On the mail circular advising the application of the VR and detailing the emergency contact, the applicant has listed two points of contacts which is not a single point of contact as it should be. Additionally one is not in accordance with the performance requirements of the City Council code anyway, and therefore another failure of the application. These contacts listed are (1). The applicant’s mother who lives in Grover Beach and within a 15-minute drive of the VR property. (2). The applicant’s property manager, which is based in Atascadero (a disqualifying 40+ minute drive from the VR property) This is confusing for local residents, and the intent would seem to divert complaints to the property manager that is not within the required distance per required performance standards and not the required emergency contact per the City performance standards. It is noted that the mother would have no formal knowledge or direct dealings with the proposed vacation rental tenants and their booking and is only a point of contact of little relevance who might serve to field complaints back to the property manager. This is a disingenuous attempt to circumvent the City ordinances and requirements, which specifically states that it is the “Emergency Contact” who needs to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to respond to the complaints in person or by return telephone call. Having a responsible contact that is not within a 15 minute drive from the proposed vacation rental is in violation of the application process and therefore the application should be denied. The related Municipal code states: the contact person/entity – it is to be one person or one entity not a series of individuals it negates the process which was described in the ordnance being approved by the city council, it degrades the emergency and ability to meaningfully aspects of a contact if an alternate person thinks the other contact are the contact or no one picks up the phone at one or more contact points. Definitions of 16.04.070 “shall” is mandatory - …”vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity”. Two or more emergency contacts that is not the intent of the code See below performance criteria : The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen-minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. Page 127 of 350 5 a iii 1 Considerations and Restrictions It is highly probably that a VR will likely to create loud or unreasonable noise that disturbs others and is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood (see attached list of sample complaints). There are children with medically diagnosed noise and light sensitivities which are exceedingly likely to be exacerbated by the presence and obvious implications of a vacation rental this near their home during the daytime and their bedroom when he is trying to sleep. In our instance, we would have to develop a new solution for our child’s bedroom location, as it currently overlooks the back yard of the vacation rental and is close enough to hear every conversation from the backyard and the adjoining areas. Exterior lights and light from flames also are distracting when left on beyond reasonable hours. Is it reasonable that we may have to move our child’s bedroom location to an alternate undesired location, and maybe even be forced to move house due to such disturbances (which will potentially occur again and again with every new guest). Trash: Many complaints regarding vacation rentals detail the unpleasant pile up and smells from trash left from vacation rental guests, It is a fact that vacation rentals generate more trash than a normal residence. Our trash pick-up in Berry Gardens is Friday morning, and if someone is not responsible for putting out the trash on that day it would be left to pile up. Also, if the vacation rental guests put the trash on the curbside on Monday after they leave from their weekend stay, then the trash will stay on the street all week, reducing parking and leaving unsanitary conditions. Once the trash is collected, who is responsible for bringing the trash cans in off the road, especially as the property manager is located in Atascadero? Will the City provide additional collections when required, and how will they know when to do this? There is no current plan outlined in the VR application for trash management and this is clearly not in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood and will create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Trash collection and the cul-de-sac of Strawberry Ave, where the vacation rental is to be located, is also made difficult because of existing parking on the street and the tight turn around at the end of the cul-de-sac, especially when trash cans are needed to be offset from the curb in order for the truck to pick them up (and consider each house has three trash cans each). The trash collection trucks need to do careful three point turns in order to avoid cars parked on the street. If there is additional parking created by the vacation rental this could mean that trash collection will be severely hampered. Street Sweeper: The street sweeper could also be prevented from adequately cleaning the cul-de-sac, again due to being blocked by increased parking on the road and inability to get around the end of the cul-de-sac. Page 128 of 350 5 a iii 2: Conflicts with approved design and objectives of Berry Garden Specific Plan (See Appendix A1). Berry Gardens was proposed as a neighborhood housing development in September 1998, as detailed in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, and provided the City with an additional 170 affordable homes to the Arroyo City area. Specifically, the General Plan Policies section states the neighborhood should be built to be compatible with “Arroyo Grande’s rural, small town atmosphere”, and that the subdivision “encourage provision of homes that simulate a rural small town, custom home atmosphere”. The intent was to create a community neighborhood that was rural in feel and character. Importantly it was designed to encourage “low and moderate income housing’’. It was not designed for investors to buy up housing stock for use as vacation rentals and lodging commercial businesses, and does not speak to being developed as a beach town tourism precinct with amenities, such as additional parking for more guests than the bedrooms allow, and trailers with beach vehicles and boats. In fact it was designed so that garages and driveways would take parking off the roads and the community would enjoy walking safely around the neighborhood: “detached sidewalks with large landscaped “parkways” to provide for enhance pedestrian activity with residential areas.” The plan’s purpose was to “create a diverse range of ownership housing types and enable a more compact single family detached and patio home residential pattern allowing for a higher density…. proposing smaller individual lots than conventional developments.” This meant that the “small town atmosphere” would be kept by neighbors being mindful of the sound transference between the very closely positioned houses due to the small lots. Lodging businesses and vacation rentals are often used for family gatherings and parties, which bring greater than usual sound disturbances, traffic and a clientele who often don’t care about those who are occupying residences around them. The existence of vacation rentals as businesses lodges in this neighborhood clearly goes against the purpose and intent of the vacation rental code, which specifically says that they should “conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties.” Vacation Rentals located in Berry Garden clearly do not conform to the character of Berry Gardens outlined in the Specific Plan and will create adverse impacts on adjacent properties, especially in relation to sound transference and parking. There are many examples where the influx of out-of-town visitors upsets the peaceful enjoyment of long-standing residential neighborhoods (see attachment of sample Page 129 of 350 complaints). Short-term renters have no stake in the community, and therefore no reason to care how the neighborhood around them suffers from their vacation activities. Vacation rentals decrease the ability for families to own and live in the neighborhood like Berry Gardens. They will take away from the purpose and intent of this neighborhood which was agreed on by the City Council and developed. Page 130 of 350 Section 5a iv Global considerations: The Berry Gardens, Arroyo Grande area attracts people to live there for a number of reasons, but some of the most important and common ones include to live in an area conducive to raise a family and experience peaceful enjoyment. As much as it is a nice area, it is not compatible with a transient beach tourism. The housing lots in this community are by design quite small (refer to Berry Gardens Specific Plan) with very close neighboring properties where you can hear nearby home activity than most people would usually hear from a single-family residence. Residents did not move into this neighborhood with a desire or expectation to live next door or on the same street as proximity to hotels, motels, short-term vacation rentals or any type of lodging business. If the City has a need to support more tourism accommodation, they truly should consider supporting more motels and hotels in appropriate commercially zoned areas. It is easy to understand circumstances often exist where a house that was previously a family home might be moved out of, and not sold. Life provides all of us with many changes. Many homes in those circumstances are turned into long term rental units. Nothing about long-term rental units is a blatant compromise to the characterization of this neighborhood. But turning single family residences into short term Vacation Rentals and lodging businesses in this particular area turns the area into a strongly conflicting environment which it is not meant to be. A persistent high tenant turnover from short-term vacation type renters brings many less desirable traits to an area. Unstable environment, higher traffic with a reduction in safety to the cul-de-sac that many of us moved here for our children to play in with expected light traffic, increased emissions of noise, local street parking issues, trash issues, a multitude of never-ending transient strangers around our susceptible children and senior citizens for short periods of time where the transients often have little incentive to behave in a neighborly way since they will only be there, on vacation, for a very short time, likely diminishment of property values, particularly to homes in close proximity to a vacation rental. The proposed application for 1562 Strawberry Avenue as a Vacation Rental does not comply with the purpose and intent of the code and regulations, as this property, as a vacation rental, does not conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which it is located and will create adverse impacts on adjacent properties and could impact over 500 residents who live within the 300ft buffer zone. Such impacts are not addressed by the current performance standards and ordinances and therefore the application should be denied. Here are a number of issues which do not conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and will cause adverse impacts on adjacent properties: 1)Noise transference and disturbance: The proposed vacation rental has a wall space of 14ft from its neighboring residential properties and shares a common fence-line with the Courtland Street Apartments. As such there is a great degree Page 131 of 350 of noise transference from both houses. If windows are open, conversations can be heard from the proposed vacation rental kitchen and living room, and from across the fence-line in the back yard. Noise and conversations (including any profanities) can also be heard by the 150 plus residents in the adjacent Courtland Street Apartments as well as neighbors to the left and right of the property in question. The owner of the proposed vacation rental is encouraging parties at the house, converting their garage to a games room (complete with 2 large game tables), and will market the yard with the hot tub and fire pit as places to congregate and potentially party. Similar marketing appears on the property management website for a property only blocks away: “Enjoying a BBQ with the whole gang. It is the perfect location for… 2 or 3 couples or a girl’s getaway.” While there are restrictions by the performance standards relating to how many people can sleep in the house, there are no performance standards relating to how many people can visit the house (i.e. parties and family gatherings). With the potential of many more people being able to use the amenities this would have an adverse effect on the local community and not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. There are many complaints of vacation rentals actively being marketed as party houses with not just “adverse effects on adjacent properties,” but also for the entire neighborhood. (see sample complaint document for examples) It is noted from the Berry Garden design plan “to enable a more compact single family detached and patio home residential patters, allowing a higher density… The project proposes slightly small individual lots than conventional developments.” 2)Visual disturbances: Many occupants of the multistory Courtland Street apartments can see directly in the rear yard of the proposed vacation rental. Many of these occupants are families with young children. As such they may see visitors to the vacation rental have parties, get drunk, vomit, be naked in the hot tub, have sex, or other lude acts, in addition to be subject to smoke from marijuana. These apartment residents, because they are renters, would not have the ability to use the complaint system outlined in the ordinances. This creates an adverse effect on the local community 3)Megan’s Law, should apply to Vacation Rentals bookings. Those visiting could be on parole, have prior convictions for rape and pedophilia. With many families residing in the 300ft buffer, particularly in the Courtland Street apartments, this places a huge risk within the community and could create an adverse effect on the local community a.Allowing Single Family residences either purchased or long term rentals can circumvent laws like SB-1143 which are housing restrictions intended Page 132 of 350 to prevent sex offenders from residing or renting near schools, parks and child care centers and to maintain public health, safety and general welfare. When a vacation rental is approved, we have created a short term transient nature accommodation allowing for a loop hole in the housing market which gets violent offenders closer to our parks and schools by providing accommodations hence the need for transient occupancy tax. b.This VR is within 2000 feet of a park where children regularly gather, and Living Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park Where Children Regularly Gather is also addressed in a protected Penal Code section 3003.5(b), the law enacted by ballot initiative in 2006 prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. 4)Security: Like the above-mentioned point, there are not backgrounds checks on potential renters of a VR. The fact that strangers come and go on a daily and weekly basis in a neighborhood is a security issue for a neighborhood. There have even been examples where guests of VR’s will lie on their application as to who is staying in the property, and as there is no on-site supervision or checks, rent the property for parties. 5)As water usage is an important issue for the City Council, the inability to regulate water usage at the proposed vacation rental could mean that excess water use would occur, adding to our drought-stricken city issues. Tourists often do not care about their water use, because they are not personally responsible for the water bill. This can have an adverse impact on the local community, 6)Trash: There is only one trash collection for the street weekly, on a Friday. Which is very convenient for weekend renters that leave full trash cans behind for the majority of the week before it is picked up again on Friday. There are no provisions for who takes the trash out to the street and brings the trash cans in within the performance standards. Trash may be left out on the street for days before pick up, and the cans not brough back in for days after collection. This would add to the parking issue on the street, as well as create unsanitary situations, especially if the racoons and other animals raid the trash cans left on the street. This would also be amplified if there are multiple residents in a given week, where trash is left to build up. Inadequate trash management is not addressed by the performance standards and therefore the application should be denied on the adverse impact on the local community. An additional trash pickup could help to address this problem and should be a requirement. 7)Increase in traffic: As the house allows for an additional 4 cars, plus there will be increased traffic from frequent cleaners, tradespeople, and uber drivers, there will Page 133 of 350 be a substantial increase in traffic on a very small cul-de-sac. This could also lead to dangerous situations as many children play in the street, ride their bikes, and elderly and local residents often walk along the pathways. This would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and create an impact on the local community. 8)Parking: Although parking is allocated to garage spaces in the VR application, the intent of the applicants is not to have the vacation rental vistiors park in the garage. (see attached photos of the garage turned into a games area). This leaves limited parking on the very short driveway and parking in the street. Any large vehicle parking in the driveway will stick out into the pathway, restricting residents use of the pathway. Being a cul-de-sac, 4 additional parking spots on the road would create parking issues for local residents, be difficult for garbage trucks, street sweepers and service vehicles to turn around. In addition, the main tourists to the area reside from the Valley who come to the county for the beach. As such they bring trailers of ATV, they come in RVs, and will bring boats and jet skis. Such traffic is seen only blocks away on Grand Avenue heading for the Drive-on beach every weekend. There are no regulations which restrict such items and no ordinance or performance standards to deal with such matters and therefore their existence on this small cal-de-sac would lead to an adverse effect on the local community without mitigations such as conditions in place. It is also noted in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan that this subdivision was specifically created to reduce the need for parking in the streets: “Garages which are setback a minimum if twenty feet from back of sidewalk and ten feet behind living areas reducing the dominance of automobile parking as a residential design element.” To approve the application where the vacation rental does not have the off-street parking is in violation of the agreed building codes which governed the approval of developing Berry Gardens and in changing the scope of the neighborhood is not in keeping with the neighborhood and will have adverse effects on the community. 9)Security: The transient nature of vacation rentals and the limited means of vetting and controlling who is actually staying there could lead to an increase in crime in the area. The fact that neighbors do not know the occupants and that there are constantly strangers in the local community will have an adverse effect on the local community. 10)Loss of property values. Having a vacation rental and the adverse effects they can cause will lead to loss of property values for nearby residents. This is an adverse effect on the local community that is not dealt with in the performance standards or ordnances. “In fact, a 2015 article in REALTOR Magazine stated that “A single-family home or condo unit next door to a short-term rental — where the occupants change every Page 134 of 350 few days — will take longer to sell and bring in lower offers.” https://travelonthehouse.com/hate-short-term-rentals/ 11)Inability of renters to complain if needed: It is noted that renters, of which there are many who would be affected by the Vacation Rental, including at least two properties on the small Cal-de-sac and over 200 who are within the buffer zone at the Courtland Street Apartments and the Oak Park apartments. These valued residents in the community may not be provided with the “emergency contact” in order to deal with any disturbances and therefore may feel that have to live with any adverse effects. Being treated like second class citizens with no rights when it comes to Vacation Rentals is not dealt with in the performance standards and could have adverse effects on their way of living and even cause them to move. 12)Complaint Process: For a VR, “The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m.” This is insufficient to deal with any unruly and disruptive behavior which needs immediate attention. The only recourse neighbors have is to call the police or deal with the issues (which are forced upon them) by themselves. The above mentioned points are not typical issues with long-term renters, homeowners and even private guests of homeowners in relation to nuisance and are increased due to the increased number of guests an unrestricted vacation rental can attract. We are not aware of one single case where long term renters, homeowners, and guests have ever been a nuisance on Strawberry Ave or within Berry Gardens. It is incorrect for the City to make this assumption and reason as to justify that vacation rental tourists and local residents behave the same way. Berry Gardens was designed to create a sense of community and create a neighborhood environment. The aim of this vacation rental is not to have occupancy during a short absence or personal vacation from the applying residence, but to make as much money for the owners as possible. Therefore, it is in their interest to have as many visitors as possible to fill every night in which they are making profit. Such turnover creates a motel like environment which is not in keeping with the neighborhood and has an adverse effect on the local community. The amount of turnover and disturbance this creates is not addressed by performance standards or current ordinances. Page 135 of 350 5 a v: Nearby VR already exists A VR already exists within 300’ of the property application at 1510 Elderberry Ave. That VR unit is not permitted to accept reservations for less than monthly terms. A common- sense minimum term like a month would help to mitigate a number of the problems that this appeal highlights. Page 136 of 350 5 b i b: VR approval process presently in place is not appropriate The issue of numerous Vacation Rentals (VR) properties being approved in established neighborhoods in single family residential zones is now a serious crisis in Arroyo Grande and appears to be getting much worse at an accelerating pace with little to no appropriate oversight of the process or what VR’s are inappropriately changing into. There is a huge difference in the impact to a community between a VR where property owners might rent out their home to a single family while they go on vacation for a few weeks per year and a VR that is effectively a motel for multiple simultaneous families year round. These circumstances are different enough where they should not fall into the same category for consideration of approval or permission to operate as a VR. These developments are particularly unfair for families and properties that live near these VR properties which are often neither harmonious or compatible with the established neighborhood and they will suffer a dramatic and particularly adverse impact to the peaceful enjoyment, safety and community that they moved into and have deliberately become a part of. From a review of a recent appeal relating to the house at 1170 Linda Drive (Case: PPR21-018) it is already well documented that due process is not being followed by the local government in a number of critical areas, and that inappropriate actions are even taking place that undermine the process and public trust. Our family recently received a notification in the US Mail that we live within 300 feet of the unit covered under PPR 21-029 (1562 Strawberry Avenue) indicating that approval has already been given for this action. We, and our affected neighbors, were not given a fair and appropriate opportunity through due process to have our comments heard in an appropriate forum before a decision is made. This approval action took place during a meeting that was officially cancelled and had no agenda. Undue process coupled with a lack of opportunity for impacted parties to be heard nearly ensures that the application of reasonable conditions will not have the opportunity to be discovered, developed and applied to this case. In addition to being bad form and undue process it is a violation of the Brown act. Although we filed for a copy for related records the next business day after receiving notification, we were advised that the request may not even be processed until after the closure of the appeal window further degrading our ability to provide an appropriate and meaningful response/appeal. Since then we have learned that there are non-compliances in the application, and that the performance standards and conditions have not been meet for this PPR. There is clearly a much greater focus on rapid processing than on due process and following appropriate and fair procedure. To a resident like myself it is apparent that there is not appropriate oversight or checks and balances taking place in the process. The reasonably similar case of 1170 Linda Drive (Case: PPR21-018) well documents in great detail many objections and concerns which also apply to PPR 21-029 (1562 Strawberry Avenue). In the interest of keeping this correspondence more manageable 5 b: Page 137 of 350 only this reference is made to that additional relevant material at this time, but it remains available upon request. The failure of municipal codes and state statues (listed below) to be properly implemented has further greatly eroded the right to public process/ due process and freedom of speech: The only option to have one’s opinion heard on such a critical civic matter should not be via the process of filing an expensive appeal. One would expect that government and community would be even more sensitive to such a consideration during a pandemic which have placed a number of families under a great deal of additional financial and other duress. It is our intent and preference to help facilitate appropriate action to be taken through a collaborative and reasonable request, such as this letter and speaking at public City meetings. Although we feel it unjust both procedurally and financially, an official appeal has become necessary in this (PPR 21-029) instance, so we have taken that action. More detail on specific objections and concerns relating specifically to PPR 21-029 (1562 Strawberry Avenue) has been included in this appeal and more detail is in development. We hope to aid in rectifying the overall developing VR crisis and the related lack of due process, to include our specific case. It is a great further disservice to the city and our communities to eliminate so many opportunities for relatively affordable housing to be available to both future owners or renters to become long term residents and neighbors in Arroyo Grande. We ask that fairness prevail and that PPR 21-029 as well as all other VR permits be placed on hold until such time as processes are corrected to ensure that municipal codes are being properly and professionally followed with an externally conducted audit verifying that result. Under the circumstances we also believe it appropriate for properties that have already undergone approval without due process be eligible for further Page 138 of 350 appropriate review, revision and possible revocations of previous determinations in the interest of protecting the public health, safety and welfare as well as the rights to due process. We sincerely thank you for your time and attention to this most urgent matter and implore your assistance. Page 139 of 350 Page 140 of 350 Page 141 of 350 Page 142 of 350 Page 143 of 350 Page 144 of 350 Page 145 of 350 Page 146 of 350 Page 147 of 350 Page 148 of 350 Page 149 of 350 Page 150 of 350 Page 151 of 350 Page 152 of 350 Page 153 of 350 Page 154 of 350 Page 155 of 350 Page 156 of 350 Page 157 of 350 Page 158 of 350 Page 159 of 350 Page 160 of 350 Page 161 of 350 Page 162 of 350 Page 163 of 350 Page 164 of 350 Page 165 of 350 Page 166 of 350 Page 167 of 350 Page 168 of 350 Page 169 of 350 Page 170 of 350 Page 171 of 350 Page 172 of 350 Page 173 of 350 Page 174 of 350 Page 175 of 350 Page 176 of 350 Page 177 of 350 Page 178 of 350 Page 179 of 350 Page 180 of 350 Page 181 of 350 Page 182 of 350 Page 183 of 350 Page 184 of 350 Page 185 of 350 Page 186 of 350 Page 187 of 350 Page 188 of 350 Page 189 of 350 Page 190 of 350 Page 191 of 350 Page 192 of 350 Page 193 of 350 Page 194 of 350 Page 195 of 350 Page 196 of 350 Page 197 of 350 Page 198 of 350 Page 199 of 350 Page 200 of 350 Complaints against Vacation Rentals (Small sample of many) https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/news-and-profiles/2019/10/airbnb “Private residential neighborhoods are not intended to be transient areas,” testified Lois Trotochau, who lives next door to 1406 Westway with her husband, David. Lois says the couple has been forced to plant more trees to buffer the noise coming from next door and has called the cops on multiple occasions. “There is no on-site management, no one to keep the rowdy parties under control, no limit on occupancy, no one to stop 4 a.m. spring break-type parties,” Lois Trotochau told city commissioners. https://sonomasun.com/2015/10/15/glen-ellen-group-vacation-rentals-are-ruining-our-town/ “Our specific complaints, for which we have documentation, include a dangerous increase in traffic. In addition to the cars associated with the renters themselves, we see additional traffic from renters’ guests, limos and busses transporting them to events, and people scouting the rentals. The number of guests frequently exceeds the advertised guest limit Extra cars park in front of or in the driveways of neighboring properties. Renters frequently host parties, with music/outdoor speakers etc. extending past 10 p.m. The noise is extremely disruptive.” https://medium.com/s/story/heres-what-it-s-like-to-have-an-entire-house-airbnb-rental-as-a- neighbor-1c2ffa0f5d45 “Despite it being outlawed in the house’s rules, tonight’s Airbnb guests have rented the place for a party. Sitting in our living room, we can hear the thump of the bass from their music. When it started, we stepped outside to assess the scene. Partygoers on the patio, a line of Ubers clogging the street, and two cars flippantly parked in our neighbor’s driveway — leaving nowhere for her own car when she returned home. This weekend will no doubt end like all others have since our neighbor turned his spare house into a fully functioning hotel: The guests will leave, but the mounds of trash they produce will stay behind.” https://www.keepneighborhoodsfirst.org/share_your_story “I have lived next to a short term rental for 3 years. My house was nearly broken into by an out of control party guest. The police are here every couple months, The pot, the music, the ubers, the parties are constant.” https://travelonthehouse.com/hate-short-term-rentals/ “At the least, residents feel uncomfortable with waves of strangers coming and going in their neighborhood or building. A San Diego resident put it this way: “Uneasy questions abound: How will these strangers conduct themselves? Will they maintain and respect the tranquility of our neighborhoods, or are they just here for a good time …?” Appendix A2 Page 201 of 350 “Those neighbors have good reason to be upset. Far too many short-term rentals are run by remote hosts and managers who don’t know or care who they rent to or how the guests use the property. In the worst cases, “guests” turn their short-term rental into a money-maker by renting to other “guests” or even using the home as a party pad.” “Many homeowners express concern that too many short-term rentals will reduce the value of their homes. According to an opinion piece in the Voice of San Diego, “If sellers are now required to disclose to buyers even barking dogs and antagonistic neighbors, surely they will have to disclose the existence of commercial rental activity in the neighborhood.” In fact, a 2015 article in REALTOR Magazine stated that “A single-family home or condo unit next door to a short-term rental — where the occupants change every few days — will take longer to sell and bring in lower offers.” https://sfist.com/2020/09/22/party-house-rental-in-sonoma-became-scene-of/ “A vacation rental just outside the city limits of Sonoma played host to a Friday night party with dozens of guests from outside the county, and the party ended with at least 30 shots fired.” https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/12/four-shot-at-party-in-happy-valley-authorities- say.html “Four young people ages 17 to 20 were shot during a party early Thursday at a vacation rental home in Happy Valley, according to the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.” https://www.islander.org/5-24-06/hb_porn_debate.php “Holmes Beach Mayor Carol Whitmore wants to keep Holmes Beach from being known as a "swingers location," following the discovery two weeks ago that a local vacation rental house was being used by an adult entertainment club for sex parties (The islander, May 17).” https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/06/21/wild-airbnb- parties-bring-calls-for-crackdown “I’m concerned about the welfare of our families on Grove [Street], especially after what happened over the weekend. What’s the plan?” she asked. “Can we have something stricter? I know it’s an Airbnb and people have their right to make money, but is there something we can do to make the environment a little more regulated? My family’s home is directly across the street from the Airbnb. We’re a little concerned.” Patterson was referring to the fracas in the wee hours of the morning, in which two people were shot and the alleged perpetrators sped off in a car, only to make an abrupt U-turn and fire more shots at the home on the way back, according to the Sacramento Bee.” Page 202 of 350 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 203 of 350 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 204 of 350 Lile Path Poly� Circle D path D palygon Me astn � dstance be-.n -pan1Scn hgcu-d �85 Fttt • ------1]6.85 18.