Agenda Packet 2011-02-08Z
C ity Coiuicil
Tony Ferrara, Mayor /Chair
Caren Ray, Mayor Pro Tem /Vice Chair
Joe Costello, Council /Board Member
Jim Guthrie, Council /Board Member
Tim Brown, Council /Board Member
d.
Steven Adams, City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel , City Attorney
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3.
EAI
5.
FLAG SALUTE
INVOCATION
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL /RDA BOARD
EL CAMINO 4 -H GROUP
PASTOR ROBERT BANKER
OPEN DOOR CHURCH
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only
and all further readings be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY— FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the
City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on
matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or
presiding Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
8.a. Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period
January 16, 2011 through January 31, 2011.
8.b. Consideration of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City
Council /Redevelopment Agency meeting of January 11, 2011, as submitted.
8.c. Consideration of Authorization to Reject Claim Filed Against the City —
Claimant: Virginia Aubuchon (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant.
8.d. Consideration of Resolution Proclaiming the Termination of a Local Emergency
(ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution proclaiming the termination of a local
emergency.
AGENDA SUMMARY — FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd)
8.e. Consideration of Acceptance of the South Elm and Ash Street Sidewalk and
Bicycle Lane Improvements Project PW 2008 -07C (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: 1) Accept the project improvements as constructed by M.E.
Avila Construction Corporation in accordance with the plans and specifications for the
South Elm and Ash Street Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Improvements Project; 2)
Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorize release of the retention,
thirty -five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have
been filed.
8.f Consideration to Aaarove Construction Plans and Saecifications and
Environmental Determination for the Le Point Street Imarovements and Parkina
Lot Expansion Project, PW 2011 -02 (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) Approve the
construction plans and specifications for the Le Point Street Improvements and
Parking Lot Expansion Project; 3) Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Determination; 4) Appropriate $40,000 from the Downtown Parking Fund; and 5)
Appropriate $120,000 from the Transportation Facilities Fund.
8.g. Consideration of Expenditure for Re- Roofing of Gazebo and Public Restroom
(ADAMS) [CC /RDA]
Recommended Action: Authorize expenditure up to $3,300 for re- roofing of the
Centennial Park Gazebo and Short Street restroom.
8.h. Consideration of Fee Waiver Request by Accurate Architecture and
Construction (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Deny the fee waiver request from Accurate Architecture and
Construction for Berry Gardens Specific Plan amendment.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a. Consideration of Reallocation of Communitv Develoament Block Grant Funds
from Certain Promects Approved in Years 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009 to Fund the
Removal of Architectural Barriers for Low and Moderate Income People with
Severe Disabilities by Installation of an Elevator at 300 East Branch Street
(McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the reallocation of CDBG
funds.
9.b. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Sections
16.04.070(C), 16.32.030(A) and 16.48.060 to Allow Rounding Up for a Fractional
Unit 0.51 or Greater when Calculating Allowable Density in the Multiple - Family
Zoning District; Applicant — City of Arroyo Grande; Location — Citywide
(McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Introduce an Ordinance amending portions of Title 16 of the
Municipal Code to allow rounding up for a fractional unit when calculating allowable
density in the Multi - Family (MF) zoning district.
AGENDA SUMMARY — FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont' d)
9.c. Consideration of Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001: Amend the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan as it Relates to Development of Subareas 3 and 4; Location -
Southwest Corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street;
Applicant: NKT Commercial (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council
adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Specific
Plan Amendment 10 -001.
9.d. Consideration of Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10-
001; Subdivide 4.47 Acres into Four (4) Parcels of 0.51, 0.59, 2.56 and 0.57
Acres and Construct Four (4) Commercial Buildings of 5,800, 6,767, 35,786 and
5,700 Square -Feet Respectively; Location - Southwest Corner of East Grand
Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant: NKT Commercial ( McCLISH)
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council
adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use
Permit 10 -001.
9.e. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 10 -003: Construct a Thirtv -Six (36) Unit
Apartment Complex on 1.63 Acres; Location - Southwest Corner of East Grand
Avenue and South Courtland Street; Applicant - Peoples' Self -Help Housing
Corporation and Affordable Housing and Loan Agreement (McCLISH)
[CC /RDA]
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council
adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 10 -003. In addition, staff
recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopt a Resolution
approving an affordable housing and loan agreement and authorize the Executive
Director to execute the agreement.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Consideration of Presentation by PG &E on SmartMeter Program (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from, PG &E regarding the
SmartMeter program and provide direction to staff on any desired follow -up.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like
to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and /or request a formal
agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action
can be taken.
None.
AGENDA SUMMARY — FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 5
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and /or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be
taken.
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence /Comments as presented by the City Council.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence /Comments as presented by the City Manager.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
17. ADJOURNMENT to a Special City Council Meeting (Budget Goals Workshop) at 6:00
p.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2011 at the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club
Community Center located at 211 Vernon Street, Arroyo Grande.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a
majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the
agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's office, 214 E.
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request
for disability - related modification or accommodation, contact the Legislative and Information Services
Department at 805 - 473 -5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports
can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo
Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo- span.orgq.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
A.r
0
INCORPORATED
JULY 10, 1911
' -14(
I F Oft
MEMORANDUM
DUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA K AETSCH, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE E SEI ICE 4C
FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPEI VISOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION F CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
I
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period ,Janua 16 th Janua 31, 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is a $1,394,376.71 fiscal impact than includes the following items:
• Accounts Payable Checks 148478 - 148601 $ 909,824.28
0 Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 484,752.45
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 t ensure that they
meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City's
Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual of February 2000.
ANALYSIS SIS F ISSUES:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required o normal and usual
operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2010-11
budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
ES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staffs recommendation;
• Do not approve staffs recommendation;
• Provide direction to staff.
Agenda Item 8.a.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
ADVANTAGES:
The Administrative Services Department monitors payment of invoices for
accountability, accuracy and completeness using standards approved by the
Council.
a Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants.
Discounts are taken where applicable.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified as long as City Council confirms all
expenditures are appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL ONMENTAL E IE ' :
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, February 3 2011. The
Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011. No
public comments were received.
Attachments:
1. January 16 — January 31, 2011 — Accounts Payable Check Re
2. January 28, 2011 — Payroll Check & Benefit Checks Register
Agenda Item 8.a.
Page 2
apC Hit
01/31/2011
8:20AM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ATTACHMENT I
1
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status clean id Data Invoice
Irv. Date
Amount Paid
check Total
148478
01118/2011
008286 DATAARC LLC
1130
11/30/2010
E 350.8438.7301
6
6,949.84
6,949.$4
148479
01/20/2011
000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL
PERMITS
01/20/2011
E 010.4424-5251
15.00
E 010.4424.5257
30.00
45.00
45.00
148480
01/20/2011
000303 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL
PERMIT
01/20/2011
E 010.4424.5257
15-00
15.00
15.00
148481
01/21/2011
004815 AIR A S WEST INC
103759156
12/28/2010
E 010.4420.5255
48.28
45.28
103220020
12/3112010
E 010.4420.8258
33.81
33.81
79.09
148482
01/2112011
003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS
V 01121/2011
0.00
0.00
0.00
148488 01121/2011 003817 AI IERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS 1500251895 12/14/2010
E 010.4213.5143 20.00
CL E 01 0.4213.5303 9.00
0
c�
M 00
wiD
Page: I
Page. 2
app kH! t
Check History Listing
Page: 2
01/31/2011 :2 AM
CITY OF ARROYO 0 RANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
status ClearNoid Data Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
1 500283204
12/28/2010
E 01 0.421 3.5303
9.00
E 01 0.421 3.5143
20.00
29.00
1 500251591
12/1412010
E 018.4420.5143
23.72
23.02
1500263200
1212812010
E 010.4420.5143
23.02
23 -02
1 500248324
1210712010
E 010.4213.5303
20.25
20.25
1500257752
1212112010
E 010.4213.5303
0.25
'
20.28
1500251888
12114/2010
E 010.421 3.5303
19.50
19.50
1599203197
1212812010
E 010.421 3.5303
19.50
19.59
1500248330
12/07/2010
E 220.4303.5143
19.20
19.20
1509251890
1211412010
E 220.4303.5143
19.20
19.20
D
1500257759
12/21/2010
E 220.4303. 143
19-20
CL
19.20
0
1500283190
12/28/2010
E 220.4303.5143
19.20
tQ
19.20
M
^W'
406 ice/
Page. 2
c�
M 00
CA i
Page:
ap kHiet
Che History Listing
Page:
01131/2011 :20AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
C heck # Date vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
1500246323
1 2/07/201
E 010. 4213.5303
13.00
15.00
1500257757
12/21/201
E 010.4213.5303
18.00
18.00
1 500245331
12/07/201
E 010.4420.5143
17.02
17.02
1500257760
1212112010
E 010.4420.5143
17.02
1 7. 02
1500251884
12/1 4/201 0
E 010.4213.5303
17.00
17.00
1500263193
12/28/201
E 01 0.4213.5303
17.00
17.00
1500246332
1 2197/201
E 540A712.5143
15.00
1 5.00
1500251 892
12!14/201
E 640.4712.5143
15.00
15.00
1500257761
12/21/201
E 640.4712.5143
15.00
15.00
1 500263201
12128!2010
D
E 640.4712.5143
15.00
c�
15.00
CL
1 50025'1 894
'121141201
0
E 010.4305.5143
7.25
7.25
c�
M 00
CA i
Page:
M 00
M i D
Page:
a pCkHlst
Check History Listing
Page:
0 1/31/2011 :2 AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
Statue ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
1500263263
12/28!2010
E 016.4305.5143
7.25
7.25
1500246335
12/07/2010
E 010. 213.5143
6.00
6.00
1500257764
12121 12016
E 010.4213.51 43
6.00
6.00
1 500246329
121071201
E 612.4610.5143
6.00
6.00
1 500251360
12/14/2010
E 612.1610.5143
6.00
6.60
1500257753
12/21/201
E 612.
6.00
6.00
1 5002631
1212612616
E 612. 4610.5143
6.00
6.06
1 500246325
1 210712010
E 010.421
5.00
5.00
1500257753
12/21/201
E 010.4213.5303
5.00
5.00
15002
12/6712616
E 610.4436.5143
3.66
3.00
1 500251 893
12/14/2010
E 010.4430.5143
3.00
c�
3.06
M 00
M i D
Page:
ap
Check History Listing
Page: 5
01/31/2011
: 0AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
1500257762
12/21/2010
E 010.4430.5143
3.00
3.00
1600263202
12/28/2010
E 010.4430.5143
3.00
3.00
1600246334
12/07/2010
E 010.4305.5143
3.00
3.00
1500257763
12/21 /2010
E 010.4305.6143
3.00
3.00
502.88
148484
01/21/2011
006130 APEX O UTDOOR POWER
31111
1211 512010
E 010.4420.6603
34.04
34.04
31121
12/27/2010
E 010.4420.5603
27.62
27.62
6 1.66
148486
01121/2011
006063 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM
1246
12/1512010
E 010.4420.5605
410.33
410.33
4'10.33
148486
0112112011
005507 AT & T
1/7 -0163
01107/2011
E 010.41 45.6403
183.49
1 Q Ao
1 01107/2011
E 220.4303.5303 31.43
0 31.43
c�
M 00
� 0
Page: 5
apDkHist
Check History Listing
Pa ge:
0113112011
8 :20AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Data
Vendor
Status ClearNold Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
1/7- 3959
01/07/2011
E 640.4710.5403
31.43
31.43
246.36
148487
01/21/2011
000056 BACKYARD D IMP 1 EMENT
73102
01/06/2011
E 220.4303.8613
12.18
12.18
12.18
148488
01/21/2011
008251 BA RAJAS & ASSOCIATES INC
PW 2009 -07
01/19!2011
E 350.5686.7001
13,044.94
E 350.5686.7201
- 3,617.90
9
9,427,04
1 48489
01/21/2011
000957 BERCHTOLD EQUIPMENT
PD 97 6
11/30/2010
E 010.4430.5605
360.73
380.73
380.73
148490
01/21/2011
008280 MELANIE B YANT
011811
01/1812011
010.0000.4608
78.00
75.00
76.00
1 48491
0112112011
000098 BUR E AND PACE O F AG,
2411725
12110/2010
E 220.4303.5613
89.87
89.87
89.87
148492 0112112011 000110 DA ST DEPT OF 1800084868 01105/2011
E 220.4303.5303 1
0 1,366.86
c�
M 00
00 iD
Page:
ap Hist
Check History Listing
P ag e:
01/31/2011 :20AM
CITY OF ARROYO G RANDE
2,981.29
Bank code: boa
7354
12/28/2016
Check # Date Vendor
Status Clear/Void Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
1800084798
01/05/2011
561.75
E 220.4303.5303
1,174.80
140494 01/21/2011 005890 CANNON
49895
11136/2010
1 t 174.80
1800084870
01/05/2011
7 t 194.81
E 220.4363.5303
160.80
160.80
148495 01/2112011 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
1800084873
01/05/2011
226.4393,5363
131.43
D
131.43
1800084799
01/05/2011
E 220.4363.5303
97.90
0
97.90
1809084869
01/05/2011
E 220.4363.5303
49.50
Page:
49.50
2,981.29
148493 01/21/2011 000143 ARN CANBY WELDING
7354
12/28/2016
E 010.4430-5303
501.75
561.75
801.75
140494 01/21/2011 005890 CANNON
49895
11136/2010
E 350.5934.7001
7 t 194.81
7,194.81
7,1 94.81
148495 01/2112011 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
7314- 458290
01/10/2011
E 649.47
55.72
D
55.72
7314- 455891
12/28/201
E 220.4303.566 1
40.85
0
46.85
c�
M 00
w iD
Page:
ap kHist Che History Listing Page:
01/3112011 :2 AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boas
143498 01/21/2011 008282 CCPC CLINICAL LAB
1 48497 01/21/2011 000180 CHAPARRAL
143493 0112112011 001990 CHARTER
148499 01/21/2011 000183 CHERRY LA N E
148500 01121120'11 008039 CHEVRON TEXACO CARD
2819130'1
12/2812010
E 010.4140.5303
121/1012010
E 0'10.4430.5274
0110812011
E 010.4201.5008
20.88
11.34
20.00
20.00
120.00
120.00
221.98
221.98
1 7.39
217.39
1 33.73
128.57
20.00
W14161
i';
217.39
D .
c�
133.73
CL
0
c�
�F
o�
Page: 8
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
7314 - 455732
7314 - 456904
12128/2010
E 220.4303.5801
0 1/03/2011
E 220.4303.5601
ACCT #200148880 11104/2010
E 010.4201.531
327298
0 1/03/2011
E 010.4421.5802
1 22810
29350
Inv- Date Amount Paid Check Tota
ap kHiet
Check History Listing
Page: 9
01131/2011
8:2 AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Dante
Vendor
Status Clear/ Void Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount P
Check Total
148501
01/21/2011
000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF
912108
01/0612011
E 640.4710.
409.00
E 220.4303.5303
300.00
709.00
709.00
148502
0112112011
000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER
014273
12/3112010
E 010.4421.5201
33.90
33.90
070931
01/04/2011
E 010.4420.5605
17.95
17.95
063949
01/04/2011
E 010.4430.5605
9.45
9.45
1.30
1 48503
01/2112011
000203 DAVE'S TREE SERVICE
3060
1 2/221201
E 01 9.4420.5393
1
1
1 * 375.00
148594
01121/2911
00091 DE11A11E "S CRANE
11158
1211012010
E 010.4213.5303
220.90
220.00
220.03
148505
01/2112011
006848 DNB INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
549720
1212812019
E 220.4303.5255
157.
l - 1.
c�
1 57.05
CL 148505 01121/2011 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 514814 1212012010
E 010.4430.5605 195.49
1 95.49
�F
Page:
apDHit
Check History listing
01/1312011
Page: 1
01/31/2011 :2 AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
402.36
Bank code: boa
402.66
1112 -200
01/12/2011
C heck # Date Vendor
Status ClearlV Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
1 6626
12/21
266.54
1113 - 360
0111 31201'
E 91 0.4426.5605
91-33
E 010.4146.5401
215-86
91.33
215.86
511 744
1 211612010
0111 112011
D
E 010.4430.5605
2.16
46.64
2.16
1/1 1- 1 500
0111112011
288.98
148507 0112112911 001 FERGUSON N ENTEF PF ISES,
6504114
0111112011
E 640.4712.5619
326.02
c�
947.74
326.0
6609946 -1
0110312011
E 640.4712-5610
326.25
326.25
6673760 -1
0110312011
E 640.4712-5610
299.06
29
1,451.33
148505 0112112011 000605 THE GAS COMPANY
1113 - 1375
01/1312011
E 016.4145.6491
402.36
402.66
1112 -200
01/12/2011
E 010.4145.5401
266.64
266.54
1113 - 360
0111 31201'
E 010.4146.5401
215-86
215.86
1111 -910
0111 112011
D
E 010.4145.6401
45.64
46.64
CL
1/1 1- 1 500
0111112011
E 010.4146.5401
16.52
16.62
c�
947.74
�F
N 0
Page: 10
ap kHist
Check History listing
Pag 11
0 1/3112011
:2 AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code:
boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
statue Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Irv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
143509
01/21/2011
005998 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
PW -
0 1 / 19/2011
+
E 350.5683.7001
52,348.66
E 350,5633.7201
1.01
52 349.67
82,349.67
143510
01121/2011
000291 HAA1 EF EQUIPMENT, INC
78138
0110612011
E 612.4610.5603
135.57
135.57
135-57
14851
0112112011
000292 HAH COMPANY
7058068
0110612011
E 640.4712.5274
33.76
33.76
33.76
148512
0112112011
002820 IND FF, INC
1794823
12/30/2010
E 612.4610.5201
82.88
E 220.4303.5201
23.60
106.57
1 06.57
148513
01/2112011
000343 IRRIGATION I EST (DBA)
2110043 -IN
01/0312011
E 220.4303.5303
350.40
350.40
350.40
148514
0112112011
001793 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES,
008614434
0110312011
E 220.4303.5503
228.08
223.08
c�
CL 1 48515 01/21/2011 008290 KYLE COMPANY F FIN 12141 12115/201
E 01 0.4213.5303 2
2,052.00
c�
2,
w�
Page: 11
pkHit
Check History Listing
P 12
01131/2011
:20AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check To tal
148516
0112112011
006088 MATCO TOOLS
38088
0111312011
E 220.4303.5273
97.69
97.69
97.69
148517
0112112011
000415 METAL SHOP, INC
18977
1212912010
E O 10.4213.6401
2 1 820.00
2
2,820.00
148513
0112112011
000426 MIER BR OS LANDSCAPE
173196
1211112010
E 360.5515.7001
3,697.50
3
173162
1211012010
E 350.5516.7001
369.75
369.75
1 72964
1210112010
E 010.4430.5606
82.65
62.65
4,140.90
1485
0112112011
000429 MINER'S ER'S ACE HARDWARE,
K59893
12129/2010
E 010.4213.5604
92.36
92.36
1"61860
0111212011
E 220.4303.6255
68.44
68.44
K60871
0111012011
E 019.4213.5604
36.82
� 36.62
X60252 0110312011
CL E 010.4430.5605 34.73
34.73
� tD
tD
�F
-9h. 0
Page: 12
apCklil t Che History Listing ting Page: 13
0'113'1120'1'1 8:20AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
148520 01/21/2011 000439 MOSS, LEVY & HAI T HEIM
148521 01/21/2011 000441 M LLAHEY FORD
Status Clear/Void Date Ingle
K44 0 0
K60434
K43004
K47462
K60352
K60526
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
12/10/2010
E 010.4430.5605 33.15
33.1
0 1/05/2011
E 010.4420.5605 28.76
23.76
01/12/2011
E 010.4305.6255 28.25
28.25
0 1/08/201 1
E 01 0.4420.5605 9.77
9.77
01/04/2011
E 010.4424.5257 9.77
9.77
0 1/06/201 1
E 010.4430.5606 4.70
t> 182.66
1 82.66
0 148522 01121/2011 000465 NOBLE SAW, INC 101797 12/2612010
E 220.4303.5273 524.07
624.07
�F
CA 0
Page: 13
4.70
345.77
6402 12/31/2010
010.4120.5303
1 P 67.00
E 612.46' 0.5303
1
E 640. 1 0.6303
1 ,667.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
F CS211574 12/17/2010
E 010.4430.5601
1 62 .66
t> 182.66
1 82.66
0 148522 01121/2011 000465 NOBLE SAW, INC 101797 12/2612010
E 220.4303.5273 524.07
624.07
�F
CA 0
Page: 13
ap 1 Hest
Check History Listing
P age: 14
0113112011 8 :20A 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code. boa
C heck # Date Vendor
Status Clear/Void Data Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid Check Total
100479
1 2/09/201 0
E 010.4420.5605
286.63
286.63
101798
12/28/2010
E 220.4303.5603
187.75
1 87.75
1 00481
12/09/2010
E 220.4303.5503
168.00
168.00
100730
12/1 312010
E 010.4420.5603
104.51
104.51
1 00480
12/19/2010
E 0 10.
83.54
8& 54
1,854.50
148523 01121/2011 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
1/10- 620838
01/10/2011
E 612.4610.5402
240.80
240.80
1/11-781296
1/1112011
E 01 0.4145.5401
1 7.99
17.99
1112- 180318
01112/2011
E 010.4145.5401
8.87
^ CL
ice/
M
� F
ice/
148524 01/21/2011 006031 PACIFIC OVERHEAD DOOR
8.87
257.66
948 01/03/2011
E 010.420 1.5605 132.00
132.00
132.00
P 14
apC H1 t Check History Listing Page: i s
0113112011 8:20AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Statue ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
1 48525 01/21/2011 005695 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS 11968 1 #1312011
E 640.4712.5610 430.01
148520 01/21/2011 004757 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC.
148527 0112112011 008249 NICK E PO# RAJAD IN
148528 01/21/2011 008031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY
148529 01121/20/1 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS
148530 01/21/2011 000598 SNAP -ON TOOLS CORP
PD15022
PW 2010-12
06831
642761
203381
12/17/2010
E 612.461 0.5603
0111912011
E 350.5435.7001
E 350.5435.7201
12/30/2010
E 220.4303.561
12/2912010
E 010.4420.5605
01/12/2011
E 010.4305.5273
430.0#
163.13
16-
430.01
163.13
90,049.55
95,607.33
484.61
484.
1 73.89
173.89
81.62
95,607.83
484.6'1
W:'1
D 81.62
148531 0112112011 008641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 3163371 0110112011
CL E 010.4218.5303 212.32
212.32
c�
�F
0
Page: 15
D
c�
c�
CL
0)
c�
�F
00 0)
p kHi t
Che History Listing
Page: 1
01131/2011
:20AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
3163609
01/01/2011
E 010.4213.
11
112.16
3163157
0110112011
E 010.4213.5303
112.16
112.16
3163837
0110112011
E 010.42'13.5303
5.91
5.91
442.55
148532
0112112011
000002 SOUTH SLO COUNTY TY SA1 1T
123110
12/3112010
B 760.0000.2304
132
B 760.0000.2305
24,
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
E 010.4145.5401
15.30
R 01 0.0000.4753
-6
R 010.0000.4753
-13.50
150, 367.45
150,367.45
148533
0112112011
001050 SPECTRUM LANDSCAPING
01215
1211512010
E 350.5515.7001
6,000.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
148534
01/21/2011
000616 STERLING
25974
12122/2010
E 010.4420.5255
165.61
165.61
155.61
Page: 1
p kHi t Check History Listing Page: 1
0113112011 :2 AM CITY OF ARROYO # AI DE
Bank code; boa
Check # Da Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
148835 0112112011 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAFE WASH 2433
148836 01121/2011 008042 TOM'S AUTO SERVICE
148637 0112112011 606651 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC.
148638 0112112011 000673 US POSTAL SERVICE
148639 01/2112011 060660 USA BLUE BOOK
Inv. Date Amount Paid
Check Tota
1 2131 1201
E 640.4712.5601 26.46
E 810.4301.8601 20.36
E 220.4383.5601 27.1
148640 0112112011 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 011211 0111212011
tD E 226.4306.5303 6
CL
6
6,516.88
c�
�F
Page: 17
72.98
72.38
436
12/1712010
E 81 0.4430.6601
826.23
826.23
826.23
0741
0111212011
E 640.4712.6303
1
1,073.57
073989
0110612011
E 640.4712.6303
638.16
638.16
1,71 '1.73
011811
8112012611
E 010.4146.6208
3
3,060.00
3,066.66
306264
0116612011
E 640.41 +y 11.6603
32.16
32.16
3
148640 0112112011 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 011211 0111212011
tD E 226.4306.5303 6
CL
6
6,516.88
c�
�F
Page: 17
ap kH!st
Check History Listing
P 18
01/31/2011
:20AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code:
boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Statue ClearlVoid Date invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
143 541
01/21/2011
000537 WA N E "S TIDE, INC
798482
1212712010
E 640.4712.5601
15.00
18.09
1 6.00
148542
01/21/2011
004097 WELLS FARGO BANK N TL
1 221 1 0
121211201
E 470.4850.5802
28,818-39
28,813.39
28,818.39
1 48543
0112112011
004897 WOOD RODGERS I NC
74379
1210912011
E 350.5642.7701
15,331-90
15, 331.90
1 5,331.90
148560
0112512011
002180 AAA, INC
2730681432
0110112011
E 010.4145.5403
74.70
74.70
74.70
148551
0112512011
000038 AG CHAMBER F
012111
0112112011
E 010.4201.5501
60.00
E 010.4101.5501
60.00
E 919.4001.5501
180.00
E 010.4001.5501
60.00
360.00
360.00
148502
01/25/2011
008049 CA DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
012511
0112512011
E 220.4303.5255 55.00
t� 55.00
55.00
CL
148566 0112812011 007704 AECOM USA INC 37081634 0111212911
E 350.5829.7501 8
8
F
N co
o�
Page: 1
apCkH!st Che History Listing Page: 1
0113112011 8 :2 AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
B ank code. boa
Check # Date Vendor
148567 01/28/2011 007241 ANIMAL SERVICES
148568 01/28/2011 005507 AT&T
148589 0112812011 006807 AT
Status Diearlid Date Invoice
010'111
117 - 7480
Inv. Date Amount Pared
01/01/2011
E 010.4201.5321 22.905.00
011071201'
E 01 0.4201.5463
000001 970823 1212512610
E 010.41
Check Total
22,905.00
63.81
63.8'
287.19
267.19
148570 01/28/2011 000058 BANK OF AMERICA
118 - 2050 01/08/2011
E 220.4363.5303
E 010.4421
E 220.4303.8255
E 010.442 1.820'1
E 01 0.4426.6201
E 010.4424.5257
824.67
62.88
152.23
38.51
447.80
1,549.14
8,600.85
22, 905.60
63.81
267.'1
D
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
Page: 1
D
c�
c�
CL
0)
c�
N co
N�
ap H! t
Check History Listing
Page. 20
01/3112011 :2 AM
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code. boa
Check# Date Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Da
Amount Paid Check Total
118 -9444
01/08/2011
E 010.4002.5501
20.72
E 010.4002-
16.07
E 010.4002.5501
15.99
E 010.4002.5501
310.32
E 010.4002.5501
5.75
E 010.4101.5319
34.18
E 010.4101.5501
595.00
E 010.4002.201
20.75
E 010.4002.5501
8.62
1,027.40
110 - 7782
0110812011
E 010.4425.5255
150.44
E 010.4425.5259
310.20
E 010.4101.5319
50.37
511.01
1/
01108/2011
E 01
23.9
E 010.4001-5201
83.14
E 010.4101.5319
90.66
E 010.4101.5319
88.95
E 010. 4001.5504
120.11
808.8'1
1/8-4272
01/08/2011
E 010.4120.5501
110.00
110.00
1/8-2083
0110812011
E 010.41 30.5201
39.71
E 010.41 30.5503
1 1.21
50.92
Page:
apCkH!st Check History Listing Page: 21
01/3112011 ; 20AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
C h e c k # Date Vendor
Status Dlearlid Date Invoice
118 -6736
1I3 - 2581
Inv, Date
Amount Paid
01/08/2011
E 010. 4101.5501
12.82
E 010.4101.5501
24.39
E 01 0.4101.5501
13.42
50.63
01/08/2011
E 01 0.4301.5201
27.82
Che ck Total
Page: 21
27.32
3,633.73
148571
01/28/2011
007 304 BUR E, WILLIAMS&
143031
01/07/2011
E 010.4003.5327
1
1,304.25
1,304.25
148572
01/28/2011
008292 BU NES COMMERCIAL
012111
0112112011
E 010.4101.5303
2
2,923.00
2,923.00
1 48573
01/2812011
000137 CA ST DEPT O SOCIAL
010511
01/05/2011
E 010.4425,5255
1
1,100.00
1 ,1 00.00
148574
01/28/2011
005890 CANNON
50044
12/31/2010
E 640.4711.5303
2
2,385.00
2,385.00
D
148575
01128/2011
000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
7314 - 454592
12/2112010
c�
E 010.4201.5601
15.43
CL
'15.43
15.43
c�
w�
Che ck Total
Page: 21
apC kHi st Check History Listing Page: 22
1/31/2011 :20AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check Date Vendor
148576 01/2612011 008286 DATAARC LLC
148577 01/28/2611 000208 J B DEWAR, IN
148578 01/2812611 007838 EAGLE COLLISION REPAIR
148579 01128/2011 608121 FIVE CITIES FIRE
148580 01/28/2011 000202 FRANK'S 'S L 1 KEY
Status Clear/Void Date Invoice
1 137
Inv. Date Amount Paid
12/31/201
E 350.6438.7301 10.678.0
10,678.86
1 0,676.86
749836 12/31/201
E 01 0.4201.6608 26.89
26.89
20.69
438 12/31/201
E 016.4261.6601
2
2,986.04
482 1211 7/281
E 018.4201 .6601
1, 62.02
1,462.02
4, 430.06
FCFA -2010 - 607 0110612011
E 010.4145-5303
347 22.25
E 218.4101-5303
22.660.