-0degees ATTACHMENT 7 Page 205 of 350 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 206 of 350 Page 207 of 350 Page 208 of 350 Page 209 of 350 Page 210 of 350 Page 211 of 350 Page 212 of 350 1 Patrick Holub From: Sent:Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:36 PM To:Brian Pedrotti; Patrick Holub Cc:Whitney McDonald; Francine Errico Subject:Appeal relating to 1562 Strawberry Ave Attachments:Houses within 300 feet.JPG; AppealMailingListFull.pdf Gentlemen, Here is the information you requested at our meeting yesterday relating to homes within 300 feet of the subject property: The specific addresses listed below are a preliminary, and likely incomplete, listing of addresses that should have been included in the notification list utilized in the permit application, but weren’t. They are a good starting point, but it is extremely likely that there are additional properties that were also not properly notified. All properties within 300 feet are also visually indicated on the map attachment. We recommend checking all of the addresses listed in the mailing list we provided with our appeal for falling within 300 feet of the property lines of the subject property. There may also be a few additional addresses that are not listed. A copy of the full mailing list we filed in our appeal as well as a copy of the map indicating units that our research demonstrates need to be included in notifications is attached for your convenience (individual properties are indicated by red marks at each applicable property on the map). Properties NOT notified that should have included: 1530, 1524, 1516, 1510, 1506 Elderberry Court 1581, 1565, 1553, 1529 Blackberry Ave. 1490, 1496 Strawberry Ave. Thank you, Stew and Fran Errico. Page 213 of 350 Page 214 of 350 Page 215 of 350 Page 216 of 350 Property Owner Property Owner Oak Park Village Apartments ALEXANIAN CHARLES H & CHRISTINA M FERMIN RODERICK J ETA JOHNSON-FARIAS RACHEL L ETCON JORGENSEN JUSTIN & LISA ALEXANIAN CHARLES H & CHRISTINA M JOHNSON-FARIAS RACHEL L ETCON Courtland Street Apartments Lp A Ca Ltd Pty DEGOEDE ARTHUR S & KAREN A Property Owner Property Owner IBUNA RICHARD L & JEVIR R Page 217 of 350 1 Patrick Holub From:Whitney McDonald Sent:Friday, January 28, 2022 4:35 PM To:francine errico Cc:S. Errico; Brian Pedrotti; Patrick Holub Subject:RE: Appeal of Vacation Rental application for 1562 Strawberry Ave Good afternoon, Francine and Stewart. It was my pleasure to coordinate a meeting with staff and to hear directly from you regarding your concerns. I am forwarding this email to Brian and Patrick for their review and further response on the contact person and notice questions. While staff will provide their interpretation and responses on these issues, the City Council will ultimately make the decision on your appeal, which is scheduled for hearing on February 8th. In light of the upcoming appeal hearing, would you like this correspondence, including the follow‐up response from Patrick and Brian, to be included as part of the package that the City Council considers? I just want to make sure that the Council receives all of the information you would like them to consider. Best regards, Whitney Whitney McDonald City Manager Administration Tel: 805‐473‐5408 | www.arroyogrande.org 300 E Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420 City Hall Business Hours: M‐Th 8:00 am ‐ 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. From: francine errico <> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 2:51 PM To: Whitney McDonald <wmcdonald@arroyogrande.org> Cc: S. Errico <> Subject: Appeal of Vacation Rental application for 1562 Strawberry Ave Hello Whitney, We would like to thank you again for making time to hear some of our concerns relating to our appeal of 1562 Strawberry Ave at our meeting on January 11. We had hoped to hear back from the city staff regarding the issues we raised at this meeting and to give us a direction on our appeal to the city, which is schedule in 11 days time. Sadly we have had not correspondence since this meeting. Page 218 of 350 2 Since you needed to depart the meeting before we had concluded, we wanted to inform you of the discussion which continued after you left and our concerns going forward on the issue of the "local contact" which formed another part of our appeal. We discussed with Brian and Patrick our concerns that the placing a "secondary" contact on the notification form (which was unusual and unprecedented) did not conform to the few required performance criteria of a "local contact" as specified in the Arroyo City Council Code of Ordinances pertaining to Vacation Rentals: " The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen-minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. " The inclusion of the invalid secondary contact, which was added after the city spoke directly with the applicant and the applicant specifically requested because their property manager (the secondary contact) was based in Atascadero, both the city and the applicant circumvented the ordinances. The second point of contact clearly does not fit the specified performance criteria and was intended to be an option as the only "point of contact" the applicant could come up with that is within a 15 minute drive of the Vacation Rental is a family member who would not be familiar with the vacation rental bookings and clients. Patrick and Brian spoke to this point by saying that they included it because they felt that the property manager would be in a better position to attend to any issues and would therefore be of benefit to the local community. While this may be true, when we are being told by yourself and others at the City that the Planning Commission and the Staff are only able to comply with the ordinances they have in place when considering VR applications, even if they are fundamentally flawed, the inclusion of a secondary contact outside that specified and permitted by the ordinances speaks to staff making their own determination and enabling the applicant to "get around" the ordinances in order to obtain a permit. If the performance criteria no longer make sense then clearly then need to be changed or a second category added, but it is unreasonable and irresponsible to selectively disregard some of the small number of requirements that exist as official doctrine and are intended to protect the public. This is likely another reason why the City of Arroyo Grande VR processes and procedures are in serious need of revision and will benefit from the pending revisit, however in other areas where one could argue that common sense should apply to inappropriate code, the City tends to take a position of needing to follow the existing approved doctrine, even when it clearly does not make sense as is the case for a large number of other VR permitting considerations. So much damage is being done to the communities in our city while we wait for procedures to be corrected and revised. It should be obvious that all VR applications should be put on hold and not be eligible for approval until after the City’s delayed procedures revisit is completed with appropriate updates in place. In any instance we ask that the City look more closely at this section of our appeal, because we firmly believe that this is another grounds for the application to fail. You may also remember at our meeting January 11 that the City staff were going to look into the implications of providing wrong information regarding the 300ft notification zone in the appeal recommendations to the Planning Commission and what implications this had moving forward. We are also still waiting to hear back on this issue. As we are fast approaching the appeal date for the City Council meeting, we urgently request that you respond to these issues raised at our meeting last month and trust you are able to investigate these matters and are happy to discuss this in person with you either via phone or a zoom call should you require any further clarification or information. We thank you for your time on this matter. Yours sincerely Francine and Stewart Errico Page 219 of 350 February 3, 2022 To the City Council members, We the appellants, feel the appeal against PPR 21-029 1562 Strawberry Avenue was not given fair or due consideration by the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission on December 7 and in doing so the residents of approximately 11 properties were denied their right to be informed about the application for a vacation rental within the prescribed radius of the subject property and denied their right to appeal. Our appeal proved that a number of areas in the application were either invalid or not complete and on this basis the application should have been denied. We were told by the staff at the city council that an appeal would only be successful if the application was in error or did not follow code. Our appeal demonstrated, not only was their application in error, but it also did not follow code. City staff were negligent in their response to our 37-page document, leaving out relevant points and using arguments with conflicting and confusing information which led to the Planning Commission not having the correct and appropriate information needed to fairly address the appeal. Our major issues of concern center around: 1. The 300ft notification zone. The area designated and detailed in the staff memo to the Planning Commission was concluded to be incorrect at our meeting with City staff on January 11. This means that a number of owners who should have been notified were not only denied their right to appeal in this process, but were also not provided with “local contact” and other relevant information. On this basis the application for the vacation rental should be denied. 2. The inclusion of a second contact person on the notification postcard was outside the scope and performance requirements of the current standards, which was also concluded at our meeting with City staff on January 11. Staff acted on their own determination and did not follow the standards, at the request of the applicant, and as such the application for the vacation rental should be denied. 3. The location of the proposed vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue, presents a unique situation in that it lies within a particularly high-density area. The 300ft notification zone from all property boundary takes in over 116 structures which house over 500 people. Most of the residents of these structures are not represented by the current performance standards and therefore have no way of reporting issues to the “local contact” because they are not directly provided with this information. Their safety and security in the neighborhood is not being considered and they are being treated like “second class” citizens. The application for the vacation rental in this high-density area should not be approved due to these unique and special circumstances. 4. As the appellants were advised by city staff and the Planning Commission that they approve vacation rentals based on the current standards and can only adhere to the ordinances as written, even if they are not in keeping with the changing landscape of vacation rentals within the City. We have cited three instances where staff have taken it upon themselves to determine what is rigid verses flexible code and what is not and then make their own judgement calls which lie outside the performance standards of code. This is inconsistent, confusing and wrong. Their incorrect assessments and judgements are cause for the application for this vacation rental to be denied. Page 220 of 350 5. During this process we have continually highlighted grave shortcomings in the current vacation rental ordinances and processes, to the extent that the City Council requested from City Staff a review of the current processes and performance standards last October. This process has been extremely delayed and for the City to continue to approval vacation rentals at the vastly increased rate while this review continues to be deferred is negligent, continues to allow outdated code to cause conflicts in areas known to be questionable and is morally wrong. This application should not be approved based on the fact that the City is reviewing its current standards due to concern that they are outdated and do not afford neighborhoods proper protections. Furthermore, we have been disappointed that at each meeting we addressed the City Council with our concerns the Mayor said that City staff would contact us after the meeting to personally address our concerns. On both occasions this did not happen. After our meeting on January 11 with City staff, which we instigated ourselves, again we were promised feedback and we never received this, and this would have been important to our preparation for our appeal direct to the City. It is clear that on a number of issues our appeal for the vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue has not been adequately and fairly addressed. We trust it will be given fair and due consideration at the City Council meeting on February 8, 2022. Sincerely Francine and Stewart Errico Page 221 of 350 Response comments made to the below document in RED are from the appellants. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. DATE: December 7, 2021 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the proposed Resolution would deny the appeal and approve the proposed project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on September 28, 2021. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-029 (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: Vacation Rental Permitting On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City Council had discussions about potential issues related to noise, parking, and other general nuisances, due to concerns expressed by some members of the public. The performance standards by which a vacation rental application is reviewed were generated from those discussions. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 2 Page 222 of 350 general disturbance issues that may arise from a short term rental. Question: how are general disturbances issues raised with the local contact, by whom and how are they recorded?? A 300-foot buffer between rentals on the same street is required to prevent the oversaturation of short term rentals in a neighborhood. This is based on the short-term license only. Others may do 1 monthly rentals unlicensed and rent them out as vacation rentals, others do not apply for a license at all, thus oversaturation can still occur. The City Council seems ill equipped to deal with oversaturation and the current performance standards due not address the current situation. The ’same street’ restriction also does not make sense for many circumstances including connecting properties on different streets. Ultimately, both bodies came to the conclusion that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. This relies heavily on the effectiveness on the local contact, but does not give any requirements regarding their qualifications to address issues other than being a 15 minute drive away. It does however, rely heavily on neighbors to report and deal with such concerns. Additionally, these issues were found to be similar to instances when long-term renters, homeowners, and even private guests of homeowners are the cause of these types of nuisances. This argument has been put into question by comments made by planning commissioners and by complaints made directly by neighbors of existing VR rentals. At the December 7 Planning Commission meeting one of the Planning Commissioners even stated that in his experience as a hotelier, tourists do not act the same as a permanent residents. In a long-term rental situation, a renter could be in violation of their lease if there are “issues”, and with homeowners and private guest’s relationships are often developed in order to live as peaceful and harmonious neighbors. Short term rental vacationers are NOT neighbors. With short term rentals, the visitors come, they party, they vacation and then they leave over the course of the weekend. By the time complaints are heard they have often vacated with no course of action or recourse, and then the same happens again the next weekend. It is unfair and disingenuous to say that vacation rental guests are the same as long-term renters, homeowners and private guests. The City even classes them as vacationers not neighborhood renters when they define vacation rentals as a lodging business (in effect a hotel) A vacation rental includes additional protections, whereby the local contact is available to address any complaints and a property owner is motivated to comply with the conditions of approval to avoid possible revocation of the permit. It is important to note that the additional protection of a local contact is not the same as an on-site hotel manager, which most lodging businesses have. This suggested protection is extremely limited in scope. While vacation rentals are considered a lodging business in one instance by the City, they are then considered a single family home with a neighbor on the other. In addition, the process in which to revoke such a permit can take months while problems persist and impacts to the local community continue, and the City will always side with the permit holder to ensure they make amends rather than revoke their license. We have already seen this happen at the December 7 Planning Commission Meeting where even though the applicants for a vacation rental at 263 Spruce Street had been renting without a permit and had numerous complaints, were still granted their license. The question begs also does the party seeking to revoke the permit then have to pay to do this? if they do, this is a major unfair deterrent. Under the requirements of the Ordinance, the new vacation rental is conditioned to meet performance standards to minimize (which means that some adverse effects are OK?) adverse impacts on adjacent properties, ensure appropriate conditions are implemented, and prohibit overconcentration of these uses in residential districts. The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permitted seventy-one (71) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including this application. This report deliberately misses out the fact that the City Council has voiced concern over the validity of the current ordinances and that City Staff are in the process of reviewing these and reporting back to the City. It seems to suggest that vacation rentals are a resounding success, which is not true and based on limited and faulty information. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for four (4) vacation rentals. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, seven (7) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a Page 223 of 350 vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission. All seven (7) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission being able to make the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. This statement seems to predetermine the outcome and is unfairly biased towards to the applicant. Property History On September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. At the time of approval, notice of the Director’s approval were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. This boundary area was questioned in the appeal and should have been noted. The fact that there is even a question over where the 300ft starts and finishes is a major failing of the city and the ordinances. For those who are not notified when they are legitimately within the 300ft, the city is in effect denying their right to appeal and their right to have information about the proposal to have a vacation rental near their property. The notice included the name and phone number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information about how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. The approval letter is included as Attachment 3. This is incorrect, because in fact two people were named, one which does not comply with the Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The other is a family member who was referenced after the applicant could not locate a suitable person within the 15- minute required drive time. This is substantiated through the email trail between the city and the applicant in their pursuit of trying to make their application compliant with the ordinances. On October 11, 2021, the appellants submitted an appeal of this determination to the Planning Commission. On November 12, 2021, the appellants submitted additional documents outlining the grounds for their appeal. The appellants’ appeal documentation is included as Attachment 4. Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 3 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Basis of the Appeal The subject appeal indicated concerns about the completeness of the application, the structure’s adherence to Building and other Code requirements, availability of parking and perceived impacts on circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. Vacation Rental Performance Standards Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 outlines performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City. These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. The standards defined in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 state: Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on Page 224 of 350 adjacent properties. According to Wikipedia the definition of character of neighborhood is: Neighborhood character refers to the 'look and feel of an area',[1] in particular a residential area. It also includes the activities that occur there. In everyday usage, it can often be synonymous with local character, residential character, urban character and place identity, Adverse Effect is defined as the Merriam Webster Dictionary as 1) acting against or in a contrary direction, hostile or 2) unfavorable and harmful. We argue that a vacation rental is indeed against the neighborhood character as specified in the original building plan and purpose for Berry Gardens (agreed on by the Arroyo City Council). It was never intended to be a tourism precinct and accommodate lodging businesses. And due to outdated ordinances (which are currently being reviewed by the Arroyo City Council due to concern over the applicability of their current standards), approval of a VR on Strawberry Ave leaves a high potential for adverse effects to over 500 residents within the 300ft buffer, without proper protections in place for these residents for whom the ordinances are supposed to protect. City Staff even conclude at the end of this document that adverse effects could occur and wrongly then justify their position to say that the current performance standards mitigate the likelihood of such adverse effects occurring. Completeness of Application The appellants have raised issue with the alleged incompleteness of the application for Plot Plan Review 21-029. For example, the appellants contend that the plans submitted as part of the Plot Plan Review application are inadequate. The checklist referenced by the appellants is intended for projects that propose new construction, rather than permitting a new use in an existing, permitted structure. Staff believes that the information included on the application provides staff with the required information in order to make the necessary findings for approval of the application. Recognizing that the “Minor Project Application” form is used for a wide array of application types, staff has made adjustments to the application form in order to more clearly indicate which fields are required to be completed for different permit types. These changes include clearly indicating that Section III, found on page three of the application, is not required to be completed for short term rental applications, which include vacation rental and homestay applications. Staff’s ability to determine which parts to include and omit on the form is confusing, especially for those who are raising an appeal. Do your constituents have to continue to pay nearly $500 in order to find out that what they thought was incomplete was then overruled by staff’s determination at the time. In some instances, staff are telling us they are able to determine eligibility based on certain internal and logical criteria and the next they are saying they have to comply strictly with the ordinances as written. Code Compliance The appellants have alleged that due to the information provided on the application, staff would be unable to verify whether the existing structure meets provisions of the California Building Code (CBC). During the review of the application, information provided by the applicant was cross referenced with City documentation to confirm that the existing structure was permitted, constructed and inspected according to standard City procedures. Further to confirmation with City staff, they do not actually visit the street and the property to concur such information before issuing a preliminary approval. It is noted that the applicant did not include the hot tub and fire pit in their backyard as part of their drawings. They noted a garage to be used for parking but did not inform the City or note on the drawings that this has been turned into a games room and that there is no intent for parking as provided on the drawings. Furthermore, after approval of the application and before the applicant is able to rent the unit, the Building Division of the Community Development Department will conduct a safety Page 225 of 350 inspection to confirm that the necessary life safety devices are installed and in working order. This inspection includes verification that the structure is in Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 4 conformance with the City’s records regarding the structure as well as verifies that smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and fire extinguishers are installed as required by the current version of the CBC. Should any deficiencies become known before or during the safety inspection, the applicant will be required to address those deficiencies prior to obtaining their Business License, and therefore, will be unable to rent the unit until such deficiencies are corrected. Page 226 of 350 Parking The appellants’ submittal included concerns that guests of the rental parking on the street could have impacts on circulation within the cul-de-sac and that parked vehicles could have impacts on emergency response or trash collection for the street. Strawberry Avenue is classified as a local street, and as such, is designed to accommodate sidewalks, two lanes of traffic with driveway access, and on-street parking within the right-of-way. As a local road, the Strawberry Avenue was designed to provide emergency access with the presence of on-street parking. This relies only on what the street was designed to provide, but does not take into consideration what actually occurs and the traffic build up on the street already. This should be properly investigated by the City Staff to ensure that safety concerns are met. Many other cities, and if fact our county, does not allow VR related on street parking. Furthermore, the appeal documents allege that presence of game tables in the garage preclude the use of the garage for guest parking. The Municipal Code does not include a parking standard for vacation rentals, therefore the presence of any obstructions in the garage is not a basis for denial of a vacation rental application. However, because the game tables are not permanently installed in the garage, staff believes this to be a non-issue and parking vehicles within the garage is possible. Staff know that the likelihood of heavy games tables (which took over a day to construct) being put away to create parking is unlikely and this is disingenuous to circumvent the concern over parking and using a space that the applicant put on their application as parking availability when they had no inclination to do so. Lastly, the appellants have taken the presence of these games tables to constitute a “home occupation” of the garage. The section of the Business License application that the appellants have taken to prohibit this use of the garage is in reference to businesses that have obtained a Home Occupation Permit, which is not applicable in this situation. A Home Occupation Permit is meant to allow a business owner to conduct more typical business activities from their home. These activities include contractors who store vehicles on their property or home office related activities. The prohibition of utilizing a garage as a home occupation does not apply in the scenario of a vacation rental. Furthermore, the use of a garage as part of a vacation rental is to be expected based upon the fact that a vacation rental most closely imitates a residential use of the structure. This implies that the Vacation Rental is more like a residential home than a hotel. This is incorrect, and the City acknowledges that Vacation Rentals are lodging businesses by virtue that their Tourism Business Improvement District Board including Vacation Rentals as a lodging business and collects transient tax for the purpose of promoting tourism and the lodging industry. As such, by definition they are doing business in and at their home. In any case, it is interesting that heavier conditions apply for someone operating a business out of their home (such as parking, type of activities and even the use of the garage), but vacation rentals have little or no restrictions yet their potential for “adverse effects” on the neighborhood are far greater. Occupancy Limitations Condition of Approval No. 9 limits overnight occupants of vacation rentals to two (2) persons per bedroom, and an additional two (2) people. This is to ensure rentals are not over occupied and detrimental to surrounding residences. An applicant is required to submit a floorplan as part of the application so staff can verify the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. At 1562 Strawberry Avenue, the single family residence has three (3) bedrooms, therefore the permit was conditioned to have no more than eight (8) overnight occupants (Attachment 5). Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 5 Page 227 of 350 Noticing Requirements The appellants’ submittal on November 11th makes the claim that noticing requirements were not followed for this project. Specifically, the appellants allege that properties within the required 300’ radius were not notified. After conducting a thorough analysis of the properties notified of the Community Development Director’s decision, staff has concluded that owner of all of properties within a 300’ radius of the subject property were sent a copy of the approval mailer previously mentioned. The County of San Luis Obispo’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information indicates that there are thirty (30) parcels within 300’ of the subject property (Attachment 6). Staff believes that the forty-five (45) parcels notified actually exceeded the noticing requirements of the AGMC. Furthermore, staff believes that the appellants arrived at the total of sixty-nine (69) parcels in error due to the fact that “property owner” and “resident” labels were included in their mailing list. Only mailing labels for property owners within 300’ are required to be submitted with an application for a vacation rental, pursuant to AGMC Section 16.12.030. Please see the City Councils Plot Plan Review Checklist which clearly states that the 300ft radius is required to be from the “property boundary”. A property boundary runs to the edge of the legal property, which in Berry Gardens is to the edge of the street. Attachment 6, using the County of San Luis Obispo’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), clearly has the starting point (center of the circle) in the middle of the street and not on the boundary of the property. This is therefore in error and does not correctly calculate the 300ft radius and does not include all properties. We are not sure how the staff believed the appeal’s data was in error and they did not contact the appellants to discuss or gather more information before making their erroneous judgement. This was also discussed directly with staff at a zoom meeting on January 11 where staff agreed that the GIS graphic was incorrect. We believe that the Planning Commission therefore made their approval based on false information provided by city staff. At that meeting it was also determined that the actual staring point for determining the buffer zone, ie. What actually determines the property boundary is also in dispute. It is our understanding that the property boundary starts at the curb to road, and that the sidewalk is an easement. As such we determine that a total of 43 properties (with over 500 residents) are within the 300ft notification buffer. This is important because if eligible owners are not notified of the application for a vacation rental, they are also denied their rights to appeal. In relation to the issue of “owners” versus “residents” in the notification process, the ordinances omission of renters who may be affected by a vacation rental in affect treats them as “second class citizens” and not worthy of consideration. In the case of 1562 Strawberry Avenue, the 300ft buffer takes in numerous renters in single family homes, as well as 36 apartments at the Courland Street Apartments and 44 apartments at the Oak Park Village apartments (approximately 400 residents in the buffer zone who are renters). It is disappointing the Planning Commission did not consider the “unique” circumstances of approving a vacation rental in a high-density area, and making their conclusion knowing that most, if not all of these residents have no direct access to a complaints system of the contact details of the “local contact person”, should problems arise. The Planning Commission expressed concern over this issue placing the blame back on the City Council for not updating the ordinances for which they were bound to make decisions by. Local Contact Person Condition of Approval No. 6 requires the vacation rental operators to maintain a local contact person or entity, within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property, to be available to resolve any issues resulting from the use of the residence as a vacation rental. This is meant to give neighboring property owners a primary means of addressing issues with the rental instead of relying solely on City services, such as Police, Neighborhood Services, and Community Development. If in the future the local contact changes, the applicants are required to notify the City of the new local contact and property owners within 300 feet would be mailed a postcard with the new contact information. As part of their application, the applicant identified two emergency contacts. The primary emergency Page 228 of 350 contact is Erika McCann and the secondary emergency contact is Kathy Kelly. The appellants expressed concerns regarding the listing of two emergency contacts, stating that Ms. McCann was listed in an attempt to circumvent the City’s vacation rental performance requirements. Staff has spoken with the applicant and is confident that Ms. McCann is able to perform the requirements of being listed as the primary emergency contact. Should community members have issues with the emergency contacts’ ability to abate concerns related to the rental unit, revocation of the permit could be a solution, subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The AGMC does not prohibit an applicant from providing additional emergency contact persons that can assist in addressing concerns from neighbors. Staff later amended this to say that they were in error because Ms McCann was not mentioned, but if they contacted the applicant and determined that Ms McCann was able to perform this duty, why was it included and how did the error occur – this was not explained. Either they did contact the applicant and incorrect information was given, or they did not contact them. Which is true here? While City staff included an additional local contact person stating that the AGMC does not prohibit an applicant from providing additional emergency contact persons, it is very specific that the emergency contact person needs to be within a 15-minute drive of the property. Even by definition it is a “local contact”, and anyone falling outside of a 15-minute drive cannot be considered because they are not “local”. At our meeting on January 11, staff advised us that they felt it was in the public’s best interest to have the second contact because the second point of contact was in fact the property manager and would have more knowledge and contact details for the “visitors” than the family person listed by the applicant. However, they acknowledged that because they were based in Templeton that they did not comply with the city ordinances and that this would be grounds for an appeal. In this instance, staff are again making their own determination and not complying directly with the ordinances for which they say they must adhere to. The inclusion of the property manager on the notification postcard is both a disingenuous attempt by the applicant to circumvent the ordinances and causes confusion for anyone who received the notification with the contact numbers. Concentration Limitations During the Council’s consideration of Ordinance No. 663, concerns were raised regarding the possibility that an overconcentration of vacation rentals and homestays could negatively impact the residential character of neighborhoods. In order to address this issue, the Council included separation requirements in the regulations that prohibit the establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation rental on the Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21- 004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 6 Page 229 of 350 same street. The nearest permitted vacation rental is located at 1515 Elderberry Court, which is located approximately 175 feet northeast of the subject property (Attachment 7). Although this property is within 300 feet of the subject property, the previously approved vacation rental is on a different street than the current application. Therefore, the address at 1562 Strawberry Avenue is eligible to be entitled as a vacation rental. If you search on Beachbumrresevations.com for vacation rentals, both 1515 and 1510 Elderberry are listed as vacation rentals. This means that the City Council permit process fails in its assumption that you can only have vacation rentals 300 ft of each other on the same street. Oversaturation is happening and occurring without proper consideration by City staff nor updated ordinances in place to deal with such occurrences. It is also noteworthy that although on a different street, both of the above VR properties are within 300 feet of 1562 Strawberry Ave. Page 230 of 350 Megan’s Law The appellant has reiterated concerns from a previous appeal that guests of the vacation rental could potentially be registered sex offenders and the proximity of the rental to school sites or locations where children congregate could cause safety issues. Staff would like to again state that while the safety of schoolchildren is of utmost concern, the transitory nature of vacation rental guests does not meet the reporting requirements of Megan’s Law. The law was intended to compel individuals to register their permanent (or semi-permanent) address with law enforcement so that they, and the public, would know where offenders are residing. Additionally, this gives law enforcement the opportunity to check up on registered individuals and allows residents to check if any registered offenders reside in their neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal Case No. 21-004, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; or 4. Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal and approval of the requested plot plan review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations, and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income. The applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals which would be used to help maintain City streets and services. By stating a financial reason as an advantage in the consideration of approving a Vacation Rental the City is putting its financial interests above the concerns and livelihoods of its tax paying constituents. DISADVANTAGES: The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in an established neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. The City Staff duly note that adverse effects could be experienced by the vacation rental. There should have been a valid risk assessment completed, as the City would do for any lodging business (hotel/bed and breakfast) application. Impacts to noise, Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 7 Page 231 of 350 traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed This is actually agreeing that it could result in having adverse effects on the neighborhood. However, concentration limitations and performance standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to manage neighbor complaints and prevent overburdening City services. This relies on the current ordinances being relevant and effective, which is not the case and has been questioned by the current City Council in their call for a review of the ordinances. The staff should have included in this memo to the Planning Commission, but it is not mentioned. In opposition to this, staff continue to defend the ordinances saying that they prevent “adverse effects”. This is simply not true. It is worth noting at the December 7 Planning Commission meeting, when this appeal was heard, there was another appeal against another vacation rental application (who had been operating as a vacation rental for several months without a license) and another neighbor of a separate vacation rental, both who claimed anti-social behavior, disturbances, parking, traffic, and safety issues. While the Planning Commission requested that the public complain to the City so the complaints could be officially recorded, there is no known system at the City to record complaints and what to do with this information. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. Are we correct to assume that it is therefore up to the residents to compile data, complain and record any issues, for which they are not financially rewarded, are not given guidance on, or do not have set processes given by the City Council? ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, November 22, 2021. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received beyond what was contained in the appeal forms. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Ordinance No. 663 3. September 28, 2021 Approval letter 4. Appeal form 5. Floor plan 6. 300’ notification radius 7. Vacation Rental vicinity map Page 232 of 350 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 9.a. – Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. DATE: February 7, 2022 Attached is correspondence received from the applicants for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Community Development Director City Attorney City Clerk City Website (or public review binder) Page 233 of 350 From:francine errico To:Caren Ray Russom; Jimmy Paulding; Kristen Barneich; Keith Storton; Lan George; public comment Subject:Additional information regarding Appeal of Plot Plan Review 21-029 Date:Monday, February 7, 2022 2:34:35 PM Attachments:Rebuttal to Memoradum to City Countil Feb8 2022R3.docx Dear City Councillors, As we, the appellants, only received the City Memorandum on Friday afternoon February 5, and after we had submitted documents to your Council Meeting packet, we have taken time to add omitted information and comment on areas of the Memorandum which are relevant to our appeal. Given that we are only afforded 3 minutes to speak to our issues, we felt it necessary to put these in writing to you to ensure they are duly considered and entered into public record with the below attachment. We would be more than happy to take questions on any of the points we have raised and trust you will afford the time and consideration this deserves given the extraordinary time and expense that has gone into bringing these matter directly to your personal attention. Sincerely Francine and Stewart Errico Page 234 of 350 Dear City Council, As we the appellants have only been afforded 3 minutes to speak to our appeal and address all the points raised and add additional information to the Memorandum provided by City Staff on Friday February 5 (3 days before the City Council meeting), we request that our comments made in RED to this document (below) are carefully and duly considered by the City Council members and included in the public records. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al . DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) would deny the appeal and approve the proposed vacation rental project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on September 28, 2021, and upheld on appeal by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. To cover the costs of staff’s time to prepare the appeal hearing documents, the appellant paid a fee of $491 to appeal the Community Development Director’s decision to the Planning Commission and a fee of$1,163 to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-029. BACKGROUND: Vacation Rental Ordinance On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During Page 235 of 350 the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City Council considered potential issues associated with short term rentals, including noise, parking, and other general problems that could be associated with vacation rentals. Ultimately, both bodies concluded that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and general disturbance issues that may arise from operation of a short term rental. Additionally, a 300-foot buffer between short term rentals on the same street is required to prevent the overconcentration of short term rentals in a neighborhood. The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permitted seventy-one (71) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including the subject application. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for two (2) vacation rentals and one (1) homestay. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, nine (9) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission and one (1) of these approvals have been appealed to the City Council. All nine (9) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission affirming the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. Similarly, the single appeal to City Council was also denied and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Plot Plan Review 21-033 The applicants for Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-029 submitted their application on August 2, 2021, for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. The subject property is a single family residence in the Berry Gardens neighborhood west of South Courtland Street and north of Blackberry Avenue. Additional materials necessary to provide a complete application were received by the City on September 12, 2021. After reviewing the materials provided, the Community Development Director approved Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-029 on September 28, 2021 (Attachment 3). This approval was given without going before a Planning Commission meeting that was open to the public. A Planning Commission meeting was originally scheduled for October 5, 2021 where this matter would have given the opportunity for FREE public comment, but that meeting was cancelled with further actions taking place behind closed doors therefore denying affected residents their right (by the Brown Act) to comment and ask questions in relation to this permit. The only recourse to voice their concern would now be to mount an appeal at the personal cost of $491 if they even know about the approval. This continued practice ensures vacation rentals are being approved at an alarming rate, without oversight, and often residents do not have the funds or experience to mount such an appeal and therefore many vacation rentals are being approved without question. Simply put This VR application was initially approved in violation of the Brown act via a planning commission action that was not open to the public. No member of the public was afforded the opportunity to be present, voice objections, comments or opinions without cost as required by law. Notice of the Director’s approval was sent to forty-five Page 236 of 350 (45) property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. City staff confirmed that the 45 properties mentioned included some properties outside the 300ft zone, and wrongly ascertained in their Memo to the Planning Commission that this was adequate to satisfy requirements for their application. City Staff failed to properly check the list against an accurate map detailing the actual properties within 300ft. Their mistake was only acknowledged last week as a follow up from a presentation the appellants provided at a meeting the appellants initiated with the City on January 11, a month after the Planning Commission hearing. The staff’s incorrect and falsely based argument in their memorandum to the City Planning Commission was inaccurate and negligent. What else might appropriate due diligence prove? At least 11 properties within 300’ of the unit were not notified of this action or of their right to appeal even though notification is a requirement. Any action they might have taken, including an appeal was suppressed. The notice included the name and phone number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information about how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. The approval mailer also listed the name of a secondary emergency contact person which is a 45-minute drive away and does not quality under the current ordinances to be a contact person. City staff decided to include this even though it does not comply with code. Please see our emails to the City Manager and further details contained in the PC level appeal and other public record documents. Planning Commission Review An appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of the Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review was filed on October 11, 2021. The appellants submitted additional documents outlining the grounds justifying their appeal on November 12, 2021. The Planning Commission heard the appeal at its meeting on December 7, 2021 (Attachment4). Issues raised in the appeal included completeness of the application, impacts on availability of parking and circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. After hearing comments from the applicant, appellants and members of the public, the Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal due to the determination that they were unable to make sufficient findings to uphold the appeal. The appellants submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on December 20, 2021. The Planning Commission made their decision with incomplete and false information provided by City Staff. If the notification issue and 300ft buffer zone were properly and fairly addressed the Planning Commission may have granted the requested continuance so that this and other issues could be investigated. However, they relied heavily on the perceived accuracy and fairness of City Staff, and were misinformed. While we appreciate city staff are well meaning professionals doing the best job they can with the resources provided, their documented errors are proof they do not have the support required to be effective and accurate, which is not acceptable as what they are doing is critical, and where mistakes can cause grave damage and irreversible consequences to the City and its residents. It is also noted that staff are not consistently following or enforcing code, and are facilitating damages through application of known broken process. It is extremely likely that other serious violations are taking place, that other applications have contained Page 237 of 350 such errors in the past and present and that the Planning Commission casted their appeal votes with incorrect and incomplete information. Without updated code and proper application vetting the City Staff are postured for failure. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Vacation Rental Performance Standards Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.52.230 sets forth performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City. These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow an upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. This section omits reference to the open action by City Council to conduct a review of current standards and ordinances due to concerns that they are outdated and do not adequately reflect today’s landscape of vacation rentals and the issues they pose to the City and to its constituents. The City Council took the action last October after acknowledging existing VR codes and procedures may no longer be relevant and need updating to action a code review and revision. Knowing that, how can the City continue allowing these known errors to occur with known outdated code? Basis of the Appeal The subject appeal indicated concerns about (1) due process, (2) the application not meeting the required performance standards, and (3) the Planning Commission not addressing material errors raised in that appeal (Attachment 5). 1. Due Process The appeal raised concerns with the notification of adjacent property owners as required per Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.16.080.C.6. Notice of the Community Development Director’s approval of the application was provided to property owners within a 300’ radius on September 28, 2021. City staff omitted to mention that it was tabled as an agenda item for an October 5 meeting, but the meeting was cancelled so public were not afforded the opportunity to comment on the approval without having to launch an appeal. It was later determined, following the Planning Commission hearing, that eleven (11) property owners within the required radius were not notified included in the original mailing list and did not receive notice of the Community Development Director’s approval. However, each of these eleven property owners, as well as all of the other property owners within the required 300’ radius, were notified of the Planning Commission hearing. This is based on the assumption that the City Council has verified the accuracy and completeness of all the labels which did not occur. Several were addressed to the resident and several not by name since that information was not found at that time. Therefore, it is very likely that there are still property owners who have not been, but should have been, notified. In addition, if this Page 238 of 350 argument is held to be legitimate, then any applicant could simply notify one owner or a select few (picking and choosing who they want to notify) and rely on an appeal process (which may or may not happen) to give them compliance with due process. This simply does not make sense. Additionally, the notice of this hearing before the City Council was also mailed to all of the required property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, including the eleven properties missed with the original mailing. Because the Community Development Director’s approval of the permit was eventually appealed to the Planning Commission, and because notices of the two hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council have been provided properly, the City Attorney has advised that no property owner has been deprived of their rights in this case. Government Code Section 65010(b) states: No action, inaction, or recommendation by any public agency or its legislative body or any of its administrative agencies or officials on any matter subject to this title shall be held invalid or set aside by any court on the ground of the improper admission or rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect, or omission (hereafter, error) as to any matter pertaining to petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, or any matters of procedure subject to this title, unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining or appealing suffered substantial injury from that error and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred. There shall be no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown. The City Staff claim, that no rights were violated, contrary to our research and advice obtained which strongly suggests that rights were absolutely violated, injuries were and will be sustained and outcomes reasonably would have been different. We also request a copy of that legal opinion in writing and on letterhead, and believe that the City Attorney likely gave a statement under different context and may not have had all the information when providing this preliminary opinion. There most certainly has been “injury” or damages, in the fact that the only option for the appellant to question this application is to file an appeal at the cost of $491 and an additional $1163, these are now financial damages – the appellant has in effect paid to find and correct the City Staff’s mistakes. Injury does occur to those who have been denied their right to appeal. As the 11 (or more) owners were only notified by the appeal process, they are not afforded due process – the deadline to make their own personal appeal would have been October 11, months before they receive their notification by the appellants. In determining, that even if these 11 omitted owners had the right to appeal that the decision would not have been changed the outcome is predetermination, as we will never know what additional evidence or issues they may have raised. In addition, if the VR application of 1562 Strawberry was denied there most certainly could be a number of different results – the owner might not pursue going through the process again of applying, the City Council may issue a moratorium on all existing and future applications Page 239 of 350 until the standards and ordinances have been re-visited therefore making it applicable under future ordinances, or other neighbors may decide to apply for a vacation rental, as it would now be their right to do so because the previous one had been denied. As the error in the original notice of the Community Development Director’s approval of the permit was not discovered until after the Planning Commission hearing, staff did not notify the Commission that the original notice had inadvertently excluded 11 properties. However, because all of the property owners who should have been originally notified were subsequently noticed properly for the appeals to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, no property owners were deprived of their rights, no prejudicial errors occurred, and a different result was not probable if the error had not occurred. Therefore, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. Again, we maintain that their rights have absolutely been denied, among other issues, there is no process for them to lodge an appeal after the appeal deadline. The possibility of giving a 3- minute public comment during someone else’s appeal hearing is completely different in almost all ways to lodging one’s own appeal. If we had not taken the time to discover this violation of property owners’ rights and file an appeal, this gross error would never have been realized and the VR application would have been approved in spite of rights having been violated. Ironically, as a result of our identifying and notifying the correct owners of our appeal, the City claim that we corrected the applicant’s error since everyone required to be notified was notified of our appeal, even though they were not part of the VR application process. We fail to see how they would have an opportunity to file a PC appeal in this instance (months after the appeal deadline) and hope this seems as absurd and unfair to others as we find it to be. 2. Performance Standards The appeal contends that the application does not meet the required performance standards, specifically in regards to the listed emergency contact persons. The application originally included an emergency contact person that was beyond the required 15-minute drive time from the rental property. The applicants later provided an emergency contact person that was within the required distance and that person’s contact information was provided as the property’s primary emergency contact in the notices mailed to nearby property owners. Because the applicants had already contracted with a vacation rental management company, the applicants requested that the original emergency contact person included in the application be provided as a secondary contact person. It is evidenced that the applicants had already contracted with a vacation rental property before obtaining the license. Any financial implications were a result of the applicants poor planning and should not be a reason to make up new rules. The appeal contends that this person would not otherwise qualify as the primary contact person, and, therefore, should not be allowed to be listed as a contact person for this rental. Staff believes that the presence of a second emergency contact person will only serve to benefit the neighborhood should any issues arise. Because the applicants have provided an emergency contact person who meets all of the necessary performance standards, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. If the City Council denies the appeal and upholds approval of the vacation rental permit, Page 240 of 350 notice of the approval listing the emergency contact persons will be mailed to all property owners within a 300’ radius of the property. This suggests that if the applicant provides a local contact number (even if they do not serve any purpose other than being a 15-minute drive) that a secondary contact (the property manager) can be located anywhere, even Alaska or New York City. This sets a dangerous precedent of circumventing the “intent” of the performance stands, in which the local contact within 15-minute drive is to be available to personally address noise and other issues and disturbances. In this instance, it will be the property manager who wants to deal with these issues directly not the intended contact person. Multiple points of contact continue to muddle responsibility and communications. These and other arguments have been made and are well documented in some of our previously filed documents, including an email to the city manager that is in public records, and through this multiple appeals process. Please be certain to review them in detail. 3. Planning Commission Hearing The appeal states that the Planning Commission did not address some of the errors that were raised during that hearing. These errors mentioned include the notification error with the original Community Development Director approval of the permit and that a secondary contact person should not have been provided due to the fact that the secondary emergency contact person does not reside within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The appeal further states that the Planning Commission should have continued the item to a later date to allow these errors to be corrected. The appellants has very little time to attempt to respond to the city memo that was published and zero time to prepare for changes that they made to that document which were only disclosed at the appeal’s hearing, the appellants were only given a few minutes to speak about their entire appeal, of which the incorrect data was not the only issue. Furthermore, they were not permitted to speak again during the hearing even though they made a request to. It took about ½ hour to explain with drawings and diagrams the mistake to the City staff on a zoom meeting January 11. This could not be covered in detail at the City Planning Commission meeting and we requested a continuance so this and many other shortcomings could be accurately and fairly described. The staff memo to the City Planning Commission blatantly said we were in error, even though they had not conducted due diligence and properly checked their claimed facts. During the hearing before the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021, the Commissioners in attendance had the opportunity to review the materials provided by City staff, the applicant and the appellants and concluded that sufficient materials were provided to make a determination on the appeal. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and to approve the vacation rental as submitted. Because the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and heard input from all parties, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. Effectively we have spent a great deal of our own time and money to do the City’s job of correcting their negligence. Something about that situation does not seem fair. This has all resulted following a great deal of needless personal cost in both time and dollars. This City admission proves our original VR appeal at the Planning Commission level was NOT fairly considered and contained incorrect City provided recommendations and should Page 241 of 350 not have left us with an only recourse of filing this further appeal at the City level to be heard. See above comments. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029. In order for the City Council to uphold the appeal and deny the vacation rental permit, a majority of the quorum would need to identify substantial evidence supporting findings that the requirements of the Ordinance for approval of a vacation rental have not been met, as follows: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. We have demonstrated that by approving a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue that over 500 residents could be adversely effected, with over 400 being renters who will not have access to emergency contact numbers should there ever be any problems. We have questioned the safety of children and senior citizens on our street due to increased traffic, parking and strangers on the street, and we have demonstrated that the application does not meet the performance standards due to errors by the applicant and the city staff. Additionally existing code is knowingly no longer relevant or appropriate. The incomplete City action of a code and procedures review with updates needs to be completed before any further VR approval related activities occur. 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Again, the location of this vacation rental would be in a high-density area with over 500 residents within the 300ft buffer zone. It is therefore not compatible with surrounding neighborhood. It could also be argued that a lodging business (hotel), is not compatible with the existing neighborhood as specified in the original purpose of building Berry Gardens prescribed in the Berry Garden Specific Plan and approved by the AG City Council. In accordance with finding #2, the vacation rental must conform to the following performance standards and conditions listed in the Municipal Code: 1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. The minor use permit- plot plan review was invalid and incomplete, qualifying owners were denied their right to notification and appeal, staff were making their own determination in relation to code and setting precedent, and the Brown Act was violated by approving the permit without a free public hearing. 2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The Page 242 of 350 use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood. A daily turnover lodging business with no on-site management is not harmonious or compatible with the existing use of the neighborhood. This is evidenced in the appeal documentation. 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen-minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. The applicants have circumvented this requirement by including their additional point of contact that is a property manager who does not qualify to be listed as an emergency contact. See above references. 6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the community development department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). 