369,622.25
369,622.28
1 423 12/30/2010
E 010.4201.5255 78.00
76.06
75.06
1 48581 01/28/2011 60 481 GALLS -AN ARAMARK CO 3478332 1216712010
E 010.4201.5504 108.85
108.85
CL 168.85
c�
C heck To ta l
Page: 22
Page: 23
ap kHiet
01/31/2011
:20AM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
P 2
Bank code: boa
Check #
Date
Vendor
Status Clear/Void Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
148582
01/28/2011
004372 GARING TAYLOR
10988
12/31/2010
E 350.5934.7591
395.54
305.54
395.54
148583
01/28/2011
000330 GSA-INFORMATION TECH
413
01/06/2011
E 010.4201, 5606
338.51
336.51
336.51
148584
01128/2011
000407 11 ANKINS FAMILY RENTALS
011811
0111812011
E 751.4555.5551
3,040.34
3
3,040.34
148585
01128/2011
900429 DINER'S ACE HARDWARE, IIAI E,
45557
12/21/2010
E 919.4291.5891
10.39
10.30
1 0.30
148588
01/2812011
005817 MOTOR COP SHOP INC
5388
12/29/2010
E 010.4201.5272
363.90
E 010.4201.5272
12.00
378.00
375.90
148587
01/28/2011
095850 NAPA AUTO PANTS
391383
11124/2010
E 0'1 0.4430.5801
11.89
11.89
D
302858
12/2212010
E 612.4610.5603
11.11
�
11.11
CL
C
23.00
c�
Page: 23
D
c�
c�
CL
0)
c�
N co
a� 0)
apDkHlt
0113112011 8 :20AM
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page: 2
Bank code: boa
148588 01/2812011 006328 NICKS TELECOM DEA
Status DlearNold Date Invoice
4246
4263
4290
4306
4298
4305
148589 01128/2011 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
IC
01181'1
1113 - 704689
148590 01/28/2011 008254 1 ADIFICWE T ENERGY
1172
01/07/2011
E 010.420' .560'1
12/2312010
E 010.4201.5255
E 010-4201.5255
E 010.4201.5255
E 010.4201.5255
01/06/2011
E 010.4201.5606
01/15/2011
E 010.4201.5601
01/111201
E O 10. 4201.5601
01/1512011
E 010.4201.5601
01/1812011
E 010.4145.5401
01/13/2011
E 010.4145.5401
1213112010
E 350.5439.7301
2
1,840.00
72.00
400.00
140.29
140.29
138.28
138.28
55.00
55.00
55.00
55.00
541.32
541.32
65.37
15,525.89
5 # 688.3/
606.69
Page: 2
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
epkHist Check History Listing P age:
01/31/2011 8;20AM CITY OF ARROYO YO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
148591 01/23/2011 007108 PARAMOUNT CLEANERS
148592 01/28/2011 007453 PLANNING COMPANY ASSOC
148593 01128/2011 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE /WATER
91 7
87967
12131/2010
E 010.4201 .5303
420.50
420.50
5
5
15.00
15.00
15, 525.69
12/31/2010
E 350.5642.
,#
01/01/2011
E 0'10.4201 .5604
420.50
5,000.00
15.00
1 48594 01/28/2011 002142 SAN LUIS PAPER CO
61 8135
615502
615501
616'166
618167
01/19/2011
E 010.4213.5604
12/07/2010
E 010.4213.5604
1 2/08/2010
E 010.4420.5605
01/19/2011
E 010.4213.5604
01/19/2011
81 5.
> E 010.4420.5605 123.43
123.43
C 10953.85
c�
N 0
0
Page: 2
Status Clear/Void Date Invoice
3459
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
pkH!st
0 1131/2011 8 :20A I
Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Page: 2
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
148595 01128/2011 000552 SLO COUNTY
330.50
D
t�
c�
c�
000
148590 01/2812011 005096 SLO COUNTY
148597 01/28/2011 000512 STAPLES
i= i
- T Iii i C:
148599 01/2812011 002137 VERIZON WI RELES S
Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
010611
1231'0
':J
9939456853
118600 0112812011 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER
822022387
01106/2011
R 010.0000.4203
1213112010
E 010.4201.5324
12/17/2010
E 010.4201.5291
12/31/2010
E 010.4201.5804
01/04/2011
E 010.4201-5403
01/07/2011
E 010.4421.5602
01
E 010.4201.5324
330.50
330.50
43.09
48.00
289.59
289.59
300.00
390.00
638.7
48.09
157.50
157.50
43.09
289.59
300.00
686.85
157.50
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
Page: 2
a pCkHilst
0113112011 8:2 AM
Check History Listing
CITY of ARROYO GRANDE
Page: 27
Bar code. boa
beck # Date Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice
148601 01/28/2011 000704 WIT 1ER # TYSON IMPORTS T8368
I nv. Date Amount Paid
01/0112911
E 010.4201.5322 500.00
E 010.4201.5322 479.81
979.81
979.81
D
c�
c�
CL
0
c�
105 checks in this report
boa Total:
Taal Checks:
Check Total
-- Vj4.
909,624.26
Page: 27
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENTAL TAL LABOF DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
1/712011 - 1 120120'1'1
1128111
FUND 010
311
FUND 220
19,611.90
FUND 226
1 * 893.41
FUND 284
1,583.16
FUND 235
1
FUND 290
11 3,601.22
FUND 612
6,854.12
FUND 640
23
Holiday Pay
484
T:
OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT:
Admin. Support Services
-
Community Development
Annual Leave Buyback
Police
5
Fire
5
Govrnment Bldg Marint.
Sick Leave Buyback
Engineering
5113
Fleet Maintenance
2
Parks
Comp Pay
ecreati0n - Admn
5115
ec - Special Events
-
Children In Motion
-
SctO Sport Complex
147.15
Public Works Maintenance
517.27
5123
11
5101
Salaries Full time
213,620.95
5102
Salaries Part - Tirane - PPT
18,749.27
5103
Salaries Part - Titre - TPT
31,805.22
5105
Salaries OverTirne
11
5107
Salaries Standby
365.25
5108
Holiday Pay
16
5109
Sick Pay
6
5110
Annual Leave Buyback
5111
Vacation Buyback
27
5112
Sick Leave Buyback
-
5113
Vacation Pay
2
5114
Comp Pay
3,440.71
5115
Annual Leave Pay
525.83
121
PETS. Retirement
76
5122
Social Security
22
5123
PADS Retirement
606.05
5 128
State Disability Ins.
1
5127
Deferred Compensation
633.21
5131
Health Insurance
45
8132
Dental Insurance
4,679.29
5133
Vision Insurance
1,060.42
5134
Life Insurance
461.32
5135
Long Term Disability
851.06
5143
Uniform Allowance
-
5144
Car Allowance
675.00
5146
Council Expense
-
517
Employee Assistance
21 7.36
5143
Boot Allowance
5149
Motor Pay
75.00
5150
BI- Lingual Pay
125.00
5151
Cell Phone Allowance
352.50
484, 752.45
Agenda Item 8.a.
Page 30
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor /Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council /Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council /RDA: Council /Board Member Joe Costello, Council /Board Member Jim Guthrie,
Council /Board Member Tim Brown, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Caren
Ray, and Mayor /Chair Tony Ferrara were present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of
Legislative and Information Services /City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of
Administrative Services Angela Kraetsch, and Community Development
Director Teresa McClish.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Bob Lund, representing Arroyo Grande In Bloom, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Dr. Mayer Harnish, Bahai Faith, delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Presentation by South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Regarding
Flood Event of December 19, 2010.
Tom Zender representing South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District, gave an
informational presentation regarding the flood of December 19, 2010, which resulted in a sewer
overflow. Mr. Zender responded to questions from Council.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Brown moved, Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all
further readings be waived.
7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
Zora High spoke in opposition to the proposed project at Courtland and East Grand.
Phyllis Kosmala resident of Parkview Manor, spoke in opposition to the proposed project at
Courtland and East Grand.
Thomas Coyne spoke about selective incorporation In which the Bill of Rights does not apply to
State and local governments and asked the Council to pass an Ordinance that states the Bill of
Rights is the law of the land.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 1
Minutes: City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda
Item to do so at this time. No public comments were received.
Council Member Brown requested Item 8.a. be pulled.
Action: Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion to
approve Consent Agenda Items 8.b. through 8.k., with the recommended courses of action.
City Attorney Carmel read the full title of the Ordinance in Item 8.g. The motion passed on the
following roll -call vote:
AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Brown, Ray, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of November 30,
2010.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of December 2, 2010;
the Special City Council Meeting of December 14, 2010, and the Regular City
Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting of December 14, 2010, as submitted.
8.d. Consideration of Council Appointments to City Commissions, Boards and
Committees.
Action: Approved the appointments to City Commissions, Boards and Committees.
8.e. Authorization to Reject Claim Filed Against the City — Claimant: D. Slover.
Action: Rejected the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection
letter to the claimant as recommended by the City's Claims Administrator, Carl Warren &
Company.
8.f. Consideration of Resolution Declaring A Continued Local Emergency.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4332 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING A
CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY ",
8.g. Consideration of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Appoint the City
Clerk and City Treasurer.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 629 as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 2.08.070 OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO APPOINT THE CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER ".
.8.h. Consideration of Amendments to Cellular Tower Lease Agreements with New
Cingular Wireless.
Action: 1) Approved the first amendment to the land lease agreement with New
Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for operation of a telecommunications site at 1275 Ash
Street; and 2) Approved the first amendment to the land lease agreement with New
Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for operation of a telecommunications site at 300 Reservoir
Road.
8.i. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Improvements for Parcel Map AG
08 -0078 Located at 127 Nelson Street and 138 Short Street Constructed by the
Pruett Family Trust.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 2
Minutes: City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Page 3
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4333 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PARCEL MAP AG 08 -0078, LOCATED AT 127 NELSON STREET AND 138 SHORT
STREET CONSTRUCTED BY PRUETT FAMILY TRUST".
8.j. Consideration of Approval of Granting Utility Easements to The Southern
California Gas Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4334 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING UTILITY EASEMENTS
TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY"; and authorized the Mayor to execute the easements on behalf
of the City.
8.k. Consideration of an Award of Contract to Crosno Construction, Inc. for
Construction of Reservoir 6 and Oro Booster Station Upgrades, Project PW 2010-
11.
Action: 1) Awarded a contract for construction of Reservoir 6 and Oro Booster Station
Upgrades to Crosno Construction, Inc., in the amount of $524,988.68; 2) Authorized the
City Manager to approve change orders for 10% of the contract amount $52,488.00 for
unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; 3) Approved a Fourth
Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Wallace Group; and 4)
Authorized the City Manager to sign the amendment.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Recommended Action Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period
December 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.
Council Member Brown referred to a check issued to Wallace Group for seven invoices,
expressed concerns, and requested a memo from staff explaining the charges in detail and to
provide copies of related contracts. City Manager Adams responded that staff would follow up
on the request.
Action: Council Member Brown moved to approve Item 8.a., Council Member Guthrie
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll -call vote:
AYES: Brown, Guthrie, Costello, Ray, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 10 -003 to Amend Development
Code Sections 16.04.070 and 16.32.030 to Allow Rounding Up for Fractional Units
When Calculating Allowable Density in the Multi - Family Zoning District.
Community Development Director McClish recommended the Council open the public hearing
and then continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 8, 2011 to
allow the Planning Commission time to consider the item at its January 18 meeting and make
a recommendation to the Council.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 3
Minutes: City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the
public hearing.
Action: Council Member Brown moved to continue the public hearing to the Regular City
Council Meeting of February 8, 2011. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brown, Guthrie, Costello, Ray, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS
10.a. Consideration of Proposal to Purchase Groundwater and State Water from the
Oceano Community Services District (OCSD).
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and provided information regarding the following
alternatives for Council consideration: Alternative A - General Plan Buildout Supply Alternative;
Alternative B - Conservation Alternative; and Alternative C - Combined Alternative.
Council questions and discussion ensued regarding the terms of Senate Bill (SB) x7 -7 which
requires a 20% reduction in water use by 2020; the City's anticipated date for build -out;
development type to reach build -out (i.e., in -fill development of vacant parcels and
redevelopment of underutilized parcels); discussion regarding lower water consumption in
higher intensity land uses; acknowledgement of existing General Plan policies that require
annexation projects to supply its own water sources; acknowledgement that the City is due for a
General Plan Update and related discussions should include current factors and revisiting
buildout numbers; that it would be unfair for ratepayers to pay increased water rates to
accommodate future development; acknowledgement that the City has seen a significant
reduction in water use over the last two years and that there is still a lot of opportunity for
conservation; concerns about current population and unit projections at buildout; justification for
upfront costs for groundwater; and costs associated with a special election to seek voter
approval for purchase of State water.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter.
Rob Strong commented on the many variables regarding buildout date projections and
expressed concern about the City not having enough water based on past consumption history.
Steve Loomis rural Arroyo Grande resident, commented it will only become more expensive to
purchase water in the future and supported the City's efforts to purchase water now.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council comments ensued in support of continuing water conservation efforts; the need to
comply with SB x7 -7; support for a modified version of Alternative C to purchase a reduced
amount of ground or Lopez water from OCSD (150 acre feet) but not State water; a request for
more data regarding number of units at buildout; more data from the 2010 Census as it relates
to population projections; concern about the perception of purchasing water for future
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 4
Minutes: City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
development; acknowledgement that some additional minimal allocation of water is needed to
sustain the existing population; concern about excess supplemental water not used and
associated reimbursements; support for putting purchase of State water on the ballot to provide
purchase opportunities in the future if necessary; acknowledgement that water conservation
efforts are just beginning for large water users; noted that reclaimed tertiary treated water will be
required in the near future; and that SLOCOG will also be looking at population and job
generation projections.
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to direct staff to communicate with Oceano Community
Services District to negotiate an Agreement to purchase either Lopez or groundwater in a
quantity of 150 acre feet, and to bring that Agreement back to the Council along with the
information regarding the 2010 Census, the current number of units projected for General Plan
buildout, and possibly a mechanism for how to address excess water. Council Member Brown
seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Brown, Costello, Ray, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:25 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
Staff requested that Mayor Ferrara re -open Item 10.a. to discuss a potential future ballot
measure related to the purchase of State water.
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to direct staff to bring back information and timelines
for a potential ballot measure that would address allowing the City to purchase up to a 150 acre
feet of State water sometime in the future. Council Member Brown seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Brown, Costello, Ray, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Leases with Options to Purchase and Agreements Affecting Real
Property Regarding Properties on Le Point Street for Expansion of the Le Point
Street Public Parking Lot.
[CC /RDA]
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Approve a
Lease with option to purchase and agreement affecting real property with John and Maureen
Gutierrez; 2) Approve a lease with option to purchase and agreement affecting real property
with Sunny Jacobson; 3) Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to make modifications to
the Gutierrez Lease and Jacobson Lease as determined to be necessary; and 4) Appropriate
$12,500 from the Redevelopment Agency Fund unappropriated fund balance for rent and
property tax payments for FY 2010 -11. He then responded to questions from the Council /RDA
Board regarding the Governor's proposal to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies and how that
action might impact the City.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 5
Minutes: City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Mayor /Chair Ferrara invited comment from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
Council /RDA Board comments ensued in support of the proposed lease agreements and that
the parking lot project will be a great addition to the Village and will coincide with the project on
Short Street.
Action: Council /Board Member Costello moved to: 1) Approve a Lease with option to purchase
and agreement affecting real property with John and Maureen Gutierrez; 2) Approve a lease
with option to purchase and agreement affecting real property with Sunny Jacobson; 3)
Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to make modifications to the Gutierrez Lease and
Jacobson Lease as determined to be necessary; and 4) Appropriate $12,500 from the
Redevelopment Agency Fund unappropriated fund balance for rent and property tax payments
for FY 2010 -11. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Ray seconded, and the motion passed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Costello, Ray, Brown, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
a) Request for PG &E Presentation on "Smart Meters" (FERRARA)
Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to schedule on a future
Agenda a presentation by PG &E regarding "Smart Meters ".
b) Request for Staff Report on Status and Capacity of Retention Basins (COSTELLO)
Council Member Costello requested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to prepare a staff
report for a future Agenda on the capacity of and damage to the City's retention basins.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Brown requested that detailed information from the Traffic Commission
meeting be included in the January 25, 2011 staff report concerning the proposed projects
located at S. Courtland and E. Grand Avenue.
In response to an inquiry by Mayor Ferrara concerning a letter from a resident on Asilo Street
regarding Tract 1834, Director McClish responded that staff has drafted a response.
Mayor Ferrara noted that the League of California Cities is working on talking points and a
strategy to partner with the California Redevelopment Association on a position in response to
the Governor's proposal to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies.
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 6
Minutes: City Council /Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Adams stated reported that staff is working on Census data and will be pursuing
designation as an urban area in order to be eligible for transportation funding.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor /Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor /Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk /Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg )
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.b.
Page 8
INCORPORATED
JULY 10, 19it , MEMORANDUM
To: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BELLY WETMO E, DIRECTOR of LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION
SERVICES/CITY CLERK 6VA)j
BY: KITTY NORTON, TO I, EXECUTI E ASSISTANTIDEPUTY CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION ATION To REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY
CLAIMANT: V. AUBUCHON
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council reject the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send a
standard rejection letter to the claimant as recommended by the City's Claims
Administrator, Carl Warren & Company.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact from this action.
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Aubuchon filed a timely claim against the City on September 23, 2010. Carl
Marren & Company, the City's claims administrator, is recommending that the claim be
rejected on the basis of its investigation and to authorize the City Clerk to send a
standard rejection letter to the claimant. The statute of limitations will run sic months
from the date the rejection letter is sent.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
As a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority CJPIA , the City has
general liability coverage which includes bodily injury, personal injury, or property
damage to ar third party that is the result of the City's activities. The CJPIA contracts
with Carl Marren & company ( "claims administrator" ) to investigate and respond to
claims. Upon completion of its investigation of the claim submitted by Ms. Aubuchon,
the City's claims administrator has recommended that the claim be rejected.
The City Council can take no action, and the claim will be deemed rejected by operation
of law 45 days after it was presented to the City Clerk. By allowing the claim to be
rejected by operation of laver, the time period in which a court action may be filed is two
(2) gears from the date of occurrence.
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF REJECTION OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY — V, AUBUCH N
FEBRUARY , 201'1
PAGE 2
Alternatively, the City Council may choose to reject the claim at a public meeting and
send written notice of the rejection. This reduces the time period in which a claimant
may file a court action to sic months following the rejection.
ALTERNATIVES:
ES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Reject the claim and authorize the City Clerk to send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant;
Take no action; however, this will extend the statute of limitations to two years.
ADVANTAGES:
If the Council rejects the claim at a public meeting, the claimant's statute of limitations
for filing a court action is reduced to sic months.
DISADVANTAGES.
If the Council does not reject the claim, the claimant's statute of limitations for filing a
court action is two gears.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall o Thursday, February 3, 2011. The
Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011. No
public comments were received.
Agenda Item 8.c.
Page 2
RO
A. INCORPORATE
c JULY 10. 1911
0 -k MEMORANDUM
O
To: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANA ER/DIRECTOR of EMERGENCY
SERVICES 4K
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE
TERMINATION of A LOCAL. EMERGENCY
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It Is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution proclaiming the termination of a
local emergency.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impart associated with the proposed action.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Arroyo Grande experienced an overwhelming amount of rain from the
December storms. The large amount of unusually heavy rains resulted in heavy runoff,
which significantly impacted property within the City. As a result, on December 22,
2010, a determination was made by the Acting Director of Emergency Services that
local emergency situation existed and a proclamation was issued declaring the
existence of a local emergency effective December 19, 2010. At an emergency
meeting held on December 22, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4331
confirming the Acting Director of Emergency Services /City Managers' Proclamation of
Existence of a Local Emergency. At the January 11, 2010 meeting, the City Council
adopted a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
The resulting storm conditions were beyond the capacity of the services, personal,
equipment and the facilities of the City of Arroyo Grande, including but not limited to:
Law Enforcement
0 Fire Department
0 Maintenance Services
0 Disruption of essential City services.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE TERMINATION of A
LOCAL EMERGENCY
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
The City incurred significant overtime costs for public safety and maintenance division
staff as a result of activities associated with the storms. Materials and equipment have
been used over and above normal operational levels. There was also damage to sports
facilities, streets and other City facilities and infrastructure. As a result, City staff is
working with County and Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA
representatives to request appropriate reimbursement.
The President recently d ecla red the event a Federal disaster, which now males it
eligible for financial assistance through FE 1A. Therefore, the City may be eligible for
reimbursement of expenses related to the incident. However, emergency conditions
have concluded. The County's declaration has expired. Therefore, it is appropriate for
termination of the local emergency at this time. Staff will continue to work on
reimbursement of the City's emergency related costs.
ADVANTAGES:
TAGES:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 8680 and the City's Emergency Plan,
declarations for a local emergency must be reviewed by the governing body at least
once every 30 days until the governing body proclaims the termination of such local
emergency. Therefore, it must be either terminated or extended at this time.
Termination is appropriate since emergency conditions and response have been
concluded.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified regarding this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Adopt a Resolution proclaiming the termination of the local emergency;
2. Modify the Resolution olution to extend the local emergency; or
3. Provide staff direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, February 3, 2011 and on the
City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 2
RESOLUTION .
A RESOLUTION F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
F ARROYO GRANDE, DE, CALIF F NIA, PROCLAIMING
THE TERMINATION F A LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande found that conditions
of extreme peril which threatened property had arisen within said City caused by
heavy storms rhi h commenced on December 19, 2010 and occurred
throughout December 2010, resulting in heavy runoff; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Proclamation of Local Emergency y n December
22, 2010, effective December 19 2010 and said Proclamation was extended on
January 11, 2010; and
1 HEI EAS,, the conditions of extreme peril caused by the emergency are now
deemed to be within the control of the normal protective services, personnel,
equipment, and facilities of and within the City of Arroyo Grande; and
NOW, THEREFORE, F E, BE IT RESOLVED thart the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby proclaims the termination of the local emergency and that
said Proclamation of Leval Emergency as prescribed by State law, ordinances,
and resolutions of this jurisdiction, are terminated.
On motion of Council Member # seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call Grote, to grit;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of February
2011.
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY 1I ETM RE, CITY CLERIC
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 8.d.
Page 4
INCOHkIDR T
Ci rM
JU 10 t8�t
MEMORANDU
U
To: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: I: TEf ESA II ccLISH.. 0 MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO
Y: MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of ACCEPTANCE of THE SOUTH ELM AND ASH
STREET SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE LANE IMPROVEMENTS
PRO PIN 2008 -c
DATE: FEBRUARY UAI Y 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Accept the project improvements ents as constructed by M.E. Avila construction
Corporation in accordance with the plans and specifications for the south Elm
and Ash street Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Improvements Project;
2. Direct staff to file a Notice of completion; and
3. Authorize release o f the retention, thirty -five 3 days after the Notice of
Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been filed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The city was successful in securing Transportation Enhancement TE grant funds for
the project, which require an 11.47% local match. The construction contract ($73,876)
plus ten percent extra for contingencies ($7,388) plus construction engineering costs
( $5,000) is eligible for TE reimbursement. Therefore, a total of $76,369 or 88.53%) of
TE funds is anticipated to be received towards construction costs.
The actual total construction project cost, including authorized construction changes, i
$94,580. The total construction cost of the project, including construction, contract
administration and testing is approximately $100,000. The differential amount of
$23,63'1 over and above the receipt of grant monies ($100,000 - $76,369) will be
financed from $23,631 of Local Sales Tax monies programmed for the project in the
amended CIP budget.
B ACKGROUND:
O n August 10, 2010, Council a ►carded a contract to M-E. Avila construction Corporation
to perform the South Elm and Ash street Sidewalk and Bicycle Improvements for
$73,876 and authorized the city Manager to approve change orders in the amount of
$7,388.
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of ACCEPTANCE of THE SOUTH ELM AND ASH STREET
SIDEWALK ALA AND BICYCLE LANE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PW 2008-07C
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
The project scope of work involved the construction of a side walk on the east side of
South Elan Street between the Cawelti Court Apartments and the Ash Street
intersection. Also included were new striping configurations to add bike lanes on south
Elan Street, between Farroll Avenue and Elm Street; and Fair Oaks Avenue, between
South Elm Street and Halcyon Road.
On December 14, 2010, Council approved additional funds from the Pavement
Management Fund, in the amount of $13,500, to address contract change orders for the
project. This increased the City Manager's authorization to approve change orders from
$7,888 to $20,888.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. There are no outstanding issues.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve staff's recommendations;
Do not accept the project;
Accept the project, but do not authorize release of retention; or
Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The project is complete. Accepting the improvements will allow staff to close out the
project.
DISADVANTAGES:
The disadvantage of accepting the improvements would be if subsequent deficiencies in
the work are identified. However, the contract documents include a one -year warranty
period for the contractor to address any construction defects that may arise.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt from CE QA pursuant to Section 15301 c & 0.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, February 3, 2011. The
Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011. No
public comments were received.
Attachment:
1. Notice of Completion
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK{
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
P.O. BOX .
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
ATTACHMENT 1
1. The undersigned is owner or agent o owner of the interest o estate or the property hereinafter described as stated below.
2. The FULL NAME of the OSIER is: The City ofArroyo Grande
3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 214 East Branch Street, Arrovo Grande, California 93420
4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee
5 . THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, if any, who hold such interest or estate with the undersigned as JOINT
TENANTS o as TENANTS fN COMMON are:
NAMES ADDRESSES
.- None
6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred
subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvements herein referred to:
NAMES ADDRESSES
None
7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED Januar; 1 r 2011
8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is:
ME. Avila Construction Corp oration
9. The street address of said property is None
10. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State
of California, and is described as follows: Elm and Ash Street Sidewalk and Biacle Larne Improvements Pry' ct W 2008 -o C
Verification of NON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that I any the Director o f Parks, Recreation and Facilities of the aforesaid Interest or estate in the property described In the above Notice; that
I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and the facts stated therein are true and correct.
Teresa McCli h, Community Development Director
February 9, 2011, Arroyo Grande, California
-- END OF DOCUMENT _-
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.e.
Page 4
INCORPORATED
' "' MEMORANDUM
JULY 10. 1911
1F
To: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Y. MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION To APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR
THE LE POINT STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND PARKING LOT
EXPANSION PROJECT, PIN 11-
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City council:
1. adopt a [Litigated Negative Declaration:
2. approve the construction plans and specifications for the Le Point Street
Improvements and Parking Lot Expansion Project;
3. direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination,
4. appropriate $40,000 from the Downtown Parking Fund; and
5. appropriate $120,000 from the Transportation Facilities Find.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Capital Improvement Program includes $400,000 for the project, funded with
$50,000 from the Downtown Parking Fund and $350,000 from Redevelopment Agency
Funds. Thus far, $34,803 has been spent on planning and designing, leaving a balance
of $365,791. Additional funding for the project is recommended from the Downtown
Parking Fund, which is parking in -lieu fees received from the Short Street Shops
project. If appropriated, $120,000 from the Transportation Facilities Fund will be
allocated for the Le Point Street widening segment of the project. The Engineer's
Estimate for the base bid construction is $450,000 ($350,000 for the parking lot +
$100,000 Le Point Street widening). The total estimated project cost (design,
construction, construction contingencies, testing, and contract administration) is
$515
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION To APPROVE E CONSTRUCTION PLAINS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ONMENTAL DETERMINATIOI FOR THE LE POINT STREET
IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT, P 112011-02
FEBRUARY Y , 2011
PACE 2
BACKGROUND:
The 2002 pillage Concept Plan and parking study identified expansion of the Le Point
Street parking lot as the top priority for parking expansion, which was approved by the
Downtown Parking Advisory Board and City Council. The Traffic Study for the Short
Street project also included the proposed Le Point Street public parking lot expansion to
replace the public spaces lost and to accommodate new commercial development. In
2006, property was acquired on Le Point Street by the Redevelopment Agency to allover
for the parking expansion.
On January 11, 2011, the Council approved a lease with an option to purchase and
agreement affecting read property with John and Maureen Gutierrez; approved a lease
with option to purchase and agreement affecting real property with Sunny Jacobson;
authorized the City Manager and City Attorney to make modifications to the leases as
determined to be necessary, and appropriated $12,500 from the Redevelopment
Agency Fund unappropriated fund balance for rent and property tax payments for Fly
201 0-11. This action provided additional right-of-way necessary to expa. n the pa rk ing
lot project.
At the October 12, 2010 meeting, the City Council approved amending the list of
Transportation Improvement Projects to make the Le Point Street widening project
eligible for Transportation Facility funds, revenue received from development impact
fees for capacity enhancing projects. Le Point Street provides primary access to the
existing leased public parking lot on Mangy ins' property, as well as more than 30 private
parking spaces and secondary access to the 36 public and 5 private parking spaces in
the Car Corral to the west. Therefore, more than 20 parking spaces will be dependent
on access from Le Point Street, but the street does not meet existing standards and is
insufficient to provide this level of access.
The Downtown Parking Advisory Board LPAR discussed the project design for the Le
Point Street Improvement and Public Parking Lot Expansion on September 1, 2010,
January 6, 2011 and provided comments on the design. On January 2, 2011, the
PAB advised staff to proceed with the design as presented.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
The project will redevelop two public parking lots totaling twenty -three 23 and thirty -
four 3 spaces, respectively, into a new multi - terraced parking lot totaling 132 parking
spaces for a net gain of seventy -five spaces. The project will also widen the
southern portion of Le Point Street (approximately 450 feet westward from North Mason
Street) from twenty 20 feet to thirty -two feet (curb-to-curb and add a six foot wide
sidewalk on the south side.
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION ATION To APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION N FOIE THE LE POINT STREET
IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT, PW 2011-02
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PACE
The project will be constructed in two or three phases. The first phase (the subject
project) will construct the eastern tvv - thirds of the concept plan, composed of
parking s paces located south and east of the house at 132 Le Point Street. Three
terraces will provide a two-way driveway aisle with perpendicular parking spaces on
each side, connected by sloped access driveways and separated by lour retaining walls
and shallow bi -s gales below each terrace. The existing access driveway to the City's
existing 23 space public parking lot behind 215 East Branch Street will be extended
west to connect to the existing 34 space leased public parking lot driveway from Le
Point Street to provide secondary access. Both houses will remain and each will be
provided with two 2 open private parking spaces for interim use.
The project is designed in accordance with Logy Impact Development practices in the
City's Storm dater Management Flan and includes bios vales and porous pavement.
The bid documents include additive alternates for the inclusion of landscaping and
pervious concrete for storm water removal.
The bid documents are complete and staff will advertise the project for competitive bids
upon Council approval. The contract time is estimated at gg calendar days. Work is
expected to begin in late March 2011 and finish by June 2011.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve the plans and specifications for the Le Point Street Improvement and
Parking Lot Expansion Project,
- Do not approve staffs recommendations;
- Modify staff s recommendations,
- Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The project will increase the number of available parking spaces in the Downtown
vn
Parking and Business Improvement Area and provide parking and circulation
efficiencies.
DISADVANTAGES:
There will be temporary inconveniences to adjacent businesses and residents during
construction .
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE LE POINT STREET
IMPROVEMENT T AID PUBLIC PARKING LOT EXPANSION PR JECT, P 11 2011- 2
FEBRUARY 8. 2011
PAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff prepared the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with
CE QA in October 2010 to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed
project as well as the future project phases (see Attachment No. 1). No significant
impacts were identified. The City's standard mitigation measure for monitoring during
Construction has been included. Mitigation measures were included for impacts to air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the San Luis Obispo County
Air Pollution Control District. A Cultural resources study was Conducted on site and no
archeological impacts were identified. A transportation Circulation study was performed
and no impacts were identified.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
Staff forwarded a meeting notice on the Notice of Availability to all property owners and
residents within a 300 foot radius of the Le Point parking lot on ,January 14, 2011 (see
Attachment I. 2. The agenda was posted on Thursday, February 3, 2011. The
agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011.
No public comments were received as of the time of preparation of this report.
Attachment:
1. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. 1/14/11 Public Notice
3. Notice of Determination
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 4
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Proiect ATTACHMENT
CITY OF
-- INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
L ! F 0 R N
DECLARATION
t
,x"',•+a so-.
* Y
.. � s■•r ,v
.
x
c �
EF, ; �c
a rte:.* -.�. .. ._ �t.4_. ,.,,._._;,�. .- .r -'°.. _.` t �' .�!`. ;r. •,� --^ +,• - °'.++�..o-� �d" "� ���F���' � {
;
r Out F ■r, eau■
r
._ M, -..iSw .�Y..- ...
r- t* N n_._.._. : �' .........r i!i- Rf �r 1 f �•
�x ..
v�
{ r
y
.. ..._..... ..
' U �
- '�.}. *.i� -- .. �..x .- # •L i�� e � ::� MM' Y ::..�.. ..�.W.rr r„�yf�
J .
F
- - . _
. ... x
{ �.' � '�,.�`*\ 4# `� Grai�'siirlrneW< -+-n .h���h�..._..::,._:.,. �. .i m ...Jo-. t i.. ■l ri• 1� -1., r'�' -
t
22 w
,. a .... .. ... . ... .. .. .. .. .. +� ,.
� �' + I +
t � •
r
-
,� '.� �r _ �. rr.. {. c �,..�.» -. s� .4 i•`�r k i� ,. � ao-ra
: a
r
c
;
.v
_
Emit -
-011ie 41!
V ■s� �i
moll
-- n 4MF = ' vy ^ ' - g 2 .....
... Itmon f ig 16PI g L
■L ■F+wo-'�. +,w. '' .�sg" � '# '° H,,,.
� - �'��
Az
v ......_.. _..
�m L14
T ft ,/� � ry '
r'
0 1 +• lie Y *.. v 1 x 1 *
11 1LIC
LL Af
o•
F F Y ! l.t ass 1�'•# s .- .v -.., k
_ - nh
uv
Srra'� aaR er # t�
N 'R
FF•:p..e . #._
;
1►
. .. ......... ,T ..i �' } ".wx. - .•. _ srK. s ,r�r
. t.
.. a - ........,+,.. �. +�
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project
City of Arroyo Grande, California
October 2.010
Page I of 34
Agenda Item 8■f.
Page 5
Le Point Street W i de njn an Pu b I ic Parkin Lot Expansion Project October 2010
i k ��' .x Fi ", � v {� Y om' �, .�...i�rf y���,`„��,�rw•
_. F ,
- 7
1� �- ��.,�.. _ . : ' ., ►.�� +_���� �';. {.. � #' ��,�r�,i: �` �� ...,.;,i Y x. "11 - .. �,� I.,.��.:+ �� I Y�
. . ....... ... .... ..
IF
F
. .........
11, 13, 77
J� K
L 7TT.
... ... -V*IW MyWW4! W U It ■'M 4W
MM 4W MM V 1M W
-0 -4
-M MM IW MNJHWt Ot IM ILL� M-
A � , ......
ir
IT:
P S Z
j
I MURL
vcp--v,
Phase II P Co' n"c'ep't'PIa . n
... . . ..... ..
Pa 2 of 34
A Item 8.f.
Pa 6
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Project: Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project
Lead Agency: City of Arroyo Grande
Document Availability:
City o Arroyo Grande
C ommunity Development Department
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Granule, C 93420
Arroyo Grande Library
80 0 We Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 33420
• httP
Project Description:
The proposed project will widen a portion of Le Point tr : t.: tir een North Mason' Street and Nevada
Street (approximately 450 linear feet) from twenty ( ) to"thi, t -two (3 2) feet, curb -to- curb, including
installation of a six (6) foot wide sidew lk.'on the uth side. Tl :: ".reject also includes redevelopment of
two ) public parting lots totaling twenty -thee (2 3) thirty - 'r.. (34} s paces, respectively, into a new
multi- terraced parking lot ..t tail : ng approximately 132 'spaces for :"gain t gain of seventy ( 0) spaces.
. ..... Several mature trees ip 1. 0 ... g :: oak, four palms, a dlti- trunk arcacia'"and a few small plants will be
........... ...
removed. Bio- swales�::W utili d .along each terrace and ate. DA compliant pe destrian path will
connect the part i ng lot'to'.. ih sidewa` djac nt to East Branch Street.
The proposed project will be ::.: stru tied ;: ire : iro or three phases. The first phase of construction
consists of t# e eastern two thin f the corgi pt:�:pla.n, composed of approximately o parking spaces
located south and east Of the. house . p ' t .132 Le Point - treet. The three terraces each provide a two way
driveway aisle with perpendi lar parkin 'g spaces on each side, connected by sloped access driveways
a nd separated b low retaining walls ''and .
shallow blo -swale below each terrace Pha
Construction Project Drawing on' .: pver). Thy' . existing access driveway to the City's exi 23 space
public parking lot behind 215 E. B ranch Street w i ll be extended west to connect to the existing 34 space
leased public parking lotAriv way from Le Point Street to provide secondary access. Both houses will
remain and each will be provided tw.' o ( ) open private parking spaces. for interim use.
During the next 5 to 10 gears, the western third of the site would be reconstructed to three similar
terraces reconfiguring the existing 34 leased spaces. Completion will require removing the house at 2
Le Point Street for are additional connecting drive aisle, subject to City acquisition of the portions of two
or three private properties affected by this design (See Com pleted Project Concept Plan on Cover).
S ummary Document Preparation:
Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Q uality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the
City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the city. The
Page 3 of 3
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 7
Lo Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
C ity, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are
feasible and will be implemented as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Y
Teresa cClish, AICP
Director of Community Development
1-1±1(
Date
Rob Strong, AIP
Contract Planner
Page 4 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 8
Le Paint Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Table of Contents:
Introduction a ... +..........,rr.aa.art,,. +...+ ........ ..... 7
Intro n and Regulatory
V�IL.+IQ tir rrrrr�.,.. +. +. *.ssa.,.....,....
Lead • �..+....+ issss .�i...... +.. +iriisaia......+ ....... ...... .... +.+ ....... ++ .......... !
''� .s +sr artrart. .ss..sa a, r. .srssaasr, + ** +rasa. .rss a.ra+ .s.ar a.sr
Purpose and Docu O r.+..+... asrsrartr.++ .. + +. *.a.asra...... +..s.asrsara a +. +.. +.rsrsaara..... + +.r.a ■.raa. rt. +.•.. *.. + *�. rasr I
Summary of Findings .......rrrsss. r. +.. +.. , ... +..... ...... ......+ ,.,..+ ...... ........ 8
+s.rsa• ,rt. +a rr,a. +s +rsaar,. +s.ss.sa+ .rr�sr sa.sr. .ssr.sa.at.rt+
Project Description ..................r......... ......... ....+ ..+ ......+ ..... ......
•* +.arts., +r rsr.art. .r. rssrrs rt.. .�..s rrsrra. .rs•srra +s. .ss.srartrrr.,. +srss
n t ro uctir
. +...rs rr■as ta..+....... r. ras■ aa+ r..+...+ rrsa ■rtrr...... +..rssraa...... + +.ssa r.■ a. .'r... *..rss.srr.. ■a.. +...rs.s. Barr .a +... +. +. *isrsrrt............
Background and Need for Project
.. ss. rss+ rta++...+..+.. ssa .srt.. +....rsssar.r.�.a.�. +�.rs rssas +r.... +....swrsrra a +... +..ssr.srartrt... s. +.. +. +ss *•
Project Description r.s s s 64 ........isr r. ar.......*.. r. ssi. ri......* israarr....... 0904 iasrri .dfi...i*.+sr1ra4......f + +. *.ssa artr........ i 0 f r 0
O th er + ui d Public Agenc p V a ls....wart.. w..... *train. rr..... + *ira sarrirr..... + ..........ara ii........ *
Related 7rtJ risrsrrii4 444. +.. +. *s +.ssr4444.... *aa.ari ii4444. +. *issirr.i...... *ffi.ra art.......... rrs. sri ..i *rss.artr... #.i *.is. ai.a+r.i....r■ 10
Environmental i .s.. ........ + ........ *0s.lrart W. +......�sssar...i .....1 *�srl rt...... +r *�.fs.rtr•.'........ssr /r�i,.i +4444. +�srs sarr� ��
r j e ct I n S,/r atio .......�assaa i ����. + +* *sa aar. i.r.... 90��irrri
Environmental Factor Potentially A L. t. d. r. s...... ................................... r.s. i ............... d.................. 1
.. .. ....
D eterminati on
4444 ... .. + #�J
*f f Fr. �a +i. *.ss.i 4444..* rss.a� rr .... +r1�F.�r�rt.......0004 a arai...t*.. 1 �. saa f. �.. r. srr.....A.4 00 0 aara........0.af fir• l
.. 444:4.
E valuation f Envi I ... +. r- ais aa. ar..+... a. rirriar .... .....rraa6.........f *ssa.ai.i..
.. 4444... ..
4444.. 4444...:
Envi ronmental Iss ues.. .......... ....... t a a.asa. 4 rIaiarrri .......gri s 6 i.......rr raaa.ri... .. +.... raraaai 1
1 . Aesth etics . ......... *..raasarrr...... .. ..... ...... *traaara r....r... *.a.ari........ +.r raa .irt......fa.iaria.ia.........
11+ Agricul and Forest esour es ................asa.rt...... ..f.. rani...... . raaraa........ .......a. *rra. i.........aa..rt. ri 14
I I I. Ai r Q a ....... ...... ..... � ....... .... + ....... .... 1
+.rsaartrt. .*.r.s.ara+ .rs.rrsa. +srssaasr+ .rss.sra. .. 9.9099. r. ...ars..a,. a.. +.
IV . Biological R dm'e'S ........ +. rsssa art.......ar ra■ rt, a...... 004 0arr ...... r. *aasayri........ ara ra,rt....... + * +aaarrii......
rase ara a.......as■s.sar V
V. Cultural R our ces ...... * * *a.aaraa.... +..aar. a rarraa ia.... ..aaraarr........araar.a......a r..a.a,i...... �r. raa a
VIP Geolo and Soils .yr
..... sssrsaarr .r..:rsr.asra,....rss..sa ar..,.. rsraaarr .......s*a.a...ri......a.sa aar...... +rsss..art....... as *aryrt.i....... *faa 1
1111 GrLenho J4 G Emissions..,* .ia..r.a ....... a..rrirr..... *aa is r rrtr.. *..*.a..ai ir..r.raaa.rra ir... * *.i.aiara. a a...i.rar.+r.. i m i r *. *.....■ 21
VIII. Hazards and Ha Materials . aar...... saa. aara ......... rra■ asr ... +., +rasrasa........ s+s..aara a.......sraasar......... 22
IX. Hydrology and Wat ' �ality;. ..... ...... ...... ..... .......+ ... 44.44..
raa, .ssssra.r. .ssart+ .*.rrrsr..a. ..sr.a. .saasrrart.�. .rsirsrart. ....ar■
s Land Use and Planning. ..... .,. .... ...... ..... ......... ..... 4444..
• *+ s r a a r. . s s r. s s s a rt �. . r s s. s s a. . r s s a s rt a r. . s a c s .iii . . s r s s rt r. + s s. a r a+ + s r s s s a r a
X19 M ineral R esources ■ ...............................
r r s a s s . rt ......... . , .. + .. + . 4444. +
i�` sari. .srsaart, rt. + +sari,.........ss *a.artrt +' 24
711 IIJ• aa,...+ .. +. + *.arartrt. +.......asaa,a.. +. „ +4444 4444.
••9.900. +srssa.r. +sr■ rani. +.. 9000 ..sr +.......rs.aaaaa...,.... +s s. art..... +..ssr..raa.... + ++
XIII. Population and ..... 4444 ...+ ...... ...+ ...
•rasa rr. +r +saara, .ssa.arr. . * +.rs■a.rt r, ..ssrrra.a. +rsasraart. .0090 s.a, +.. .r r.a
X IVr P e r iwr .... ..asrswr..... +.. *sr.i�...... ..
Recreation a. .....■ aaa. a... + + +..ra.s +... +4444 *s sartrt.... 4444 +rsssas... 26
X rt •• .............. ................. ...... • ... ......4.. ..4.... +..sstsr..•..... +.0000 /
. +s....a, as :••ar. +s.rra..r.r..... +..9909 +s +as.ssa artrt
} 1 !a 'Transportation Traffic ........................+ ...... ........ ........+ ........
.rssrsrr. .assssart. +rr rsssrtt. +. �. srart. 4010044.6 ......... 0-.OM6
Page 5 of
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 9-
Le Point Street Widening and Public Perking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
} VIL Utilities and Service Systems ............+.........++.+.....+.++......++ ..............+................. ...............................
Mandatory Findings of Significance ...+.+ ........................r.rr.• r........................................ ...............................
Summary of Mitigation Measures ...+............+.........+...+......+....+........+......+ r.....+....,+.... f+. •fr...ffrr.r.f..* * + *. +.,.......
References++... i...++* f+.•....• r**.,. i•• F•.•.... r.P...•...... r.ar.. r■..•......rrrr..... r............P....rr. r. r .............. ..•............................ 4
Page G Of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 10
Le Point Street W id en ing and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Introduction
Introduction and regulatory Guidance
The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/M D) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo
Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This
document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public
Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Cade of Regulation ( R)
§15000 et seq.
An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment [ EQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment,, an Environmental Impact Report EIR) must be prepared, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in
the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant
effects to a less -than- significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an
E!R [ EQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons
a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EI
need not be prepared. This IS/11111 D conforms to the content requirements under C EQA Guidelines
§15071.
Lead Agency
The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with
general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single o limited
purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande. The contact person for
the lead agency is
Te resa Mc 11 , Dire of Comm unity Development
City of Arroyo Grande
Arroyo G ray ride, CA 93420
(805) 473 -5420
Purpose and Document Organization
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed
project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate any
potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less -than- significant level.
This document is organized as follows:
Introduction
This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization
of this document.
Project Description
This chapter describes the reasons for the project, scope of the project, and project objectives.
Page 7 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page I I
Le Point Street Widening and Public Paring Lot Expansion Pr jet October 2010
• Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This chapter identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts, explains the
environmental setting for each environmental issue, and evaluates the potential impacts
identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation measures are
incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall significance of any potential impacts to
natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts., and impact to humans, as identified in the
Initial Study.
•
Summary of Mitigation Measures
This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures in orpor t . d into the project as a result of the
Initial Study.
• References
This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparatio'n'of this IS/MND. It also
provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document.
Summary of Findin
Section 3 of this document contains th ...Envir pmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the
potential environmental impacts (by envir nm ntal issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting
from implementation of the proposed project...:
In accordance with §15064(f) of the CECLA G d d e III: , a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
prepared if th-e proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion
of mitigation measures in the project. Based :.::ob the available project information and the
environmental'ari'alysis presented in this docurnent,::'there is no substantial evidence that, after the
incorporatio'n of mitigation measures, the pro 'posed project would have a significant effect on the
environm rit. It is propd d, that a Mitigated Negative Declaration he adopted in accordance with the
EQA Guidelines.
Page 8 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 12
Le Point Street Wi den i and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010.
Project Description
Introduction
This Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City o Arroyo
Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The project
site is located in the village of Arroyo Grande, on the south side of Le Point Street between North Mason
Street and Nevada Street, consisting of sic properties that total approximately 2 acres. There are
two () single - family residences on the project site.
Background and Need for Project
The project site is located in the City"s Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area (P131A), which
was created in 1970 for the purpose of developing and maintaining public off - street parking lots and
other improvements. In 2002, the City's Downtown wn Parking Advisory Board (DPAB) conducted several
parking studies and recommended a concept plan for the village area that included, as the top priority,
Page 9 of
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 13
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
a project for phased expansion of the existing Le Point Street public parking lots. In 2005-2006 the
City's Redevelopment Agency acquired an adjacent vacant lot for this purpose. Subsequently, several
public and private development projects have b approved in the vicinity, including 'Centennial Park'
and 'The Slops at Short Street', which will reduce the number o f off- street public parking spaces
currently available in the Village.
Project Description
The proposed project will widen a portion of Le Point Street between North Mason Street and Nevada
Street (approximately 450 linear feet) from t wen ( ) to thirty -t iro { } feet, curb-to-curb, including
installation o f a sic ) foot wide sidewalk on the south side. The project also includes redevelopment of
two () public parking lots totaling twenty ( ) and thirty i( spaces, respectively, into a new
multi terraced parking lot totaling approximately 132 spaces.Jor..�a net gain of seventy spaces.
Several mature trees including one oak, four palms, a multi- ttui:r "" a is and a few small plants will be
removed. Bio- swales will be utilized along each terra e` :. an -' DA compliant pe destrian path will
connect the parking I ot to the sidewaIk adjacent to East Bra nch Street':
Other Required Public Agency Approvals
No other public agency approvals are required for the proposed project.
Related Project
The proposed project is related to the -' p.tennial Park' and `Thee Shops at Short street* projects and it is
also intended to facilitate future pr j :'wi ' it in . the PBIA through utilization of ire -lieu public parking
fees.
Page 10 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 14
Le Point Street Widening and Pubikc Parkin Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Environmental Checklist
Pr oject Information
Project Title: Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot
Expansion Project
Lead Agency Name & Address: City o Arroyo Grande
214 East Brach Street
Arroyo Grande, CA.
Contact Person & Telephone Number: Teresa Mc lish, Director o f Community Development
(805) 473.5420
Project Location: South o f Le Point Street, West o Miller Way,
betw' ee' n North M ason and Nevada Streets
Project Sponsor Name & Address: City f Arroyo Grande
..
14 n'd 300 E.�.Br n h Street
Arryd ran'd
General Plan Designation: Vi llage re"'(Y .
Zo ning - Village Mixe U '(VMQ - D - .4)
Description of Project ;.:::::. °ry ..:........ Refer to page 1
Surrounding Lard lases & S ttin g: The project site is surrounded by park and residential
:.:::..:.... uses to the north a rid east and co rnmer lal and office
uses to the south and West. The site itself contains
two e xisting houses (132 and 202 Le Point Street).
Approval Required uired fr m other Public Agencies: None
Page 11 of
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 15
Le Point Street widening and Public Parkin Lot Expansion Project October 201
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact ", as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages:
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources El Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ources ❑ cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils
❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology /water Qua
Land Use /Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Eloise
❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a :signifi a`n t effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLAMATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the original scope of the proposed project C had a significant
effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect be s , . , r visi n mitigati ns
to the project have begirt mad b r agreed t by the applicant. MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLAMATION will be prepared: ... ....
:.:::::..
❑ I find that the proposed prof ct`- : M . " ha'v'e . : a significant effect on the envir onment and an
ENV1 RO INMENTAL IMPACT REPORT r its funtti ina1 .equivalent wiII be pre pared.
:.: ::. .. ..' ... ..
E] i find that the proposed ' pr Ject MAY: air :: a::::. potenti. fly *gn *fi ant impact it " potentially
potentially
significant unless' Mitigated impact" on tie environment!'. Hbwev r, - at least one impact has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier do .61.' .ent, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
has been addressed by rnitigati n' measures' based on the earlier analysis, as described in the
rep 't 1: attachments. Are ENVIRONMENTAL ONMENTAL IMPA T REPORT T is required, but it must analyze
only 'the innpa is riot sufficiently addressed in previous documents.
l find ..that, alth ough :::�th a pro dsed project could have had a significant effect on the
...:....:.: .
enviro nt, because .1I: '.%potentiarlly significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR Or Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or
mitigated.. pursuant to an arlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon thh :.props d project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less -than-
sinificant level and rq:.fut ' he r action is required.
Rob Strong Date
Contract Planner
Page 12 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 16
Le Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact ", that are adequately
supported by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources shover that the impact does not apply to the project being
evaluated (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on general or project - specific factors (e.g., the project will not
e sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis).
2 . All answers must consider the w hole of the project- related effects, both direct and indirect,
including off - site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts.
3 . Once the lead agency has determined that a particular phyi igal impact may occur, the checklist
answers must indicate whether that impact is potentiall�i � r�ificant, less than significant with
mitigation, o less than significant. "Potentially 6ignJfi ari. J is appropriate when there i
sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially b`stan'4i ]..adverse change may occur in 'any
of the physical conditions within the area affected by the :'prpject that cannot be mitigated
below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant impact" entries, an
Environmental Impact Report EIR) is required.
4 . A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration: Less Than ;' i ificant with Mitigation
Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures,`p r to declaration of
project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially' Significant Impact Tl: a "Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and
briefly explain hover they reduce the effect to a less than 'significant level.
5. E arlier analyses may be used where., purl ant to the' tiering, program EI ; or other C EQA
process, are effect has n en adequ ate' ly ana�ly' ed in an earlier EII (including a 'General Plan) or
Negative Declar.ptl J r': [ , . Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQ A, § 1 6 (c) )(D)].
References to n earlier anal i should:
a) Identify th � arlier anat}j "and state w' h 're it is available for review.
b) Indicate whi h'.: ff cts fr rri the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the
earlier document n td. applicable . legal standards, and whether these effects were
adequately addressed. iti ar on.m sures. included in that analysis.
c Describe the mitigation measures in'thi ' that were incorporated - or refined from
the earlier docu m nt and -i' i ate to wh'a't t extent they address site - specific conditions for
this project. :.
6 . Lead agencies are encouraged to nrporate references to information sources for potential
impacts into the checklist o appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological
assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an
in dication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7 . A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted
should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion.
8 . Explanation(s) of each i ssue should identify:
a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used-to evaluate the significance of the impact addressed b
each question and
b) the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of
significance.
Page 13 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 17
Le Point street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Environmental Issues
1. Aesthetics
E nvironmental Setting
The project site is predominantly vacant /undeveloped and surrounded by park, residential, office, and
commercial uses.
D iscussion
a an b: As viewed from L e P oint Street, hiller W ay and Hoosegow P ark and the ab utting hillside
residential areas, the proposed three terraces of public parking would adversely affect existing v iews o f
vacant or unirnprov d portions of the site. To some de the removal of existing trees and the
garage/shed/shop structure and the proximity of expanded public parking lot expansion to the existing
houses remaining at 132 and 202 Le P oint Street will increase their risibility as we as o the back side
of the commercial buildings to the south facing East Branch Street. However, street trees along Le Point
Street and trees and other landscaping within each of the bio swales separating the three terraces and
the slope bank adjoining Le Point Street gill substantially enhance the views and screen the public
parking lot expansion from both public and private areas in the vicinity.
Although the vacant and developed portions of the site are not particularly scenic or visually
attractive, paved surface parking tots with large numbers of par=ked cars would degrade the ecisting
visual character or undeveloped quality of the site. However, as stated above, the landscaping and trees
proposed by the project, in addition to the possible development of buildings along the frontage of Le
Point Street will screen the surface parking area from most surrounding area visibility.
d: The project would create a new source of nighttime lighting in the form of parking lot and vehicle
lights. However, internal location within the block, proposed l andscaping and compliance with
applicable standards will ensure that this new source of lighting will not adversely affect views in the
area.
11. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
E nvironmental Setting
The project site does not contain prime soils, nor is it designated or zoned for agricultural use.
Page 14 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 18
Potentially
less Than
significant
Less Than
significant
rlth
significant
No Impact
Wou the project:
I
Mitigation
Impact
a) H ave a substantial a dverse affect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
®
❑
b Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
El
❑
�
�
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Su degrade the existing visual character or
E
El
quality of the site and its surroundings,
d Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
❑
❑
E
❑
the area?
D iscussion
a an b: As viewed from L e P oint Street, hiller W ay and Hoosegow P ark and the ab utting hillside
residential areas, the proposed three terraces of public parking would adversely affect existing v iews o f
vacant or unirnprov d portions of the site. To some de the removal of existing trees and the
garage/shed/shop structure and the proximity of expanded public parking lot expansion to the existing
houses remaining at 132 and 202 Le P oint Street will increase their risibility as we as o the back side
of the commercial buildings to the south facing East Branch Street. However, street trees along Le Point
Street and trees and other landscaping within each of the bio swales separating the three terraces and
the slope bank adjoining Le Point Street gill substantially enhance the views and screen the public
parking lot expansion from both public and private areas in the vicinity.
Although the vacant and developed portions of the site are not particularly scenic or visually
attractive, paved surface parking tots with large numbers of par=ked cars would degrade the ecisting
visual character or undeveloped quality of the site. However, as stated above, the landscaping and trees
proposed by the project, in addition to the possible development of buildings along the frontage of Le
Point Street will screen the surface parking area from most surrounding area visibility.
d: The project would create a new source of nighttime lighting in the form of parking lot and vehicle
lights. However, internal location within the block, proposed l andscaping and compliance with
applicable standards will ensure that this new source of lighting will not adversely affect views in the
area.
11. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
E nvironmental Setting
The project site does not contain prime soils, nor is it designated or zoned for agricultural use.