7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the nonemergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited. 9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week. 11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay transient occupancy tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 12. Establishment of a vacation rental within three hundred (300) feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted. 13.Violations. Violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. Although City Staff are happy to cite the number of approved permits and how many appeals have failed, they omit here to mention how many permits have ever been revoked, how long the process would take, what the cost is and who covers the cost? Page 243 of 350 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to uphold Appeal Case No. 21-007, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate supporting resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. 5. Adopt a resolution for a moratorium on all existing and future vacation rental applications so that these grave shortcomings in the processes and systems are rectified and ordinances are updated to address many issues surrounding the current landscape of vacation rentals and greater protections are afforded to the constituents of Arroyo Grande. If this were to be enacted, and the appeal successful, the applicant might apply again, but under new updated legitimate ordinances. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal and approval of the Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income. The applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals, which would be used to help maintain City services and infrastructure. DISADVANTAGES: The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in a residential neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. Impacts to noise, traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed. However, concentration limitations and performance standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to address negative impacts to neighbors and prevent overburdening City services. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. Staff have omitted to state that this could be a lengthy and costly venture and how many permits have been revoked to date. They have omitted that they do not have a process in which to collect or research current issues with vacation rentals and complaints and do not advertise to residents the ability and the need to collect such data. One major disadvantage given the evidence in the appeal is that due process was not followed, rights were denied and fair hearings not held, and as such Page 244 of 350 the residents of Berry Gardens and other AG communities will lose faith in the Arroyo Grande City Council who is supposed to act morally, ethically and legally to protect and maintain the communities it serves. This is incredibly serious. Neighborhoods and residents’ lives are being severely and negatively impacted by what is occurring here. Wrongful activity is taking place, and it is unreasonable, unethical and probably illegal for applications, including this one, to continue to be processed in the current environment and under the known outdated code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, January 28, 2022. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Ordinance 663 3. Approval Letter dated September 28, 2021 4. Minutes and Staff Report from the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Appeal Document Page 245 of 350 From:Cheryl Schweitzerhof To:public comment Subject:Consideration of Appeal to City Council Case 21-007 Date:Friday, February 4, 2022 5:34:31 AM My name is Cheryl Schweitzerhof. I reside on Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande. I am not in favor of a mini hotel (vacation rental) as a next door neighbor. I live in a residential family oriented neighborhood. If I had wanted to live in a mini hotel environment with vacationers/visitors coming to town, I would have bought a residence in downtown Pismo Beach. I am appealing to the City Council not to allow approval to proceed for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande. Your consideration is appreciated Cheryl Schweitzerhof Sent from my iPad Page 246 of 350 From:Linda Drummy To:public comment Subject:Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Case 21-007 1562 Strawberry Ave Date:Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:13:42 PM Dear Council Members, I am writing to you about my concerns for the short term vacation rental slated for 1562 Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande. There are many red flags about this property. Please do NOT allow this property to have "short term" rentals. There are many red flags about this property. Please do NOT allow this property to have "short term" rentals. 1. The City mishandled the original mailing to some affected residences, including myself, as they never got the original notice, denying their right to appeal . 2. The residence has no usable parking in the garage as it was converted to an entertainment "play" room. There is no option to remove the items in the garage to even allow cars to park there. So parking will be on the driveway and street, where there is already limited space. With short term vacationers, brings fifth wheelers, trucks with trailers for their off road vehicles and multiple other vehicles and "toys". This street and surrounding ones can not handle this increase in traffic, parking, noise and garbage that is created by short term rentals. Th 3. This is a "conflict of interest" for council members to vote on, as some have their own vacation rentals. 4. The main "emergency contact" is well outside the 15 minute drive from this property (Templeton). Homeowner listed "two" emergency contacts which is also against the city ordinance. The other listed party does not meet the required performance criteria. 5. If a neighbor has an urgent problem with the vacationers, It can take up to 3 hours for someone to respond. This also is unacceptable!! This is a "residential" neighborhood, not a "commercial" neighborhood. Our entire neighborhood already has limited parking with the cars that are already here. This short term rental will be detrimental to our neighborhood as it will reduce our property values, increase parking issues, increase traffic issues, cause trash issues, cause noise disturbances and safety issues. Without proper screening, as is used in long term rentals, the short termers can cause quite a number of problems in this quiet neighborhood. There is no accountability for their actions as they just pick up and leave behind the mess they created. There is no recourse in managing them. A long term rental would be the better option for this home and neighborhood. Do NOT allow this to be approved. Regards, Linda Drummy Arroyo Grande Page 247 of 350 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 9.a. – Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. DATE: February 8, 2022 Attached is correspondence received by 4 p.m. for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Community Development Director City Attorney City Clerk City Website (or public review binder) Page 248 of 350 From:Michelle Chariton (MC) To:public comment Cc:Jaime Fordyce; s Subject:Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al. - Chariton Public comment Date:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:35:03 PM Attachments:Appeal Case 21007 1562 Strawberry Ave Public Comment.pdf Please see attachment for your review in public comment. - pdf provide details. City Counsel Please take time to PAUSE and reflect that the current systems and process surrounding the Vacation Rental is truly broken. As a professional in this field I personally would like to bring to your attention the unrepresented voice and non-bias representation of the municipal code. Title 16 has not been enforced by Arroyo Grande Community Development Staff or at the Planning Commission level. The Vacation rental 16.52.230 Performance Standards and Conditions have not been meet. Attached document describes in detail 16.16.080 - Minor use permits application was incomplete. Plot Plan Review Table 16.12.030-A Mailing Label Requirements - not accurate and incomplete. The permit needs to be denied and the votes unanimously in favor of the appellant. Michelle Chariton Page 249 of 350 City Counsel Please take time to PAUSE and reflect that the current systems and process surrounding the Vacation Rental is truly broken. As a professional in this field I personally would like to bring to your attention the unrepresented voice and non-bias representation of the municipal code. Below are the facts. It is really this simple. The applicant either performs the actions laid out in Title 16 or they did not. The burden of proof is not on the appellant or the city it is on the applicant. First point: The Application for this Minor Use Permit is incomplete in the eye of the code aka Title 16. Let’s follow the bouncing ball of Municipal Code. 1. 16.52.230 Performance Standards and Conditions for Vacation Rentals. a. 16.16.080 - Minor use permits 1.Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit- via plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) b. 16.16.080 - Minor use permits—Plot plan review section C. Submittal and Review Requirements: 1.Minor use permit—plot plan review applications shall contain the following: a. Completed planning application form and required fee and attachments (see also Section 16.12.030) c. ***Important note why the application is incomplete lies in 16.12.030 – Application submittal two things can happen: in section 6&7 1. In section 6: Community development director shall determine in writing the completeness. If deemed complete, the application shall then be processed pursuant to the provisions of this Title. 2. In section 7: If the community development director fails to make a determination as to completeness of an application or resubmitted application within the time period specified by state law, the application shall be automatically deemed complete and processed pursuant to the provisions of this title. d. The Minor Project application PPR21-000029 was submitted on August 8 th 2021 and was deem complete by staff on September 28 2021. This permits timeline exceeds the allot time mandated by the permit streamline act Government Code § 65921 - The agency has 30 days after an application is submitted in which to inform the applicant of whether the application is complete. Staffers took 51 days. This permit was “automatically deemed complete.” – comfirming all this items below why they are incomplete. e. ***When a permit is “automatically deemed complete per state statue” the documents have to stand alone. No changes to document can be made as it makes it way through from the Community Development notice of administrative decision. Then to planning commission consent agenda for a vote by the Planning Commission meeting minutes. Which for applicant opens the permit up for audit and security under the code per the appeals process 16.12.150. Which has occurred and has merit! Page 250 of 350 f. Below is the appellant specific reasons for the basis of the appeal and have 100% merit under Title 16 and the Ordnance 663 – Minor Use Permit Application items: • Project Description II – incomplete • Section III. For plot plans - incomplete and completely blank • Section of V. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR PROJECTS ALL – incomplete and no signatures provided – technically grounds for incomplete application for any public agency per the Political Reform act of 1974, the City needs to be aware of all entities (i.e. corporations, lending institutions, etc. or individuals that may have a financial interest in the proposed project. --- Due to recent interpretation and legal amendments to the All LLCs shall provide relevant Articles of Incorporation in order to disclose all financially interested entities. Please complete the following certification and provide your signature g. Moreover, Title 16 and the Ordnance 663 Under 16.16.080 - Minor use permits—Plot plan review: C. Submittal and Review Requirements: 6. For Plot Plan Reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of subsection (C)(5). The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150 and Table 16.12.030-A Mailing Label Requirements • Out of the only 45 addresses on the mailing list used by the applicant, including themselves, properties beyond the 300 feet which are not addresses for property owners within 300 feet are included in this total, and incorrect names are listed against addresses. A cursory analysis indicates that a minimum of 69 properties fall within the 300 foot area. This number does not include the large number of individual units at the complexes at Oak Park Village apartments and Courtland Street Apartments. h. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen-minute drive of the property - One is not associated with the “deemed complete application” is (Erika McCann), and the other (Kathy Kelly) is further than 15 minutes from the property - Emergency contacts listed are not valid – application is incomplete. • **Note an emergency contact is one not two this deviation by “community director” interpretation is confusing for all and not supported by the Code, this interpretation needs to stop immediately. In closing Title 16 has not been enforced by Arroyo Grande Community Development Staff or at the Planning Commission level. The Vacation rental 16.52.230 Performance Standards and Conditions have not been meet. Above describes 16.16.080 - Minor use permits application was incomplete. Plot Plan Review Table 16.12.030-A Mailing Label Requirements – not accurate and incomplete . The permit needs to be denied and the votes unanimously in favor of the appellant . Thank you for your time and pause Michelle Chariton Page 251 of 350 Page 252 of 350 Page 253 of 350 Page 254 of 350 From:Linda Drummy To:Whitney McDonald Subject:Fwd: 2nd Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Case 21-007 1562 Strawberry Ave Date:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:51:53 PM From: Linda Drummy > Date: February 6, 2022 at 7:56:44 PM PST To: publiccomment@arroyogrande.org Subject: 2nd Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Case 21-007 1562 Strawberry Ave Dear Council Members: This should be added to my previous email of Feb 2, 2022. I am very disheartened by the Council's response that my appeal is not going to be heard on this properly even though you DID NOT send me the original notification about my right to appeal. 1. I was finally notified about the appeal because the neighbors did appeal this short term rental. The city did not send me the required flier about this. 2. My right to appeal was taken away from me. 3. The CITY must take ownership of their error and not just slough it off. My input means nothing to you. 4. Last week, the Management company for this property...which is illegally more than 15 minutes away (more like an hour away), was at the said Strawberry property. They sheepishly smiled when asked if the homeowner got permission for this rental. In other words, it appears that this appeal is all futile. As I would have to guess that they already received approval for the short term rental, and, the City has predetermined the approval for the short term rental. REALLY??????? 5. As history has proven, nearby property values will fall. (of course no Council member would allow this in their neighborhood such as The Cherry Lane neighborhood.) 6. There is NO parking allowed in said home's garage, as it is filled with very large and heavy "Toys" such as a non foldable ping pong table and foosball table. No place to move these to and too heavy to move. 7. Homeowners LIED to their neighbors saying this was going to be a "long term" rental. Yet, they deceived everyone and will still get this short term rental approved 8. Parking is at a premium in this neighborhood which means the vehicles and 5th wheelers and trailers carrying off road vehicles, will spill over onto other Page 255 of 350 already congested streets. 9. There is a conflict of interest for some council members voting on this, as they have rentals of their own. This entire process is a FARCE. As the City of AG wants any monies they can get their hands on, and this short term rental will benefit the City. It will NOT benefit the neighborhood that I live in. We have been left out of the equation. The City has given the green light to this, even BEFORE hearing valid appeals. And, this appeal process has previously been sidelined numerous times, I would assume to benefit the homeowner. How can you justify your actions????? And, how can you allow a management company that is an hour away, manage this property??? If there are complaints, they are too far away to be present to assist with the issues in a timely manner. The City and Council just doesn't care, and the real taxpayers are being rolled over on, once again. THIS IS ALL SO WRONG!!!!!! But you don't care. Regards, A very disgruntled homeowner Linda Drummy Blackberry Ave, AG Page 256 of 350 Item 9.b. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Andrew Perez, Acting Planning Manager SUBJECT: Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Introduction of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units (Attachment 1), including provisions addressing tiny homes on wheels (THOW), will allow for adoption at a future City Council meeting and submittal to the State for final review consistent with applicable legislation. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: SB 2 grant funding in the amount of $20,000 was obtained to offset costs associated with the amendments to the ADU regulations, including staffing hours, website development, and marketing materials. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce the Ordinance amending the accessory dwelling unit regulations and establishing regulations for tiny homes on wheels. BACKGROUND: The State legislature has identified production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important strategy to increase housing statewide. In 2017, the State made significant changes to the manner by which local governments can regulate ADUs, primarily with respect to parking, types and sizes of ADUs, approval process and timelines, and utility fees. In response, the City adopted Ordinance 688 in October 2017, making local regulations consistent with State law at that time. While State legislators acknowledged that the ADU permitting process was significantly streamlined as a result of the 2017 legislation, some were concerned that local jurisdictions’ regulations, such as unit size maximums and impact fees, continued to impede property owners from constructing ADUs. As a result, in October 2019, Governor Page 257 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 2 Newsom signed a package of new State housing bills that further amended Government Code §65852.2 and §65852.22 related to regulations for development of ADUs. As a result of this legislation, the City’s Development Code, Title 16, must be amended again for consistency with State law. This update is being funded by grant money obtained through the State’s SB 2 Planning Grants Program. In addition to updating the ADU regulations, the City will create a dedicated webpage for ADU development and handouts to assist homeowners in navigating the development process. The webpage will also include information about the pre-approved ADU plan program the City is participating in with the cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, and Morro Bay. This project is funded entirely by a Regional Early Action Planning grant and will make pre -approved plans available to residents to encourage ADU development by reducing costs associated with design and review time. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: State Legislation The passage of Assembly Bills 68, 881, 587, 670, and 671, and Senate Bill 13 impacted the City’s regulatory authority over the construction of ADUs. A total of six amendments to State law for ADUs were included in the 2019 legislation, made effective on January 1, 2020. Table 1 summarizes each of the six (6) amendments and how each is implemented. Table 1: 2019 State Law Amendments Affecting ADU Development Bill Code Section Summary Status AB 881 AB 68 SB 13 Government Code §65852.2 Accessory Dwelling Units & §65852.22 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Allows ADUs up to 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet on any residential or mixed-use lot. Prohibits owner-occupancy requirement. Requires ministerial approval within 60 days of application. Prohibits impact fees on ADUs under 750 square feet. Prohibits minimum lot size requirements for ADUs. Reduces parking requirements. Allows one ADU plus one junior ADU. Amendments proposed to Title 16 to comply. AB 587 New Government Code §65852.22 Option for local agencies to adopt by ordinance a provision that allows an ADU to be sold or conveyed separate from the primary residence if the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation. Not proposed in the draft Ordinance. Page 258 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 3 The proposed draft Ordinance would amend existing development standards for ADUs to address the changes required under the 2019 legislation , including allowed locations, setbacks, size limitations, parking, and owner occupancy (Exhibit A of Attachment 1), as discussed in more detail below. Development Standards Several existing property development standards are required to be amended in response to the changes to State legislation. The existing ADU regulations prohibit ADU development on mixed-use zoned parcels and requires a minimum lot size requirement of 6,750 square feet. Amendments to State law allow ADUs on any parcel that allows a residential use, including mixed-use zones, regardless of lot size. An ADU may be established within an existing or proposed primary dwelling, conversion of an existing accessory structure, reconstruction of an existing structure proposed to be converted to an ADU, or construction of a new detached structure. Perhaps the most significant change mandated by State law allows a parcel developed with a primary dwelling unit and an ADU to also establish a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) within the space of an existing primary dwelling unit, for a total of three (3) allowed units on a single property. A JADU, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, is a dwelling unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, and may include separate sanitation facilities or shared sanitation facilities with the existing dwelling. The proposed Ordinance includes provisions addressing each of these required changes to the City’s existing development standards. Size Limits & Setbacks State legislation includes a “By-Right Provision” which allows the development of an attached or detached ADU with a maximum size of 850 square -feet for studio or one- bedroom units, or 1,000 square-feet for a unit with more than one bedroom, in any circumstance. ADUs permitted through this provision are subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and compliance with all building codes. No AB 670 Civil Code §4751 Removes covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in a planned development that either effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the construction or use of an ADU or JADU. Not required to be incorporated in the AGMC. AB 671 Government Code §65583(c)(7) Amends housing element law and requires the City to incentivize and promote ADUs that can be offered at an affordable rent. Addressed in Housing Element update Programs A.2-1 & A.2-2. Page 259 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 4 minimum lot size or lot coverage requirement shall apply to units permitted by this provision. The proposed ordinance acknowledges these By-Right Provisions consistent with State law. In addition, the proposed Ordinance would amend the development standards for ADUs to limit the maximum size of attached ADUs to fifty per cent (50%) of the total living area of the existing or proposed living area of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. While newly enacted State laws do not require cities to establish maximum size limitations for ADUs, any ordinance that does establish maximum sizes may not be less than the proposed limits included in the proposed ordinance. Under the proposed Ordinance, detached ADUs are limited to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. The maximum size limits proposed in the draft Ordinance meet the minimum sizes required by State law. This is a change from the existing regulations, which restrict the maximum size of both attached and detached ADUs to the lesser of: The maximum unit size allowed in the zone in which the ADU is proposed, which ranged from 850 square feet in the Single Family and Village Residential zones, to 1,200 square feet in all others, or Fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit. ADUs proposed to exceed the sizes permitted by the By-Right Provision would remain subject to the setbacks, height limit, lot coverage, and floor-area ratio limitations of the zoning district in which they are located. Parking The City’s existing ADU regulations require one parking space per ADU bedroom, with a maximum of two parking spaces per unit. Amendments to State legislation establish a maximum of one parking space per ADU. Parking spaces for ADUs do not need to be covered and may be located in the driveway or setbacks, a provision that remains the same. The proposed Ordinance establishes areas in the front yard where parking is prohibited and clarifies that ADU parking spaces must be on fully paved surfaces, consistent with AGMC Section 16.56.070. The existing ADU regulations do not require additional parking when an ADU meets any of the following five (5) exemptions: 1. If the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile by travelled distance of an existing transit stop; 2. The accessory dwelling unit is located in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District; 3. The accessory dwelling unit is located in a neighborhood where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; 4. A car share vehicle is located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; or 5. The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. Page 260 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 5 Existing parking exemptions will remain applicable, and State law creates two additional exemptions, which are included in the proposed Ordinance: 1. Parking spaces are not required when an ADU is created within an existing or proposed primary structure. 2. Parking spaces for a primary dwelling are not required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or other covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. The proposed Ordinance retains a parking requirement for ADUs when applicable. However, given the existing ADU parking space exemptions in the State law, particularly the exemption for ADUs within a half mile of a bus stop, a significant portion of parcels within the City will not be required to provide parking spaces for ADUs. The existing ADU regulations also require parking spaces in a garage or carport to be replaced when converted to an ADU, but that is no longer allowed to be required under State law. As a result, a property that chooses to convert a garage to an ADU is not required to provide parking for either the primary dwelling unit or ADU. Impact Fees Building permits for both residential and non-residential projects are assessed impact fees to offset the costs associated with additional public facilities and infrastructure required for those new structures. Examples of impact fees include fire protection, police facilities, traffic signalization, park facilities, and water facilities. ADUs less than 750 square feet are exempt from impact fees pursuant to newly enacted State law. Units that exceed 750 square feet are assessed impact fees proportionately in relation to the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. For example, a 2,000 square foot primary dwelling with a proposed 1,000 square foot ADU would result in fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees imposed on the primary dwelling. The proposed Ordinance includes provisions addressing impact fees consistent with this newly enacted State law. Tiny Homes on Wheels The proposed Ordinance includes a new Development Code Section to allow Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW) on all residentially zoned parcels in the City to help address housing supply shortages and affordability (Exhibit B of Attachment 1). THOW will be an alternative to permanent ADU structures and have been identified as a means to increase housing supply, choices, and affordability. Definition of THOW A THOW is considered a type of ADU, and more narrowly defined as a structure intended for separate, independent living quarters for one household that meets the following conditions: Page 261 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 6 1) Is a detached self -contained unit, designed and built to look like a conventional building structure, and which includes basic functional areas that support no rmal daily routines such as cooking, sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities; and 2) Is licensed and registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and 3) Meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 119.5 requirements or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192 standards, and is certified for ANSI or NFPA compliance. Certification must be made by a qualified third -party inspector; and 4) A pre-fabricated or manufactured THOW shall bear the California Insignia of Approval issued by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to demonstrate compliance with electrical, heat producing, plumbing, and fire and life safety systems and equipment; and 5) Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame-towing hitch, or fifth-wheel connection, cannot move under its own power and is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and 6) Has a minimum of 100 square feet and maximum of 400 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls. A recreational vehicle, camper, trailer, or manufactured home, as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code would not be viable as a THOW. Allowed Locations THOW are proposed to be allowed on any residential lot with an existing single family dwelling. Both a THOW and ADU would not be allowed on a single lot, as currently proposed. The proposed Ordinance would require the THOW to be located on the rear portion of a lot, setback at least four feet (4’) from interior and rear property lines and ten feet (10’) from a street side property line where applicable. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance requires a THOW to be parked on a surface paved with concrete, asphalt, or an equivalent paving material. Design Standards A THOW would be subject to design criteria to maintain the scale and character of the existing residential development. For example, the undercarriage of the THOW shall be hidden from view by the installation of a skirt around its perimeter. The Ordinance would also limit the height of the structure to one -story and require that mechanical equipment is integrated into the structure. A THOW would be required to connect to electric, water, and sewer utilities. Other Considerations A THOW would not be eligible for use as a short-term rental as currently proposed. Page 262 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION: On August 3, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the proposed amendments to the ADU regulations as part of a study session (Attachment 2). The Commission was generally supportive of the changes and the inclusion of provisions to permit THOW. The Commission provided the following comments for staff to consider when revising the draft Ordinance: Modify architectural compatibility standards to be more permissive for pre - fabricated units as ADUs. Clarify the phrase “no feasible alternative” with regard to lots that cannot accommodate an ADU in the backyard. Consider design standards that allow for flexibility in designs that provide light and air for THOW. On August 17, 2021, staff presented the draft Ordinance to the Commission with revisions responding to feedback provided at the study session (Attachment 3). The second draft of the Ordinance for the Commission’s review included changes to the architectural compatibility provisions for both ADUs and THOW, eliminated use of the phrase “no feasible alternative,” and included additional design standards for THOW. The draft Ordinance also clarified rental terms for ADUs based on guidance from the City Attorney. The first draft of the Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission was inadvertently restrictive of permitting pre-fabricated or manufactured units as ADUs due to architectural compatibility standards. Those standards required ADUs to use the same colors and materials as the primary dwelling, which is not always feasible for pre-fabricated units. In response to the comments received from the Commission, staff clarified that the architectural compatibility standards requiring matching colors and materials is only required of ADUs either attached to the primary dwelling or created through the conversion of existing space. For example, if a garage were proposed to be converted to an ADU, the materials and colors used for the wall area replacing the removed garage door would be required to match the primary dwelling. Detached ADUs are encouraged to use similar materials and colors, but are not required to use the same materials so as to not discourage the use of pre-fabricated units as ADUs. The Planning Commission was supportive of this revision and it was carried forward in the proposed Ordinance for the Council’s consideration. The first draft Ordinance included a provision that encouraged ADUs to be located in the backyard, and only allowed the construction of an ADU in the front yard where “no feasible alternative” exists. Staff removed the phrase “no feasible alternative” from this standard and revised it to encourage ADU construction behind the primary dwelling. Front yard setbacks requirements are still applicable to ADU development; however, front setbacks may not preclude the addition of a by-right ADU and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of ADUs. Page 263 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 8 In response to comments from the Commission and the public, staff has also revised the design standards for THOW. The Planning Commission recommended an increase to the amount of attached patio area allowed to be equal to the floor area of the THOW. Additionally, the Commission recommended that THOW have a minimum roof pitch of 1:12 to be more permissive of a variety of designs. Language was added in Section 16.52.250.C of the Ordinance that states that THOW “shall resemble the appearance of a traditional home.” Provisions for the addition of decks, patios, landings, and other similar features to THOW were also added to the ordinance. Staff proposed limiting the area of these features to twenty-five percent (25%) of floor area of the living area. Standards for minimum roof pitch were also modified to allow for designs that contain features that provide increased natural light and airflow for the comfort of the occupants and reduce the reliance on electricity for ventilation and lighting. The standard prohibiting slide -out extensions or pop outs was removed from the Ordinance to be more permissive of a variety of designs. Short Term Rentals Staff’s first proposed Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission on August 3rd included a provision prohibiting short term rentals (term of less than 30 days) for all ADUs created after the adoption of the Ordinance updates. The City Attorney has since clarified that State legislation only prohibits short term rentals of units created under the By-Right provisions. Nonetheless, in its motion to recommend adoption of the amendments, the Planning Commission included a recommendation that Council prohibit short term rentals in all ADUs created after the adoption of the Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance presented for introduction by Council includes a provision, Section G, consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Housing Element Direction The sixth cycle Housing Element prioritizes development of ADUs as a strategy to meet housing needs and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned to the City. Housing Element Program A-2.1 calls for an update of the ADU provisions in the Development Code and for the City to publicize the ADU program to increase public awareness. During the Housing Element Update, staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and City Council about the desire to update the ADU regulations to encourage the creation of more ADUs. The Housing Element relies heavily on the creation of ADUs to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Specifically, it assumes that there is potential for the development of 236 ADUs, which equates to approximately thirty-four percent (34%) of the City’s total sixth cycle RHNA. The proposed Ordinance, in addition to information included on the City’s webpage, will allow the City to promote the creation of ADUs. The SLO County ADU Task Force, a volunteer group promoting development of ADUs in the region, has also identified obstacles in the planning and permitting process that this Page 264 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 9 update hopes to resolve. For example, the Ordinance will clarify requirements for maximum unit sizes, parking requirements, and utility con nections. \ Next Steps Introduction of the Ordinance is the first step towards enacting updates to the ADU regulations. Adoption of the ADU amendments is proposed to occur at the next Council meeting, scheduled for February 22, 2022, unless Council directs staff to make significant changes to the Ordinance. After adoption, staff will submit the Ordinance to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. HCD will review the adopted Ordinance and notify the City if it complies with State ADU law. If the Ordinance is found to be out of compliance, HCD will provide findings detailing what changes are required to be compliant. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Introduce the attached Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 20- 001; 2. Modify as appropriate and introduce the attached Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 20-001; 3. Do not introduce the Ordinance, and provide direction to staff on specific revisions to the Ordinance; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Amending the City’s ADU regulations will bring them into compliance with State law, allow for a streamlined review process, and facilitate the development of new ADUs in the City consistent with the goals, policies, and programs identified in the City’s Housing Element. Incorporating provisions to allow THOW will provide another option to increase housing production and housing options within the City. DISADVANTAGES: None identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the project is statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on January 28, 2022. The meeting Agenda was posted at City Hall and Page 265 of 350 Item 9.b. City Council Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001 February 8, 2022 Page 10 on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Notifications about the discussion were also sent to members of the public that have expressed interest in the ordinance update. Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Staff Report and Minutes from the August 3, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Staff Report and Minutes from the August 17, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Page 266 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (AGMC) REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND TINY HOMES ON WHEELS; LOCATION- CITYWIDE WHEREAS, Section 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Muni cipal Code (AGMC) contains the City’s existing regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and WHEREAS, AGMC Section 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal was last amended in 2017, after the State legislature had amended Government Code §65852.2 and also added Government Code §65852.22 to provide an option for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), however, the 2017 amendment to AGMC 16.52.150 did n ot include an option for JADUs at that time; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law a number of bills ("New ADU Laws") that, among other things, amended Government Code Section 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and WHEREAS, the New ADU Laws mandate that cities with accessory dwelling unit ordinances that are inconsistent with the State laws apply the State standards for ADU and JADU approval; and WHEREAS, according to the State Department of Housing and Community Development website the New ADU Laws were adopted to promote the development of ADUs and JADUs, and include allowing ADUs and JADUs to be built concurrently with a single-family dwelling, opening areas where ADUs can be created to include all zoning districts that allow single-family and multifamily uses, modifying fees from utilities such as special districts and water corporations, limited exemptions or reductions in impact fees, and reduced parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the New ADU Laws took effect January 1, 2020, and because the City's ADU ordinance did not comply with the New ADU Laws, the City's ordinance bec ame null and void on that date as a matter of law; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for the construction of ADUs and provide for JADUs to comply with the amended provisions of G overnment Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22; and WHEREAS, the approval of ADUs and JADUs based solely on the default statutory standards, without local regulations governing height, setback, landscape, architect ural review, among other things, would threaten the character of existing neigh borhoods, and negatively impact property values and personal privacy; and Page 267 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, alternative housing models, such as tiny houses on wheels, can provide flexible housing options for a variety of households living at different income levels; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance adds Tiny Homes on Wheels as a separately regulated residential use to encourage housing supply, choices, and affordability; and WHEREAS, Tiny Homes on Wheels will allow for in-fill development that maintains the scale and character of existing development; and WHEREAS, Tiny Homes on Wheels will contribute to the equitable distribution of housing opportunities that are cost accessible to all residents; the refore, reducing regulatory and procedural barriers to increasing housing production and capacity in appropriate locations; and WHEREAS, the City desires to preserve its cultural, historical, and architectural heritage and resources as living parts of community life that benefit and enrich the lives of its present and future residents; and WHEREAS, the City has duly initiated this amendment to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to amend Section 16.52.150, and add Section 16.52.250 to Title 16, Chapter 52 in order to provide regulations relating to Tiny Homes on Wheels; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 17, 2021 concerning this code amendment and carefully considered all pertinent testimony, the staff report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in the matter as presented; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission of the Arroyo Grande recommended to the City Council amending Section 16.52.150 and adding Section 16.52.250 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on December 14, 2021, concerning proposed amendments to AGMC Section 16.52.150 and adding AGMC Section 16.52.250; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on December 14, 2021 introduced this Ordinance to amend Section 16.52.150 and add Section 16.52.250 to Title 16, Chapter 52 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pe rtinent testimony and the staff report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in Page 268 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 the matter as presented at the public hearing. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Section 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: A. Definitions/Prohibited Units. 1. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): An attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation and shall be located on the same parcel as the primary dwelling or multi-family development. An ADU also includes an efficiency unit and manufactured home as provided in Government Code Section 65852.2(j). An ADU may serve as a rental unit for more than 30 days or be occupied by a person or persons including, but not limited to family members, guests, or caretakers. 2. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A residential dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, and may include separate sanitation facilities or share sanitation facilities with the existing dwelling. A JADU may serve as a rental unit for more than 30 days. Owner-occupancy of either primary dwelling or JADU is required by state law. 3. Prohibited Units: Mobile homes, as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, recreational vehicles, trailers, or similar units, shall not be allowed as ADUs. Tiny Homes on Wheels are allowed as an ADU and are separately defined in Section 16.52.250. B. Where Permitted/Establishment. 1. ADUs are permitted in all zoning districts allowing single-family or multifamily use on lots developed with existing or proposed dwellings. 2. An ADU may be established by the following methods: a. Attached to, or located within, an existing or proposed primary dwelling. Page 269 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 b. A new detached structure, or located within or attached to an accessory structure, including detached garages or similar structures. c. Conversion of permitted existing attached or detached accessory structures, including garages, storage areas, or similar structures. d. Reconstruction of a permitted existing structure or living area that is proposed to be converted to an ADU, or a portion thereof, in the same location and to the same dimensions and setbacks as the existing structure. 3. A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) may be established within the space of the primary dwelling, including an attached garage or attached accessory structure. 4. A JADU may be established within the space of the primary dwelling in combination with the construction of one detached, new construction ADU not exceeding 850 square-feet and a height of 16 feet with four-foot side and rear setbacks. 5. The existing unit may be considered th e ADU, in conjunction with the construction of a new primary dwelling unit built, if all applicable zoning requirements are met. 6. ADUs shall be permitted on lots developed with existing multi-family dwellings subject to the following provisions: a. The property shall be developed with an existing multi-family structure(s). b. A minimum of one ADU may be constructed, or up to 25 percent of the existing unit count, within non-livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, passageways, attics, baseme nts, or closets. c. The construction of two detached ADUs with a maximum size of 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet with more than one bedroom, shall be permitted in addition to ADUs created within non -livable space, subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, and four-foot side and rear setbacks. d. Existing livable space of multi-family dwelling units shall not be converted to ADUs. C. Permit Requirements: Page 270 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 1. The City shall ministerially review and act on a building permit application for an ADU or JADU within 60 days after receiving the application. An ADU or JADU proposed with a permit application for a new primary dwelling shall not be approved until the primary dwelling receives approval. A certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU shall not be issued before occupancy is granted for the primary dwelling. 2. Unless otherwise preempted by state law, the design and construction of all newly constructed ADUs and JADUs shall comply with all applicable building, housing, zoning and site development standards of the Arroyo Grande Development Code, including but not limited to standards regarding setbacks, floor area ratio standards, height, lot coverage, and in the surrounding neighborhood that are listed in the California Register of Historic Places. Applicants shall also comply with all applicable fee and charge requirements, and other applicable zoning requirements. 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(e) (2), the City shall not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition for ministerial approval. D. Development Standards. 1. ADU Type, Location & Size. a. Attached Unit: An ADU attached to an existing primary dwelling shall have a minimum size of 150 square feet and shall not exceed 50 percent of the total existing or proposed living area o f the primary dwelling, except as provided by the By-Right Provision below. b. Detached Unit: An ADU structurally independent and detached from the existing primary dwelling shall have a minimum size of 150 square feet and shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. c. Conversion of Existing Structure: An ADU constructed within the footprint of an existing dwelling or attached or detached structure shall not be subject to a maximum square-footage of living area. d. By-Right Provision: An attached or detached ADU with a m aximum size of 850 square-feet or 1,000 square-foot with more than one bedroom shall be permitted in any circumstance subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and compliance with all building codes. No minimum lot size or lot coverage requirement shall apply. Page 271 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 6 e. ADUs shall have independent exterior access from the primary dwelling. No passageway to the primary dwelling shall be required. f. Maximum Slope. The building site upon which the accessory dwelling unit will be constructed shall not have an average slope in excess of twenty (20) percent. A topographic map and slope analysis, as recommended by the community development director, shall be stamped and signed by either a registered civil engineer, registered architect, or registered landscape architect. Average slope is defined as follows: S = I x L x 100 A x 43,560 Where S = average natural slope, in percent. I = interval, in feet, of the contour lines. L = the sum, in feet, of the length of the contour lines, at selec ted contour interval "I". A = the total area, in acres, of the site. g. ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. 2. JADU Location and Size. a. A JADU shall be constructed entirely within an existing or proposed primary dwelling and shall not exceed 500 square -feet. b. JADUs shall have an independent exterior entrance from the primary dwelling, but may also include shared access between the two units. 3. Required Setbacks. a. An attached or detached ADU not exceeding 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet with more than one bedroom, and a height no greater than 16 feet shall provide a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines. ADUs exceeding the maximum square footage or height specified in this provision shall be subject to compliance with setbacks of the underlying zoning district. Page 272 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 7 b. Cornices and eaves may project into the required yards by no more than one foot. c. ADUs shall comply with the front yard setback and be located on the rear portion of a parcel whenever possible. d. When an ADU is created within an existing structure, the side and rear setbacks must be sufficient for fire safety as determined by the Fire Department. e. No setback shall be required for an existing garage or accessory structure converted, or portion thereof, to an ADU and no setback shall be required for a new structure constructed in the same location and same dimensions as an existing structure. f. An ADU constructed above an e xisting garage or dwelling unit, exceeding 16-feet in height, shall meet the side and rear setbacks of the underlying zoning district. g. Roof top decks shall be permitted subject to the provisions of Section 16.48.180. h. Staircases serving an ADU shall provide a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines subject to approval by the Fire Department. 4. Height and Maximum Lot Coverage. ADUs exceeding 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet with more than one bedroom, and/or a height of 16 feet shall comply with the height, floor-area ratio, and maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. 5. Parking. a. One additional off -street parking space shall be required per unit; with exceptions per subsection g, below. b. No parking space shall be required for an ADU or JADU established within an existing structure. c. Parking spaces shall be a minimum dimension of 9 foot by 18 foot except as specified below. d. Parking spaces may be located in any configuration o n the same lot as the ADU, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. e. Required off-street parking shall be permitted in front, side, and rear setback areas subject to the following: Page 273 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 8 i. Parking may be located on an existing driveway but shall not block sidewalk access or encroach into the public right-of-way. ii. Parking spaces within a side yard must have a minimum clear space width of 10-feet. Vehicles shall not block exterior windows or doors of a dwelling or access to utility boxes or meters. iii. Vehicles must be parked on an acceptable surface of concrete, asphalt, gravel, brick, permeable paver or other stable, dust -free surface. iv. No more than 50% of a front yard shall be dedicated to vehicle parking. v. No parking shall be allowed in front yard landscaping areas. vi. Access to on-site parking spaces shall be provided via an approved driveway location only. f. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure that provides the required spaces for the primary dwelling is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, no replacement parking shall be required. g. Parking Exemption: As required by Government Code Section 65852.2(d), parking space for an ADU shall not be required in any of the following instances: i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. iii. The ADU is part of the existing or proposed primary residence or an existing accessory structure. iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. v. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU. 6. Architectural Compatibility. Page 274 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 9 a. An ADU created through the conversion of an existing structure shall incorporate the same colors, materials, and architectural features as the primary residence. 7. Impact Fees & Utilities. a. An ADU under 750 square feet shall not be charged development impact fees. An ADU equal to or greater than 750 square feet may be charged development impact fees. These development impact fees shall be proportional to the square footage of the main dwelling and calculated using the ADU square footage. b. ADUs and JADUs shall comply with water and sewer requirements as determined by the Public Works Department. c. The City shall not require a new or separate utility connection or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge for ADUs or JADUs that are contained within an existing residence or accessory structure. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(f)(5) an ADU not built within the existing space of a single family house or accessory structure may be required to obtain a new or separate utility connection as determined by the Public Works Department and may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge based on its square footage or the number of its drainage fixtures unit values. E. Conditions. 1. An ADU/JADU shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence. 2. An ADU/JADU may serve as a rental unit or be occupied by family members, guests, or in-home health care providers, and others at no cost. 3. Neither the ADU/JADU nor the primary dwelling unit shall be rented for a term of less than 31 days. ADUs on multi-family properties shall be subject to this provision, except the restriction shall not apply to existing multi - family units 4. Owner-occupancy shall be required for a property developed with a JADU. The owner may reside in either the primary dwelling or the JADU. 5. The property owner shall record a covenant, approved as to form by the City Attorney, declaring compliance with each and every condition referenced in this section. Page 275 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 10 SECTION 3. Section 16.52.250 is hereby added in its entirety to Title 16, Chapter 52 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to read as follows: 16.52.250 – Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW) A. Purpose. Tiny Homes on Wheels shall be considered an additional type of Accessory Dwelling Unit, allowed as an accessory use to a single-family residential dwelling, consistent with Government Code, Section 65852.2, subdivision (g) which allows cities to adopt less restrictive requirements than the State-mandated minimums for Accessory Dwelling Units. A Tiny Home on Wheels that meets the definition in this Section may be built and occupied as a new detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the ministerial review and approval of an application if it complies with the standards of this Section. B. Definition. A Tiny Home on Wheels (THOW) is a structure intended for separate, independent living quarters for one household that meets all of the following conditions: 1. Is a detached self-contained unit, designed and built to look like a conventional building structure, and which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines such as cooking, sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities; and 2. Is licensed and registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and 3. Meets the American National Standards Instit ute (ANSI) 119.5 requirements or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192 standards, and is certified for ANSI or NFPA compliance. Certification must be made by a qualified third-party inspector; and 4. A pre-fabricated or manufactured THOW shall bear the California Insignia of Approval issued by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to demonstrate compliance with electrical, heat producing, plumbing, and fire and life safety systems and equipment; and 5. Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame-towing hitch, or fifth-wheel connection, cannot move under its own power and is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and 6. Has a minimum living area of 100 square feet and maximum of 400 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls. Tiny Homes on Wheels do not include an RV, camper, trailer, or manufactured Page 276 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 11 home as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code. C. Criteria. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary, a Tiny Home on Wheels (THOW) shall be allowed as a type of detached Accessory Dwelling Unit on a lot consisting of a single-family dwelling. A THOW shall cannot be attached to or located within a primary residence, or created through the conversion of an existing structure, as shall be subject to all of the following criteria: 1. Number. One THOW shall be allowed in all residential zones with an existing single-family dwelling. No THOW shall be allowed if there is a permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit. A THOW shall be removed prior to granting final occupancy for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2. Limitation on Use. A THOW shall not be utilized as a short -term rental of less than 30 days. 3. Location. A THOW shall be located behind the primary residence unless there is no feasible alternative with a minimum setback of four (4) feet from any interior side or rear property line, and ten (10) feet from a street side lot line. 4. Skirting. The THOW undercarriage (wheels, axles, tongue and hitch) shall be skirted and hidden from view. The THOW shall not have its wheels removed. 5. Parking and surface. The THOW shall be parked on a paved or alternate pad that includes bumper guards, curbs, or other installations adequate to prevent movement of the THOW. The wheels and leveling or support jacks must sit on a paving surface that meet either of the following criteria: a. A parking area for a moveable THOW shall be paved with hard, durable asphaltic paving that is at least two inches thick after compaction, or with cement paving at least three inches thick; or b. Alternative paving materials may consist of porous asphalt, porous concrete, permeable interlocking concrete pavers, permeable pavers, decomposed granite, crushed rock or gravel, plastic or concrete gr id system confined on all sides and filled with gravel or grass in the voids, or other similar materials that meet the following requirements: i. Permeable interlocking concrete pavers and permeable pavers shall have a minimum thickness of 80 mm (3.14 inches); and Page 277 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 12 ii. Products and underlying drainage material shall be installed to meet manufacturers’ specifications. Sub-grade soils shall be compacted as required to meet the product installation specifications; iii. No additional parking shall be required for the THO W, and displaced parking resulting from the placement of THOW is not required to be replaced. 6. Utilities. The THOW shall be connected to electric, water, and sewer utilities. 7. Design. The THOW shall resemble the general appearance of a traditional home and incorporate all of the following design elements: a. Cladding and trim: Materials used on the exterior of THOW shall exclude single piece composite laminates, or interlocked metal sheathing; b. Windows and doors: Windows shall be at least double pane glass, and include exterior trim. Windows and doors shall not have rounded corners; c. Roofing: Roofs shall have a minimum of a 1:12 pitch for greater than 50 percent of the roof area. Exceptions to this provision may be made for designs that incorporate openings to provide light and air flow for the occupants. d. Mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the structure and not be located on the roof. e. Decks: Attached patios, decks, landings, or similar architectural features, whether covered or uncovered, shall be open on at least two sides and are limited to 100 percent of the floor area of the THOW . 8. Height. A THOW shall not exceed one story. SECTION 4. This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance State CEQA Guidelines, Article 18: Statutory Exemptions, Section 15282(h).This section of CEQA provides a statutory exemption for “the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units [accessory dwelling units] in a single -family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.” The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption from CEQA review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Page 278 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 13 SECTION 5. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the 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 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thir ty (30) days after its passage. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereb y declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid o r unconstitutional. On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of _______, 202 2. Page 279 of 350 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 14 ___________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ________________________________ WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 280 of 350 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BRIAN PEDROTTI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW, RECEIVE COMMENT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (AGMC) REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND TINY HOMES ON WHEELS; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001; LOCATION –CITYWIDE; D ATE: AUGUST 3, 2021 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The purpose of this hearing is to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to review amendments and provide direction for updates to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance, including tiny homes on wheels (THOW). IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Review and feedback on the ordinance update will not impact financial or personnel resources. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments, take public comment, and direct staff to return to the Commission for a recommendation hearing. BACKGROUND: The state legislature has identified production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important strategy to increase housing statewide. In 2017, the state made significant changes to the manner by which local governments can regulate ADUs, primarily with respect to parking, types and sizes of ADUs, approval process and timelines, and utility fees. In response, the City adopted Ordinance 688 in October 2017, bringing local regulations consistent with 2017 state law at that time. W hile state legislators acknowledged that the ADU permitting process was significantly streamlined as a result of the 2017 legislation, some were concerned that local jurisdictions’ regulations, such as unit size maximums and impact fees, continued to ATTACHMENT 2 Page 281 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 2 impede property owners from constructing ADUs. As a result, in October 2019, Governor Newsom signed new state housing bills that further amended Government Code §65852.2 and §65852.22 related to regulations for development of ADUs. Therefore, Title 16 must be amended again for consistency with state law. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: State Legislation The passage of Assembly Bills 68, 881, 587,670, and 671, and Senate Bill 13 impacted the City’s regulatory authority over the construction of ADUs. A total of six amendments to state law for ADUs were included in the 2019 legislation and made effective on January 1, 2020. Table 1 summarizes each of the six (6) and how each is implemented. Table 1: 2019 State Law Amendments Affecting ADU Development Bill Code Section Summary Status AB 881 AB 68 SB 13 Government Code §65852.2 Accessory Dwelling Units & §65852.22 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units • Allows ADUs up to 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet on any residential or mixed-use lot • Prohibits owner-occupancy requirement. • Requires ministerial approval within 60 days of application. • Prohibits impact fees on ADUs under 750 square feet. • Prohibits minimum lot size requirements for ADU • Reduces parking requirements • Allows one ADU plus one junior ADU Amendments proposed to Title 16 to comply AB 587 New Government Code §65852.22 Option for local agencies to adopt by ordinance a provision that allows an ADU to be sold or conveyed separate from the primary residence if the property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation Not proposed in the draft ordinance. AB 670 Civil Code §4751 Removes covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in a planned development that either effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the construction or use of an ADU or JADU. Not required to be incorporated in the AGMC AB 671 Government Code §65583(c)(7) Amends housing element law and requires the City to incentivize and promote ADUs that can be offered at an affordable rent. Addressed in Housing Element update Programs A.2-1 & A.2-2 Page 282 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 3 The proposed draft ordinance amends existing the development standards for ADUs, including allowed locations, setbacks, size limitations, parking, and owner occupancy (Attachment 1). Development Standards Several existing property development standards are required to be amended in response to the changes to state legislation. The existing ordinance prohibits ADU development on mixed-use zoned parcels and requires a minimum lot size requirement of 6,750 square feet. Amendments to state law allow ADUs on any parcel that allows a residential use, including mixed-use zones, regardless of lot size. An ADU may be established within an existing or proposed primary dwelling, conversion of an existing accessory structure, reconstruction of an existing structure proposed to be converted to an ADU, or construction of a new detached structure. Perhaps the most significant change mandated by state law allows a parcel developed with a primary dwelling unit and an ADU to also establish a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) within the space of an existing primary dwelling unit, for a total of three (3) units on a single property. A JADU, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, is a dwelling unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, and may include separate sanitation facilities or share sanitation facilities with the existing dwelling. Size Limits & Setbacks State legislation includes a “By-Right Provision” which allows an attached or detached ADU with a maximum size of 850 square-feet for studio or one-bedroom units, or 1,000 square-foot for a unit with more than one bedroom, in any circumstance. ADUs permitted through this provision are subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and compliance with all building codes. No minimum lot size or lot coverage requirement shall apply to units permitted by this provision. The standards proposed in the amended ordinance would limit the maximum size of attached ADUs to 1,200 square feet, or fifty percent (50%) of the total living area of the existing or proposed living area of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. This is a change from the existing regulations, which restrict the maximum size of both attached and detached ADUs to the lesser of: • The maximum unit size allowed in the zone in which the ADU is proposed, which ranged from 850 square feet the Single Family and Village Residential zones, to 1,200 square feet in all others, or • Fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit. ADUs proposed to exceed the sizes permitted by the By-Right Provision would remain subject to the setbacks, height limit, lot coverage and floor-area limitations of the zoning district in which they are located. Page 283 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 4 Parking The existing ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom in the ADU, with a maximum of two parking spaces per unit. Amendments to state legislation establish a maximum of one parking space per ADU. Parking spaces for ADUs do not need to be covered and may be located in the driveway or setbacks, a provision that remains the same as the existing ordinance. The proposed ordinance establishes areas in the front yard where parking is prohibited and clarifies that ADU parking spaces must be on fully paved surfaces, consistent with AGMC Section 16.56.070. The five (5) existing parking exemptions in the Municipal Code remain applicable, and the following two exemptions are newly added by state law: 1. Parking spaces are not required when an ADU is created within an existing or proposed structure. 2. Parking spaces for a primary dwelling are not required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or other covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. The proposed ordinance retains a parking requirement for ADUs when applicable. However, given the ADU parking space exemptions in the state law, particularly the exemption for ADUs within a half mile of a bus stop, a significant portion of parcels within the City will not be required to provide parking spaces for ADUs. The existing ordinance also requires parking spaces in a garage or carport to be replaced when converted to an ADU, but that is no longer required under state law. As a result, a property that chooses to convert their garage to an ADU is not required to provide parking for either the primary dwelling unit or ADU. Owner Occupancy, Rental, and Sales Owner occupancy is not required for ADUs whose permits were issued after January 1, 2020 and on or before January 1, 2025. ADUs constructed during this time period may be rented separately from the primary dwelling unit, but may not be sold separately. State law allows local ordinance to require owner occupancy for properties developed with a JADU, and the proposed ordinance includes that requirement. The owner may reside in either the primary unit or JADU to satisfy this requirement. Neither ADUs nor JADUs permitted under the amended Code will be eligible to be permitted for use as a short term rental. For purposes of compliance with this standard, a short term rental is defined as any rental of less than 31 days. Properties developed with ADUs at the time of the revisions discussed herein will remain eligible for use as short term rentals. Tiny Homes on Wheels City Council authorized staff to develop an ordinance to allow Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW) on all residentially zoned parcels in the City to address housing supply shortages and affordability (Attachment 2). THOW will be an alternative to permanent ADU structures and have been identified as a means to increase housing supply, choices, and affordability. Page 284 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 5 A THOW is considered a type of ADU, and more narrowly defined as a structure intended for separate, independent living quarters for one household that meets the following conditions: 1) Is a detached self-contained unit, designed and built to look like a conventional building structure, and which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines such as cooking, sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities; and 2) Is licensed and registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and 3) Meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 119.5 requirements or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192 standards, and is certified for ANSI or NFPA compliance. Certification must be made by a qualified third- party inspector; and 4) Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame-towing hitch, or fifth-wheel connection, cannot move under its own power and is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and 5) Has a minimum of 100 square feet and maximum of 400 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls A recreational vehicle, camper, trailer, or manufactured home, as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code would not be viable as a THOW. Allowed Locations THOW are proposed to be allowed on any residential lot with an existing single family dwelling. Both a THOW and ADU would not be allowed on a single lot, as currently proposed. The proposed Ordinance would require the THOW to be located on the rear portion of a lot, and setback at least four feet (4’) from an interior or rear property line and ten feet (10’) from a street side property line. Additionally, the proposed ordinance requires a THOW to be parked on a surface paved with concrete, asphalt, or an equivalent paving material. Design Standards A THOW would be subject to design criteria to maintain the scale and character of the existing residential development. For example, the undercarriage of the THOW shall be hidden from view by the installation of a skirt around its perimeter. The ordinance would also limit the height of the structure to one-story, require that mechanical equipment is integrated into the structure, and prohibits any form of room area extensions, such as slide-outs. The THOW would be required to connect to electric, water, and sewer utilities. Other Considerations A THOW would not be eligible for use as a short term rental. Stakeholder and Community Outreach and Involvement The sixth cycle Housing Element prioritizes development of ADUs as a strategy to meet housing needs and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned to the City. Housing Element Program A-2.1 calls for an update of the ADU ordinance and publicize Page 285 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 6 the ADU program to increase public awareness. During the Housing Element Update, staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and City Council about the desire to update the ADU ordinance to encourage the creation of more ADUs. The SLO County ADU Task Force, a volunteer group promoting development of ADUs, has also identified obstacles in the planning and permitting process that this update hopes to resolve. For example, the ordinance will clarify requirements for maximum unit sizes, parking requirements, and utility connections. Additionally, after adopting the new ordinance, the City’s website will be updated to include information about ADU development. Next Steps The Planning Commission is being asked to review and comment on the draft ADU ordinance. Revisions to the draft ordinance, as directed by the Commission, will be incorporated by staff before returning for a recommendation to Council for adoption. Staff may also seek input from the SLO County ADU Task Force before returning to the Commission for a recommendation. ADVANTAGES: Amending the ADU ordinance will bring it into compliance with state law and allow for a streamlined review process. Incorporating provisions to allow THOW will provide an another option to increase housing production and housing options. DISADVANTAGES: None identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the project is statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Notifications about the discussion were also sent to members of the public that have expressed interest in the ordinance update. Attachment: 1. Draft Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance 2. Draft Tiny Home on Wheels Ordinance Page 286 of 350 Page 287 of 350 Page 288 of 350 Page 289 of 350 Page 290 of 350 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BRIAN PEDROTTI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (AGMC) REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND TINY HOMES ON WHEELS; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001; LOCATION – CITYWIDE D ATE: AUGUST 17, 2021 SUMMARY OF ACTION: A recommendation to City Council to adopt amendments to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance, including tiny homes on wheels (THOW), will allow for submittal to the State for final review and certification. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Adoption of a recommendation will not impact financial or personnel resources. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt amendments to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: The state legislature has identified production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important strategy to increase housing statewide. In 2017, the state made significant changes to the manner by which local governments can regulate ADUs, primarily with respect to parking, types and sizes of ADUs, approval process and timelines, and utility fees. In response, the City adopted Ordinance 688 in October 2017, bringing local regulations consistent with 2017 state law at that time. While state legislators acknowledged that the ADU permitting process was significantly streamlined as a result of the 2017 legislation, some were concerned that local jurisdictions’ regulations, such as unit size maximums and impact fees, continued to impede property owners from constructing ADUs. As a result, in October 2019, Governor Newsom signed new state housing bills that further amended Government Code §65852.2 and §65852.22 related to regulations for development of ADUs. Therefore, Title 16 must be amended again for consistency with state law. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 291 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 17, 2021 PAGE 2 Planning Commission Study Session On August 3, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the proposed amendments to the city’s ADU ordinance (Attachment 2). The Commission was supportive of the changes to the ordinance made to comply with state law, and the inclusion of provisions to permit tiny homes on wheels (THOW). The Commission provided the following comments to staff to consider when revising the draft ordinance: •Modify architectural compatibility standards to be more permissive for pre- fabricated units as ADUs •Clarify the phrase “no feasible alternative” with regards to lots that cannot accommodate an ADU in the backyard. •Consider design standards that allow for flexibility in designs that provide light and air for THOW. The draft ordinance for the Commission’s review includes changes to the architectural compatibility provisions for both ADUs and THOW, defines the phrase “no feasible alternative” and private entries, and includes additional design standards for THOW. The draft ordinance also includes revisions to the rental terms for ADUs based on a recent clarification from the City Attorney. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Revisions to the ADU Ordinance The draft ordinance presented to the Commission was inadvertently restrictive for permitting pre-fabricated or manufactured units as ADUs due to architectural compatibility standards. Those standards required ADUs to use the same colors and materials as the primary dwelling, which is not always feasible for pre-fabricated units. In response to the comments received from the Commission, staff clarified that the architectural compatibility standards requiring matching colors and materials is only required of ADUs either attached to the primary dwelling or created through the conversion of existing space. For example, if a garage were proposed to be converted to an ADU, the materials and colors used for the wall area replacing the removed garage door would be required to match the primary dwelling. Detached ADUs are encouraged to use similar materials and colors, but are not required to use the same materials as to not discourage the use of pre-fabricated units as ADUs. The previously reviewed draft ordinance included a provision that encouraged ADUs to be located in the backyard, and only allowed the construction of an ADU in the front yard where “no feasible alternative” exists. Staff removed the phrase “no feasible alternative” from this standard and revised it to encourage ADU construction behind the primary dwelling. Front yard setbacks requirements are still applicable to ADU development, however front setbacks may not preclude a statewide exemption ADU and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of ADUs. Page 292 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 17, 2021 PAGE 3 Short Term Rentals Staff proposed prohibiting short term rentals (term of less than 30 days) for all ADUs created after the adoption of ordinance updates. The City Attorney clarified that state legislation only prohibits short term rentals of units created under the by-right provisions. City leadership may choose to prohibit short term rentals of all ADUs, but the draft ordinance for the Commission’s consideration at this time only mirrors state legislation. For the benefit of the Commission, there are currently eighteen (18) permitted short term rentals that identify the ADU, either wholly or in part, as the rental space. Tiny Homes on Wheels In response to comments from the Commission and the public, staff has also revised the design standards for THOW. Language was added to Section 7 that states that THOW “shall resemble the appearance of a traditional home”. Provisions for the addition of decks, patios, landings, and other similar features to THOW were added to the ordinance. Staff proposes limiting the area of these features to twenty-five percent (25%) of floor area of the living area. Standards for minimum roof pitch were also modified to allow for designs that contain features that provide increased natural light and airflow for the comfort of the occupants and reduce the reliance on electricity for ventilation and lighting. The standard prohibiting slide-out extensions or pop outs was removed from the ordinance to be more permissive of a variety of designs. AD VANTAGES: Amending the City’s ADU ordinance will bring it into compliance with state law and allow for a streamlined review process. Incorporating provisions to allow THOW will provide an another option to increase housing production and housing options. DISADVANTAGES: None identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the project is statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on August 6, 2021. The meeting Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Notifications about the discussion were also sent to members of the public that have expressed interest in the ordinance update. Attachments: 1.Draft Resolution Page 293 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001 AUGUST 17, 2021 PAGE 4 2.Minutes from the August 3, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting 3.Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance 4.Draft Tiny Home on Wheels Ordinance Page 294 of 350 Page 295 of 350 Page 296 of 350 Page 297 of 350 Page 298 of 350 Item 9.c. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Andrew Perez, Acting Planning Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Conduct a public hearing to finalize funding recommendations for the City’s allocation of 2022 CDBG funds, which will assist the County of San Luis Obispo with its 2022 Action Plan process. The recommended City proposed project funding allocations (see Tab le 1 below for more detail) are: - Five Cities Homeless Coalition: Fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s allocation. Estimated to be $13,000 - Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project: $56,333 - City Planning and Capacity Building – ADA Transition Plan: $6,067 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The County has estimated that $86,666 in CDBG funds will be available to the City in the Fall of 2022. Overall, the amount of CDBG funding the City has received over the last sixteen (16) years has consistently decreased due to Federal budget cutbacks to the CDBG program. Similar to last year, the County will help administer the CDBG program for the City, which will reduce City staff time involved. County staff will be paid through the CDBG program funds allocated to the City. Per the Cooperation Agreement between the County and the City entered into on July 7, 2020 (Attachment 1), 65% of the total available administration funds, or $11,266, will be deducted by the County to meet its obligations under the terms of the agreement for administrative costs. The remaining 35% of the total available administration funds, or $6,067 is recommended to be allocated for City administration to support preparation of an ADA Transition Plan for the City. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving projects to be funded with the City’s allocation of CDBG funds for the Year 2022 as shown in Exhibit A to the Resolution. Page 299 of 350 Item 9.c. City Council Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 February 8, 2022 Page 2 Table 1: Final Recommended 2022 CDBG Funding Allocations Project and Category 2021 Allocation 2022 Requested Proposed 2022 Allocation Public Services (15% Cap - $13,000) Five Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) $0 $13,000 $13,000 Subtotal $0 $13,000 $13,000 Public Facilities (No Cap) City of Arroyo Grande – Phase IV Soto Sports Complex Barrier Removal Project at Ikeda Field $31,981 $0 $0 City of Arroyo Grande – City Hall Front Entrance Barrier Removal Project $40,000 $0 $0 Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project $56,333 Subtotal $71,981 $ $56,333 Economic Development (No Cap) Subtotal $0 $0 $0 Area Benefit (30% Cap - $26,000) Subtotal $0 $0 $0 Housing Rehabilitation (No Cap) $0 $0 $0 Administration/Planning and Capacity Building (20% Cap - $17,333) City Planning and Capacity Building – ADA Transition Plan $6,298 $6,067 $6,067 County Administration $11,697 $11,266 $11,266 Subtotal $17,995 $17,333 $17,333 Total $89,976 $86,666 BACKGROUND: City Council approved a Cooperation Agreement with the County in July 2020 for the joint participation in the CDBG Program for fiscal years 2021 through 2023. The City, as a participant in the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designated Urban County program, receives an annual formula-based allocation of CDBG funds. These funds are Page 300 of 350 Item 9.c. City Council Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 February 8, 2022 Page 3 available for a variety of Community Development activities as long as the activities meet at least one of three national objectives. The objectives are: 1. Benefit low- and moderate-income persons; 2. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or 3. Address urgent community development needs that pose a serious or immediate threat to public health or welfare. The County released a Notice of Funding Availability on September 27, 2021, and notified the public that the County and participating cities would accept applications for funding until November 1, 2021. The 5 Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) submitted the only application for funding from the City’s allocation of CDBG funds. That request is described in greater detail below. On December 14, 2021, Council considered preliminary funding recommendations for the 2022 projects. Council supported the recommendation to fully fund the request from 5CHC from the public services category. Funding for public service projects is capped at fifteen percent (15%) of the total allocation, which for this project year is estimated to be $13,000. The funding is proposed to support 5CHC’s services that directly assist homeless individuals in the Arroyo Grande community. Council also preliminarily approved staff’s other funding recommendations. Staff proposed that Public Facility funding be used to address sidewalk infrastructure deficiencies near Harloe Elementary, and that Planning and Capacity Building funds be used for the development of an ADA Transition Plan. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The following criteria set forth by the County are used to make CDBG funding recommendations: 1. Consistency with Federal regulations and laws; 2. Community support (for example, approval of the project by a City Council); 3. Seriousness of community development need proposed to be addressed by project; 4. Degree to which project benefits low-income and very low-income families or persons; 5. Feasibility of the project to be completed as budgeted and by December 31, 2022; 6. Cost effectiveness of funds requested and leveraging of other funds; and 7. Organization's experience or knowledge regarding CDBG or HOME requirements. The Cooperation Agreement between the County and the City provides the City with discretion regarding allocation of funds. Unless the City’s recommendation to the County for funding is clearly in conflict with CDBG regulations, the County will approve the recommendation. The County Board of Supervisors will make its final decision for funding priority in the spring of 2022. Page 301 of 350 Item 9.c. City Council Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 February 8, 2022 Page 4 Public Services The competitiveness for public service funds, which is capped at 15% of the City’s CDBG allocation, has historically been strong with requests far exceeding available funds. As discussed in recent years regarding CDBG allocations, HUD has significantly increased its monitoring efforts of jurisdictions participating in the CDBG program, which means that local jurisdictions must increase their monitoring efforts of recipients as well. As stated in the Cooperative Agreement, only activities that can either individually or cumulatively receive more than $8,000 in CDBG funding will be considered due to the staff cost of processing such awards in compliance with federal requirements. Because public service organizations are more aware of the stricter CDBG regulations, because of the funding opportunity provided to non-profit organizations serving the Arroyo Grande community through the City’s Community Service Grant Program (CSGP), and because the City Council had previously directed staff to apply CDBG funds toward Public Facility projects, the City has received very few applications over the past several years for CDBG funding. The lone application submitted by a public service organization for this funding cycle came from 5CHC. 5CHC’s application seeks funding to bolster its Shelter and Outreach Services and its Housing Program. Together, these programs provide financial assistance to low income households and individuals facing homelessness. Financial assistance includes rental assistance, deposit assistance, and case management. The total amount of CDBG funds requested by 5CHC from local agencies is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Agency Amount Requested City of Arroyo Grande $13,000 City of Atascadero $2,100 City of Morro Bay $900 City of Paso Robles $3,500 City of Pismo Beach $5,245 City of San Luis Obispo $7,500 County of San Luis Obispo $57,655 Total: $89,900 During the City Council’s consideration of the City’s 2021 CDBG allocations, Council directed staff to prioritize the City’s available public service allocation of CDBG funding for homeless services in future years. Consistent with this direction, staff is recommending approval of 5CHC’s request for $13,000 to support its services for individuals facing homelessness. CDBG allocations are only estimates at this time, so in the event that the City’s total funding amount increases, the amount of funding directed to 5CHC’s request would also increase. Page 302 of 350 Item 9.c. City Council Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 February 8, 2022 Page 5 Public Facilities One of the City’s highest priorities is addressing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility deficiencies. During the last several years (with the exception of Year 2018), Council has allocated the majority of CDBG funds to help pay for disabled access barrier removal projects throughout the City. These projects include Hoosegow Park ADA improvements, mid-block crosswalk ADA improvements, the Arroyo Grande Woman’s Club building barrier removal project, and various barrier removal projects at the Soto Sports Complex. Last year, Council approved $71,981 in CDBG funds to be used for barrier removal projects under the Public Facilities category. Funding from 2019, 2020, and 2021 was allocated to Phase IV of the Soto Sports Complex Barrier Removal Project at Ikeda Field, which was completed this year. $40,000 from last year’s funding was also allocated to be used for barrier removal at the front entrance of City Hall. Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project Staff proposes $56,333 of the 2022 CDBG funds be allocated to improving curb ramp and sidewalk improvement infrastructure to aid in the accessibility for residents with disabilities. There are hundreds of locations throughout the City in need of ADA compliant curb ramps. Public Works and Engineering staff identified locations near Harloe Elementary as priorities for curb ramp replacement and sidewalk infill. Specifically, the northeast and southeast curb ramps at the intersection of Alder Street and Farroll Avenue would be replaced with ADA compliant curb returns. Additionally, the project proposes to replace the northeast and southeast curb ramps at the intersection of Alder Street and Sandalwood Avenue. The final piece of the project is approximately forty lineal feet of sidewalk infill that would begin at the new curb ramp at the southeast corner of Alder Street and Sandalwood Avenue and terminate into the first existing driveway approach to the south on Alder Street. Upon completion of the work described, the route to Harloe Elementary via Alder Street, south from Ash Street and north from Cameron Court will have ADA compliant curb ramps at each corner. Housing Rehabilitation The City did not receive any requests for housing rehabilitation projects. Economic Development The City did not receive any requests for economic development projects. Area Benefit The City did not receive any funding requests for this category. Administration/Planning and Capacity Building Planning and capacity building funds are limited to a 20% cap. Pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement between the County and the City, 65% of the 20% of available Page 303 of 350 Item 9.c. City Council Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 February 8, 2022 Page 6 funds for planning and capacity building/administration, or $11,266, will be deducted by the County to meet its obligations under the terms of the agreement for administrative costs. The remaining 35% of the total available 2022 funds, or $6,067 is recommended to be allocated for planning and capacity building for development of an ADA Transition Plan. Under Title II of the ADA, the City is required to have a current Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan. In order to complete this plan, the City will need a comprehensive inspection and evaluation identifying potential barriers in all City owned facil ities (including buildings, parks, parking lots, public rights-of-way, and bike paths). Once the inspections and evaluation are completed, a final report will be prepared identifying priority projects. Staff has coordinated with CJPIA and their sub-consultants, Disability Access Consultants (DAC), to obtain a project proposal, scope of work, and estimated budget. The total estimated cost to the City for this project is $88,225. Funding from the 2021 CDBG program provided $6,298 towards this project. The combined funding from both the 2021 and 2022 CDBG program years, $6,298 and $6,067 respectively, would decrease the total cost of an ADA Transition Plan to $75,860. Additionally, staff has identified a financing program for ADA projects through CJPIA that may be of assistance in this project. ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM (AGCSGP) In response to CDBG funding limitations and restrictions, the City established the Arroyo Grande Community Service Grant Program in 2014, separate and apart from the CDBG program. This program typically provides $20,000 to eligible non-profit organizations that offer specialized social service, educational, cultural, beautification and recreational programs and projects benefitting Arroyo Grande citizens. The budget for the AGCSGP for fiscal year 2021-22 is $82,065, with the additional funding coming from American Rescue Plan Act funding allocated to the City. Twenty-two (22) applications were submitted requesting a total of $169,178 for this year’s program . The grant review panel is anticipated to convene in the coming weeks and funding recommendations will be presented to Council for consideration shortly thereafter. For reference, the City has funded 5CHC in the past through the AGCSGP for support services and related activities as provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: Past AGCSGP Allocations to 5CHC Program Year 5CHC Amount Allocated 2015 $1,500 2016 $2,000 2017 $2,500 2018 $2,500 2019 NA Page 304 of 350 Item 9.c. City Council Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 February 8, 2022 Page 7 2020 $5,500 2021 $16,500 Total: $30,500 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Conduct a public hearing and adopt the Resolution approving final funding recommendations for the CDBG projects for the Year 2022, as proposed in Table 1 on page 2 of this staff report; 2. Conduct a public hearing, modify, and adopt the Resolution approving final funding recommendations for the CDBG programs for the Year 2022; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The recommended 2022 CDBG allocations fund important City priorities, align with Council’s direction to support homeless services, and are consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between the County and City. The City’s AGCSGP provides a n additional funding opportunity, separate from CDBG, for local public service progra ms that address unmet needs in the community. DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages identified at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was published in The Tribune on Friday, January 28, 2022. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Cooperation Agreement between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande for the joint participation in the CDBG program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023 3. 