Page 14 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 18
Le Point street Wi d e n i ng and Public Parking Lot Expan sion Pro`ect October 2010
Potentially
Liss Than Less Than
Significant
Significant Significant No Impact
with
I mpact
Would the project:
Impact
Mit igation
a) Convert P rime Farm Unique Farmland, or
Significant No Impact
Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), a
Impact
shown on the raps prepared pursuant to the �
❑ ❑
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
El
California resources Agency, to nor- agricultural use?
1:1 0
b) Conflict with exist zoning f or agricu use or a
❑
Wi lliamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
❑
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
N ❑
Timberland Production as defined by G overnment. : :::'::.
Code section 1104())
d) Resu i n the loss of forest land or conversio
El
❑ ❑
:.
forest land t o non- forest use?
e) Involve other ch anges in the exist environment'....:..
w hich, due t o the location or nature,- result in :::.: ❑ ....:.:...
El ❑
conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural used :.:..:.
* in d etermining whether im acts to agricuJturaI resources are sig nifica nt envlr n'mental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
Ca lifornia Agricultural Land Evaluation an Site Ass e .ssment Model (1997),
prepared bar the California Department o
Conservation as C1 f7 7 Jena f770d of :�1s !r L ssesSing lrrrpacts o n C7gric�lI Q1?d arrri�arraf.
.... ... .
Discussion
a - e: No impacts. :...
III. Air Quality-. :..: ,.,...::::ry:::
E nvironmental Setting
San Luis Obispo Counter is in non- attain'rr� rat status for ozone (0
re pirea particulate matter (P 10)
and vinyl chloride under the'' California .:Air Resource Board ( CAR B) standards. The County is in
attainment status for all other applicable CARE' tandards..
Page 15 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 19
Potentially
Less Than
..
Less Than
significant
Signifi
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
�vwrit
lig ation
Impact
a Conflict with or obstruct i mplementa tion of the
El
1:1
1:1 0
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to are existing or projected air quality
❑
❑
N ❑
violation?
Page 15 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 19
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
c Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment un der an applicable f ederal or state El
quality standard � El 1:1 ambient air
� dad releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precurs,ors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant E] F3 1:1
concentrations?
e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
purer of ! � ❑ ❑ �
poop e•
* Where available, tyre signif canoe criteria established by the applicable air qu"d ty managRement or air pollution control district
............ ..
may be relied on to make these determina
D
a and : No impacts.
b -c: Daily operation of the proposed project will e'r it air quality poll utants . :, :,' : :: : Im plementation of the
following-mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to a less than sign ifi ar 'l l:
Ill IM 111 - 1: The project design I : all i tegrate motorcy and bike parking and include one bike
locker and sic rack spaces to promote .bicycle, pedestriain and transit use.
MM 111111 The City will request and . assi t'ifli ::regional - Transport ati on Agenicy (R TA) in the
placement of an appropriate shelter trbcture in fr n"t of either 214 or 215 East Branch Street to
provide shade and. in lenient weather'.:`pr tecti n "f r' -transit en'hanceme'nt convenient to the
Village and near the site.
The proposed prgject will also generate short -term em.isstons during construction. Implementation of
the followin ig fion measures will reduce these imp: is to a less than s level:
!MINI 111- 3. The followi condEtions shall be included on all construction plans and adhered to
for':a:ll. construction -r l'atgd permits:
ll s e water trucks '6r' prin kler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
f ro M'' I e.av 1ng the site: " increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 M PIS.
ecl ime Jnon -pot - ble) water sha ll be used.
• All dirt s l pilp.:`a as should be sprayed daily or as needed.
.......................
Permanent - mus t =.control measures identified in the approved project landscape plans
shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil - disturbing
activities.
• Exposed ground areas, such as the slope bank adjoining Le Point Street, that ar not to
be paved or landscaped within one (1) month after initial grading should be sown with a
fast - germinating native g rass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to paving or landscaping should be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance b
the Air Pollution Control Board (APD ).
Page 16 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 20
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
0 All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be pared should be completed as
soon as possible after initial grading.
0 Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved
surface a th e construction site.
0 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at least two ( ) feet of freeboard minirnum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with C VC Section 23114.
0 Wheel- washers shall be installed where vehicles eater and exit paved roads or
driveways or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site.
0 Le Point Street shall be swept at the end of each day.- PT week if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved road segments. 1 aft :r.�' ' p r with reclaimed ( non -
potable ) water should be used to washy down p: parking lot driveways.
The construction contractor shall designate -' i:.:. r .rn: to monitor and implement these
measures as necessary to minimize dust . m pl int `- : :'r duce visible emissions below 20%
opacity and to prevent the transpor of st off -site. Th :: :- a me and telephone number
..........
of such person shall be provided to : , t h 'A ir Pollution Control .District (AP D) prior to the
start of any construction- related activities.. '..: .:. .
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of serlsltive receptors . shall not b r.mitted.
U of alternative- fueled equipment is r mmen ' d.
1 IM 111 - 4: Prior to are grading activities, the pity:: 11 request an exemption from AP CD
regarding no Natural occurring Asbestos (N A) on site.`:If: N is found at the site, the applicant
shall comply with all requirements utlined In the Air Resource B oard (A B) A ir `E`oxics C ontrol
Measure AT 11 f rt6nstruction, G rad ing, Q arr'ying.and S urf . M in1ng 0 perations.
MM 111 -5: All
P . 'rta�ble equi r nt ( B horse'p w' ' r or g reater) used during construction must b
...::.
issued a permit by the RB or the APD.
NIM 111 S hould hydro:carbdnlc'ent'aminated soil be encountered during construc activi
the : AP CD shall be. notM i `d ....within f rty- ight' hours of such contaminated soil being
............. .
discovered to determin if an`_ D permit t r' e' quired. In addition, the f measures shall
b implemented it me' diately after contaminated soil is discovered:
Co vers on s torage. piles shal 1 ':" be mai ntained in place at all times in areas not actively
involved in soil addition or removal.
• ontarninated soil .'shall be covered with at least six ( ) i nches of packed,
uncontaminated soil or other TPH — non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp, N
h ad pac shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.
C overed piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or
water. No openings in the covers are permitted.
• During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public
nuisa nce.
• Clean soil must be segregated from contaminate soil.
d: The proposed project is expected to emit diesel particulate matter during construction, which is a
toxic air contaminant. Proper vehicle maintenance and required air filters on exhaust systems mitigate
this short term impact to less- than - significant levels.
Page 17 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 21
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Exp ansion Project October 2010
I. Biological Resources
E nvironmental Se ttin g
The site is devoid of significant existing flora and fauna, containing only several trees an small areas of
invasive grasses/weeds. Existing development on all four ( ) sides o the project site precludes its use as
a wildlife corridor.
Discussion
a - No impacts.
V. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
No archeological sites have been recorded within one-half mile of the project site; according to the
C ultural Resource Initial Studer Report prepared by Applied Earthworks (October 2010). No intact
historic or prehistoric cultural sites were noted during the survey; however, isolated pieces of
Page 18 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 22
Potentially Le Than Less Than
S ignificant
Significant Significant No Impact
with
Would the project.
Impact Impact
Mitigation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modification, on any species identified
a sensitive, candidate, or special status species in
El 0 El
local or re Tonal lams policies, r re or by
the California Department of Fishy and Game or the.. ::.:
J.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviced :..:
b H ave a substantial adverse effect on any ri :ri �r�
habitat or other sensitive nat ural community identified.. .
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, r b .::.:::
::.. :::: ❑
the California Department of Fish and Carne or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviced
Have a substantial adverse effect on' federally
:..:....
protected wetlands, as defined by §404 'of the Gleam
Water Act {including, but notlimited to, marsh, vernal
❑ ....::.El ❑
pool, coastal, etc. ) t r ug ... i.r : t removal, filling,
.. ... .. .
. ...
hydrological interrupts. r r other"rrr :an
d) Interfere substantially'. "'With the rri yrernent of an
native' resident r igrat�rJish� or ,��rildlife species or
. ....
with established native rid f. . rx ... � ,.g ratnrildl�fe
El El ❑
corridors, or impede the' use f ' ti a wildlif 'nursery
sites
e) Conflict with any local. , . : p licle ''.:` r..,. ordinances
protecting biological resources, such ° ...:. a tree
❑ ❑ ❑
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of, an adopted Habitat
C onservation Plan, Naatural omm' unity Conservation
'
El 1:1
Plan o other ap proved local re iohal r state habitat
p � g ,
conservation plan?
Discussion
a - No impacts.
V. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
No archeological sites have been recorded within one-half mile of the project site; according to the
C ultural Resource Initial Studer Report prepared by Applied Earthworks (October 2010). No intact
historic or prehistoric cultural sites were noted during the survey; however, isolated pieces of
Page 18 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 22
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
prehistoric shell and modern or historic shell and burnt bone and glass were noted in separate locations
w ithin the two acre project area, including the phase one construction site.
ue a u an la a verse ange 3r1 t
significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to ❑ El 1Z ❑
§1664.6
c Disturb any human remains, including those interred .:
outside of formal cemeteries.
C ❑ 0 El
D iscussion
a - : The p resence o isolated pre historic and historic cultural materials' ,n' cates the potentia for
significant impacts to cultural resources should more intact or substantial deposits' be present wi thin the
project site. Implementation of the following mitigation measure gill reduce th'e'se im pacts to a less
than significant level: ...
M v -1: Any areas where nati :(r� .. in- tp l [le ) soil are disturbed b construction activities
(grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall: lie rri :tor d and in'sp'ected by a qualified archeologist to
determine if any cultural .resources re.. p res e nt:-::Jf ulturaI resources are discovered, conflicting
c onstruction shall ''be 'stopped and a :phase tw 6 : a.rch eolpgical study shall be conducted by a
qualified arch l gist and 'further m itigatic� '` "easur :: and implemented before
construction in this area is continued to com:pletion.
Environmental Setting
In gen r.al;-: he project sit ::' l pes to' t .h e south with ain average elevation change from 160 feet at Le
Point Street appr imatel ' feet 'above mean sea level in the adjoining private parking and
Page 19 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 23
Potentials
Less �'k� ar�
Less Than
Significant
Ig r1 I 1 Ca �t
Significant No Impact
Would the Project:
Impact
w ith
Mitigation
Impact
a Cause a subst a dverse c in the
significance of al historical resource, as defined in
❑
®
❑ ❑
§15064.5?
1] t +0 1 d k 1 h
ue a u an la a verse ange 3r1 t
significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to ❑ El 1Z ❑
§1664.6
c Disturb any human remains, including those interred .:
outside of formal cemeteries.
C ❑ 0 El
D iscussion
a - : The p resence o isolated pre historic and historic cultural materials' ,n' cates the potentia for
significant impacts to cultural resources should more intact or substantial deposits' be present wi thin the
project site. Implementation of the following mitigation measure gill reduce th'e'se im pacts to a less
than significant level: ...
M v -1: Any areas where nati :(r� .. in- tp l [le ) soil are disturbed b construction activities
(grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall: lie rri :tor d and in'sp'ected by a qualified archeologist to
determine if any cultural .resources re.. p res e nt:-::Jf ulturaI resources are discovered, conflicting
c onstruction shall ''be 'stopped and a :phase tw 6 : a.rch eolpgical study shall be conducted by a
qualified arch l gist and 'further m itigatic� '` "easur :: and implemented before
construction in this area is continued to com:pletion.
Environmental Setting
In gen r.al;-: he project sit ::' l pes to' t .h e south with ain average elevation change from 160 feet at Le
Point Street appr imatel ' feet 'above mean sea level in the adjoining private parking and
Page 19 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 23
Le Point street Widening and Public Parking Lot Fxpansion Project October 2010
a - c, e: No impacts
d: A geotehnical analysis.and soils engineering report o f the project site was pe rformed by Earth
Systems Pacific based on field borings done in April, 2010 and subsequent laboratory analyses (July
2010). This investigation concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed project if the
recommen contained in the investigation are incorporated into the project plans and
specifications. Implementation o the following :mitigation measure w ill reduce any potential impacts to
a less than significant level:
M 111 - 1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geete hni al
study prepared for the project by Earth Systems Pacific dated July 1, 2010, including site
preparation, grading, utility trenches, exterior pedestrian flatw r , retaining walls, pavement
sections, drainage around improvements, ements, maintenan a program, observation and testing.
Page 20 of 3
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 24
�y Less Than
Potentia s Less Than
Significant
Significant Significant No Impact
i+th
p / j
Would the pr
Impact ; Impact
Mitigation
a) Exp people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent A1quMst -Priol
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued b the State
Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault. ( t
Division o Mines -and Geology Special Publication
42 .)
ii) Strong seismic ground shakin
iii) Seismic- related ground failure, in ludic :.,:
liquefaction? :.
iv) Landslides?:...
b) Re in substantial soil erosion o the loss of
El El
t op
:..:. : .
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ;unstable,
:::... .
or that would become unstable, as a result of the
pro ject and potentially result in on- r off - 'site.
❑ ..::. El ❑ 0
landslide, lateral spreading; : iden e, liqu fa tiers,
r collapse.?
:..
d Be located on a cpansiV � soil, as fin c in Table - .':
1 -B of the Uniform Building ode:: ), creating
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
substantial risks to life or property?.
e) Have soils in apable of ade .uately .. uppdrting the
use of. septic tans or' alternative.. waste 'dip sal
.. the ::
� 'are
� El ❑
sy stems , w here sewers' not a"Va' ilable for
disposal of waste watery :..:..
a - c, e: No impacts
d: A geotehnical analysis.and soils engineering report o f the project site was pe rformed by Earth
Systems Pacific based on field borings done in April, 2010 and subsequent laboratory analyses (July
2010). This investigation concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed project if the
recommen contained in the investigation are incorporated into the project plans and
specifications. Implementation o the following :mitigation measure w ill reduce any potential impacts to
a less than significant level:
M 111 - 1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geete hni al
study prepared for the project by Earth Systems Pacific dated July 1, 2010, including site
preparation, grading, utility trenches, exterior pedestrian flatw r , retaining walls, pavement
sections, drainage around improvements, ements, maintenan a program, observation and testing.
Page 20 of 3
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 24
Le Point street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project I October 2010
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Settin
The project site is located in the village of Arroyo Grande and is adjacent to both commercial and
residential development.
Lei Th a n
Potentially S ignificant Less Thin
Significant significant No Impact
Impact with Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the ❑ ® ❑ ❑
environment
b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions' - f ;::, ❑ ❑ - ❑
greenhouse gases
Discussion
-b: The proposed project will generate greenhouse g 's:( F# ).:. rr i ions f rom both 'construction and
daily operation. Whi the California A Resources Board '(GARB) has not yet developed a statewide
threshold, as directed under Senate Bill.. 7, '.the City has det :r that the California Air Pollution
Control officers Association AP OA) ZOOS Wh ite Paper, whic :J' ludes possible methodologies and
thresholds for project -level GHG emissions, provides' the best an" d I'atest information -on establishing
cumulative impact thre h : l is ::: ..This paper has determined that a' ` n' s rvative threshold where a
project's impact ma :.. e'.'_.. . -ico risid e're d . "c u m u I a t ive ly considera'ble'". is 900 met tons or more of GH
emissions per gear. The' following " aible provides. ar neral 'surn'm6ry of project types and sizes that
generate 90 metric ton : f H emis:sibns per year:
Project Type : :::: ' ::
Size t at.Generates 900 Metric T ons of GHG Emissi per Year
Single - family residential ::::.
0 units
Apartments condominiurns n
...
70 units
General commercial or office space.'.
-: ,00o square -feet
!Retail space
-feet square
supermarket /grocery store
, oo s quare -feet
Based on the a bore assurnptions (the �n et increase of seventy o) part ing spaces is equivalent to 2 1
additional square -feet o 'retail space), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately
1,719 metric tors of GHG emissions per gear, or 10, 83 pounds of H 'emissions per day. The Air
Pollution Control Board AP D)" has established mitigation measures to re duce project -level GH
emissions. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level:
MM V11 All constructi plans s reflect the following H - reducing measures where
applicable. Prior to start of project construction, the City shall submit impact reduction
calculations based on these measures to the AP CD for review and approval, incorporating the
following measures:
Page 21 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 25
Le Point Street Widening and Public Pa rld ng Lot Expan ion Pro October 2010
• Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked
vehicles. Design should provide o shade coverage of the total site within 10 years of
construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees.
Utilize lour energy street lights (i.e. sodium).
• Eliminate high grater consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in bio -s al
design. Use native plants that d not require excessive wat ering and are rover reactive
organic gas (O ) emitting.
Provide ors -site bicycle parking both short terra (racks) and long term locker. one bi
locker and sic rack spaces minimum are recommended, in addition to the 70 car spaces
added. Motorcycle parking for approximately 12 veh icles will be provided at the ends of
the middle and lower t rrace bio- swales. :...:..::..
VIII. Lizards and Hazardous M
Environmental Setting ::
There are no known hazards or hazardous materials associated with the ... pr j ct site.
Potentially L khan Less Than
significant :.
significant :.significant No Impact
with
mpact I
I pact
Would the project: Mitigation
a) Create a significant hazard to th or the
e nvironment through the routine transport;-: ' -use, .. or
❑ . ❑ ❑ Z
disposal of hazardous materials
b Create a significant hazard .to the public : : -.or the
e nvironment through re n bl . foreseeabl ::! :'ups t }
:::: f. :::.
and or accident conditions involving the - reIeb s:e'' ..:.:0'
_ .: ..:.. ❑ ❑
hazardous materials, u.b tances, r. waste into :,the ..
environment? :..
c) Emit hazardous -e r. handle h'a ardous or...:::
acutely h dz'ar'do'us` te ri aI , substances, r' haste ........
❑ ❑ ❑
within - ..one - quarter mil :."o :.-an existing or proposed
school .
d) Be located :ors a site which'.is "Ji on a list of
hazardous m.a e"riakls sites, Mp pursuant to
...-
El El El
Government Code" 65962.E and ::air a result create a
significant hazard to't 'e public or nVironr ent
...:.:..:
:
e) Be located within ar�" irp rt l 'rid .Use plan or, where
.....:.....:........:..
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a pu airport or public use' airport? If so, woul the
❑ ❑ 1:1 �
project result in a safety hazard for - people residing or
working in the project area?
f Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
❑ ❑ ❑ �
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
❑ ❑ ❑ �
emergency evacuation plan?
Page 22 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 26
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot . Ex ansion Project October 2010
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from wildland fires, including
areas where wildlands are adja to urbanized areas El ❑ E] 0
or where residences are intermixed with wildlands
Discussion
- h: No impacts.
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality:
E nvironmental Setting
The project sit is l ocated within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. The City provides water
service, which consists of water from various sources (groundwater,
Lopez Lake, etc). The site itself is
primarily undeveloped, which results in a minimal amount of st rm wrater runoff.
.. :. ...
Less Than
otntlal lass Than
Significant
Significant ignificant No Impact
with
Wou the project:
Impact m iti g ation Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or wa's'te .:
discharg req uirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater'..' supplies or
:::.. ..:::
interfere 'substantially with groundwater recharge,
:..
such that there wound be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground aster table
level (e.g. the prod u tion:: .::of re- existin ''nearb
El :: °:❑ El
weils would drop to : ::: :: 1 tht{:i Auld not "support
existing land uses or :: .k"' ned u e l r. which p ftit
have been granted) ...:::. :.
0 Substantially alter the existing .. dra.ima"'gq pattern ''of
the site or area, i l din t i^ } u l It era ti of the
course of -a strearn or rigor in a 'manner which'" "''...
u .
� El El �
result in substantial on- or off -site erb' i n or siltation'?
d) ubsta ti l.ly alter the existing draina: - pattern of
the site or area including through alter rt.i. 'n of the
course of a tr rr or river, or 'substantially increase
❑ ❑ �
the rate or arnount : f surface runoff in a manner
wh ich wrould result i oh off - site floodi
e) Create or contribute ' runoff Water which would
exceed the capacity of existir g or planned storm wat
El El
d rainag e systems or provide sub additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f Substantially degrade eater quality?
El El
g) Place housing within a loo -year flood hazard area,
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
❑ ❑ ❑
Flood Insurance Pate Ma or other flood
Map hazard
delineation map?
h Place structures that would impede or redirect flood
flo ►rs within a 100-yea r flood ha akrd area?
El El ❑
Page 23 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 27
Le Point Street widening and Public Parkin Lot Expansion Protect _- .� . - -,.�. October 2010.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding ❑ ❑ ❑
resulting from the failure of a levee or darn?
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ El ❑ El
Discussion
a -e, g j- No impacts.
f: The proposed project will increase the impervious surface area of the project site, which will result in
more stormwater runoff with higher levels of pollutants due to the use of the project site as a public
parking lot. The project's incorporation of bio swales will both slow the rate of and improve the quality
of stormwater runoff, which will reduce any potential im pacts t water quality to a less than significant
level.
X. Land Use and Plannin
E nvironmental Setting
The project site is designated as Village Core ( VO in City's Land Use Element of the General Plan and
zoned Village Mixed Use Vl1 U -I - .4).
Less Than
Potential Iy Less Than
..... ..... Significant
Significant w Significant No Impact
Impact .: Impact
W ould the project: :. Mitigation
a) Physically divide a established community? ❑ :...:. El ❑
b) Conflict with the ap'pli abl .1a"nd use plan, olicy, or
regulation of any ager`cy:.'with 'jui-I diction over. the .
project (including, but...."" t limited t :::p general plan.,
g ram
El
El
❑
s p lan,
specific local catal re or nin
p p� p g r g
ordinance) adopted for th'e":. purpo p : of. voiding 'or
mitlg ting : an erY rental effect....:,.: :... . .
c ) onllt 1Ith an applicable hb�tat corseratlr
❑
❑
❑ 0
plan or hatulra community 'C . n ervatio plan?
Discussl on
a c. No impacts....::: ':.:.:..
XI. Mineral eso r s :.
Environmental Setting
The project site d oes net contai any known mineral resources.
Potentially
L Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Significant No Impact
Wou the project.
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Result in th e loss of avai labili ty o f a k nown mineral
resource that is or would be of value to the region and
�
❑
�
the residents of the state?
Page 24 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 28
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
b} Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general p lan, sp ecific plan or other land use ❑ El 1:1 0
plan?
Discussion
a - b: No impacts.
XIL Noise
Environiment l s etting
The project site is surrounded by ors mercial and office uses. : t .::t. south and west, and park and
residential uses to the north and east. It a djoins private par in "' ' ""d to the south and Le P oint
Street on the north. It contains two existing single family p . h . t will. remain within and adjoining
the expanded public parking lot, at least for an interim' period fi: _ pproxirrratel�r five dears. Future
development to the north and east of the site may include additional Hept1a1 uses.
Less T :'
:. Potentially 'r Less Than
S ignificant
S ignificant: S ignificant nificant o Impact
with °:....
Impact :Impact
Would the project: Mitigation :. .
C1 e"erate or ex pose peep a to nose .....I" excess
of standards established in a local ; rral::pian or
; .:::.. :...
❑ ❑ ❑
noise ordinance or in other applicable 1 ::
1
pp oc , sta,.::r.
federal standards
G enerate or expose. : people to essive ..:.::::..::...
'me
groundborne vibrations r roux d o' noise
c Create a s ubstantial Oe ' ' rmanent increase in arn'bie tit::.:::.
noise levels in the vidnity" f the pr *ect (above levels
❑ ❑ ❑
without the prof d
Create : a 's'u bsta"fitia 's' l temporary or periodic: increase .::.::.::::::
.... .. .. ... in ambler t: noise levels �irilh vicinity of the pr' "e t, in
❑ ❑ ❑
excess of levels existi :i rithout the project?
e) Be loc t d ' rithin an airport nd u plan or, where
such a plan fi not been adopt ,`.: :within tw miles of
a public airport'r use airport? if so, 'would the
El ❑ El ❑
project expose people residing r wor king In the
project area to a Ices i'"e' ':noi a le :l ?
f Be in the vicinity of a :r.iv t6' l'rstrip? If so, would
...:........... .
the project expose people .- �r�' . i ing or workin in the
❑ ❑ ❑
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a -fi Compliance with the City's Development Code regarding noise will reduce any potential impacts to
less than significant level.
Page 25 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 29
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
X1I1+ Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The project site is primarily vacant and the proposed project design retains the potential for future
mixed-use development on the frontage of Le Point Street, including possible residential uses equal to
or exceeding the two interim dwellings that remain as part of the proposed project.
XI V. Public Services :..
E n v ironm e ntal ttffig.....
Public services to the project bite ar � readily provided by the City of Arroyo Grande and the Lucia Mar
School District LIVI D .
Less Than
Potentially Less Than
Significant Si ificant significant No Impact
Mould the project: ::..
a Result in significant envirohmental irr'p"a is from
construction associated with the provision o new or
physically altered g yernrnental facilities, or the need
for new or physically altered g overnmental facilities, to
maintain a service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection:
Schools?
Par
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a: No impacts.
Irnpact with
Mitigation
❑ ❑
Impact
Pot
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
E]
E]
Significant
with
significant
No Impact
Wou t he project:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a Induce substantial population growth in an area,
0
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing;:: :::.:::
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
❑
❑
❑
E
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of peo ple,.:,:,
necessitating the construction repla housir
:.:::... ❑ ..':::::
❑
El
elsewhere.?
Discussion
..::
a -: N o impacts.
:...
XI V. Public Services :..
E n v ironm e ntal ttffig.....
Public services to the project bite ar � readily provided by the City of Arroyo Grande and the Lucia Mar
School District LIVI D .
Less Than
Potentially Less Than
Significant Si ificant significant No Impact
Mould the project: ::..
a Result in significant envirohmental irr'p"a is from
construction associated with the provision o new or
physically altered g yernrnental facilities, or the need
for new or physically altered g overnmental facilities, to
maintain a service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection:
Schools?
Par
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a: No impacts.
Irnpact with
Mitigation
❑ ❑
Impact
Page 26 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 30
E]
E]
0
E]
0
Page 26 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 30
- Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Xv. Recreat
E nvironmental Setting
The project site is located across Le Point Street from Hoosegow P ark and within two blocks of Heritage
Square Park and the proposed Centennial Park, all of which are considered to be within a comfortable
Walling distance and therefore served by the proposed public paring lot expansion.
Would the project:
a Increase the use of existing neighb rho d and
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that
s ubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less Than
Significant
with Significant No Impact
Mitigation
Impact
1:1 11 M
occur or be accelerated
b Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational fa ilitie .-tin' �::'
might have an adverse physical effect ors .:.
El ❑ ❑
e nvironment ?
Discussion
a -b: No impacts.
XV1. 'transportation Traffic
Environmental Setting
The project site is located n the. south side of Le Point Street between North Mason and Nevada
Streets, both of w hich 'provide connection to E ast Br : nch Street, the major east -West, cross - town route
through the Village area. Mason Street is signalized 't East Branch h Street, Whim conne to Highway
227 to the east and US Highx�iai y 101,:'Ea t Grand Ave nu e and West Branch Street to the merest.
...
Less T a n
Potentially Less Than
Significant
..
: Significant Significant No Impact
.......: :.: � .... I m act with I m act
Would the p'oJ*ect p Mitigation P
::.........::.
a) Cause a substantial increase ��i traffic, in relation t
citing traffic rd :the capa :ry °:µ:.the street system
(i.e., a substantial increase in ith r the number of ❑ ❑ [A El
vehicle trips, the volu "t cap ity' '. ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections
b) Exceed, individually o 'c u.0'' " lati ely, the level of
se rvice standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highway
e ) Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including
either are increase in traffic levels r a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ El
location, that results in substantial safety risks?
Page 27" of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 31
Le Point Street widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a
:. .
a -g: A traffic impact study and report was prepared by
Omni -M . n (2009 and 2011) to evaluate the
potential traffic- impacts f the proposed project. °.T : : :`report concluded that the potential
dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
�
1:1
El
El
farm equipment) that would substantially increase
The p roject s is located within the incorporat L imits f rr y G rande--.:'Utilities will be served
by both the City and other regional entities.
:.
:..
hazards?
::.
Significant Si No Impact
with
.
Would the project:
Impact Impact
Mitigation
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
El
❑
1:1
H
f} Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
N
g) Conflict with adapted policies, plans, or programs
Woul tine :. onsfr �r . tion o these" facilities cause
::..
❑ El ❑
significant nvironmebta.l. ffe is
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
El
❑
❑
N
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
d Have sufFi ie'n 'W"ater supplies::ary fable to serge the
project from existin '. -: ::and resources or
Discussion
:. .
a -g: A traffic impact study and report was prepared by
Omni -M . n (2009 and 2011) to evaluate the
potential traffic- impacts f the proposed project. °.T : : :`report concluded that the potential
traffic-related impacts would be less than significant.
:....::.
X IL Utilities and Service Systems
Environm Setting
The p roject s is located within the incorporat L imits f rr y G rande--.:'Utilities will be served
by both the City and other regional entities.
:.
:..
Less Than :...
Less Than
Potentially Significant
::.
Significant Si No Impact
with
.
Would the project:
Impact Impact
Mitigation
a Exceed wastewater treatment restr4 ti n r".`
standards of the applica Re Water: Q ua lity .:::::::
El El
Co ntrol B oard ?
b) Require or result in the construction o f n e w water..:::
o r wastewater treatment fatil Ries . or expansion :
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
existing facilities ?.: ::..
Woul tine :. onsfr �r . tion o these" facilities cause
::..
❑ El ❑
significant nvironmebta.l. ffe is
0 i e u" it .' or result in th ".. nstru tion of new storm
water dr"ain:age facilities r pansion of existing
❑ ❑
c i I i t i :..... :. :......
d Have sufFi ie'n 'W"ater supplies::ary fable to serge the
project from existin '. -: ::and resources or
❑ ❑ ❑
are new or a cpanded retitle ►ent :needed?
e) Result in a dotermin� ti r�:, : : the wastewater
:..................
treatment provide that s ry'"e"s' or may serge the
project, that it has adequate capacity to service the
❑ ❑ �
project's anticipated demand', in addition to the
pr vEder's existing commitments?
f) Be seared by a landfill with sufficient permitted
eapa ity to accommodate the project's solid waste
❑ 1:1 El �
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, an local statutes and
regulations a Y
the relate to solid waste
L1 El ❑
Page 28 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 32
Le Point street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expan ion Project October 201
Discussion
a-b: No impacts.
The East Branch Streetscape Enhancement Project, constructed during 2009 --10, included installation
of a new 15 to inch storm drain line from Short street and East B ranch Street to a new bio-swale and
existing discharge pipe into Arroyo Grande Creek. Engineering studies for the proposed project indicate
that the capacity of this pipe is adequate to accommodate the additional storm runoff that would be
detained and filtered by the proposed on -site terraced bio- swales and drainage systems proposed as
part of this project.
d: The landscape design of the proposed street trees and bio- sw'ales involves drought tolerant and
native plants that require minimal, controlled drip or spray irrigati n during initial establishment. The
City will reduce water use within the proposed Centennial Park project and turf removal adjoining City
Hall to off -set any interim increase in water demand.
e -g: No impacts.
Page 29 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 33
Le Point Street widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant S ignificant with Significant No Impact
1 ould the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
a Substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species; cause a fishy o wi ldlife population
to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten to
e liminate a plant or animal community; substantially ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory :.:.
b) Have the potential to achieve short - terra
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long - -term Q ❑ ❑ M
environmental goals?
c) Have
p ossible environmental effects that r ... .
individually limited but cumulatively -considerable
"'Cumulatively considerable" me 'n ,: -:-:"- heat the
incremental effects - of an individual: . rjet :. are :::: El
0 ❑
significant when viewed in connection wl:t' lh the e fa ct
of past projects, the effects of other current projects;'.:::.:..
and the effects of possible future projects.
pause s u bsta ntial adverse effects on human :beings;
e
El ither directly or indirectly?
❑ 0
Discussion
a: Although p'nmarily undeveloped, th a project site does not contain any s igni ficant flora or fauna, and
b ecause it is':.surrdui .. by development, the site does' 'not have any potential to serve as a wildlife
corridor Isolated prehi t r c. mat erials ma be p resent on the p roject site; h owever, the site does not
serge as are example of a ma d "r" eriod of California history or prehistory.
b There are no:` 'short - term a iiir nrnental g oals, either in the project desc or the identified
mitigation measur ,. will be .'c' 'hieved to the disadvantage of any long - tern environmental goals.
c: The proposed project i with the City's General Plan as it relates to future growth, both in
general terms and pecii it relates to the project site. While the proposed pr will
cumulatively increase traffic ... rid demand for public services and utilities, it will not result in any
c umulatively considerable environmental impacts.
d: The proposed project, with incorporation of the mitigation measures contained within this
document, will not cause a substantial adverse impact t to human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Page 30 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 34
Le Point Street Widening and Public Parking Lot Expansion Project October 2010
Summary of Mitigation Measures
118M 111 -1: The project design shall integrate motorcycle and bike parking and include one bike
locker and six rack spaces to promote bicycle, pedestrian and transit use.
1111M 111-2: The City will request and assist the Regional Transportation Agency (RTA) in the
placement of are appropriate shelter structure in front of either 214 or 215 East Branch Street to
provide shade and inclement weather protection for transit e nhancement convenient to the
Village and near the site.
illINI 111-3: The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and adhered to
for all construction- related permits:
0 Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH.
Reclaimed (non- potable) water shall be used.'
0 All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed.
Permanent dust - control measures identified in the approved project landscape plans
skull be implemented as soon as possible following cornpletion.of any soil- disturbing
activities.
Exposed ground areas, such as the slope bank adjoining Le Point Street, that are not to
be paved or landscaped within one (1 ) month after initial grading should be sown with a
fast - germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
All disturbed soil areas not subject to paging or landscaping should be stabilized using
approved chemical soil birders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by
the Air Pollution Control Board APD).
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paved should be completed as
soon as possible after initial grading.
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaged
surface at the construction site.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at lust two ( ) feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
0 Wheel- washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit Paged roads or
driveways or wash off trucks and equipment prig to leaving the construction site.
0 Le Point Street shall be swept at the end of each day or week it visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved road segments. Water sweepers with reclaimed non -
potable) water s hould be used to wash down paged parking lot driveways.
The construction contractor shall designate a person to monitor and implement these
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 0%
opacity and to prevent the transport of dust off -site. The name and telephone number
of such person shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (AP D) prior to the
start of any construction- related activities.
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors stall not be permitted.
•
Use of alternative-fueled equipment is recommended.
Page 31 of
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 35
Le Point Street Wi de n i ng and Pub Iic Parking Lot Ex2a n ion Project October 2010
M 111 -4: Prior to any grading activities, the City sha request an exemption f rom APD
regarding no Natural oc urring ( OA) on site. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant
shall comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air To ics Control
Measure AT II for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations.
MM 1 111 - 5: All portable e quipment ( o horsepower or g used during construction rust be
i ssued a permit by either the GARB or the APD.
MM 111 -6: Should hydrocarbon - contaminated soil be encountered du ring const ruction act ivities,
the AP CD shall be notified within forty -eight (48) burr -:' f such contaminated soil being
discovered to determine if an AP CD permit is required 6'.'addition, the following measures shall
be implemented immediately after contaminated soil i' :d i is covered:
Covers on stora plies shall be maint ained in place: -.all tires in areas not actively
involved in soil addition or removal.
Co ntaminated soil shall be covered with at least 8b (6) inche of packed,
uncontaminated soil or other TPH — barrier s'u' h .: plastic tarp. No
heads ace shall be allowed where could ac umulate.
Covered piles shall be in such a .dray as to eliminate erosio'r "'' due to wind or
water. No openings in ' oir r are permitted.
During soil excavation, od.o:r hll be evident to such a degree as to cause a public
nuisance.
• Clean soil must be segregated' rprn cunt ruin t d soil. -
MM Il Any areas where nativnon_stile soil re.:distured by const ruction activities
(grading, footings, 'Utilities, etc) shall be m d' and inspected by a qualified archeolo to
determine if any cultural re.sources are prey - .6t.. If cultural resources are discovered, conflicting
c ns ct.� r I all be stopped and a phase two. study shall be conducted by a
:..:.........:......::..:...... .
qualified aftheoiogi t and further mitigation r "easures identified and implemented before
construction in this area is continued to completion.
MM :11,11 All constr04:iOn plans shall re flect the following GFIG- reducing measures w here
applicable".: Prior to st�i.rt project 'construction, the City shall submit impact reduction
calcuIation :based on the's : : measures to the AP CD for review and approval, incorp the
following measures:
• Provide shde:ee planting in p arking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from p arked
vehicles. Design should provide shade covera of the total site within 10 Y ears of
construction using lover R G emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees.
Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium), 6.
Eliminate high water consumption landscape e.g., plants and lawns in hio -swale
design. Use native plants that d o not require excessive watering and are low reactive
organic gas (R G) emitting.
• Provide on -site bicycle parking both short terra (racks) and long term locker. One bike
locker and six rack spaces minimum are recommended, in addition to the 70 car spaces
Page 32 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 36
Le Point Street Wid ening and Public Parking Lot Ex pa nsion Project October 2010
added. Motorcycle parking for approximately 12 vehicles will be provided at the ends of
the middle and lower terr bio-swales.
Page 33 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 37
Le Point Street Widening and Public Paring Lot Expansion Project October 2010
References
Arroyo Gr ande Generai Plan, Policy Document and Elements
0 Arroyo G rande Municipal ipal Code
0 Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Character District, D -2.
C E QA & Climate Change White Paper (CAPCOA
• Air Q uality Handbook ( AP D)
0 Geotechnical Investigation and Soils Engineering Report (Earth Systems, July, 2010 �
0 Transportation Impact Study (Omni-Means, Inc., 2009)
Cultural Resource Initial Study Report (Applied Earthwo October, 2010)
Page 3 4 of 34
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 38
RO
INCORPORATED
" CITY
JULY 10, 1911 F ARROYO GRANDE
NOTICE of AVAILABILITY
IF 0 Vt ' DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ATTACHMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project includes redevelopment of two 2 ubli arkin to
p g is totaling twenty-three 23 and thirty -four 3 spaces, respectively, into a new multi -- terraced parking lot
totaling approximately 132 spaces for a net gain of seventy-five aces.
Additionally, th,e proposed project will widen a portion of Le Point Street between Forth
Mason Street and Nevada Street (approximately 450 linear feet from twenty 2 to
thirty -two 32 feet, curb-to-curb, including installation of a six foot wide sidewalk on
the south side. The proposed project will be constructed in two or three p hales. The
first phase of construction consists of the eastern two thirds of the concept plan,
composed of approximate ' ly 80 parking spaces located south and east of the louse at
132 Le Point Street. The existing access driveway to the City's existing 23 ace public
g p
parking lot behind 2 15 E. Branch Street will be extended west to connect to the existing
34 space leased. public parking lot driveway from Le Point Street to provide secondar
i
access. Both houses will remain -arid eacin Will be provided two (2) open private parking
spaces for interim use.. .
During the next 5 to 10 years, the western third of the site would be reconstructed to
three similar terraces reconfiguring the existing 34 leased spaces. Completion will
require removing the house at 202 Le Point Street for an additional connecting drive
aisle, subject to City acquisition of the portions of two or three . private properties
affected by this design.
PROJECT LOCATIONS Le Point Street, Arroyo Grande, CA
APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande
COMMENT PERIOD: Comments on the Draft Mitigated ted Negative
Declaration may be either: 1 mailed to the
Community Bevelopment'Departnnent, P.O. o 500
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421; 2 delivered in person to
the Community Development Department at 214 East
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA; or 3 provided-in
person at the City Council meeting currently
scheduled for February 8, 2011.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration may be
reviewed at City. Hall,, located at 214 East Branch
Street, Arroyo Grande, CA, If you have any
questions, please contact the Community
Development Department at 473 -- 5420.
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 39
Le Point Street
n
• 't'� � � � W
W PER W k.
■ryi• ,
.. y t • _ fJ
awzrivw ::s S4
• • 4 .,�' fTti +f I - ..+" r �'��t�.r .r''". 54. L"�
_ M _
' _ ■ `�" rte' y ��.+t� * � r�, {� - - - #5 _ �'�+ � ��..- ..� —...,. .. ° ��.'�.sxt ..»;w. _ >.�te5. +i+. ��� - �'•— r �
� `* ' „- �'w. .�s�.. ,�., .. 4
�v • i
t
' it � d f. fi: _� �.._
-v
{' ... I,k ■ �.$ '�5t M F `� * 4 '+. �_ }''�•���- rrt.�.^ t .',�'�.f�a� �...�..�.- iF'�� -' .-# �Mti,- .- •��� -�.
17 16
nNwrMv K� ti*r�a�x�.:.a- � #,-�'
r.. ~ .. .
ir
ga
t ; Ma
.3TI. ■ 1
t art
i r „ ^'w .,. ,. .tom -. •-- ' ".�: � � #�".'� � � � � � �+ ��
Lo
. ' 4•~`"
54 ' 5 7 � . ,,� to le � �; �, I tS
Iry
*
ICEN
:i M .. _ .. He -�.
p f se
S4 STr
1 3• i4 , PPM ,�M I
.t
i -
L—L77--j
. # �� r*. �w# ����' � S �' � k� .. ,•�.,,,_.- -..r —y _ _ .>
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 40
ATTACHMENT 3
op
INCOFtFORATSO
JULY 10F '911
� 1 F
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
nn�n and R roan;
To: � office of P1a g
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
o r
County Clerk o f the Board of Superviso
County of San Luis Obispo
1055 Monterey street, Rte. D12
San Luis Obispo, CA 33408
C Of Arroyo Grande
P . . Box 5
A rroyo o Grande, CA 93421
PROJECT TITLE AND NUMBER: 5i
on Street Widening and Public Parkin Lot E n eon Pro ect
Le Po TELEPHONE I�JBER:
PROJECT CONTACT PERSON:
Teresa M
11 h Do munit Dever ment Director 8 473 -5420
PROJECT LOCATION:
South side of Le Point Street between North Mason Street and Nevada Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The p pro will wi den a portion of Le Point Street between North Mason Street and Nevada
Street (app roximately 450 linear feet) from twenty to thirty -two 32 feet, curb- to-curb, including
installation of a sic 8 foot wide sidewalk on the south side. The project also includes redevelopment of
two 2 public parking lots totaling twenty -three 3 and thirty -four 4 spaces, respectively, into a new
multi- terraced parking lot totaling approximately 132 spaces for a net gain of seventy spaces.
Several mature trees including one oak, four palms, a multi-trunk acacia and a few small plants will be
removed. Bio-swales will be utilized along each terrace and an ADA- compliant pedestrian path will
connect the paring lot to the sidewalk adjacent to East Branch street.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (if applicable):
This Is to advise that the Cit of Arroyo Grande City Council approved the above - described project on
February 8, 201'1 and made t e following determinations:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions for
CEA.
El An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions for
CEA.
A Categorical Exemption per CEA Guidelines
Mitigation measures XX were were not made a condition of project approval.
The project, in its approved form, will XX will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A statement of overriding considerations = was XX was not adopted for this project.
A copy of the project approval may be examined at the City of Arroyo Grande, 214 East Branch Street,
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420.
1 TI%
TITLE: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ITY DE EL Pi iE lT
DATE: February g, 2011
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 41
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.f.
Page 42
1
A. INCORPORATE
JULY 10, 1911 , MEMORANDUM
4EIF0
TO: CITY COUNCIL REDE EL. PI TENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURE FOR RE- ROOFING OF
GAZEBO AND PUBLIC RESTROOM
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors authorize an
expenditure up to $3,300 for re- reefing of the Centennial Park Gazebo and Short Street
restroom.
FINANCIAL. IMPACT:
There is currently $10,000 in Redevelopment Agency funds appropriated for the Green
Corridor project. It is recommended up to $3,300 be reallocated from these funds for
this item. Therefore, no additional appropriation is necessary.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 25, 2011 meeting, the City Council awarded a contract for improvements
to the pillage Green area to create the Centennial Park. In response to Council
direction, staff is also working on improvements to the Short Street restroorn.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
In association with the Centennial activities, staff has received an offer for donation of
roofing materials for these two facilities and installation, at cost, of labor and materials.
While the existing roofs are not in poor condition they are over 10 years old and will
need to be replaced within the next fear years.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve staffs recommendations;
-
Request uest the work be funded from another revenue source,
- Do not approve the expenditure; or
Provide staff direction.
Agenda Item 8.g.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION of EXPENDITURE Fold RE-ROOFING of GAZEBO AND
PUBLIC REST ROOM
FEBRUARY Y 8, 2011
PAGE 2
ADVANTAGES:
This provides an opportunity to coordinate the installation with other work under way,
provide the improvements at a substantially reduced cost, and enhance the appearance
along with the other improvements that have been approved. Other bids will be
solicited for the work prior to a warding the contract.
DISADVANTAGES:
The only disadvantage is the expenditure of funds on improvements that could feasibly
be delayed at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL ONMENTAL E IEW
No environmental review is required by the City for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, February, 3, 2011 and on the
City's webite on Friday, February 4, 2011.
Agenda Item 8.g.
Page 2
R
INCORPORATE
AK `M Y 10. 1911 MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST BY ACCURATE
ARCHITECTURE &CONSTRUCTION
DATE: FEBRUARY 8.201'
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council deny the fee waiver request from Accurate
Architecture & Construction for a Berry Gardens Specific Plan amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Approval of the fee waiver would result in a decrease in revenue of $7,000.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from John Mack, Accurate Architecture & Construction,
for a waiver of fees to submit a Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment independent
and separate from the current Specific Plan Amendment under consideration, which
was submitted by the property o wners, NKT Commercial and Peoples' Self Help
Housing. A copy of the request is attached.
ANALYSIS SIS OF ISSUES:
The City's land use and permit fees were established by City Council resolution at the
December 11, 2007 meeting. The fees were based upon a comprehensive study
prepared by Wohlford consulting. The study determined the actual cost for staff to
process and administer each category of permit and Council then determined the
appropriate percentage of cost recovery based upon the type of permit, comparison with
costs in other jurisdictions, and other factors.
The cost for a Specific Plan application is $7,000. Staff also has the ability to charge
more based on actual costs for applications than involve an extraordinary level of work.
The fee charged for the Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment, proposed by NKT
Commercial and Peoples' Self Help Housing, was $7,000.
Agenda Item 8.h.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST BY ACCURATE ARCHITECTURE &
CONSTRUCTION
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Deny the fee waiver request;
- Approve the fee waiver request;
- Waive a portion of fees; or
- Provide staff direction.
ADVANTAGES:
Denial of the fee waiver will maintain revenue to reimburse the City for the costs
involved in processing the application and consistency with the amount paid by other
parties regarding the same action and properties.
DISADVANTAGES:
GES:
The fee amount is restrictive to the parties desiring to submit a Specific Plan
amendment for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL RE IE II:
No environmental review is required by the City for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, February, 3, 2011 and on the
City's websi e on Friday, February 4, 2011.
Attachment:
1 . Fee Waiver Request
Agenda Item 8.h.
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
AAC
ACCURATE ARCHITECTURE & CONSTRUCTION
CA. CONTRA LIC. # 831344
CA. ARCHITECIrS LIC. # 2146
P.O. Box 29
Grover Teach, CA 93493
Phone: 440-8812 Fax: 489 -6907
January 31, 2011 jp
Levert Adams, City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arro o Grande, CA 93420
� �t
RE: Berry G en Spec Plan Ax en date t Fee
Tear Mr.. Ada
I was in at 11:30 am on Friday, January 28th to submit an application for Derry Gardens
neighborhood home owners. We wish to establish use area restrictions and propose an
overlay restricting high Mn w tensity uses that would other se require extensive
environmental review.
I was informed by Staff that a fee of $7,000 was required; which is a fee for a whole, new
Speci Plan Application. l'm asking for this fee to be waived or reduced for the following
reasons:
1. Prior 2008 Specifi Plan Amendment application by S & S Hones was $1,500
2. General Plan minor amendment is $1,700
Please mote that our request is ' pl with minimum Staff time and no environment
ree required. would also ask mat Council vitiate this request i a reasonable fee cannot
be determined.
Sincerely,
John F. Mack
Architect
Page 1 of I
Agenda Item 8.h.
Page 3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 8.h.
Page 4
reIN R
A. ""0
APOATED
JULY W, 1911
cl
1 MEMORANDUM
F VR
TO: CITY COUNCIL
.e
*6V
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Y: , KELLY HEFFERNI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FROM CERTAIN
PROJECTS APPROVED IN YEARS RS 2005, 2007, 2008 AND 2009 T
FUND THE REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS FOR LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES BY
INSTALLATION OF AN ELEVATOR AT 300 EAST BRANCH STREET
DATE: FEBRUARY , 201'
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving the reallocation of
CDBG funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Installation of an elevator at 300 East Branch Street to provide handicap access to the
upstairs 'area is over bud by approximately $52,000. Reallocation cation f unspent CDBG
funds from program years 20, 20, 2008 and 2009 will help offset these additional
costs, which will result in a savings o over $64,000 to the General Fund.
B ACKGROUND:
Every three 3 gears, the City considers participation in the Housing and Urban
Development (HIED) designated Urban County CDBG Program. The City has been
participating in this program since the early 1990's. O June 10, 2008, the City Council
approved a Cooperative Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo for the joint
participation in the CDBG Program for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The City, as a
participant in this program, receives an annual formula-based allocation of CDBG funds,
which are available for a variety of Community Development activities as long as the
activities meet at least one o 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 approved CDBG Action Plans for years 20, 2007, 2008 and 2009 include funding
for projects that have unspent balances and expired contracts. These projects are
listed in the following table.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 1
CITY COUN CIL
PRELIMINARY CDBG FUNDING FOR 201'
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2OF3
PRoJ EST IIII E: ...PROGRAM
+ou rtland E. Grand Rey lin Center
Code Enforcement i n RDA
Code Enforcement in RDA
Illisslon Commun#y Community Services Corp.
YEAR
2005
2907
200
2008
F 1 AIV�olJI T.
$3
$11
$15,948.00
$5,000.0 0
Code Enforcement in RDA
2009
$16,180.00
Transitional Food Shelter
2009
$2
Litera Council
2009
$956.00
Architectural Barrier Removal
2009
$8,7'17.68
YMCA Active Older Adults Program
2009
$958.00
TOTAL:
1
$64,881.69
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
Because the CDBG funds allocated to these projects have not been spent, staff
proposes that they be reallocated to fund the removal of architectural barriers for low
and moderate income people with severe disabilities by installation of an elevator in the
new City Hall. Reallocating the funds for this purpose is consistent with CDBG
objectives.
CDBG project proposals are evaluated using the following criteria:
1. Consistency with federal regulations and laves;
2. Community support (for ex approval of project by a city council);
3. Seriousness of c ommunity development need proposed to be addressed by
project;
4 . Degree to which project benefits love income and very low -income families or
persons;
5 . Feasibility of the project to be completed as budgeted and by December 31,
2010;
6 . Cost effectiveness of funds requested and leveraging of other funds; and
7. Organization's e or knowledge regarding CDBG or HOME
requirements.
The proposed reallocation of funds for access for people with disabilities meets the
above criteria. The cooperative agreement between the County and the City gives
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 Board of su pervisors is expected t hear this item on March 8, 2011 and the funds
would be immediately available after that hearing date.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
PRELIMINARY CDBG FUNDING FOR 2011
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE OF 3
ADVANTAGES:
Reallocation f unspent CDBG funds closes out these previous program years, which
aids in CDBG administration for both the City and County. These funds would be
utilized for a project that is consistent with CDBG program goals, and would be spent
soon after the funds are made available.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Accept staff's recommendation and adopt the resolution;
-
Modify staff s recommendation and adopt the resolution;
- Provide direction to staff
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
:
The allocation of CDBG funds is not considered a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act CE and National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA).
.
Specific projects that may have environmental impacts will be reviewed under CE QA
and NEPA prior to implementation.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
public hearing notice was published in the Tribune on Friday, January 2, 2011. The
Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, January 27, 2011 and posted on
the City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011. No public comments were received.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING REALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FROM CERTAIN
PROJECTS APPROVED IN YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009 TO FUND
THE REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES BY
INSTALLATION OF AN ELEVATOR AT 300 EAST BRANCH STREET
WHEREAS, via a Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo
(hereafter referred to as "County" ) executed on .June 10, 2008, the City agreed to
become a participant for a period of three gears with the County and other cities therein
as an "Urban County" under the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development (hereafter referred to as "HUD" ) CD G program; and
WHEREAS, per the Cooperation Agreement, the City retains the authority to determine
which projects are to be funded with its allotment of CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the City allocated funds during the CDG program years Zoo, 2007, 20
and 2009 to various projects; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to reallocate unspent funds from aforementioned CDBG
program years to fund the removal of architectural barriers for lour and moderate income
people with severe disabilities by installation of an elevator in City Hall; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2011,
the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider reallocation of CDG funds from certain projects approved in
Program Years
2005 through 2009 as follows:
- 9G FUNDI CT } I AA PROS A YEA.R ..
CO
Courtland /E. Grand Recyclipg Recycling Center
2005
$3,588.75
Code Enforcement in RDA
2007
$11
Code Enforcement in RDA
2008
$15
Mission Community services Corp.
2008
$5,000-0
Code Enforcement in RDA
2909
$16
Transitional Food & Shelter
2009
$2
Literacy Council
2009
$956.00
Architectural Barrier Removal
2009
$81717.66
CA Active Older Adults Prog
2009
$956.00
TOTAL:
1 1
$64,891.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 4
RESOLUTION N .
PAGE 2
W, THEREFORE, E, E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arr o y o
Grande, California, to recommend that the Board of Supervisors for the County of San
Luis Obispo adopt the reallocation of the City's CDEG funds from the 2005, 20, 2008
and 2009 Action Plans as listed above for the purpose o f funding the removal of
architectural barriers for low and moderate income people with severe disabilities by
installation of an elevator at 300 East Branch Street.
On motion of Council Member
following roll call Vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by Council Member , and on the
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day o February, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 5
RESOLUTION N .
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST.
KELLY I ETMO E, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 9.a.
Page 6
RO
INCORPORATED
JULY 10,111 MEMORANDUM
41F Vt
To. CITY COUNCIL
4A �
FROM: TE ESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY UNITY DE ELOPMEI T DIRECTOR
BY: + f KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION ATION of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 18.04.070(0), 16.32.030(A) AND 18.48.060 To ALLO
ROUNDING NDING uP FOR A FRACTIONAL UNIT of 0.51 OR GREATER
WHEN CALCULATING ALLOWABLE LE DENSITY IN THE MULTIPLE-
FAMILY MF ZONING DISTRICT; APPLICANT — CITY of ARROYO
o o
G RANDE; DE; LOCATION -- CITYWIDE; DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT CASE NO. 10-003
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,2011
R ECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council introduce an ordinance
entitled:
"AN O RDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY F ARROY
GRANDE DE AMENDING S 16.04.070( 16.32.03 A AND
16. 8.g g OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ROUNDING UP FOR A FRACTIONAL UNIT OF 0.51 OR GREATEN
WHEN CALCULATING ALLOWABLE DENSITY IN THE MULTI-FAMIL
( MF) ZONING DISTRICT; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE
NO. 10-003 V1
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact identified at this time.
B ACKGROUND:
O n August 3 2010 the Planning Commission considered a proposal to subdivide a
0.40-acre site into four lots for property located in the Multi - Family (IMF) zoning
district on Alder Street. Because the maximum allowable density was 3. 6 units, a
density bonus was required to gain a fourth unit, which required that one of the units
(2 of the project) be restricted to the low income level (Development Code Section
16.82. To avoid this type of financial hardship, promote infill development and t
maximize use for this and other smaller infill subdivisions in the MF district, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment that allows
rounding up. to the net full unit for fractional density units of 0.1 or greater for
properties located in the MF zoning district (see Attachment 1 for meeting minutes).
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 10-003
FEBRUARY Y , 2011
PAGE 2of'13
The Planning Commission considered Development Code Amendment 10 -003 on
,January 18, 2011 and recommended Council approval with the replacement of the word
"shall" with "may" in the following Development code Section:
16-32.030,
A •
For all single-family residential units within a residential zoning district, each dwellin
unit counts as one density unit. For multifamily dwellings rgs within a residential zonin
district, a one - bedroom or studio is equal to 0. 5 unit and a two-bedroom and above
is equal to one unit. Roue r . the next whole number is not a is bie when
•
calculating density, , e c , t in the multi-Family LALF zonina district For calculating
allocable density in the MF district, all remainders of 51 percent or gre s4ia# rr
be rounded to the next higher whole number: Density in mixed use districts are
defined in Section 16.36-030Q L2
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
Current regulations encourage the creation of lamer lots in areas that are targeted for
higher density housing. This is evident in the MF zoning district where the minimum
building site area is 101 000 square feet. A larger parcel size is effective for constructing
multiple family attached units such as apartments, but not so effective for constructing
single family detached units, the latter being the more prevalent. Generally, small lot
single family development has occurred in the MF district through the Planned Unit
Development process. Smaller lots are permitted through this process provided the
allowable density is not exceeded.
The City's Development Code regulations enable the Multi- Family Apartment (MFA) and
Mixed Use districts to gain additional density through density equivalencies (discussed
further below), while additional density can only be achieved in the MF district through a
density bonus. Given the current housing market, this restriction effectively precludes
many infill development opportunities from being economically feasible. It particularly
impacts smaller projects that are unable to seek a density bonus through the provision
of low income housing because it results in a much higher percentage of restricted units
than would normally be required, making it infeasible to fund.
The primary purpose of the MF district is to provide for a variety of residential uses,
encourage diversity in housing types with enhanced amenities (common open space
and recreation areas, or provide transitions between higher intensity and lower intensity
uses. This district is intended as an area for development of small lot single - family
detached, single - family attached, and multifamily attached residential dwelling units,
planned unit developments, condominiums, and certain senior housing types, at a
maximum allowable density of nine 9 dwelling knits per gross acre.