5CHC 2022 CDBG Application Page 305 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS FOR YEAR 2022 WHEREAS, via a Cooperative Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as “County”) executed by the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) on July 7, 2020, the City agreed to become a participant for a period of three years with the County and other cities therein as an “Urban County” under the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as “HUD”) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and WHEREAS, under the Cooperative Agreement, the City retains the authority to determine which projects are to be funded with its allotment of CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive $86,666 in CDBG funds in 2022; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2021 the County released a “Notice of Funding Availability” for projects to be funded by the 2022 CDBG programs, which provided that proposals, including proposals for the City’s allocation of 2022 funds, were to be submitted by November 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the County held The 2022 Action Plan Needs Workshop to identify needs that can be addressed by CDBG funding programs; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and preliminarily approved funding recommendations for CDBG projects for the Program Year 2022; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to further consider the City’s 2022 CDBG projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Luis Obispo adopt the 2022 Action Plan, including the programs listed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to be funded with the City’s allocation of 2022 CDBG funds. On motion of Council Member ______________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of February, 2022. Page 306 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _____________________________________ WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 307 of 350 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 EXHIBIT “A” ALLOCATION OF PROGRAM YEAR 2022 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS Project and Category 2021 Allocation 2022 Requested Proposed 2022 Allocation Public Services (15% Cap - $13,000) Five Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) $0 $13,000 $13,000 Subtotal $0 $13,000 $13,000 Public Facilities (No Cap) City of Arroyo Grande – Phase IV Soto Sports Complex Barrier Removal Project at Ikeda Field $31,981 $0 $0 City of Arroyo Grande – City Hall Front Entrance Barrier Removal Project $40,000 $0 $0 Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project $56,333 Subtotal $71,981 $ $56,333 Economic Development (No Cap) Subtotal $0 $0 $0 Area Benefit (30% Cap - $26,000) Subtotal $0 $0 $0 Housing Rehabilitation (No Cap) $0 $0 $0 Administration/Planning and Capacity Building (20% Cap - $17,333) City Planning and Capacity Building – ADA Transition Plan $6,298 $6,067 $6,067 County Administration $11,697 $11,266 $11,266 Subtotal $17,995 $17,333 $17,333 Total $89,976 $86,666 Page 308 of 350 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 309 of 350 Page 310 of 350 Page 311 of 350 Page 312 of 350 Page 313 of 350 Page 314 of 350 Page 315 of 350 Page 316 of 350 Page 317 of 350 Page 318 of 350 Page 319 of 350 Page 320 of 350 10th September Page 321 of 350 Page 322 of 350 Page 323 of 350 Powered by ZoomGrants™ Email This Preview Save as PDF Print Close Window A▲▼ County of San Luis Obispo 2022 Public Services and Economic Development (CDBG, ESG, HOME, General Fund, PLHA) Deadline: 11/1/2021 5CITIES HOMELESS COALITION 22-23 Homeless Services: Shelter, Outreach, RRH and HP Services, Jump to: Eligibility Application Questions Budget Tables Documents $ 229,000.00 Requested Submitted: 11/1/2021 3:07:44 PM (Pacific) Project Contact Janna Nichols janna.nichols@5chc.org Tel: 805-574-1638 Additional Contacts none entered 5CITIES HOMELESS COALITION P.O. Box 558 GROVER BEACH, CA 93483 United States Executive Director Janna Nichols janna.nichols@5chc.org Telephone805-574-1638 Fax 805-668-2380 Web 5chc.org Eligibility top 1. Please identify all funding sources being requested: This question will be used to branch only those questions related to the funding sources requested in this application, so don't worry if your application has skipped question numbers. National Objectives 2. CDBG ONLY - Please select the national objective that best applies to the proposed project Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library for more Some answers will not be presented because they are not part of the selected group of questions based on the answer to #1. gfedc CDBG only gfedc ESG only gfedc ESG-CV only gfedc HOME only gfedc General Funds only gfedc PLHA only ✔✔✔✔Select this for any combination of grant funding requests(CDBG, ESG/ESG-CV, HOME, PLHA, and General Funds) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 324 of 350 information regarding CDBG national objectives. 3. CDBG ONLY - IF LOW/MODERATE INCOME WAS SELECTED: Select which criteria the proposed project intends to qualify under to meet the Low/Moderate Income objective Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library for more information regarding the Low/Moderate Income national objective. 4. CDBG ONLY - IF SLUM OR BLIGHT WAS SELECTED: Select which criteria the proposed project intends to qualify under to meet the Slums or Blight objective Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library tab for information regarding the Slums or Blight national objective. 5. CDBG ONLY - Please explain how the proposed project meets the selected National Objective. Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library tab. 5CHC's Shelter and Outreach Services will be provided to benefit a clientele who are generally presumed by HUD to be principally L/M income persons - those who are homeless. This population is among those who are currently presumed by HUD to be made up principally of L/M income persons: Reference: §570.208(a)(2)(i)(A). 5CHC's Housing Program targets financial assistance and services to individuals and families based on income and anticipated need, following a coordinated entry assessment and progressive engagement model. Those who receive emergency grants for subsistence payments (rental assistance, 05Q) or for deposit assistance (05T Assistance will be provided to benefit a clientele who are generally presumed by HUD to be principally L/M income persons - those who are homeless. This population is among those who are currently presumed by HUD to be made up principally of L/M income persons: Reference: §570.208(a)(2)(i)(A). Additionally, as some assistance will be provided to those of imminent threat of homelessness, 5CHC's program additionally requires information on family size and income so that it is evident that at least 51% of the clientele are persons whose family income does not exceed the L/M income limit. Reference: §570.208(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) 6. ESG/ESG-CV ONLY - Please select all objectives applicable to the proposed project, as established in “Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness” or the CARE Act. 7. ESG/ESG-CV ONLY - Please explain how the proposed project supports the selected objective(s). The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness focuses on collaboration and strategic action; education and service improvements; utilization of affordable housing; targeting the needs of families and children; recognizing that health is a determinant of housing stability; and the role of other supportive services. Collaboration/Strategic Action: 5CHC Homeless Services program is integrated in the local Continuum of Care, focusing on collaboration and strategic action. 5CHC is a key participant in the Coordinated Entry System receiving referrals community partners throughout the compendium of services. Additionally, 5CHC staff participate in HSOC at all levels, with the Executive Director currently serving as chair of Data and Finance; a member of the Executive Committee; and on the ad-hoc Ten-Year Plan update. ✔✔✔✔ Low/Moderate Income gfedc Slums or Blight gfedc Urgent Need gfedc Area Benefit ✔✔✔✔ Clientele gfedc Housing gfedc Jobs gfedc N/A - Low/Moderate Income NOT selected gfedc Area Basis gfedc Spot Basis gfedc N/A - Slums or Blight NOT selected gfedc Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness in five years ✔✔✔✔ Prevent and end homelessness among veterans in five years ✔✔✔✔ Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and children in ten years ✔✔✔✔ Set a path to ending all types of homelessness ✔✔✔✔ Prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 outbreak among individuals and families who are homeless or receiving homeless assistance ✔✔✔✔ Support additional homeless assistance and homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 Page 325 of 350 Service Improvements: 5CHC staff participate in HSOC’s Services Coordinating Committee, which is focused on improving the integration of services and regularly participate in evidence-based trainings (Mental Health First Aid, etc.) 5CHC also has a program of providing staff trainings monthly with other service professionals and partner agencies. Access and Utilization of Affordable Housing: 5CHC’s Housing Program couples short-term financial assistance with housing stabilization services which have been documented to be cost-effective in both preventing the occurrence of homelessness, and ensuring that homelessness is brief and a one-time occurrence. With our partnership with the SSVF program we are able to serve Veterans, including those who may not qualify for the SSVF program. We also maximize use of affordable housing and supports with People’s Self-Help Housing and HASLO. 5CHC has aggressively works with current and existing clients to complete applications and offer needed financial assistance. Families and Children: 5CHC provides housing services working with family programs such as SAFE, FIT, and the Family Resource Centers. 5CHC also has a program specifically targeted to Transitional Age Youth experiencing homelessness. Health and Supportive Services: Through our work with Dignity Health, 5CHC’s outreach case managers and benefits acquisition advocate work to connect clients to health resources, as well as provide assistance post-hospitalization. 5CHC’s coordinated entry and outreach staff are regularly offering support for services needed such as one-time financial assistance, family reunification, acquisition of public benefits, identification, health-care navigation and the role that other supportive services can play. 5CHC regularly offers vaccination options and provides needed ppe to those experiencing homelessness. Beneficiary Documentation 8. How will you document and maintain income status or presumed benefit status for CDBG? Please provide a sample of your Client Intake Form under the Documents Requested section below. Income verification for CDBG beneficiaries must be provided in accordance with 24 CFR Part 5; a link is provided in the Library. Attached are our current policies regarding income verification. A household’s income is any money that goes to, or on behalf of, the head of household or spouse (even if temporarily absent) or to any other household member. When calculating income for eligibility, annual income includes the current gross income of all adult household members and unearned income attributable to a minor (e.g., child support, TANF payments, SSI payment, and other benefits paid on behalf of a minor). Gross income is the amount of income earned before any deductions (such as taxes and health premiums) are made. Current Gross Income is the income that the household is currently receiving at the time of application for assistance. Income recently terminated should not be included. The attached calculation form is used to determine the applicant's income eligibility. 9. How will you collect demographic data on the beneficiaries of the proposed project (i.e. racial/ethnic characteristics)? (General Fund requests are exempt from this requirement) Please provide a sample of your Client Intake Form under the Documents Requested section below. To qualify for an award of Fenderal and State funds, the agency must collect race and ethnicity information from all clients. Utilizing the attached Enrollment Packet, including Coordinated Intake assessment, applicants are asked to self-disclose their demographic data, including race and ethnicity, age range and disability. This data is collected and entered into the County Homeless Management Information System. Eligible Activities 10. CDBG ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library tab for information regarding CDBG eligible activities. ✔✔✔✔ Public Services (General) ✔✔✔✔ Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS patients programs gfedc Senior Services gfedc Handicapped Services gfedc Legal Services gfedc Youth Services gfedc Transportation Services gfedc Substance Abuse Services gfedc Services for Battered and Abused Spouses gfedc Crime Awareness or Neighborhood Cleanups gfedc Fair Housing Activities gfedc Tenant/Landlord/Housing Counseling Page 326 of 350 11. ESG ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project 12. GENERAL FUND ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project General Funds activities are limited to those regarding emergency/homeless shelters and warming centers 13. ESG-CV ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project 14. HOME ONLY - The only activity under the public service application for HOME is Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) 15. PLHA ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project Eligible activities must assist persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness and can include, but are not limited providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services, and opperating costs. -no answer- gfedc Child Care Services gfedc Health Services gfedc Services for Abused and Neglected Children gfedc Mental Health Services ✔✔✔✔ Subsistence Payments, Homeless Assistance, Rental Housing Subsidies or Security Deposits gfedc Job training and job placement services gfedc Assistance to microenterprises (technical assistance, business support services, and other similar services to owners of microenterprises or persons developing microenterprises) ✔✔✔✔ Emergency Shelter ✔✔✔✔ Street Outreach ✔✔✔✔ Rapid Re-Housing ✔✔✔✔ Homelessness Prevention ✔✔✔✔ HMIS ✔✔✔✔ Operations (e.g. maintenance, repair, utilities) ✔✔✔✔ Services (e.g. case management, child care, education services, employment assistance, outpatient health services, legal services, life skills training, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment) gfedc Administration ✔✔✔✔ HMIS gfedc Emergency Shelter gfedc Street Outreach gfedc Rapid Re-Housing gfedc Homelessness Prevention gfedc HMIS gfedc TBRA Documents Requested *Required?Attached Documents * Client Intake Form(s) for Limited Clientele (if applicable) 5chc Housing Packet 5CHC Intake 5chc Housing Packet Spanish 5chc Privacy Notice 5CHC ESG Policies and Procedures Map for Area Benefit (if applicable) CDBG Requirements and Acknowledgements (Please download the template below and upload an initialed document here) download template Subrecipient Acknowledgement General Liability Insurance 5CHC General Liability Umbrella Policy Application Questions top Page 327 of 350 1. Please identify the funding sources being requested: This question will be used to branch only those questions related to the funding sources requested in this application - so don't worry if your application has skipped question numbers. Project Summary 2. Project Address(es): If the proposed project has multiple addresses, please upload a map of the specific locations under the Documents tab 100 S. 4th Street, Grover Beach - Housing Navigation Center, Outreach Services, Admin. 800 W. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande - Warming Center 216 S. 16th Street, Grover Beach - Non-Congregate Shelter P.O. Box 558, Grover Beach, CA 93483 - Mailing Services are provided county-wide (with the exception of Grover Beach for purposes of this CDBG/ESG application). As the City of Grover Beach is not a participating jurisdiction of the Urban County of San Luis Obispo, CDBG regulations do not allow the expenditure of CDBG funds to benefit residents of, nor expend these funds within, the City of Grover Beach. Therefore, the 5CHC shall not use CDBG or ESG funds to benefit clients from the City of Grover Beach nor use CDBG funds for subsistence payments within the City of Grover Beach. 3. Jurisdiction(s)/Area(s) Served: Select all that apply 4. Brief Project Description: You will have the chance to expand on your project description further in the application. Please upload any maps, photos, drawings or plans under the Documents tab 5CHC proposes both continued and expanded comprehensive homeless services including coordinated entry, street outreach, emergency shelter, and housing navigation services. With a focus on helping clients to secure and maintain stable housing, 5CHC will conduct outreach, sheltering, coordinated assessment, and case management to provide rapid re-housing and homeless prevention services to residents of San Luis Obispo County, utilizing Housing First principles of providing housing support coupled with supportive services. With the support and guidance of case management, those who are experiencing homelessness will be supported with their immediate needs (including food and shelter) while also receive coaching, financial literacy, advice on credit repair, and life and job skill guidance coupled with short-term financial assistance for move-in expenses or homeless prevention rental assistance. 5. Please answer the following: Please write N/A for any questions that are not applicable. Some answers will not be presented because they are not part of the selected group of questions based on the answer to #1. gfedc CDBG only gfedc ESG only gfedc HOME only gfedc General Funds only gfedc PLHA only ✔✔✔✔ Select this for any combination of grant funding requests (CDBG, ESG, HOME, General Funds, PLHA) ✔✔✔✔ Arroyo Grande ✔✔✔✔ Atascadero ✔✔✔✔ Morro Bay ✔✔✔✔ Paso Robles ✔✔✔✔ Pismo Beach ✔✔✔✔ City of San Luis Obispo ✔✔✔✔ County of San Luis Obispo 89000 CDBG funding requested 65000 ESG funding requested HOME funding requested 75000 General Funds requested Page 328 of 350 6. Type of agency: Agency Details, Capacity, and Experience 7. Is the organization faith-based? 8. Please answer the following: If this is your first time applying to the County for funds, please upload your organizations’ incorporation documents in the Documents tab. 9. Agency Mission Statement: 5CHC’s Guiding Principles I. Housing First For 5Cities Homeless Coalition “Housing First” means that we seek to provide housing as a means to recovery, rather than a reward. Our overarching goal is to connect homeless people to permanent housing as quickly as possible. Meeting the client “where they’re at,” our work is focused on the development of a case plan that is oriented toward their success in obtaining or maintaining housing, which is predicated by consumer choice and self-determination. Our services support the client in identifying the barriers to stable housing that they are experiencing, and assisting them with services to address these fundamental challenges. Through this Housing First lens, we progressively engage clients through engagement, assessment, diversion, and addressing immediate needs (such as food and sheltering) as we work with the client with housing stabilization planning, including financial management. 5Cities Homeless Coalition offers services as needed and requested on a voluntary basis and does not make housing contingent on participation in services. Within the Housing First framework, our approach with clients is based on the following principles: Trauma Informed; Housing Focused; Recovery Oriented; Person Centered; and Strengths Based. II. Personal and Professional Integrity All staff, board members, and volunteers of 5CHC and its partners act with honesty, integrity, and openness in all their dealings as representatives of the organization. The organization promotes a working environment that values Respect, Integrity, Teamwork, and Excellence through its RITE Values. III. Mission 5Cities Homeless Coalition strengthens our community by mobilizing resources, fostering hope, and advocating for those who are homeless and facing homelessness. Through collaboration and leadership, the Coalition is building an engaged community that fully understands the complexities of homelessness and actively shares the responsibility of creating and implementing solutions to eliminate it. IV. Governance PLHA funding requested '' 229,000.00229,000.00 SUBTOTAL 7/1/2022 Anticipated start date 6/30/2022 Anticipated end date 229,000.00229,000.00 TOTAL ✔✔✔✔ 501(c)(3) gfedc For Profit gfedc Gov't/Public gfedc Other: gfedc Yes ✔✔✔✔ No 3/3/2009 Date of incorporation 1,300,000 Annual operating budget 16 Number of paid staff 75 Number of volunteers 1,300,091.001,300,091.00 TOTAL Page 329 of 350 5CHC has an active governing body, representative of our community, responsible for setting the mission and strategic direction; and oversight of the finances, operations, and policies of 5CHC. VIII. Program Evaluation 5CHC regularly reviews program effectiveness and has mechanisms to incorporate lessons learned into future programs.The organization is committed to improving program and organizational effectiveness and develops mechanisms to promote learning from its activities and the field.5CHC is responsive to changes in its field of activity and is responsive to the needs of its constituencies. IX. Inclusiveness and Diversity5CHC has a policy of promoting inclusiveness and its staff, board, and volunteers reflect diversity in order to enrich its programmatic effectiveness. 5CHC takes meaningful steps to promote inclusiveness in its hiring, retention, promotion, board recruitment, and constit 10. Please describe the services your organization is CURRENTLY providing (regardless of funding source). 5Cities Homeless Coalition provides wrap-around services including case management and direct financial assistance - with a special emphasis on our housing support program. 5CHC's housing support program serves clients throughout San Luis Obispo County who are either homeless or facing homelessness. These programs include Street Outreach; Emergency Shelter; Coordinated Entry; Immediate Needs Assistance; Housing Navigation and Stabilization (including the enrollment support for the California Covid Rental Relief Program); Transition Age Youth Targeted Services; Financial Literacy Training; Benefits Acquisition; HMIS data management; Special Projects (Census; Point In Time Count, etc.) and referral services to other appropriate community resources. 5CHC’s Programs align with 25 CCR § 8409 Core Practices and are targeted to individuals and families who “without” these programs will become or will remain homeless. These programs target area residents with the most urgent and severe needs including Families with Children; Chronically Homeless; Veterans; Unaccompanied Youth; Victims of Domestic Violence. Following local coordinated entry protocols, we seek to identify and serve people who: • Are unsheltered and living in places not designed for human habitation; • Have experienced the longest amount of time homeless; • Have multiple and severe service needs that inhibit their ability to secure housing on their own; and • Through homelessness prevention activities, are at greatest risk of becoming literally homeless without an intervention and are at greatest risk of experiencing a longer time in shelter or on the street should they become homeless. With these activities we will work to ensure services are low-barrier and accessible; help participants identify and resolve barriers to housing; assist them to resolve their housing crisis before focusing on other non-housing related services; allow participants to choose the services and housing that meets their needs; connect participants to appropriate services and offer financial assistance initially at a minimum level and adding as needed through progressive engagement. In 2020, 5CHC fielded over 4,500 calls for assistance in 2020 and provided direct assistance to 310 households countywide, including 76 single parents, 30 seniors, 117 who are disabled, and 65 transition age youth. 5CHC helped 65 households obtain housing and an additional 51 households avoid homelessness. 5CHC also provided basic needs assistance to 737 (utilities, relocation costs, gasoline, bus passes, auto repairs, clothing, employment readiness, detox/sober living, emergency food, rental and application fees) and offered an emergency shelter on cold and rainy nights through the winter. 11. Please describe the services your organization PROPOSES to provide (regardless of funding source). 5Cities Homeless Coalition proposes to continue to provide these same wrap-around services , with the addition of a non- congregate emergency shelter that is currently being developed on the County's health services campus in Grover Beach. 5CHC's will continue services for Street Outreach; Emergency Shelter (warming center and non-congregate emergency shelter); Coordinated Entry; Immediate Needs Assistance; Housing Navigation and Stabilization (including homeless prevention); Transition Age Youth Targeted Services; Financial Literacy Training; Benefits Acquisition; HMIS data management; and referral services to other appropriate community resources. Information & Referral / Coordinated Entry: Assistance begins with general information and referral to community services coupled with a comprehensive assessment of needs, identification of barriers and development of an immediate action plan. Access to computer, internet, phone, mailing address, food, clothing and hygiene supplies. Rapid Re-Housing and Homeless Prevention Program: Case management and financial assistance for deposit, rent and immediate needs for those who are homeless or facing homelessness. Services provided Countywide. Partnership with Good Samaritan includes Veteran Services. Immediate Needs: 5CHC assists homeless and low-income families and individuals in South County with limited funds to address their immediate needs, and move them to self–sufficiency. Examples of assistance are utilities, gasoline, bus voucher, auto Page 330 of 350 repairs, clothing, employment readiness, detox/sober living, basic needs, emergency food etc. Benefits Advocacy: 5CHC clients are offered additional guidance and advocacy for obtaining and retaining public benefits, including SSI, SSDI, Medicare, along with financial literacy and budgeting training. Outreach 5CHC Street Outreach team works with those living on the street and in camps throughout southern San Luis Obispo County to connect them to services and resources including food, transportation, public benefits, identification and family relocation. Additionally working to improve discharge planning with Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, and County Jail, the program serves those who are patients or inmates who are homeless by working to develop a post-release discharge plan. Homeless Youth: Outreach and case management targeting homeless youth age 16-24, providing support for immediate needs, education and job development, and housing assistance. 5CHC has master-leased several housing units, and is initiating a housing support Host Home program. It is anticipated that new housing units targeted to TAY will come online during this grant, in partnership with People's Self-Help Housing. Emergency Shelter: 5CHC will continue to offer an emergency winter warming center for drop in shelter needs and will provide a non-congregate shelter including intensive case management targeted at securing housing for those who are chronically home 12. How does the project complement and collaborate with existing efforts? Does your organization partner with other organizations? 5CHC engages with a broad spectrum of community partners to assist those needing assistance. In particular 5CHC, ECHO and CAPSLO have, as part of the coordinated entry system, worked to geographically distribute responsibilities in order to provide enhanced services without duplication. These agencies have been meeting regularly to coordinate outreach activities countywide, and have recently been joined by Salvation Army. T-MHA (in partnership with Pubic Health) has also begun working with our outreach teams as we begin planning for COVID-19 vaccinations in the field. 5CHC is currently working in partnership with the City of Grover Beach and Integrated Waste Management to provide trash bags and regular dumpster service at one key camp in order to minimize trash and improve hygiene. 5CHC is also expanding its partnership with SLO Bangers to provide sharps containers, clean-up and wound care supplies to those living in camps in South County These are just a few examples of how 5CHC seeks out partners in addressing the needs of those chronically homeless in South County. 5CHC also works closely with grass-roots services providers and the faith community in South County. 5CHC staff regularly connect with Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, Community Health Centers of the Central Coast, Lucia Mar Unified School District Families In Transition Program; SAFE System of Care, Family Resource Centers, County Drug and Alcohol, County Jail, Dept. of Social Services, State Rangers, Law Enforcement, City Government, business and other community stakeholders. As mentioned earlier, 5CHC endeavors to be a collaborative and strategic partner in service delivery and development throughout San Luis Obispo County. The agency dedicates substantial staffing resources to participation in HSOC and the evaluation and refinement of the area's services, from piloting new initiatives to evaluation and review of client outcomes. Know for being "nimble," 5CHC has often times sought to pilot new services in the County such as its Youth Program and impending Non-Congregate Shelter Program. That said, when asked, 5CHC has also shared its expertise or offered to partner with others. Most recently 5CHC joined with Lumina Alliance in an effort to expand DV services in South County; has been asked to provide Housing Navigation training to Salvation Army staff; and worked to identify potential board volunteers and provide mentorship to Shower The People. 13. If the proposed project will serve homeless households, please describe how the project will coordinates with other homeless service providers to connect homeless individuals and families to resources. If this question is not applicable, write N/A in the box below. In 2016, CAPSLO, 5Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) and El Camino Homeless Organization (ECHO) partnered together to develop a Coordinated Entry System (CES) to provide screening, diversion, and case management services to homeless individuals and families throughout the county. Together with county staff, the partners developed an integrated system that avoids duplication of services and streamlines access to the most appropriate service providers to meet client needs. Through the CES, each agency covers a different region of the county. 5CHC operates in South County and coastal areas south of Avila. This program provides a foundation for prioritizing services for those who are unsheltered, have experienced homelessness the longest amount of time, and who have multiple and severe services needs that inhibit their ability to quickly Page 331 of 350 identify and secure housing on their own. Individuals at risk of homelessness can also find resources to assist them in stabilizing their situation in order to remain in their housing. 5CHC's case managers regularly participate in county-wide case management meetings to assess client needs, review the County's service priority list. 5CHC participates in the SAFE system of care targeting children and youth and their families. As mentioned previously we are regularly meeting with clients in the Jail, and participate in the Jail to Community case plan meetings. Recently a family of 14 adults and 20 children (from seven households) arrived in SLO County, fleeing targeted extreme violence in Mexico. 5CHC is working with more than 20 agencies, and government service providers to coordinate needed services for these families, including mental health, physical health, education, employment, legal services and more. 5CHC's role is in assisting with housing navigation services and providing financial assistance for immediate needs not covered by other services - for example telephone and email for each household. 14. Please describe your organization’s capacity to implement the proposed project. Who will be involved? List projects of similar size and type that your organization has completed. 5CHC has been provding these same services for several years. As mentioned in 2016 5CHC joined the Coordinated Entry collaborative with CAPSLO and ECHO. 5CHC has been the lead Rapid Re-Housing and Homeless Prevention provider in the County since 2017, providing these housing services countywide. Since 2015 the agency has operated a Winter Warming Center. In 2019 the agency initiated a targeted Youth program; and expanded its Street Outreach Efforts. 5CHC staff include those with lived experience homeless. 5CHC staff include 6 who are bilingual/bicultural speaking both English and Spanish; additionally the agency has access to support those who are mono-lingual Mixteco. 5CHC staff have extensive training and relationships with those in the LBTGQ community At present the agency is managing more than 50 grants for services similar to those requested here, from federal, state, local government, and private business. Of these current grants many are targeted to respond to the impacts of COVID, which will conclude within three months of the beginning of this grant period. Current grants include: • Emergency Solutions Grants, annual and CV restricted • Community Development Block Grants - Urban County and Grover Beach, annual and CV restricted • County of San Luis Obispo General Fund • County of San Luis Obispo CBO/Preventative Health • Continuum of Care - Coordinated Entry services • CESH – Coordinated Entry, Homeless Outreach Service Several additional contracts are pending including HHAP 1. 5CHC employs a dedicated HMIS Data Manager to ensure quality compliance and track client outcomes. This position is supported with three finance employees, including one charged with Grants Management for accountability of expenses and fulfillment of grant commitments. The agency's Associate Director is responsible for authorizing all funding requests and reporting on program outcomes. With each program (Street Outreach, Shelter, Coordinated Entry, Housing Navigation) staff are dedicated to client outreach, engagement, and case management, with program supervision and oversight. The agency's Executive Director is directly engaged in initial program development, and efforts to address services on a regional basis. 15. Briefly describe your agency’s record keeping system with relevance to the proposed project. Refer to Chapter 13 of "Basically CDBG" in the Library for more information on record keeping for CDBG. Programmatically: Clients initially are asked to complete a coordinated intake that is documented through ClientTrack. Referrals and client files are formatted in specific order to ensure all forms are completed and accounted for, detailing client housing stability plan, income verification, etc. Lastly all enrolled clients are tracked through the County's Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), both at intake and program exit. Administratively: All funding requests are dual tracked through the agency's financial accounting process by class and grant and a program- based master assistance file. All expenditures for the program are verified for eligibility against program budget and HUD requirements and CDBG regulations with appropriate back-up documentation, copies of which are maintained separately for review and monitoring. Matching responsibilities are tracked concurrently against grant expenditures. 