The City has approximately ninety -seven 9 acres of land zoned MF. Most of these
properties have been developed to the maximum extent allowable, primarily through the
PUD process. The remaining underutilized properties are few. To determine how many
additional units might be created as a result of the proposed Development Code
Amendment (DCA), an inventory of all Multi - Family MF zoned properties and existin
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CA '1 -003
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 3 of 13
units within the zoning district was c ompiled. Based on the inventory of gross acreage,
a total of sixty-seven 6 additional units could be provided on MF zoned property.
Note that this calculation is derived from gross parcel size and does not include site
constraints such as existing development, topography, soil conditions, biological
resources, drainage patterns or other environmental factors. Of the properties
inventoried, only two areas are vacant. A more realistic number was calculated to be
thirty -six 3 additional units, which eliminates properties already developed that would
only gain one extra unit. For example, it is assumed that a project to demolish six ( 6 )
existing d wellings would not be pursued in order to construct one 1 additional unit for a
total of seven units. Conversely, a property zoned 11F that is underdeveloped with
one 1 unit and is large enough for three 3 units with rounding would be a viable infill
project.
The table below summarizes the results of the inventory. The area map, also provided
below, identifies the groupings of MF properties. Several subareas generally constitute
one grouped area - in order to determine hoer the rounding would affect individual
panels.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CA 10
FEBRUARY 8, 201
PAGE 4
SUMMARY
Area
...Lo i.don
-a ..
OF ROUNDING
11I '. Allowed
Unitiis
d ua
:.
;n
:..
UP IN WIF ZONING DISTRICT
Est n
U" i . .. Prpsed ;
Found i v
:.....
n. x:
x :n
:... .. *,x.
..:.n :
:...... x;
CITY
:::. � f
nce
�teerr
NIP 1:
:... :...
art:
...... ....
. .. .. . .... ..... . .
I E
0
diift*e'e
P r '% 6 i6d
. n
"di 0 .
}: Al
'I
36
36
36
0
0
0
2
62
26
65
36
39
3
17
16
18
1
2
1
4
26
19
26
6
7
1
6
24
19
21
5
2
3
6
49
43
53
6
10
4
7
98
84
109
14
26
11
8
93
91
97
2
6
9
8
8
8
0
0
0
10
19
19
22
0
3
3
11
76
64
92
12
28
16
12
1
1
1
0
0
0
13
1
1
1
0
0
0
14
1 7
18
1 7
-1
-1
0
15
1
1
1
9
0
9
1
44
42
46
2
4
2
17
14
14
14
0
0
0
18
46
46
61
0
6
6
19
11
10
15
1
6
4
20
22
18
26
4
7
3
21
44
21
49
23
28
6
22
8
2
10
6
8
2
23
62
0
62
62
62
0
TOTAL:
778
599
839
179
240
Estimated total number of additional units based on existing development
patterns:
3
*Note: Maximum imur densities are based on gross acreage
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 4
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 5
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 6
Section 16.04.070(C) of the Development Code defines density as follows: ""Density"
means number of dw elling units on a lot in relation t the lot size expressed in units per
gross acre. Rou nding up to the next whole number is not applicable when calculating
d ensity. Development Code Section 16.32.030(A), which addresses residential
densities, is silent on rounding up or down in any of the residential zoning districts. The
General Plan is also silent on rounding.
To determine the practice of other jurisdictions, staff conducted a survey through the
League of California Cities' lousing, Community and Economic Development ListServ.
The question was asked whether their respective -jurisdiction allowed rounding up for
fractional units when calculating density in any of their residential /mixed use zoning
districts. A total of twenty -four 2 jurisdictions responded, including five cities
within San Luis Obispo County. Below is the summary of responses.
LisTSER E QUESTION: Does your jurisdiction allow rounding ding up for fractional units
when calculating allowable density in any of your residentiallmixed use zoning districts
Umma
. �Juri dio f n
Round U (U)
1
Round Down ( D)
Neutral (N
24
8
1 2
4
J04 J0 I ct io n:
Res po r e:
S an Luis Obispo
The City of S an Lu Obispo rounds density units up to the nearest 1 00 unit i.e. 2.999
lJ
density units would be rounded to 3; however, 2.959 density units wou ld be rounded to
2.96). Density information can be found in Chapter 17-16.010.2.d of the Zoning
Regulations. Please see the following link for more information:
htk : / .sl it .or /corn munit develo ment/do sandforr s /Zonin °o20Re ulations ° o
0(8-09). df
Atascadero
Atascadero rounds numbers up at 0 .5 or larger. So a density of 3.5 or 3. 6 would be
U)
units, but 3.2 would only be 3 units.
Grover Beach
In general, when the calculation results in 0.9, we round up. There are some specific
U)
situations in which the calculation can still be rounded up even if it is less than 0.9. For
example, the situation regarding the neighborhood of duplexes refers mainly to one
subdivision where it was developed with duplexes, but the couple of remaining vacant
lots can only get one unit and a secondary /granny unit if we apply the 0.9 rounding rule.
The resolution is attached.
Paso R
Paso's Multi- Farilr Zoning District allows it. See the section below,.
U
21.161.059 - Fractions.
Wherever calculations for density or development standards established within this
chapter result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
For example, 4.5 dwelling units may be rounded to five dwelling units, but 4.49 dwelling
units would be rounded to four dw units.
Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach rounds down.
{D}
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 10-003
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 7 OF 13
j ur " I ' s - Wiction
Respo'n .. ......:.
es n .............. . x:
... ...... .......:...x...:n .........................: .... .:pry ..: �� %k . .��:: . .. . .
: 7 7
Emeryville
That question just came up with my staff y W will be addressing this issue in
( N)
our ne w, zoning ordinance, and I wi I I be interested to hear the results you get from other
cities. (Currently our code does not address this issue and we handle each project on a
case -by -case basis).
Eureka
The following Co de section is from the Eureka Municipal ipal Code.
155.027 SITE AREA AND DIMENSIONS; NS; F E UIF EME TS AND EXCEPTIONS.
A Measurement.
( If after dividing the area of .a site in an R , OCR, H C1, C, o r
CW District by the site area required per dwelling unit, a remainder equal to r greater
than 0 o f the area required for an a ddit iona l dwelling unit is o bt a ined, o a
dwelling unit may be located o the site provided all other applicable yard, open space,
bulk, and parking regulati are met.
Livermore
Our General Plan states that you must round d However, we do allow the area of
D
the site to include all or a portion of an a djacent street frontage, to the centerline of the
right- If there are two street frontages then the owner may use only one of the
streets, not both.
Residential Development
Thirteen levels of residential d are s o n the General Plan Map t o
accommodate different densities and housing s tyles. Each resi dential density i
expressed in tens of a number of dwelling units per acre, where "acre" refers to gross
acres including all the land within the boundaries of the p Gr acre may inc lude
all or a portion of adjacent street frontage, which is the area between the street right-
way b and the midline of the a djacent f streets ( freeway o r
highways. Properties with more than one street frontage may on ly use the longest
street frontage for purposes of calculating residential density. Where appropriate,
residential density calculations may be based on a designation -wide /district- wide basis.
The gross acre does not include any o f the following: 1 land that is to be purchased by
a public agency; 2 land required for parkland dedication; o ( land proposed for n
residential uses. The number of residential units permitted on each panel or in each
project shall be calculated by rounding down to the nearest whole number when the
numb o f units permitted on a lot Is less than the next whol number. I es . 2005-178;
Fes. 0-245}
South Pasad
The tent f rom the Sou th Pasadena Zoning Code.
(D)
Calculations—Rounding. Where provisions of this Zoning Code require calculations t
determine a pplicable requirements, an fractional results of the ca lcu lations shall be
rounded as provided by this-Subsection excep w h ere a s pecific rounding rule is p
by the Sec tion requiring ca lculations (for exam Secti 36.310.040 includes a
roun ding requirement f off - street parking spare ca lculations.
1 . Residential density, minimum lot area and number of lots. The fractional/decimal
results of calculations of the number of dwelling units all on a parcel based on
maximum d requirements, and the number of panels allowed through subdivision
based on a minimum lot area requirement, shall be rounded down to the next lowest
whole number. For example, the IRS zoning district allows a minimum lot area of 10, 00
square feet for new subdivisions. Therefore, a panel o 28,000 square feet could be
subdivided into a maximum of two panels, if approved by the review authority
8, 00 0/10 1 g 0 = 2. 8, rounded down to .
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 10-003
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 8 OF '13
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 9
2. All other calculations. For all calculations required by this Zoning code other than
those described In Subsection E.1 above, the fracti nal decimal results of calculations
shall be rounded to the neat highest wh ole number when the fraction /decimal is 0. 5 or
more, and to the next lowest whole number when the fraction is less than 0.5.
Ojai
The City of Ojai does not use the rounding technique.
Turlock
Not typically, but we do allow some flexibility in the application of density ranges. But the
I
overall density has to be within +/-.01 units /acre o the minimum or maximum allowed
density.
Redding
Yes, the City of Redding does round tip, as long as it's over a tenth.
(
1 8.62.050 Fractions.
When calculations result in fractions the results will be rounded as follows:
A. Minimum Requirements. When a regulation is expressed in terms of a minimum
requirement, any fractional result will be rounded to the next whole number. For
example, if a minimum requirement of one tree for every thirty feet is applied to a fifty -
ft strip, the resulting fraction of 1.37 is rounded up to two required trees.
B. Maximum Limits. When a regulation is expressed in terms of maximum limits, any
fractional result of one -tenth or above will be rounded to the next whole number
(fractions shall be truncated at the first decimal place). For example, if a maximum limit
of one dwelling unit for every twenty thousand square feet in the "FEE -" district is
applied to a fifty -six thousand square -foot sue the resulting fraction of 2. 8 is rounded up
to three allowed dwelling units. However, the maximum density permitted within the
range established by the general plan cannot be exceeded .
Napa
We used to round up, but changed the Code so rounding up is no longer allowed. The
(D)
problem with rounding up is that it can often put you over the maximum allowable
density. For example, if a 0.6 acre property is allowed 6 units to the acre, rounding up
the 3. 6 allowable units to would result in a density of 6.7 units per acre. Below is our
section of the Zoning Ordinance that explains how to calculate density and FAR.
See Municipal Code Section 1 7.52.120 for details on density and floor area ratio
calculations htt :I code.us/codes/na
Lomita
The City of Lomita rounds down since allowable density is the maximum number of units
D)
permitted. Furthermore, most of the time if you rounded up the project would exceed
general plan density requirements.
Sausalito
No, Sausalito rounds down for any fractional number {see Section 10.40.030.E in
D)
chapter 10.40 here: hftp://www.ci.sausalito.ca.us/index.aspx?12age=28i).
Carlsbad
Please see section 21.53.230 o our zoning code (see link below):
(U)
http: /llibra .rnunic de.c m /inde .aspx' clientID=1 2 4 5 &stateid =9&state narne= California
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 10 -003
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 9 OF 1
rJ l o, di 1 on Rey _,qn..
Table A
Unit Yield Foundin
Density Used for
Unit Yield Includes a
Provisions for Unit Yield
aluatin
Founding
Minimum
fractional unit of .5 or greater
SHALL be rounded -up,'
the applicable land use designation shall be considered consistent with the General Plan.
frationarl unit below .5
MAY be rounded- down.
MP
fractional unit of .5 or greater
MAY be rounded -up.
fractional unit below .5
SHALL be rounded- down.
acre for each land use designation (exclusive of 2nd residential units), so we would not
MAXIMUM IUM
fractional unit
SHALL be rounded- town.
Note:
1) Unless the project density is allowed below the minimum of the density range, pursuant to the General
Plan.
) Unit yields rounded -down pursuant to this provision that result in a density below the minimum density of
the applicable land use designation shall be considered consistent with the General Plan.
Subject to a fractional unit allocation from the "excess dwelling unit bank ", and provided the maximum
density of the applicable land use designation is not exceeded.
Galt
The General Plan specifies minimum and maximum permitted dwelling units per gross
D
acre for each land use designation (exclusive of 2nd residential units), so we would not
allow rounding up if it would exceed the maximum density permitted in the General Plan
land use designation - -- assuming this did not involve a density bonus for affordable
mousing, o course.
I've attached our Development Intensity Standards table from the Land Use Element
(Table LU -2 Development Density Standards).
Santa Barbara
We do not round our density calculation.
N
Delano
in our Zoning code, the section on Development Density specifies that in determining the
M
allowable number of dwelling units on a parcel, all remainders of 51 percent or greater
shall be rounded to the next higher whole number. If the remainder is no more than . ,
the lower whole number is the allowable density. The link is at
h ftp://www.citvo fdelano.ora /DocumentView.astpx?DID= 354
Refer the Section 20.1 0.80 — Development Density.
San Rafael
For base density (before any density bonus for loom density allowances), we do not
()
round up o down and one would need to achieve the next whole integer to get that
density, i.e. if the base density calculation results in 17.1 or 17.9 units, you can only have
17 units. This provision is not codified and is based on our customary and historical
practice.
However, for density bonus calculations one is allowed to round up to the next highest
number, i.e. 4.1 density bonus units is rounded up to . This is not in our local ordinance,
but is codified in Government Code section 65915(g)(2).
Simi Valle
- 12.020 - Rules of Interpretation
(D)
Founding of quantities. Whenever an application of this Development Code results in
required parking spaces o other standards being expressed in fractions of whole
numbers, the fractions shall be rounded to the next higher whole number, except that:
a. Calculations for the number of permitted animals shall comply with Section 9- 44.060
(Animal Keeping); and
b. Quantities expressing dwelling units per acre shall be rounded down to the next lower
whole number.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 10-003
FEBRUARY V, 2011
PAGE 10 of 1
u rlsdi dto
Re''sponse
Citrus Heights
D. Calculations - Founding. Where a provision of this Zoning Code requires
(
numerical calculations to determine applicable requirements, any fractional results of the
calculations shall be rounded as follows, except wh ere a specific rounding rule is
provided by the Section requiring calculations.
1. Residential density, minimum lot area and number of lots. The fractional /decimal
results of calculations of the number of dwelling units allowed on a parcel based on
maximum density requirements, and the number of parcels allowed through subdivision
based on a minimum r lot area requirement, shall be rounded down to the next lowest
whole number.
2. All other calculations. For all calculations required by this Zoning Code other
than those described in Subsection D. 1, the fractional /decimal results of calculations
shall be rounded to the net highest whole number when the fraction /decimal is 0.5 or
more, and to the next lowest whole number when the fraction is fess than 0.5.
Novato
This is the language in our General Plan; i'Maximurn residential density shah be
D
calculated based on the gross acreage and then rounded down to the nearest whole
number'.
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County does not allow rounding up for density.
County
D
Although the majority of jurisdictions that responded do not allow rounding up when
calculating density 0% round down, 33% round up, and 17% are neutral), 4 out of the
responding cities (80%) within San Luis Obispo SL County round up In varying
degrees. It should be noted that the responses do not necessarily take into
consideration the limited zoning in which staff's recommendations relate to MF only).
The proposed DCA is therefore consistent with the majority of cities within SLO County.
The proposed DCA is also consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General
Plan Land Use Element (LICE) in terms of density, The LUE provides maximum
cir um
residential density thresholds without direct reference to gross or net property area and
instead sets forth the details of subdivision standards, guidelines and procedures to the
Development Code. Consistent with the LICE and Development Code, the proposed
DCA is based on gross area. Net area is referred to in the Development Code when
considering minimum building site area and not for subdivision purposes.
The purpose of restricting the proposed rounding provision to the MF district is because
the Multi - Family Apartment (MFA) and Mixed Use zoning districts can already achieve
higher densities through the "density equivalency" allowances provided in Municipal
Code Sections 16.32.030 and 16.36.030 which state the following:
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 11
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 10-003
FEBRUARY Y , 201'1
PAGE 11 OF 13
16 .32. 03
For ali single-family residential units within a residential zoning district, each
dwelling unit counts as one density unit. For multifamily dwellings within a
residential zoning district, a ore- bedroom or studio is equal to 0.5 unit and a two -
bedroom and above is equal to one unit. Density in mixed use districts are
defined in Section .3 . 3 2 .
16 .3 6 .03O Lc)( Q
For the purposes of mixed use development, residential density is defined as
follows:
Residential
D [brit Type
Density Equivalent
Livellvork .nit
0.
Studio
o.
1 -bedroom
0.
2- bedroom
1.0
3-bedroom
1.5
4-bedroom
12.0
The ability to use "density equivalencies" in the 1 IFA district is based on the definition of
multifamily dwellings, which essentially means attached units. Only multifamily
(attached) units are allowed in the MFA zoning district.
The outcome of the pro posed rounding provision is that residential detached projects in
the I MF zoning district have the same density opportunity as residential attached
projects. There are much fewer attached unit developments in the NSF zoning district
than detached, and detached is more marketable in this economy and more likely to be
developed.
The proposed Development Code Amendment would amend Sections 16.04.0
16.32.030(A) and 16.46.660 as follows.
6.04. o o0
"Density" means number of dwellings units on a lot in relation to the lot size expressed in
.
units per gross acre.
Exxx
6.32.030 .
For all single - family residential units within a residential zoning district, each dwelling unit
counts as one density unit. For multifamily dwellings within a residential zoning district, a
one-bedroom or studio is equal to o. 5 unit and a two-bedroom and above is equal to one
unit. I ounafirr u to there t whole number is not applicable when alculati densi
e xcept in the M ulti- ar ril (yF o nir district. For calculating allowable den y' in the
M district all remainder of ercent or neater m be rounded to the net hi her
whole number: Density in mixed use districts are defined in section 16.36.030(C)(2).
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 12
CITY COUNCIL
CA 10-003
FEBRUARY Y , 2011
PAGE 12 of 13
16 _ 4 R- ORO -
The General Plan classifications specify the maximum allowable development density
per gross acre of land owned in fee by the applicant (including street right-of-way that
would revert to the property owner if abandoned). Pounding up to the next whole
number is not applicable when figuring density except in the Multi-Family., ism for
fractional units of o. 51 or above when calculating density for the provision of affordable
housing, or for mixed use districts where rounding to the next half number is
appropriate. Density for residential districts is discussed in Section .32..3 1
Density for Tied use districts is discussed in section .3 .o3o C .
The City Attorney recommends that the Council modify the Planning Commission's
recommendation for Section 16.32.030(A). The Planning Commission substituted the
word "may" for "shall" "be rounded to the next higher whole number." Inserting the word
"r ay" converts the statute from an objective standard to a subjective standard without
criteria. As a result, it is recommended that the statute be restored to its original
proposed language with the word "shall" inserted as shown in Attachment 4, Alternative
A.
Alternatively, "may" cold remain as long as specific findings are included in the statute
to determine when the number will be rounded up and when it should not. The following
findings are recommended. The number will be rounded up if it is determined that: 1
rounding up is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible; 2 rounding
up will not impair the integrity and character of the properties and improvements in the
vicinity; 3 there are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure public health, and safety; rounding up will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare of the properties in the vicinity; and 5 rounding up is
consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and this title. This
language is shown in Attachment 4 as Alternative E.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council's consideration:
1. Approve the Planning Commission's sion's recom end ation and introduce the
ordinance as modified by the Planning Commission;
2. Modify the Planning Commission's sion's re orr mendation and introduce the
ordinance with the language set forth in Attachment 4, Alternative A inserted;
3. Modify the Planning Commission's recommendation and introduce the
ordinance with the language set forth in Attachment 4, Alternative B inserted;
4. Do not introduce the ordinance; and
5. Provide other direction to staff.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 13
TTY COUNCIL
CA 10-003
FEBRUARY Y , 2011
PAGE 13 F13
ADVANTAGES:
Many of the underutilized properties in the IIF district can achieve an additional unit
with rounding and thereby provide additional multi- family infill development, consistent
with the City's General Flan Housing and Land Use Elements. It will especially increase
the economic viability of small subdivisions and allow more effective lot sizes. for infill
projects in these areas.
DISADVANTAGES:
The proposed DCA may encourage more development of single - family detached homes
on properties zoned MF since the same number of attached or unattached units would
be allowed with the proposed amendment. This could reduce the construction of
attached homes or apartments within these areas of the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
IEW:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the CEA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for
Implementation n f CE A. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this project
will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a negative
declaration with mitigation measures for Council's consideration (see Initial study,
Attachment 2).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
Public Hearing Notice was published in The Tribune on December 31, 2010 for the
January 11, 2011 City Council meeting. The Council continued the Public Hearing to a
date certain of February 8, 2011. A Notice of Continuance was posted at City Hall on
January 12, 2011. No written comments have been received to date for the proposed
Development Code Amendment.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 3, 201
2. Initial study
3. Ordinance
4. Ordinance Alternatives
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 14
AGENDA ATTACHMENT'!
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2010
6:00 P.M.
CALL To ORDER — The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair
B rown presiding: also present were Commissioners Martin and Ruth. Absent were Commissioners
arnei h and been. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Teresa
cClish, Planning Manager Jim Bergman, Associate Planner belly Heffernon, Planning Intern Darryl
iii k, and Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn.
ANNOUNCEMENT: TENT: lone
AGENDA REVIEW: None
APPROVAL of MINUTES:
Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, and unanimously carried to approve
the minutes of July 20, 2010.
I. A, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: UNICATIONS lone
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION:
F ATION:
The Commission received an email dated August 2, 2010 from Mark Vasquez regarding AG Short
Street Project; a letter dated July 31, 2010 from Gary L. S herquist regarding Shops at Short street;
and a copy of Section 50 .2.1 of the 2007 California Fire Code from Tim bore; are updated
Resolution from Planning Manager Bergman based upon additional review by the applicant and staff
clarifications, and Anita Bennett provided, at the meeting, an ex from the San Francisco
Chronicle newspaper regarding building design.
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 20,2010 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
09-001 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 09-001; 379 ALDER STREET; APPLICANT
KOF NF EICH ARCHITECTS
Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report, stating that the project has not changed
since the .duly 20, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Applicant prc poses a 4 lot residential
subdivision in a planned unit development configuration. Item was continued in order to examine
options for satisfying the City's affordable housing requirements. Commission comments from last
meeting have been included in the resolution of approval.
The recommendation is to approve the project as presented with the low-income affordable housing
restriction; however, staff encourages the Commission to consider development code amendment
options that would enable smaller projects, such as this one, to move for ward by paying an affordable
housing in lieu fee instead of restricting a unit. Three possible development code amendments were
presented that would essentially have the same outcome of allowing a fee in lieu of restricting a unit.
In ans wer to Commissioners' questions, Associate Planner Heffernon indicated the density
equivalency table is applicable for mixed-use or multi - family (attached) projects. The development
code could be amended to either change the definition of multi - family dwellings or simply allow
density equivalencies in the MF zoning district. The City would process the development code
amendment which would take some time. While this would be a disadvantage to the applicant, it
would allover the applicant to proceed With the project. As proposed right now, one of the units would
need to be restricted to low-income, which makes the project financially unfeasible. Deferred to the
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 15
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE
AUGUST 3, 2010
applicant to answer which alternative would be their preference.
In answer to Chair Brown's questions, Community unity Development Director Teresa McClish stated this
project has brought to light some obstacles to gaining easily - administered affordable housing in the
City for small infill projects. The issue was recognized during the Housing Element update work that
is currently being pursued. This project is a good case study to make some changes to remove those
potential obstacles; h owever, this amendment must not be contrary to anything being contemplated in
that update process. In terms o f the current code language for definition of multi - family, this is not a
multi- family project, but it is a small lot single family development in a multi - family zoning district which
is an allowed use. Density equivalencies are indicated for multi - family attached projects.
Associate Planner Hefl'ern n clarified one of the alternatives would be to allow paying an in -lieu fee
when there are less than 10 units proposed. The code is currently silent in the density bonus section
on fractional units i.e. 10% of projects having less than 10 units is a fraction). Community
Development Director Teresa McClish stated these are directions for a code amendment. When the
code amendment comes forward, an analysis will be brought forward to make sure it is consistent with
other sections of the code and alternatives presented if needed. The anticipated timeframe to charge
the development code would be a minimum of four months.
Chair Brown Opened the meeting for public comment. The applicant's representative, Garth
Kornreich, was asked to address the changes recommended or contemplated at the last meeting, and
his views on the options brought forward by staff. Mr. Kornreich indicated they did not make any
formal drawing changes in anticipation of the issues with the development code amendment. Second
floor windows could be modified to protect neighbor privacy. They looked at opportunities to modify
the second floor plans to step the structures further back from the property line. They resist the other
option pushing the units forward (south) to gain a larger setback, but stepping will help open it up and
alleviate some of the overlook issues. Pulling the units apart, especially the first two units, to get a
parking space in between would work well. The items brought up are workable and could be
incorporated into the plans when the project comes back after the development code amendment. A
far as the amendments are concerned, the rounding up for 0.51 units and greater would work as well
as the density equivalency allowance in the multi- family zone. if they completely complied with the
definition of multi - family housing, there would not be are additional unit there and no additional density,
but a matter of whether it is connected o not connected. It is a better project and more appealing
when they are separated.
In answer to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Kornreich indicated the upstairs unit #2 could be flipped,
but pushing them a little farther apart, with a parking space in between would have less visibility in the
windows. They could examine pushing everything forward on the second floor over the porch to
create a 10 ft second -story setback.
Commissioner Brown expressed concern about the b ft rear yard setback in terms o privacy issues.
If a development code amendment is done, he wants the applicant to show the step back.
Applicant, Lloyd Kornreich commented that his concept is to provide wrap- around porches that help
bring out a community area where neighbors can see each other. By giving more room in the
backyard, more area is taken from the front yard and the nice southern exposure, and he felt the front
yard would be utilized more than the shaded back yard. They could look at this issue again.
Seeing no more public comment, Chair Brown brought it back to the Commission.
Chair Brown commented he is uncomfortable with charging the density equivalency. He prefers the
alternative that allows rounding up to the net fall unit for fractions of 0.51 or greater.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 16
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
AUGUST 3, 2010
PAGE
Commissioner Ruth indicated this is a good project, it is nice to ut the living ac
� g � e in the front, and
the parking appears to be OTC. She supports the same development code amendment as Ch
Brown. Trying to change the density equivalent for the 1 bedroom does not make sense and it will
have a limited market. She supports rounding up with units of less than 4 if it's a fraction of .51 or
greater.
Commissioner Martin indicated this is a good project and good fit for the neighborhood. Single famil
detached homes are more desirable than attached units at this point. It's a good infill project and she
would like to see it work.
It was moved by chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, and unanimously carried to continue
this item to a date uncertain.
B . VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE No. 10-002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE
No. 10-002; APPLICANT — NAT COMMERCIAL C/O NICK TOMPKINS: LOCATION — CORNER
OF SHORT STREET AND EAST BRANCH STREET. Staff report prepared by Planning Manager
.dim Bergman. The Planning Commission considered making a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the final design review of the fall architectural, site floor, and landscaping plans of the
approved commercial building, the formal land division of the new development, and landscape
improvements of the locally listed resource known as the "Public Works Building or Conrad House" i n
accordance with the Purchase and Sale and Improvement Agreement entered into by the City
Council on February 23, 201 (Resolution 4262).
Planning Manager Jim Bergman presented the staff report that included the background and review
process of the project and referenced pertinent city polio documents such as the General Plan and the
Design Guidelines and standards for Historic Districts. staff also presented a revised Resolution with
appro ten modified conditions of approval. The applicant's representative presented an
overview of the project with details related to the site plan, floor plan, tentative parcel map and exterior
colors and materials. Public Comment was taken from Tian Moore, Gary Scherquist, Patty Welsh,
Shirley Gibson, Bill McCann, Gordon Bennett, Susan Flores, Minetta Bennett, Mike McConville, and
Greg Steinberger.
Issues discussed during public comment and by the Commission included:
0 Fire access and adequacy of Shot Street being narrowed to 16 feet curb to curb;
Progress of the Le Point Street parking lot;
ADA upgrades of the public restrooms;
• ADA parking spaces and access;
• Project conditions of approval;
• Conrad House fence design;
E materials on the corner of the proposed building;
The differences between the Design Guidelines and standards for the Historic Overlay District and
the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines and Standards for the Treatment f Historic uil in ;
The coordination of the windows and doors of the proposed building and the fle floor plan
proposed;
• Tree removal and placement of trees in the sidewalk;
• Adequacy of tourist parking;
• Adequacy of the 7. 5 foot setback of the proposed building nearest to the Conrad House;
• Authenticity /reproduced history/Disneyland appearance of the proposed fa ade and building;
• Storage space at the rear of the proposed building;
• Scale and mass of the proposed building;
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 17
OYO G RA `-
IJ
.'� . 4 ilk i'
r
OOO j
tAIL '' t � #M1 Ai .y .W vk j T - x* �' .7 * # + 1%,
mil j16 mjmo�
� .
INITIAL STU DY MITIGATED N E ATIVE DE LARATI0 N December 2010
DA 10 -003
Project: Development Code Amendment 10-003
Lead Agency: City of Arroyo Grande
Document Availability:
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
• htti)://www.arroyog
Project Summary:
The proposed project would amend Development Code Sections 1 .04.0 o and 16.32.030 to allow
rounding up to the next full unit for fractional units of 0.51 or greater when calculating allowable density
in the Multi-Family (MF) zoning district. The
Infeasible to get 67 units — based on gross area only as are exercise and worst case scenario. A more
realistic number would be 36, which eliminates properties already developed and that would only gain
one additional unit. For example, it is assumed that a property developed with 6 dwellings would not
tear there down to build seven new dwellings. However, it might look attractive for a p roperty owner
that has one dwelling on a property that IMF allows three units and with rounding up gains an additional
unit fora total of four.
Summary Document Preparation:
Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (tine
City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Sturdy and Negative a Declaration for the
proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City.
Page 2 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 19
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Dpcmbaar logo
DCA 10 -003
Project Location: Citywide
City of Arroyo Grande
Document Preparation:
rl0 To 5e we
Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Qu ality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the
City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The
City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are
feasible and will be implemented as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
P re pa red by:
Kelly Heffernn, AIP
Associate Planner
Date
Approved by:
Teresa Mlish, AIP Date
Community Development Director
Page 3 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 20
INITIAL STUDY MITI GATED NE ATIVE DECLARATION December 7010
DCA 10 - 003
Ta of Contents:
Introduction *iis•�as...,r��rria.. *ir•isa irt.*+ r��rr�arii.*
1ss• sr. ..r *ir•air..ir�irrartr. *aar�Sara i♦.r. �rraart...irr�rrr. i..r�irria....•r�rra
art.
Int and Reg ula tory n i n e . .........r r .................
..... . ..............................
Lead Agency ................................... ar. aa..... a r.a.............
+ *r* ire■ arr.+..*■ irr■ arri+.. riirr.aa .. +.r..arr.ar..ir * *is•asai
Purpose and D ocument O rganization . ......... .............■
aar ...... ............ .. ........+................ ....•..........................
Summary Findings . a...
ar... r. ar..... ar. a ... a a......... 111... ....ar ............ .....
Project c r i p t i o n .............................................................. r i ..
r* i s• i i s• a s r i i .. *.* r.• s s r• i r r i .. * r *. r r• i s s a . i ..... r *sir •. s r i i+ ..... *.
r
Introduction ............ @00 .. g049000 000 a0d.4...0 0 r■0 0 ••a0 a iarr.a.r *a.......d....... r.1arm mood aaria...... a 4 w
m,
Background Need for Project... .....sr•irii....... s....•..... d .iris.•..dirt.i...r *i *r•iss••sra irtr....r * *fsr.ssa •isr.i...... *
Project Description ... s ........ d 64.....0* *0 r a s s• •00 d a r6.. *a* *104 •s r•s s•1 0 aa.64...00 *00410 od BOOM ��r... *r *��sr•ssa •ssr�� +......� f.r *ss� good 600646•.9
Other Required Public Agency Approval .......•. r..... a ....... 00 ......... ad.. ar ... . ...........•.sriirr....r *ir■.. 0 ..........
Related Projects .•.. 0 ................rr...* a.... 0.......•....r. 4...a.. a.... r•. 0.......r •.r...r..... irr a a'. .. 0 .................
i.
Environmental ........... 4...a .... 0 ... 0 .............. 4 ...... ad. a .... 0 ... 0 ............ 4.,, ..... 00 ... 0 ............... a , ad 0... 0 ...............
Project Informati on .. ...................... .................. ir..... a ........ 0 .............. 4....a......................... 4.........•.1
Environmental Fact Potentially Affected ... ir* ir...... 0 ............................ +. r.......a r■. a. ..aaa..........4.... , .... 11
Determination iirr ... 0 ...........................ri a a a ... ....... 0 . 0.. ..............■......ri ... q- 0 ... 0 ... 0...
Evaluation of E nvironmental Im pacts. .. ... o .......
Environmental • ........ i....i...i.. *i...... i., "V. a i..."ai ,a*. *1.•1 *r *ir *iir *4o *aw *a@oa o sa *isr *risr•iisalssr•i s r a i s s•• i s .. • i s r• 100 a 1 0 10 a1
I a Aesthetics ■...r..art..art.. ia..ii +.. ia.. iarria ...... artr....arr....ar..ar.... 4...... 4... rtr iarria+ raartrtiart .......a + ........ a.... +ri irt..irt ■..a. r i+ rtr i ari
lla Agri and Forest Reso urces ............................................... ............................... o............... o.10. *1
I ll. Air Q ........................................... 0■1ar..........■.... 0.■.. a ir .. ... q... .a ....... a ... 4................. aaria r. .........
1
IV . Biological e o #. fir a s ................... 0........ a- r* * r y a - - 4...... 4..4 ......a i r.......... ............................... s...... i o f o. q.. *+
15
V . Cultu R esou r ces .. .... i .............................. s. is........ .....••..••..••....a........................................
1
VI . Geology and Soils ..................................... ar. aa** a.•+.•+. r• ..•+.• a+.+ arriartriaar. a ar............. 0... a.. +.
V I L Green a Emissions ■ ............... 0 ............ 0. a ..... • a.• ... •+.•a. a. r i .......... ............................... a ....
18
VIII Hazard an Ha Materials ■ ........................ 0. a...... q..• a.••...a............ 4... 4.............................. o......1
IX Hy drology and Water Quality.. ...... 0 ...... 0. a ......... 4 ...................................... 0 ... 0 ............ 0..fs..+...i...+...... 4 .r..1
X . Land Use and Planning.. ........................................... a.............. irr iii....... .................1ss••iss...... o... o.... a
1
X1 . Miner a l Resources ........ o ...... a ....... a. *+ ... i r. i r i i rt r i ............................. 0 ............ r ... 0 ............... q... a ....... a... a ...... 422
X *I. I 14+...+...+....++ ............. r..................... 00.. 0.. 0...... 0........... q...a. r.+. .a.... .i.. +i...+............ 1001.........................
2
X1II Population and Housing.......... .,- ...... +.+ i......... 4 ............................................. ...............................
XIV Public Services.. .................................... 0.. ...... qt*+...... ...... irt• i .r............................. i ....................
i
XV . Rec . ...................•a a.■................ 0. ar 0. a.....•+.•a.....•+..... ............................... ....................•.....0.
XVI. Tra P rt at i n/Tra ffIc.+++.+. rt. i4... 4.... r ................ 0....* i ............ 4................... room2
Page 4 of 77
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 21
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Din kin r 10
DA 10 -003
XVIL Utilities and Service Systems ■.. ........ .......... .......... .......... ... ...... ......................... ...pis.........................
Mandatory Findings of Significance ■.........■......■..■.........■ ....................■........■ a...............• ..............................2
Summary of Mitigation Measures ................................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
References .................................................................................................................... ...............................
Page 5 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 22
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION December 010
DA 10 -0
Introduction
Introduction and Regulatory Guidance
The initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo
Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This
document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),,, Public
Resources Code §21000 et sect., and the State CE QA Guidelines, California Ode of Regulations (OR)
§15000 et seq.
An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in
accordance with CE QA Guidelines §15064(a). However., if the load agency determines that revisions in
the project plans or proposals made by o agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant
effects to a less - than - significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an
EIR [ E A Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons
a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR
need not be prepared. This IS 1ND conforms to the content requirements under OEA Guidelines
§15071.
Lead Agency
The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority o ver the proposed project. in
accordance with CE QA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), tithe lead agency will normally be an agency with
general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited
purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande. The contact persons
for the lead agency are-
Teresa McClish, Community Development Director, or
Kelly Heffern n, Associate Planner
City of Arroyo Grande
Arroyo Grande, OA 93420
(805) 473 -5420
Purpose and Document Organization
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed
project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated 'Into the project to eliminate any
potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less- than - significant level.
This document is organized as follows:
Introduction
This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization
of this document.
Project Description
This chapter describes the reasons for the project, scope of the project, and project objectives.
Page 6 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 23
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NC ATIVC DECLARATION December 2010
DA 1 -003
Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This chapter identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts, explains the
environmental setting for each environmental issue, and evaluates the potential impacts
identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation measures are
incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to ar less-than-
significant level.
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall significance of any potential impacts to
natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and impact to humans, as identified in the
Initial Study.
• Summary of Mitigation Measure
This chapter summarizes the mitigation 'measures incorporated into the project as a result of the
Initial Study.
• References
This chapter identities the references and sources used in the preparation of this IS I11fND. it also
provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document.
Summary of Findings
Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that 'identifies the
potential environmental impacts by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting
from implementation of the proposed project.
In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion
of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the
environmental analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence that, after the
incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a significant effect on the
environment. it is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the
E AGuidelines.
Project Description
Introduction
This Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo
Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The
proposed project would amend Development Code Sections 15.04.070 and 16.32.030 to allow rounding
up to the next full unit for fractional units of 0.51 or greater when calculating allowable density in the
Multi- Family E) zoning district.
Background and Need for Project:
The Housing Element of the General Plan encourages higher densities in appropriate zoning districts in
order to provide a continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future
Arroyo Grande residents in all income categories. To help achieve this goal, policies have been adopted
Page 7 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 24
INITIAL STUDY MI` IGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATI 0 N December 2010
DCA 10 - 003
to relax certain Development Code standards. Allowing a "rounding up" provision as proposed would
also help enable and encourage additional density, consistent with the goals and policies of the Housing
Element.
The purpose of the Multi- Family (MF) zoning district is to provide for a variety of residential arses,
encourage diversity in housing types with enhanced amenities (common open space and recreation
areas), and to provide transitions between higher intensity and lower i ntensity uses. This district i
intended as an area for medium high density developments f small lot single - family detached, single -
family attached, a nd multifamily attached residential dwelling units, planned unit developments,
co ndominiums, and certain senior housing types, at a maximum m allo abl density of nine (nine)
dulling units per gross acre. Properties designated MF are located in areas of the City wher
residential and mixed use neighborhoods are already established and higher densities (above those f
the Slagle Family Residential districts) are desired, as illustrated in the Zoning Map shorn below.
COs` Y CW
Zoning map
_Cft L"M
*or OWWW
Wwwot oOWWWd~
madame" mWeab
o
�aw"W" SWANtkan
amp ®%oft
�%W*Ommi
WWrwi Apstpw
VM4*,ft way *0 00""
rW'N* O"d%~
*at cass M OW
�HOPMW MOM&LIM
1p VWW Low
Vega CN OMFOW,
WSW" WOM&Lto
CSM �"WISAM
RWAFW C WWMWdW
M
The City currently has approximately 97 acres o f land zoned MF. Most o f these properties have been
developed to the maximum extent allowable,, primarily through the PUD process. S everal of these
properties would have gained an additional unit if rounding was permissible. Although the remaining
number of underutilized properties is limited in the MF district, rounding up to the next full housing unit
as proposed would facilitate more efficient use of land in areas where higher density residential
development is encouraged.
Page 8 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 25
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED N E ATIVE DECLAJ ATI ON December 2010
DA 10 -003
Project Description
The proposed D A would enable additional density in the MF zoning district by allowing residential
projects to round up to the next full unit for fractional units of 0.51 o greater based on gross area. T
determine how many additional units might be created as a result of the D A, an inventory of all 11 F
zoned properties and existing units within the zoning district was compiled. Based on the inventory of
gross acreage, a total of sixty -seven ( ) additional units could be provided on NSF zoned property. This
calculation is derived from gross parcel size and does not include site constraints such as existing
development, topography, soil conditions, biological resources, drainage patterns or other
environmental factors. A more realistic number was aMl ulated to be thirty -sic (36) additional units,
which eliminates properties already developed that would only gain one extra unit with demolition of
existing structures. However, this Initial Study analyzes the broader impacts associated with the
potential addition of sixty-seven (67) units as a worst case. The proposed DA is consistent with the
goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
Other Required Public Agency Approvals
No other public agency approvals are required for the proposed project.
Related Projects
Tentative Parcel Map TPI I) 9 -001 and Planned Unit Development (P D) 9 -001 is a related residential
project located at 379 Alder Street in the MF district currently on hold pending outcome of the proposed
DA 1 -003.
Page 9 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 26
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NE ATIVE DECLARATION December 2010
DA 1 -003
Environmental Checklist
Project Information
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name & Address:
Contact Person &Telephone Number:
Project Location:
Project: Sponsor Nanne & Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses & Setting:
Development Code Amendment (DCA) 10 -003
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Brach Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner
(805 ) 473 -5420
Citywide
City of Arroyo Grande
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, C 93420
Multiple Family Residential (Medium High Density)
Multi - Family (MF)
Refer to Page
The project area is citywide. The City is surrounded
by County Residential Suburban properties to the
north, County Agriculture land to the northeast, the
unincorporated towns of Halcyon and oceano to the
south, and the cities of Grover Beach and Pismo
Reach to the unrest.
Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: None
Page 10 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 27
INITIAL STU D MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEOLARATI 0 N
DOA 10 -003
December 2010
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors c hecked bel ow would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact",, as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
El Greenhouse Gas Emission
❑ Land Ilse /Planning
❑ Population /Housing
[:] Transportation`T'raffic
❑ Agricultural Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Material
❑ Mineral Resources
El Public services
[:] Utilities /Service Systems
El Air Quality
❑ Geology /Soils
Hydrology /water Quality
❑ Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® 1 find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have had a significant
effect on the environment them WILL NOT b a significant effect be au a revisions/mitigations
to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
ATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or itsfunctional equivalent will be prepared.
El I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document,, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described in the
report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the impacts not sufficiently addre in previous documents.
❑ I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR o Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided o
mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EI , including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-
significant level and no further action is required.
Kelly Heffernon, AIP Date
Associate Planner
Page 11 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 28
INITIAL STUDIO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION December 2010
DCA 1 -DD
Evaluation of nvironmental Impacts
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact", that are adequately
supported by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the project being
evaluated (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact " answer should be
explained where it is based o general o r project - specific factors (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must consider the whole of the project- related effects, both direct and indirect,
including off -site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist
answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, o less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is
sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur in any
of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated
below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration " (Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, prior to declaration of
project approval, has reduced are effect from "Potentially Significant Impact " to a "Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EI , or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) or
Negative Declaration [CCR, Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, § 1 c )(D)j.
References to an earlier analysis should:
a Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review.
b) Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the
earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects were
adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis.
c Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site - specific conditions for
this project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential
impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological
assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an
indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted
should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion.
8. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify:
a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the impact addressed by
each question and
b the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of
significance.
Page 12 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 29
INITIAL STU D MITIGATED NE ATIVE DECLARATION December 2010
D CA 10 -004
Environmental Issues
I. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project area includes all properties located within the City limits that are zoned MF.
Discussion
a -d: Properties zoned MF are located in established, relatively flat areas of the City except for two
parcels located off of Hillcrest Drive. These vacant properties are located on a hillside adjacent to City
Reservoir No. 2. The two properties each have the potential to be developed with 6 units with rounding
and can be viewed from El Camino Beal, Highway 101 and West Branch Street. The site can be seen
from portions o S tonecrest Drive, but is not visible from other nearby public streets. Specific visual
impacts will be addressed through the discretionary review process when a development project
application is submitted. L ikewise, potential im pacts related t o glare o light would be addressed on a
case by case basis. Adherence to applicable Building Code and Development Code standards ensures
that new sources o f lighting will not adversely affect surrounding development or views. No mitigation
required for the proposed DCA.
IL Ag riculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
Areas of the City zoned MF are not located in close proximity (greater than one hundred feet) of
properties designated or zoned for agricultural use.
Page 13 of 2
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 30
P otentially
L ess Than
Significant
Less Than
Signif
with
S ignificant
No Impact
Would t he project.
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Have a subst antial adverse affect on a .scenic Arista?
❑
❑
❑
El
b ) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
❑
❑
❑
23
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c Substantially d the existing visual character or
❑
❑
N
❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d C reate a new source of substantial light o glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
❑
❑
�
❑
the area?
Discussion
a -d: Properties zoned MF are located in established, relatively flat areas of the City except for two
parcels located off of Hillcrest Drive. These vacant properties are located on a hillside adjacent to City
Reservoir No. 2. The two properties each have the potential to be developed with 6 units with rounding
and can be viewed from El Camino Beal, Highway 101 and West Branch Street. The site can be seen
from portions o S tonecrest Drive, but is not visible from other nearby public streets. Specific visual
impacts will be addressed through the discretionary review process when a development project
application is submitted. L ikewise, potential im pacts related t o glare o light would be addressed on a
case by case basis. Adherence to applicable Building Code and Development Code standards ensures
that new sources o f lighting will not adversely affect surrounding development or views. No mitigation
required for the proposed DCA.
IL Ag riculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
Areas of the City zoned MF are not located in close proximity (greater than one hundred feet) of
properties designated or zoned for agricultural use.
Page 13 of 2
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 30
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION December 2010
DCA 10 -003
Less Than
Pot ntiall Significant Less Than
Significant wit Significant No Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shorn on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ El El �
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a � El ❑ 0
W illiamson Act cont ract?
c Conflict with existing zoning fog', or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 10g), timberland as defined by Public 1:1 El El
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))
d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ �
forest land to non - forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑
conversion of Farmland to nor- agricultural use?
* In deterrrrinin g whether impacts to ag ricuItural resource are significant en viron m en to I effects, lead a Cenci ,s may ref er to the
California Agricultural Lard Evaluation acrd Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the C al
fo
i rnia Department of
Conservation as are optional mod l for use In assessing impacts on a ricalturol are farrrrland.
D iscussion
a - e: No impacts.
III. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
San Luis Obispo County is in non - attainment status for ozone (03), respireable particulate matter (PM10)
and vinyl chloride under the California Air Resource Board (CAR B) standards. The County is in
attainment status for all other applicable GARB standards.
Would the project;
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially
Liss Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
Significant No Impact
Impact
with
Mitigation
Impact
❑
❑
❑ Z
Page 14 of 2
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 31
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED N EGATI VE DECLAI ATI ON December 2010
DcA 1 -003
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non - att a i nment under an applicable federal or state ❑
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone p recursors )?
d) Expose sensitive recept to substantial pollutant ❑
concentrations.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑
number of people.
* t here available, the significance criteria established by the opplicable air quolity management or air pollution co ntrot district
may be relied on to make these determinations.
D iscussi on
ar -c and e; No impacts.
d: The proposed project does not directly generate emissions since no development is being proposed.
Specific air quality impacts will be addressed through the discretionary review process when a
development project application is submitted. No mitigation required for the proposed DC
I. Biological Resources
E nvironmental Setting
Areas of the City zoned MF are not located near any creeks or tributaries w here th majority of native
plant communities exist. Infill development would occur in established residential and/or mixed -use
neighborhoods. No development is being proposed at this time. Specific potential impacts to biological
resources will be addressed through the discretionary review process when a development project
application is submitted.
Page 15 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 32
Less Than
Potentially • Less Than
Significant
Significant Significant No Impact
with
with
Wou the project:
Impact Impact
a Have a subst a dverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modification,, on any s pecies identified
as a sensitive, can didate, or special st s pecies in
❑ ❑ ❑ �
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a subst antial a dverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
❑ ❑ El 0
the California Department of Fish and Game or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Page 15 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 32
INITIAL STU DY MITIGATED N EGATI VE DE LARAT'I 0 N December 2010
DA 10 -003
Have a su bstantial adverse e ffect on federally
Potentially
protected wetlands, as defined by §404 of the Clean
Less Than
Water Act (i but not limited to, marsh, vernal
❑ ❑ ❑ Z
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
with
hydrological interruption, or other means
No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of an y
I mpact
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
Impact
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
❑ 1:1 ❑
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
El
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
❑ ❑ ❑ Z
preservation policy or ordinance?
§15064.5?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
� ❑ �
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
ion
D iscussion
significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to
a - f: N o impacts.
❑
V . Cultural resources
Environment S
Based on research o f archaeological studies conducted withi the City, none o f the areas zoned I IF are
located within a known archaeologically sensitive area.
However, the City is located within the territory
historically occupied by the obispno Chumash. Specific
potential impacts to cultural resources will be
addressed through the discretionary review process
when a development project application is
submitted.
outside o formal cemeteries.
Page 16 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 33
Potentially
less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
significant
No Impact
Would the project:
I mpact
M itig ation
Impact
a C ause a su bstantial adverse change in the
si gnificance of a histor resource, s defined in
El
❑
❑
§15064.5?
b Cause a substantial adverse c hange in the
significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to
❑
❑
El
§15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
El
outside o formal cemeteries.
D iscussio n
a -c. No impacts.
Page 16 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 33
INITIAL STU DY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECL.ARATI 0 N
DCA 10 -003
December 2010
1. Geology an Soils
Environmental Setting
The topography of properties zoned MF is mostly level with the exception of the two vacant parcels
located off of Hill rest Drive. Risk of landslide on nearly flat slopes is low. Soil composition is site
specific, but can range from heavy clay soil to sandy soil within the City limits. No active faulting is
known to exist within the City. The major source of potential earthquake damage to Arroyo Grande is
from activity along the regional San Andreas Fault located approximately forty ( o) Wailes east along the
eastern border of San Luis Obispo County. Specific development projects will be subject to Uniform
Building Code requirements for seismic safety. other potential impacts related to geologic conditions
will be addressed through the discretionary review process for individual projects.
Discussion*
a -e: No impacts
Page 17 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 34
Less Than Pot S ignificant Liss Than
is
�ficant
Significant vw Significant o Impact
W ould the project:
impact Miti gati o n impact
a Ex pose people or structures to potenti substantial
adverse e ffects, includin the risk o loss, inju or
d involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquit- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area, or based on other
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division o Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
❑
topsoil.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable, as a result o f the
project and potentially result in on- or off -site
❑ El ❑
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1 of the Uniform Bui lding Cod (1994), creating
❑ ❑ ❑ �
substantial risks to life or property?
e Have soils incapable of adequately suppo the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal
❑ ❑ ❑
systems, where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Discussion*
a -e: No impacts
Page 17 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 34
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION December 2010
DCA 1 -003
V11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
The proposed DA has the potential to add 67 infill residential units.
D iscussion
a -b: Individual development projects will generate greenhouse gas (H) emissions from both
construction and daily operation of resultant vehicle traffic. while the California Air Resources Board
(GARB) has not yet developed a statewide threshold, as d irected under Senate Bill 97.. the City has
determined that the Californian Air Pollution Control Officers Association APA 2008 white Paper,
which includes possible methodologies and thresholds for project - level G HG emissions, provides the
best and latest information on establishing cumulative impact thresholds. This paper has determined
that a conservative threshold where ar project's impact may be c onsidered "cumulatively onsid erable' is
90 0 m etric tons or mo re of G HG ern issio ns per year. The following table provides a genera I sum mary of
project types and sizes that generate 900 metric tons of G HG emissions per year:
Project Type
Potentially
Less Than
S i g nificant
L Than
Apartments condominiu ms
Significant
with
Significant o Impact
Would the project:
impact
mitigation
impact
a ) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the
❑
❑
environment?
b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
❑ �
greenhouse gases?
D iscussion
a -b: Individual development projects will generate greenhouse gas (H) emissions from both
construction and daily operation of resultant vehicle traffic. while the California Air Resources Board
(GARB) has not yet developed a statewide threshold, as d irected under Senate Bill 97.. the City has
determined that the Californian Air Pollution Control Officers Association APA 2008 white Paper,
which includes possible methodologies and thresholds for project - level G HG emissions, provides the
best and latest information on establishing cumulative impact thresholds. This paper has determined
that a conservative threshold where ar project's impact may be c onsidered "cumulatively onsid erable' is
90 0 m etric tons or mo re of G HG ern issio ns per year. The following table provides a genera I sum mary of
project types and sizes that generate 900 metric tons of G HG emissions per year:
Project Type
Size that Generates 900 Metric Tons of GHG Emissions per Year
Single - family residential
50 units
Apartments condominiu ms
70 units
General commercial or office space
35,000 square -feet
Retail space
11,000 square -feet
Supermarket /grocery store
6,300 square -feet
Based on the above assumptions, the proposed INCA will generate less than 300 metric tons per year of
greenhouse gasses (less than 50 units would be created from rounding up) and therefore the potential
G HG emissions is not deemed 'cumulatively considerable'. No mitigation is required.
V111. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
Environmental setting
There are no known hazards or hazardous materials associated with the project area (properties zoned
IMF. The properties are located primarily on the western portion of the City where the topography is
nearly flat and development is established. These properties are not within a high severity risk area for
wildland fire, and are not within an Airport Review area. l nfill development wo uld not conflict with any
regional evacuation plan.
Page 18 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 35
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELA#ATIN
DCA 10 -003
December 2010
Would the project:
a Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials, substances, or waste into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites, compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5, and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
Be located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two riles of
a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
In Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from wildland fires, including
areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with wildland ?
Discussion
a -h: No impacts.
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
significant
Significant No impact
Impact
with
Mitigation
impact
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ Z
❑ EJ o E
El ❑ a 0
D El El E
El
11
El
0
El
El
E]
0
El
13
El
Environmental Setting
The project area (properties zoned I MF ) is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande.
The City provides water service, which receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater
sources. Most of the properties zoned IVIF are already developed and served by City water. S tormwater
management was also provided for these properties through the development process. None of the I MF
properties are located within a flood zone.
Page 19 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 36
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED N EGATI VE DE LAI ATI 0 N December 2010
DA 10 -003
f: The Central Coast Water Board requires municipalities, via the Municipal General S torm water
Permit to minimize negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems and degradation of water quality to the
maximum extent practicable. P rmitt es must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the technology -based standard of Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP) to protect water quality. The goals of post - construction best management practices
Page 20 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 37
Less Than
Potentially • Less Than
significant
Significant Significant No Impact
w ith
Would the project:
Impact
Impact Mitigation
a) Violate any water quality st an d ards or waste
❑ ❑
discharge requirement
b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies o
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume r a lowering f the local groundwater table
❑ ❑
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses o planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through alteration of the
El
course of a stream o r river, in a manner which would
result in substantial ors- or off -site erosion o siltation?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through alteration of the
coarse of a stream o river, or substantially increase
❑ ❑ Z ❑
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in n- or off - site flooding?
e Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing o planned st rmwater
❑ 0 ❑
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f Substantially degrade water quality ?
El ❑
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area,
as mapped o n a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
❑ El ❑ �
Flood Insurance Bate Map, or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place structures that would impede or redirect flood
❑ ❑ ❑
flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area?
i Expose people or structures to o significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding
❑ ❑ El �
resulting from the failure of a levee or dam?
1 Result i n inundation by s l h , tsunami, or lmudfl w?
❑ ❑ El Z
Discussion
a -e. Dep ending on the individual project location, topography,
soil conditi and other s ite constraints,
st rlmwat r will be managed through the discretionary review process. Individual projects will b
required to either maintain st rmwat r runoff on site or
direct stormwater runoff to a detention basin.
f: The Central Coast Water Board requires municipalities, via the Municipal General S torm water
Permit to minimize negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems and degradation of water quality to the
maximum extent practicable. P rmitt es must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the technology -based standard of Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP) to protect water quality. The goals of post - construction best management practices
Page 20 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 37
INITIAL STUDY MITI GATE D NEGATIVE [ E LARATI 0 N December 2010
DA 1 -003
(BMPs) are to prevent and control erosion and sedimentation, provide source control of potential
pollutants, control and treat runoff, and protect wetlands and water quality resources. Post -
construction BMPs are required to achieve stormwater quality standards through site- planning
measures. Vegetative swales or other biofilters are recommended as th preferred choice for post-
co nstru c tion BiVIPs for all projects with suitable landscape areas, because these measures are relatively
economical and require limited maintenance. For projects where landscape based treatment is
impracticable, or insufficient to meet required design criteria, other post - construction BIIPs should be
incorporated. All post - construction BMPs must be ma to operate effectively. Implementation
of the BMPs listed below will reduce the potential impacts to water quality to a less than significant
level:
WIM V11 -1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into future development projects:
•
Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior
to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system.
• Run -off Control. Mainta post - development peals runoff rate and average volume of
runoff at levels that are similar to pre - development levels.
• LaMbelin and Maintenan of Storm Drain Facilities L abel new st orm drain inlets with
" Dumping — Drains to ocean" to alert the public to the destination of strrnwater
and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain.
-j: No impacts.
X. Land Use and Planning
E nvironmental Setting
The proposed D A is consistent with the intent and purposes of the adopted Housing Element of the
General plan, which encourages residentiaMl infill for' increasing lousing opportunity sites where
compatible with adjoining neighborhood c haracter and supported by proposed infrastructure.
D iscussion
a- : No i mpacts.
Page 21 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 38
Potentially
Less Tha
Significant
Less Than
s ignificant
with
S ignificant
No Impact
Would the project;
Impact Impact
Mitigation itigation
Impact
a) Physically deride an establ ished community?
1:1
El
11
b Conflict with th applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the
project (Including, but not limited to, a general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
�
❑
❑
�
plan or natural community conservation plan?
D iscussion
a- : No i mpacts.
Page 21 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 38
INITIAL STUDY M ITI GATE D NE ATIVE DECLARATI0 N December 2010
DcA 10 -003
X1. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The project area does not contain any known mineral resources.