5CHC staff have received training in the requirements of Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200), Community Development Block Grants (24 CFR Part 570) and 24 CFR Part 576 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program. Page 332 of 350 16. CDBG/ESG ONLY - Will the services offered by your organization increase or expand as a result of CDBG/ESG assistance? -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 17. CDBG/ESG ONLY - IF YES TO ABOVE - What new programs or services will be provided? -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 18. CDBG/ESG ONLY - IF YES TO QUESTION 16 - Describe how existing programs or services will be expanded and what percentage of an increase is expected. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 19. Please describe the proposed project in detail (i.e. What activities are to be undertaken? What are the projects' goals?). Please attach a timeline of the project milestones under the Documents tab. Working through a model of progressive engagement, 5CHC services will be offered to "meet the client where they're at" and assist them to develop and execute a plan to housing stability. Street Outreach - Daily outreach throughout South County, with special focus on known encampments, and coordination with local law enforcement and rangers. Coordinated Entry - daily intake and assessment, estimated 1 hr per assessment Diversion - Reunification - helping people avoid homelessness or divert from use of SLO County resources by providing re- unification services and transportation Immediate Needs - Providing assistance as needed for one-time support for immediate needs - especially targeted to homeless prevention and immediate needs to facilitate housing search and employment. Housing Navigation & Case Management - On-going case management and housing search support for income-qualified clients (homeless prevention) and those experiencing homelessness. Non-Congregate Shelter - schedule to open in early 2022 providing wrap-around intensive services (shelter, food, basic needs, benefits acquisition, housing search, and supportive services) for up to 40 residents in 90-180 program. Funding secured through Sept. 2022. Warming Center - drop in shelter on cold and rainy nights Nov 22-March 23. Client Training (i.e. Financial Literacy) - on-going part of case management for all interested clients. HMIS - daily capturing of client touchpoints and demographic from intake to exit. Grants Management - on-going management of expenditure documentation and reporting. Project Details 20. Please estimate the number of unduplicated persons or households to benefit from the proposed project. Write "p" for persons or "hh" for households. Please refer to the Library for HUD Income Limits and information on CDBG Presumed Low/Mod Income populations. Please enter any presumed benefit persons as low-income. 21. CDBG ONLY - If the project serves any of the presumed benefit populations under the Low/Moderate Income national objective, please describe how the project will directly benefit the populations identified. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 22. ESG ONLY - FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER ONLY: Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 23. ESG ONLY - FOR STREET OUTREACH ONLY: Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 400 p TOTAL number of persons (p) or households (hh) regardless of income 0 Of the total number of persons (p) or households (hh) entered above, how many will be LOW-INCOME (earning 51% - 80% or less of the County median-income)(HUD funding only) 400 Of the total number of persons (p) or households (hh) entered above, how many will be VERY LOW- INCOME (earning 50% or less of the County median-income)(HUD funding only) Of the total number of persons (p) or households (hh) entered above, how many will be earning 60% or less of County median-income(PLHA only) 400.00400.00 TOTAL Page 333 of 350 24. ESG ONLY - RAPID RE-HOUSING ONLY - Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 25. ESG ONLY - FOR HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION ONLY: Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 26. ESG ONLY - FOR HMIS ONLY: Please identify the portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 27. GENERAL FUND ONLY - OVERNIGHT SHELTERS ONLY - Please answer the following: -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 28. GENERAL FUND ONLY - Please identify the following projected accomplishments: -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 29. Identify the projected target population(s) your proposed project and activities will serve (including age, race, residency, handicap status, income level or other unit characteristics or subgroup information) and how those populations will benefit 5CHC's programs are targeted to individuals and families who “without” these programs will become or will remain homeless. These programs target area residents with the most urgent and severe needs including Families with Children; Chronically Homeless; Veterans; Unaccompanied Youth; Victims of Domestic Violence. Following local coordinated entry protocols, we seek to identify and serve people who: • Are unsheltered and living in places not designed for human habitation; • Have experienced the longest amount of time homeless; • Have multiple and severe service needs that inhibit their ability to secure housing on their own; and • Through homelessness prevention activities, are at greatest risk of becoming literally homeless without an intervention and are at greatest risk of experiencing a longer time in shelter or on the street should they become homeless. 5CHC's Coordinated Entry and Street Outreach services will be targeted to those experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness living in South County, unless requested by other service partners - for example, due to COVID some partners were required to shut their facilities and 5CHC was asked to assist with added coordinated entries. All other services will be provided County-wide, or be open to anyone living in the County (shelter services) and will meet the demographic breakdown of the County (including age, race, residency, handicap status, income level). All financial services provided through this grant will be provided based on income verification and homeless status as required. Utilizing the attached Coordinated Intake Form, applicants are asked to self-disclose their demographic data, including race and ethnicity. Additionally 5CHC's website, facebook page, and outreach materials all provide logos for Fair Housing and Accessibility and are provided in both English and Spanish. 5CHC has added a translation tab to its website, and is working to expand bilingual communications through social media. 30. Has environmental review been completed (CEQA and/or NEPA)? 31. Please answer yes or no to the following: If applicable, please upload a copy of the Phase I or II environmental assessment under the Documents tab. gfedc Yes - CEQA review completed gfedc No - CEQA review not completed ✔✔✔✔ N/A - CEQA not required gfedc Yes - NEPA review completed gfedc No - NEPA review not completed ✔✔✔✔ N/A - NEPA not required n/a Has a Phase I or Phase II environmental assessment been conducted for the property? n/a List and describe any known hazards (e.g. asbestos, storage tanks – underground, aboveground) Page 334 of 350 32. Identify all permits necessary for the project (local, state or federal). n/a 33. State whether or not the necessary permits have been issued. If a permit has not yet been issued, indicate when the permit(s) will be applied for or issued. Please provide proof of permit issuance under the Documents tab. n/a 34. Briefly describe your agency’s auditing requirements, including those for the proposed project. Please upload a copy of your most recent audit under the Documents tab. 5CHC engages an independent auditor annually to review the financial records of the organization. The last one completed, attached, represents calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2020. The level of federal grants currently administered by 5CHC does not require a "single audit;" however 5CHC has engaged an auditor to conduct such an audit for 2021, due to an increase in federal assistance in our current fiscal year. Financial 35. How do you plan to fund the operation and maintenance costs (if any) associated with this project? Are these funds available now? If not, when will they be available? General maintenance and occupancy expenses are funded through other grants and direct donations. 5CHC's does not carry a debt for its Housing Navigation Center located at 100 S. 4th Street. Funding for the location of the 5CHC winter warming center is anticipated to be partially funded through a grant that has been awarded with the City of Grover Beach (GB- CDBG) and partially through this application. The location of the Non-Congregate Shelter Program at 216 16th Street is expected to be leased to 5CHC by the County at no cost. Funds for the operation of the shelter program has been partially secured through September 2022. Additional funds will be needed for continued operation, and 5CHC is working to solicit support through other grants (HHAP 2; HOME-ARP, ARPA and private donations). 36. Do you have any grant funds remaining from prior Fiscal Year allocations? 37. IF YES TO ABOVE, please answer the following: If this question is not applicable, write N/A in the boxes below. 38. CDBG ONLY - Identify all jurisdictions you are applying to for CDBG funds by indicating the amount applied for at each jurisdiction. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 39. GENERAL FUND ONLY - Please indicate the estimated portion of funding to go towards the following activities: -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- 40. HOME Only - TBRA Only - Please indicate the amounts to be spent for rental assistance, deposit assistance, and project administration? -answer not presented because of the answer to #1- n/a Is the project on a property designated or been determined to be potentially eligible for designation as a local, state, or national historic site? n/a Are the building(s)/structure(s) located on a Historic Site or within a Historic District? n/a Is the project located within a 100-year flood plain? n/a IF YES TO ABOVE, does your agency have flood insurance? n/a Will there be demolition required? 0.000.00 TOTAL ✔✔✔✔ Yes gfedc No 2021-22 What fiscal year(s) did you receive the funding? ESG/CDBG/G What project did you receive the funding for? $109,013 How much is remaining? 109,013.00109,013.00 TOTAL Page 335 of 350 Budget top Funding Sources/Revenues Committed Conditional Proposed CDBG Funding (this request) $ 89,000.00 ESG Funding (this request) $ 65,000.00 General Funds (this request) $ 75,000.00 ESG-CV Funding (this request) HOME Funds (this request): PLHA Funds (this request): Local/County (non-federal)(please specify): State ESG 22-23, $100,000, CoC Coordinated Entry $54,000, CESH 22-23 $91,000, CBO $30,000 $ 100,000.00 $ 175,000.00 Local/City (non-federal)(please specify): In-kind (Private Contributions, Office Space) $ 150,000.00 $ 135,000.00 Other (please specify): GB CDBG Warming Center 22-23 - $50,000, Serving GB Residents at Warming Center $ 50,000.00 Total $ 300,000.00 $ 310,000.00 $ 229,000.00 Funding Uses/Expenses CDBG ESG & ESG- CV General FundHOME PLHA Personnel Costs $ 28,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 55,000.00 Operating Costs $ 20,000.00 Professional Services Capital Outlay Permits, Development Fees Legal and Public Notices Other (please specify): CDBG Subsistence Rent 05Q $ 36,000.00 CDBG Deposit 05T $ 25,000.00 ESG Housing Stabilization (Deposits) $ 20,000.00 ESG Rent $ 10,000.00 Total $ 89,000.00 $ 65,000.00$ 75,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Budget Narrative CDBG: Rental Assistance at $3,600 Avg/Household = $36,000 Deposits Assistance at $2,500 Avg/Household =$25,000 Client Intake Assessment $100/Household = $2,000 Case Manager @$27/hr x 35 hours/Household = $19,000 Primary Activity Delivery Cost (Grant Management Specialists) $23.50/hr X 298 Hours = $7,000 ESG: Short and long-term rental assistance (avg $2,600/hh) Case Manager, HMIS & Grant Admin @$27/hr x 85 hours/Household = $35,000 Deposits $2,250 per HH Avg. General Fund: Operating Costs - Maintenance, Utilities of Warming center, Insurance, Facility Rental Personnel Costs - .5 FTE Benefit Advocate, .1 FTE supervision, .25FTE Coordinated Entry, .15 HMIS, .2 FTE Outreach Tables top ESG Matching Funds Sources Amount County CBO $ 10,000 Page 336 of 350 Application ID: 375816 Become a fan of ZoomGrants™ on Facebook Problems? Contact us at Questions@ZoomGrants.com ©2002-2021 GrantAnalyst.com. All rights reserved. "ZoomGrants" and the ZoomGrants logo are trademarks of GrantAnalyst.com, LLC. Logout | Browser * ZoomGrants™ is not responsible for the content of uploaded documents. Local Cities (GB, PB, AG) $ 30,000 Private Donations $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ Total $ 65,000 Documents top Documents Requested *Required?Attached Documents * Incorporation Documents (if applicable) Article of Incorporation Timeline of Project Milestones ✔✔✔✔ Timeline and Milestones Proof of Permit Issuance (if applicable) Map of Multiple Project Locations (if applicable) Most Recent Audit ✔✔✔✔ 5CHC Audit 2020 Commitment Letters for funds (if available) Timeline of Expenditures ✔✔✔✔ Expenditure Timeline Page 337 of 350 Item 10.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 DATE: February 8, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Consider an update regarding the progress made toward meeting the City Council’s Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There are no financial impacts associated with receipt of the update regarding progress toward meeting Council’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals and Priorities. RECOMMENDATION: Receive an update regarding progress toward the City Council’s Fiscal Year 2021 -22 Goals and Priorities. BACKGROUND: On September 22, 2020, the City Council adopted a list of Top 10 Council Priorities for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to help prioritize and focus staff work efforts for the year. On March 23, 2021, Council received an update regarding the City’s progress toward com pleting the Top 10 Priorities and directed that a process be undertaken each year to establish the Council’s goals and priorities. On April 27, 2021, Council considered and approved a list of Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Goals and Priorities) (Attachment 1) to help direct the work of the Council and City staff during the applicable biennial budget cycle. The identified Goals and Priorities were grouped under three main categories: Investing in the Future, Investing in the City’s Infrastructure and Facilities, and Investing in People. A number of key considerations guided the development of the Goals and Priorities, including Top 10 Priorities not completed during Fiscal Year 2020-21, items identified as new priorities as a result of the work completed in Fiscal Year 2020-21, items required to support the ongoing operations of the City’s enterprises and infrastructure, and emergent needs continuing to result from the COVID-19 pandemic and turnover in City staff. The Goals Page 338 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 2 and Priorities were updated as part of the Fiscal Year 2021-23 Biennial Budget presentation and adoption in June 2021 to include estimated time frames for completion. While the Goals and Priorities were incorporated into the Biennial Budget, which spans two years, the identified work items focused on Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a stated intent to review and update the Council approved Goals and Priorities each year This report provides an update regarding the City’s progress on completing the identified Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22, with a focus on the first half of the Fiscal Year. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Significant progress has been made toward accomplishing a number of Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Some items, however, have experienced delays and will take more time to complete or are ongoing in nature. Table 1 below identifies each Goal and Priority, the estimated timeframe for completion provided as part of the Biennial Budget, and a status report in the far-right column. Table 1 Category Goal/Priority Estimated Timeline Status Update Investing in the Future Begin comprehensive General Plan update Scoping discussion to occur by Fall 2021; kick-off of update to begin by Spring 2022. Delayed due to staff turnover, other priority and emergent items. New target date is Spring 2022 for scoping discussion with kick off in Fall 2022. Initiate and/or complete housing initiatives funded by grant programs Regional pre- approved ADU plans Objective design standards Regional pre- approved ADU plans currently underway, to be completed in 2022 Consider incorporating objective design standards into comprehensive General Plan update with scoping discussion in Fall 2021 On target. Pre- approved plans reviewed by Architectural Review Committee & Planning Commission. Will be presented to Council in Spring 2022. Objective design standards will be discussed with General Plan update scoping item in Spring 2022. Page 339 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 3 Complete ADU ordinance amendments Summer 2021 Delayed due to conflict issues, scheduled for introduction and adoption in February 2022. Evaluate water resiliency options available to the City Part of Council’s consideration of Central Coast Blue Project in Summer and Fall 2021 Completed. Direction provided to pursue: Short term agreement with OCSD Emergency interconnect with Golden State Water CCB Discuss potential sale of water from scalping plant with nearby ag users Continue engaging with County staff re Nacimiento and State Water if available in the future Ballot measure to allow purchase of State Water outside of emergency Continue support for existing and new economic development initiatives COVID Relief Program Determine whether to conduct baseline analysis of existing and future business needs Incorporate into comprehensive General Plan update process COVID Relief Program to be administered through 2021 Consideration of baseline analysis to occur with discussion of comprehensive General Plan To be included in General Plan update process COVID relief programs expanded through ARPA allocations Baseline analysis to be included in General Plan scoping discussion in Spring 2022. Page 340 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 4 Evaluate the potential to enable cannabis businesses in Arroyo Grande update scope (Fall 2021) Consider potential to enable cannabis businesses in Fall 2021 Delayed until 2023 Support regional efforts to address homelessness and emergency shelter needs Ongoing Ongoing. Specific steps completed this year include: ARPA funding allocated for the purchase of property and/or development of a homeless shelter by 5Cities Homeless Coalition. Safe parking meeting conducted in December 2021 with faith community to discuss interest in programs and services. Facilitated locating the warming shelter at the South County Regional Center this winter, with certain dates reserved at the Women’s Club due to scheduling conflicts at the Regional Center. Review status of Five Cities Fire Authority 3rd Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, and consider cost analysis of service delivery models Fall 2021 Completed. Page 341 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 5 Evaluate options to pay down CalPERS unfunded accrued liability Summer/Fall 2021 Completed. Investing in City Infrastruc ture and Facilities Identify and pursue short- and long-term funding mechanisms, such as a sales tax measure, for pavement maintenance and other infrastructure maintenance needs Discuss options for short- and long- term infrastructure financing in Fall 2021. Consider potential sales tax measure in Spring 2022. Delayed due to other priority items, such as water shortage emergency, and the need to completed updated pavement index evaluation. Scheduled for March/April 2022. On track to consider tax measure in Spring 2022. Excess reserves allocated to additional 2020/21 pavement repair projects. Complete design and/or begin construction of key infrastructure projects, including: Brisco Interchange Project Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation Contract for design services for Brisco Interchange Project expected Fall 2021 with design expected to be completed in Spring 2023 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement design expected to be complete in Fall 2022 and construction expected to begin Summer 2023 Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation construction expected to begin Spring 2022 Delayed. RFP issued in December 2021 with contract award expected for consideration April 2022. Delayed. Replacement design expected to be complete in Summer 2023 and construction expected to begin Summer 2024. Delayed. RFP for construction issued. Construction expected to begin Summer 2022. Page 342 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 6 Evaluate and select options for replacing the Mark M. Millis Community Center Spring 2022 Estimated in Spring/Summer 2022. Complete a water and sewer rate study and consider implementing a rate adjustment Complete rate study in Summer 2021 and propose adoption in Fall 2021. Delayed but partially completed. Rate Study approved January 11, 2022, rate hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022, and new rates anticipated to be implemented in April 2022. Complete a comprehensive fee study and consider adjusting City fees, including impact fees Begin in Winter 2021- 22 with proposed adoption in Spring 2022 Delayed. Expected to begin in Spring 2022 with consideration in Fall 2022. Investing in People Adopt and implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives Proposed policy for Council consideration in Summer 2021. Implementation and preparation of additional polices as appropriate will be ongoing. Delayed but completed in January 2022. Implementation ongoing. Maintain and increase public engagement with the City Complete process to create voting districts in 2022 Increase public outreach through surveys, social media engagement, and events Evaluate technology Ongoing The process for creating voting districts will begin with two public hearings in Summer 2021 and conclude with two public hearings in Spring 2022. Districts will be implemented in Fall 2022. Public outreach efforts will increase Ongoing On track. Next hearings scheduled in February and March with maps to be adopted by April 2022. Several outreach methods employed to date. Completed. Page 343 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 7 opportunities to enhance public participation in meetings with the hiring of a new Deputy City Clerk/Communicati ons Coordinator Ongoing video- and tele-conferencing options for public meetings will be discussed with Council in June 2021 and implemented in July 2021, with ongoing evaluation and refinement thereafter Completed. Hybrid meeting option implemented in July and August 2021, but Zoom only meetings resumed due to delta variant and increase in local COVID cases and mask requirements. Survey completed regarding parklets. Modernize technologies and systems in key areas, such as public safety cameras, human resources processes, and accounting and agenda management software systems Public safety camera upgrades are expected to be completed by Winter 2022. Human resources software systems will be implemented by Winter 2021. Agenda management software will be implemented in Summer 2021. Accounting management software will be procured in Winter 2021/22 and implemented through Fiscal Year 2022-23. Delayed, expected to begin deployment in Spring 2022. Summer 2022 more likely due to staffing constraints. Implemented. Delayed due to staffing constraints, Water Shortage Emergency, COVID impacts, other items. Procurement expected in Summer 2022. Focus resources and implement efficiencies to ensure optimized Ongoing Ongoing Page 344 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 8 service levels within core City functions Evaluate and implement employee retention, attraction, recruitment, development, and support strategies Ongoing. A City-wide salary survey will be completed during Fiscal Year 2021-22. Ongoing. Salary survey delayed, expected to be completed during first half of Fiscal Year 2022- 23. During the course of the Fiscal Year 2021-22, emerging issues in certain areas have created the need to readjust priorities. For instance, significant staff time and resources have been required to respond to the current drought and the need to declare and implement a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency. This work effort was not anticipated as part of the Goals and Priorities and resulted in the redirection of staff resources. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to create operational constraints for the City, creating delays due to staff outages. Other emerging issues and Council-directed priorities, such as changes at the Integrated Waste Management Authority, implementation of State legislation (e.g. SB 1383 and SB 9), development of a permanent parklet program, etc., have also adjusted staff work efforts during Fiscal Year 2021 -22. These considerations have resulted in delays for some items identified in the Goals and Priorities. Staff will continue making progress toward meeting the Goals and Priorities established for Fiscal Year 2021-22, as described above. A new goal-setting process will be undertaken in April 2022 to review and adjust the Goals and Priorities as needed and desired by Council for the upcoming Fiscal Year. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Receive an update regarding progress toward the City Council’s Fiscal Year 2021 - 22 Goals and Priorities; or 2. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Receiving the status report on the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals and Priorities provides an update to the Council and the public on the City’s efforts toward completing and accomplishing a number of vital work efforts. This review may assist in the development of new goals and priorities for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2022-23. DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages identified at this time. Page 345 of 350 Item 10.a. City Council Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 February 8, 2022 Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachment: 1. Fiscal Years 2021-23 Goals and Priorities Included in Biennial Budget Page 346 of 350 ATTACHMENT 1 Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Years 2021-23 Investing in the Future Begin comprehensive general plan update Initiate and/or complete housing initiatives funded by grant programs o Regional pre-approved ADU plans o Objective design standards Complete ADU ordinance amendments Evaluate water resiliency options available to the City Continue support for existing and new economic development initiatives o COVID Relief Program o Determine whether to conduct baseline analysis of existing and future business needs o Evaluate the potential to enable cannabis businesses in Arroyo Grande Support regional efforts to address homelessness and emergency shelter needs Review status of Five Cities Fire Authority 3rd Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, and consider cost analysis of service delivery models Evaluate options to pay down CalPERS unfunded accrued liability Investing in City Infrastructure and Facilities Identify and pursue short- and long-term funding mechanisms, such as a sales tax measure, for pavement maintenance and other infrastructure maintenance needs Complete design and/or begin construction of key infrastructure projects, including: o Brisco Interchange Project o Traffic Way Bridge Replacement o Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation Evaluate and select options for replacing the Mark M. Millis Community Center Complete a water and sewer rate study and consider implementing a rate adjustment Complete a comprehensive fee study and consider adjusting City fees, including impact fees Investing in People Adopt and implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives Maintain and increase public engagement with the City o Complete process to create voting districts in 2022 o Increase public outreach through surveys, social media engagement, and events o Evaluate technology opportunities to enhance public participation in meetings Modernize technologies and systems in key areas, such as public safety cameras, human resources processes, and accounting and agenda management software systems Focus resources and implement efficiencies to ensure optimized service levels within core City functions Page 347 of 350 Evaluate and implement employee retention, attraction, recruitment, development, and support strategies Anticipated Timeframes for Completion of the Goals and Priorities Identified Above for Fiscal Years 2021-23 Category Goal/Priority Anticipated Timeframe for Completion Investing in the Future Begin comprehensive General Plan update Scoping discussion to occur by Fall 2021; kick-off of update to begin by Spring 2022. Initiate and/or complete housing initiatives funded by grant programs Regional pre-approved ADU plans Objective design standards Regional pre-approved ADU plans currently underway, to be completed in 2022 Consider incorporating objective design standards into comprehensive General Plan update with scoping discussion in Fall 2021 Complete ADU ordinance amendments Summer 2021 Evaluate water resiliency options available to the City Part of Council’s consideration of Central Coast Blue Project in Summer and Fall 2021 Continue support for existing and new economic development initiatives COVID Relief Program Determine whether to conduct baseline analysis of existing and future business needs Evaluate the potential to enable cannabis businesses in Arroyo Grande Incorporate into comprehensive General Plan update process COVID Relief Program to be administered through 2021 Consideration of baseline analysis to occur with discussion of comprehensive General Plan update scope (Fall 2021) Consider potential to enable cannabis businesses in Fall 2021 Support regional efforts to address homelessness and emergency shelter needs Ongoing Review status of Five Cities Fire Authority 3rd Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, and consider cost analysis of service delivery models Fall 2021 Evaluate options to pay down CalPERS unfunded accrued liability Summer/Fall 2021 Page 348 of 350 Investing in City Infrastructu re and Facilities Identify and pursue short- and long- term funding mechanisms, such as a sales tax measure, for pavement maintenance and other infrastructure maintenance needs Discuss options for short- and long- term infrastructure financing in Fall 2021. Consider potential sales tax measure in Spring 2022. Complete design and/or begin construction of key infrastructure projects, including: Brisco Interchange Project Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation Contract for design services for Brisco Interchange Project expected Fall 2021 with design expected to be completed in Spring 2023 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement design expected to be complete in Fall 2022 and construction expected to begin Summer 2023 Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation construction expected to begin Spring 2022 Evaluate and select options for replacing the Mark M. Millis Community Center Spring 2022 Complete a water and sewer rate study and consider implementing a rate adjustment Complete rate study in Summer 2021 and propose adoption in Fall 2021. Complete a comprehensive fee study and consider adjusting City fees, including impact fees Begin in Winter 2021-22 with proposed adoption in Spring 2022 Investing in People Adopt and implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives Proposed policy for Council consideration in Summer 2021. Implementation and preparation of additional polices as appropriate will be ongoing. Maintain and increase public engagement with the City Complete process to create voting districts in 2022 Increase public outreach through surveys, social media engagement, and events Evaluate technology opportunities to enhance public participation in meetings The process for creating voting districts will begin with two public hearings in Summer 2021 and conclude with two public hearings in Spring 2022. Districts will be implemented in Fall 2022. Public outreach efforts will increase with the hiring of a new Deputy City Clerk/Communications Coordinator Ongoing video- and tele- conferencing options for public meetings will be discussed with Council in June 2021 and implemented in July 2021, with Page 349 of 350 ongoing evaluation and refinement thereafter Modernize technologies and systems in key areas, such as public safety cameras, human resources processes, and accounting and agenda management software systems Public safety camera upgrades are expected to be completed by Winter 2022. Human resources software systems will be implemented by Winter 2021. Agenda management software will be implemented in Summer 2021. Accounting management software will be procured in Winter 2021/22 and implemented through Fiscal Year 2022-23. Focus resources and implement efficiencies to ensure optimized service levels within core City functions Ongoing Evaluate and implement employee retention, attraction, recruitment, development, and support strategies Ongoing. A City-wide salary survey will be completed during Fiscal Year 2021-22. Page 350 of 350