Page 22 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 39
Potentially
Less Than
significant
Less Than
Would the project:
Significant
with
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
b Generate or expose people to excessive
❑ ❑ ❑
resource that is or would be of value to the region and
❑
❑
❑
the residents of the state?
1:3 ❑ El 23
without the project)?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in
[ ❑
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
❑
❑
❑
on a local general plan, specific plain, or other land use
a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the
❑ ❑ ❑
plan?
r
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a -b: No impacts.
XII. Noise
Environmental Setting
Properties zoned IVIF adjoin existing residential and mixed
use development.
Expected noise generated
by the 67 units is not expected to exceed current/normal/existing noise
levels. These potential
additional units would be dispersed throughout the
City within
the IVIF
zoning district and not
concentrated in one area.
Page 22 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 39
Potentially Less Than Less Than
significant
significant Significant No Impact
with
Would the project:
Impact Mitigation Impact
a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess
of standards established in a local general plan or
❑ ❑ ❑
noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or
federal standards?
b Generate or expose people to excessive
❑ ❑ ❑
groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels?
c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels
1:3 ❑ El 23
without the project)?
d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in
[ ❑
excess of noise levels existing without the project.
e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two riles of
a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the
❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working in the
r
project area to excessive noise levels?
Page 22 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 39
INITIAL STU DY MITIGATED N EGATIVE DE LARATi 0 N December 2010
DA 10 -003
f Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would
the project expose people residing or working in the ❑ ❑ ❑ �
project area to excessive noise levels?
a -f: No impacts.
XII1. Population and Housing
E nvironmental Setting
Areas that could receive additional density through the rounding up process are located in established
multi - family neighborhoods. The proposed D A would enable residential infill in appropriate areas as
allowed in the General Plan and Zoning Map. Theoretically 67 additional housing units could be allowed
through the DCA, although this number is not realistic since it does not consider existing development or
site constraints. Individual projects would be assessed separately through the discretionary review
process.
Would the project:
P Less Than Less Th an
Significant S ignificant Significant No impact
with
Impa with Impact
Page 3of7
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 40
Potentially
Less Than
significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Significant
No impact
Mould the project:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing nev homes
1:3
El
0
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
❑
❑
El
elsewhere?
c Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
[l
❑
❑
0
elsewhere?
Discussion
a -c: N o im pacts.
XlV. Pu Services
E nvironmental Setting
Public services for individual projects would be readily provided by
the City of
Arroyo Grande
and the
Lucia Mar School District (LM D).
Would the project:
P Less Than Less Th an
Significant S ignificant Significant No impact
with
Impa with Impact
Page 3of7
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 40
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEOLAIATIN December 2010
DCA 10 -003
a Resu in signi environmental i mpacts from
co nstructi o n associated with the provision of new o
physically altered governmental facilities, o r the need
f or new or physically a ltere d governmental facilities, to
❑
D
El
maintain acce service ratios, response times, or
o ther performance objectives f or any of the public
services
Fire protection?
[l
El
D
Police protection:
❑
❑
El
Schools?
El
❑
El
0
Parks?
El
❑
❑
0
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
0
D iscussion
a No im pacts .
Xv. Recreation
reation
E nvironmental Settin
Recreational facilities, as well as properties zoned MF, are dispersed
throughout the City. The reed for
additional recreational amenities will be determined for individual projects through the discretionary
review process.
Potentially
Less Than
S ignificant
Less Than
Significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
Mitigation
I
a) i ncrease the use of existing neighborhood and
regi pars or other recreationa fac ilities, such that
❑
El
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur o r be accelerated?
b Include recreational facilities o require the
co nstruction or expansion of recreational facilities that
❑
❑
�
�
might have an adverse physical effect on the
e nvironment ?
D iscussion
ussion
a - b: No impacts.
XV1. 'transportation /Traffic
Environmental Setting
Traffic related impacts will be determined through
the discretionary
review
process for
individual
project proposals.
Page 24 of 2
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 41
INITIAL STUDY M ITI G ATE NEGATIVE DECLAMATION
DCA 10 -0
December 2010
Would the project:
a Cause a substantial increase in traffic, in relation to
existing traffic and the capacity of the street system
i.e., a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, individually or c umulatively, the level of
service standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a charge in
location, that results in substantial safety riffs?
d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp c urves or a
dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses e.g.,
farm equipment) that would substantially increase
hazards?
e Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation e.g., bins
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
a -g: No impacts
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No Impact
with
Impact with Impact
XVIL [utilities and Service Systems
El
1:1
E
Environmental Setting
E]
I--]
The D A project area is located within the City Limits of
Arroyo Grande. Utilities will be seared by both
the City and other regional entities.
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Lass Than
significant
E]
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
XVIL [utilities and Service Systems
El
1:1
E
Environmental Setting
E]
I--]
The D A project area is located within the City Limits of
Arroyo Grande. Utilities will be seared by both
the City and other regional entities.
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Lass Than
significant
with
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment restrictions or
standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality
❑
❑
❑
Control Board?
b Require uire or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities?
Mould the construction of these facilities cause
significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
0
El
1:1
E
El
E]
I--]
0
1:1
E]
Page 25 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 42
INITIAL STUDIO MITI G ATE NE ATIVE DECLARATI 0 I
DA 10 -003
December 2010
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e Result in a determination,, by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may scare the
project, that it has adequate capacity to service the
project's anticipated demand, in addition to the
provider's existing commitments.?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal reeds?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations as they relate to solid waste
Discussion
a- g: No impacts.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:
a) Substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species; o r eliminate
examples of the major periods of California history o
prehistory
b Have the potential to achieve short-term
envirommntal goals to the disadvantage of long- terra
environmental goals?
c) Have possible environmental effects that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
"'Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are
significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of possible future projects.
d) Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a -d: No impacts.
0 1:1 1:1 z
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
1:1 1:1 E] 23
1:1 E] El E
Page 26 of 27
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 43
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DA 10 -003
December 2010
References
•
Arroyo Grande General Plan, Policy Document and Elements
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
E(A & Climate Change White Paper (CAPCOA)
• Air Quality Handbook (SLO AP D)
Page 27 of
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 44
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE No.
N ORDINANCE of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO
o o
GRANDE AMENDING SECTIONS 16.04.070(C), 16-32.030(A) AND
16.48.060 of THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ROUNDING UP FOR A FRACTIONAL UNIT OF 0.51 ORGREATER WHEN
CALCULATING ALLOWABLE DENSITY IN THE MULTI - FAMILY IIAF
ZONING DISTF ICT; DE1 ELOPMENT CODE AI EN MENT CASE NO. 1 -
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Multi - Family (MF) district is to provide for a variety f
residential uses, encourage diversity in housing types with enhanced amenities common
open space and recreation areas), or provide transitions between higher intensity and lover
intensity uses; and
WHEREAS, EAS, the MF district is intended as an area for development of small lot single- family
detached, single - family attached, and multifamily attached residential dwelling units, planned
unit developments, condominiums, and certain senior housing types, at a maximum
allowable density of nine dwelling units per gross acre; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that infill development is appropriate and desired in the
Multi-Family (MF) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the City has initiated Development Code Amendment 10 -003 to amend Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code Sections 16.04.070(C), 16.32.030(A) and 16.48.060 to allover
rounding up fora fractional unit of 0. 51 or greater when calculating aI Iowa ble density in the
MF zoning district to encourage infill development; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City Council
has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can be made in
an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed changes to Sections 16.04.070(C), 16.32.030(A) and 1 .4 .0 0 will
help accommodate a broad range of Multi - Family residential housing types and
densities within the city by encouraging infill development in the MF zoning district,
and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan.
B. The proposed changes to Sections 16.04.070(C), 1 .32.o o A and 1 .4 .o g will not
adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use
pattern.
C. The proposed changes to Sections 16-04.070(C), 16.32.030(A) and 16.48.060 is
consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16, satisfies the intent of chapters
16.04 and 16.32 of the Municipal Code and provides for internal consistency;
D. As disclosed in the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed changes to Sections 16.04.070(c),
16.32.030 and 1 6.48.060 are insignificant.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 45
ORDINANCE No.
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 16.4.6c — Definitions — is hereby
amended to modify the following definition:
"Density" means number ofdwelling units on a lot in relation to the lot size expressed
in units per gross acre.
SECTION : Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.32.030(A) - Residential densities
for residential districts - is hereby amended as follows:
A. For all single - family residential units within a residential zoning district, each dwelling
unit counts as one density unit. For multifamily dwellings within a residential zoning
district, a one - bedroom or studio is equal to 0. 5 unit and a two- bedroom and above is
equal to one unit, - Rounding u ra to the t whole number is not a licable when
calculating densi e t in the Multi-Family MF ) zdistrict. For calculatin
allowable densi Lin the MF district all remainders of 51 percent or greater may be
rounded to the next higher whole number. Density in mixed use districts are defined
in Section 16.3.30C2.
SECTION 4: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16,46.666 — Development Density —
is hereby amended as follows:
The general plan classifications specify the maximum allowable development
density per gross acre or land owned in fee by the applicant (including street right-of-way
that would revert to the properly owner it abandoned). Rounding ingr up to the next whole
number is not applicable when figuring density except in the Multi-Family district for
fractional units of . 51 or above when calculating density for the provision of affordable
housing, or for mixed use districts where rounding to the next half number is appropriate.
D ensity for residential districts is iscusse f in Section 16.32.030 . Density for mixed use
districts is discussed in Section 16.36.030(C).
SECTION 6: 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.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 46
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
SECTION : Upon adoption of this Ordinance the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Determination.
SECTION 7: A summary o f this Ordinance shall be published in a ne wspaper published
and circulated in the City o Arroyo Grande at least fire days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full tent
of the proposed Ordinance shall be pasted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen
(15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary ary F rith the names of those City
Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the
City Clerk shall past a certified copy of the full tent of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION : This Ordinance shall tale effect thirty 3 days from the date of adoption.
On motion f , seconded by
grit:
, and on the following roll call Grote to
AYES:
NOES,
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this
day of February, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 47
ORDINANCE N#
PAGE 4
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY I ETM RE, CITY CLERK{
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J, CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 48
Attachment
Alternative Language for Section 1 .32.030 A
Alternative A (statute to remain as originally proposed with the word "shall" included):
16-32.030(A)
For all single - family residential units within a residential zoning district, each dwelling
unit counts as one density unit. For multifamily dwellings within a residential zoning
district, a one- bedroom or studio is equal to 0.5 unit and a two - bedroom and above is
equal to one unit. Rounding up to the net whole number is not applicable when
calculating density, except in the Multi-Family F ) zoning district. For calcul atin
allowable densily in the I IF district all remainders of 51 percent or greater shall be
rounded to the net hi her whole number. Density in mixed use districts are defined in
Section 16.36.030(C)(2).
Altern ative B (replace "shall" with "may" and add required findings):
16.32.030(A):
For all single - family residential units within a residential ,coning district, each dwelling
unit counts as one density unit. For multifamily dwellings within a residential zoning
district, a one - bedroom or studio is equal to o. 5 unit and a two - bedroom and above is
equal to one unit. Rounding up to the nett whole number is not applicable when
calculating densily, except in the multi- Family (MF) zoning district. For calcul ati,r
allowable ,dens ity in the M d istrictf, all remainders of 51 percent or g reater mgy be
rounded to the net higher whole number onl if all of the following findings of fact can
be made in an affirmative manner: 'I rounding u - is neces a to r ak a the housin
units a onornicall feasible rounding u will not irrr air the integrily and character of
the p and irr ro ernents in the vicinity; 3 there are adequate p rovisions for
water, sanitation and public utilities and services to ensure pu health and safe ( 4),
rounding up will not be detrimental to the health safety or welfare of the
p ro rties in the vicinity; and rounding up is consistent with the objectives and
p olicies of the general plan and this title. Density in mixed use districts is defined in
Section 16.36.030(C)(2).
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 49
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 9.b.
Page 50
RO
INCORPORATE
MEMORANDUM
JULY 10. 1911 ,
46 1FOR
T: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: l: TEF ESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENt. DIRECTOR
ECT F
BY: RYAN FOSTER, , ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 10-001; AMEND
THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN AS IT RELATES T
DEVELOPMENT PMENT F SUBAREAS EAS 3 AND ; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENU AND SOUTH COURTLAND
STREET; APPLICANT NKT COMMERCIAL
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 201 1 (CONTINUED FROM JAN U AI Y, 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning' Commission rec m' mends that the City Council adopt a Resolution
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Specific Plan Amendment 1
001. i
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no -financial impact to the City associated with adoption of the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
SPA'! 0 -001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
B ACKGROUND:
Location
Specific Plan Defined
i i w u ■irr��
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the General Plan. It
effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the General Plan and the
individual developrrjent proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general
as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every
facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and
capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public im pro v ements to
the design guidelines of a subdivision. A specific plan may not be adopted or amended
unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the General Plan pursuant to
Government Code Section 65454 (California Environmental Resources Evaluation
System [CERES], 1998).
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 1 0-001
FEBRUARY Y . 201'
PAGE 3
Eer Gardens specific Plan
The Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP) was adopted by the City Council on
September 8, 1998. The specific plan area consists of approximately forty -seven ( 47 )
acres, divided into four subareas. The original approval of the plan included
development standards for Subarea '1, which consists of both nee - traditional and `patio'
single - family homes. The EGSP was amended in 2003 to address development
standards for subarea 2 (Jasmine Place), which consists of small -lot to nhornes.
The EGSP was again amended in 2005 to address development standards for
Subareas 3 and 4. At that time, the to subareas were side -by -side in a north -south
orientation (reflective of existing property lines) and the new development standards
approved by the Council specified commercial development on the front (East Grand
Avenue) portion of each subarea and multi- family rental residential development on the
rear portion of each subarea. - Several provisions were included in the amendment
requiring coordination between the two property owners, as half of each subarea was
on a separate property. A Lot Line Adjustment was approved in 2009 to facilitate
separate o and development of each subarea — based on the projected needs
of each property. This had the effect of rendering many provisions of - the Zoo
amendment moot.
Project Description
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes development standards for both
Subareas 3 and 4 of the Berry Gardens specific Plan EGSP ) (Exhibit . Because the
two subareas are now separate properties, the proposed amendment seeks to dec uple
the subareas, allowing each to develop independently of and compatible with the other.
Subarea 3 (4.47 acres) is designated for commercial /retail /office development and
Subarea 4 (1.63 acres) is d esignated for multi - family residential development. There is
a deed - restriction recorded on Subarea 4 requiring that the property b e used for the
purposes of providing affordable housing — the specifics of this deed restriction are
reflected in Exhibit E.
Previous Cily Review
ie w
The City Council considered the proposed Specific Plan Amendment at its meeting of
November 9, 2010 (Attachment 1). The Council discussed several issues relating to the
proposed amendment and referred the project back to the Planning Commission with
the following direction:
0 Further analyze potential traffic impacts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
Increase the minimum required setbacks between the two subareas;
0 Address proposed parking standards (subarea 3;
0 Establish a maximum building size (subarea 3); and
Accommodate a bus turnout on East Grand Avenue.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 3
CITE COUNCIL
SPA '1 0-00
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 4
Architectural Review Committee Recommendation
The Architectural Review Committee (AFDC) reviewed Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001
at its meeting of December 6, 2010 (Attachment 2. The ARC unanimously
recommended approval of Specific Plan Amendment 10-001.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The -Planning Commission considered Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 at its meeting
of December 7, 2010 (Attachment 3). The Planning Cornrnission unanimously ad opted
a Resolution recommending that the City Council adept the (litigated negative
Declaration and approve Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001.
Traffic Commission Recommendation
At the request of the Planning Commission, the Traffic Commission reviewed the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 10, 2011. The Traffic
Commission discussed the revised traffic study, delivery truck traffic and turning radii,
loading dock location and the inclusion of bike lanes on South courtland Street.
Additionally, the Traffic Commission discussed concerns related to pedestrian and
bicycle safety and the potential for delivery truck traffic to traverse adjacent residential
streets. The Traffic Commission recommended that the city Council approve the
project.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
Legislative vs. Judicial Acts
Every decision a local government rakes can be placed into one of three categories —
legislative, quasi- judicial or ministerial:
Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates,
zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local law — rules that
apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California law, legislative acts
are subject to initiative and referendum.
Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislature acts) to
projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are
discretionary, based on the decision - makers interpretation and application of
policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or
referendum.
Ministerial acts are those that require no d iscretion on the part of the local
government, such as the mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are
met.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a legislative action — if adopted, it will
establish the ales under which Subareas 3 and 4 may be developed setbacks,
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 11
FEBRUARY 8. 2011
PAGE 5
buildings size, etc). Its adoption would not, however, gram any entitlements to either
subarea, and no development may occur without s eparate approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
Proposed Specific Plan vs Existin ecific Plan
Attachment 4 compares the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to the existing Berry
Gardens Specific Plan BGSP as they relate to Subareas 3 and 4. The significant
differences between development standards contained within the proposed amendment
and the BGSP relate primarily to setbacks, parking and maximum building size. Many
of the development standards in the existing BGSP were developed for a previous site-
specific proposal and are no longer relevant. Because both subareas are within the
GMU zoning district, any development standard not included in the BGSP will default to
the GMU standard.
Consistengy with the General Plan
As stated above, a specific plan cannot be adopted or amended unless it is consistent
with the General Plan (Government code Section 66464. For this reason, the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment was developed based on existing General Plan
policies — specifically, Land Use Policy LU -10.1, which states the folIowing:
Promote development of a high intensity, mixed-use, pedestrian activit
node centered on the Courtland StreetlEast Grand Avenue intersection as
priority example of revitalization of this corridor segment known as
Gateway.
The proposed amendment defers to Municipal Code Section 16.36.30(A)
and Mixed-Use Regulations) regarding allowed uses. These use regulations were
adopted to implement General Plan policies relating to the hied -Use MU land use
category — achieving consistency between the General Plan, Zoning Map and
Development code as required by State lair.
Another important aspect of the General Plan to bear in mind when evaluating the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment is the Circulation Element. This Element, which
sets traffic policies citywide, classifies South Courtland Street as a "collector ". Collector
streets are those that serge to move traffic from adjoining local streets to other collector
or arterial streets — they are intended to carry more traffic than a local (residential)
street. This is why Berry Gardens was built without any residential driveways on South
Courtland street — numerous driveways would interfere with traffic moving between
East Grand Avenue (major arterial) and Ash Street (another collector).
Exclusion of Grocery Uses
As a legislative action, the city council has broad discretion in setting policy though the
adoption and implementation of specific plans. However, as stated above, any specific
plan or specific plan amendment must be consistent with the General Plan. A General
Plan Amendment may be required prior to amending the Berry Gardens Specific Plan to
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-00
FEBRUARY 8. 2011
PAGE 6
exclude grocery store uses or otherwise restrict intensity on Subarea 3, as Land Use
Policy LU 5-2 identifies supermarkets as a typical business found in the Mixed-Use
(MU) category and Land Use Policy LU -10.1 (above) specifically targets the
intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street for high-intensity development.
Epanded Traffic Analysis
At the direction of the City council, both the Planning Commission and Traffic
Commission reviewed a revised traffic study (Attachment - prepared for the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment. Additionally, the Traffic Commission reviewed several
exhibits relating to delivery truck turning radii in and around the project site. The City
also c ommissioned a peer - review of both the traffic study and truck turning exhibits,
conducted by Omni Means (Attachment 6). The peer-review supports the conclusions
of the traffic study relating to estimated traffic volumes and impacts to levels of service
(LOS), which will not be significantly impacted.
The peer -revie w concluded that while the exhibits accurately depicted truck turning
movements through the intersection of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street,
traffic flour and safety would be improved by moving the curb return at the southwest
corner of the intersection six feet to the west. This would allow larger '
wheelbase trucks to make a right turn onto South Courtland Street from East Grand
Avenue without having to cross into the left -turn lane, thereby reducing the chance of
another vehicle attempting to pass a delivery truck in the outside lane while the delivery
truck is attempting a right turn it should be noted that South Courtland Street is not
perpendicular to East Grand Avenue — a right turn from the former onto the [after
requires more than 90 degrees). This recommended relocation of the curb return has
been incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, . under "Access,
Circulation and Parking", No revisions are required for on -site delivery truck
movements.
Several Berry Gardens residents have expressed concerns regarding the potential for
delivery tacks to use South Courtland Street as a shortcut to Oak Park Boulevard. Staff
believes this would be an unlikely occurrence because South Courtland Street provides
an undesirable route for trucks (too circuitous), which is evidenced by the lack of track
traffic from the cS development (directly east of the project site) using South
Courtland Street as a shortcut. However, in an attempt to further address these
concerns, staff has added a provision to the proposed amendment that will provide a
visual /physical barrier between Subareas 1 and 4 along South Courtland Street. This
barrier will consist of bulb -outs and/or road undulations and north- facing signage where
South Courtland Street narrows to two lames, delineating the entrance to a residential
neighborhood.
Setbacks Between Subareas
Based on city council direction, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been
revised to increase the minimum required setback for each subarea along the property
line that separates Subarea 3 and Subarea 4. The minimum required rear yard setback
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8,2011
PAGE 7
in Subarea 3 is now 15' and the minimum required side yard setback in. Subarea 4 is
now 10. This provides a minimum total distance of 25' between any commercial and
residential structures. This is a net increase of 10' cornpared to the previously proposed
m i n i m urn setbacks of 10' (subarea 3 ) and b' (Subarea and consistent with existing
development standards for the Gateway Mixed -Use GMU zoning district.
The existing Derry Gardens Specific Plan GSP) allows for a 0 rear yard setback in
Subarea 3. and requires a minimum side yard setback of 25' in Subarea 4. These
existing standards also provide a minimum total distance of 25' between any
commercial and residential structures; however, the burden of providing a buffer
between commercial and residential buildings falls entirely u pon subarea 4 under these
existing standards. Additionally, it is important to note that Subarea 4 is narrower than
was anticipated in the existing specific plan, which makes development of the property
problematic under the current required minimum side yard setback of 25.
Parking Reductions
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment allows for parking reductions in each subarea.
These reductions were included based on 'correspondence with the San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution control Board (APCD). As part of the environmental review
process for the proposed amendment, the APCD was consulted in regards to identifying
potential impacts to air quality and any mitigation measures that would reduce these
potential impacts to a less than significant level. One of the mitigation measures
proposed by the APCD was to allow for a parking reduction, thereby encouraging
alternative modes of transportation {carpool, public transit, etc.
The proposed parking reduction in subarea 3 equates to a 17% parking reduction,
exclusive of the 20° parking reduction allowed under Section 1 . . o of the city's
Municipal Code (Common Parking Facilities). The proposed parking reduction in
Subarea 4 is based on observed parking demand at - similar residential projects located
in Arroyo Grande.
Although the proposed amendment allows for a parking reduction, it does not mandate
a parking reduction by limiting the number of parking spaces that can be provided for
any given development.
Maximum Building Size
Although the existing Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP) does not limit the size of any
individual building, the City Council directed that the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment include a development standard for maximum building size. to address
concerns relating to the potential mass and scale of buildings in Subarea 3. The
proposed amendment now Includes a maximum building size of 37,500 square -feet in
Subarea 3. This number was selected to allow for the reasonable development of an
anchor tenant in any commercial development of the subarea.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
cIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PACE 8
Bus Turnout
At the direction of the City Council, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment now
requires the provision of a bus turnout along East Grand Avenue, under "Access,
Circulation and Parking ".
Desic n_„Guidelines and Enhancement Plan
The Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed -lase Districts (Design Guidelines) were
adopted by the City council in 2004, after the City's mixed-use zoning districts were
created. The Design Guidelines reference the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan
(Enhancement Plan, which was drafted and circulated (but not formally ad opted) in
2002, prior to creation of the city's mixed-use zoning districts.
The Design Guidelines provide site and building design requirements and architectural
concepts, while the purpose of the Enhancement Plan is to "define a design framework
for both future public improvements and further private developments that will enhance
the functions and aesthetics of this particular area [properties adjacent to East Grand
Avenues ".
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment contains a provision that expressly requires
development of Subarea 3, which includes East Grand Avenue frontage, to implement
the objectives of both the Design Guidelines and the Enhancement Plan. The following
list contains several objectives of both the Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan:
Include specially treated pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to
buildings.
• Buildings should enclose streets, plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined
and walkable blocks. Building placement, streetscape elements and landscaping
each define the public realm. Consideration should be given to connectivity
between adjacent developments.
Project' should integrate porches, balconies, decks and seating areas that are
located to promote pedestrian use of the street edge by providing weather
protection, comfort security, and safety. Design shall incorporate handicap
accessible access, considerations for walkers e.g. lockers), bicyclists e.g. bike
racks) and transit patrons.
Parking shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by multiple
owners /users.
The desired configurations and locations for off-street parking lots, in order of
preference, are:
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 9
o Shared double - loaded aisle to side or rear of building partially on-site and
partially off -site on neighboring parcel;
o Shared ofd site or public parking let within Soo feet;
Double- leaded aisle to side, rear, above or below building on -site.
Buildings shall be two to three stories, with active fronts e.g, articulated entries,
detailed facades). - A three -story component may be appropriate within a project
located on a large lot and when it can be appropriately integrated considering
adjacent. buildings and uses. The maximum imum height of a building should net
exceed 35 feet except if additional height is needed to accommodate a design
feature that contributes to both the character of the building and the surrounding
area, and if upper - floors are recessed and/or massing is well articulated. For
example, an additional story or tower element on a building at a key intersection
may delineate a corner landmark building.
Ground floors should have clear articulation and as tall ceiling height e.g. 10 -1
feet.), and have a high percentage fenestration arrangement of windows/doors —
o - 0% of the facade). Awnings and overhangs are encouraged.
Emphasize three-dimensional detailing on fagades such as cornices, window
moldings, and reveals to cast shadows and create visual interest on the facade.
Provide for a diversity of retail and service com ercial, offices, residential and
other compatible uses, in size and scale to fit the "rural setting and small town
character" of Arroyo Grande, without duplication of the function or character of
other commercial areas.
Plan for a revitalized East Grand Avenue Mixed-Use corridor that has less of a
strip commercial aspect and more consistent, coordinated mixed -use boulevard
ambiance with district activity subareas: Highway, Midway and Gateway.
Include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel
by walking, bicycling and transit as well as automotive access, along the entire
corridor.
Promote development of buildings along a landscaped side walk frontage with
rear yard and side street parking. Include substantial landscaping and
streetscape improvements.
Propose functional design including specialized open space such as squares,
courtyards and plazas whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and
design such a proximity to public transit sups. Allow density bonuses and
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY , 20'1'1
PACE 10
shared or public parking reduction to increase development intensity and enable
more efficient utilization.
• Propose designs for attractive streetscape including street trees and other
landscaping, building fagade improvements, better signage and more consistent
and coordinated development design, including fewer driveways and
enhancement of off- street parking areas.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution, olution, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approving Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 as recommended by the Planning
Commission; or
2. Modify the amendment, removing the requirement'to relocate the curb return and
adopt the attached Resolution, adopting a (litigated Negative Declaration and
approving Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001; or
3. (Modify the amendment to include all requirements relating to Subarea 3 only and
adopt the attached Resolution, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approving Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001; or
4. Modify the amendment to include all requirements relating to Subarea 4 only and
adopt the attached Resolution, adopting a (Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approving Specific Plan Amendment 10001; or
5. Do not adopt the attached Resolution; or
6. Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allover the respective owners
of Subareas 3 and 4 to seek development entitlements to meet the City's economic and
affordable housing goals and ultimately allover for the completion of the City #s western
gateway with new commercial /retail space and affordable rental housing, consistent
with General Plan policies.
DISADVANTAGES:
Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for the development of
vacant property (subject to approval of entitlements, which would increase traffic in the
vicinity. Additionally, the requirement to move the curb return at the southwest corner of
East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street will result in a wider intersection
(requiring more time for pedestrians to cross, reduced landscape /plaza area and a
slight increase in mainten nce costs.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8. 2011
PAGE I I
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
IEW:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) Guidelines, staff
has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MILD) for the proposed project (Attachment . The purpose of the MND is disclose
any potentially significant impacts that the proposed project may have on the
environment and to describe any mitigation measures that will be implemented to
reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level. It is an informational
document only; its adoption does not, in any way, grant approval of the project that it
describes. If the city council does not agree that the I1 ND is adequate, project
approval cannot be considered at this time.
The II ND is based on Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 and Tentative Tract Map 10-
001 and conditional Use Permit 10 -001, as they were all submitted together as a
`project' under CE A. The M D also allocated a maximum of forty -five residential
units to Subarea 4 for the purpose of evaluating any potentially significant impacts.
It should be noted that the project described in the M D can be revised, and as long as
the revision does not exceed the intensity of the original project or otherwise introduce
any new potentially significant Impacts, the MID may still be adopted for the revised
project. Additionally, the MILD itself can be revised to expand/augment discussion on
any number of topics.
Areas that were identified as having potentially significant impacts are as follows:
Air quality,
Cultural resources,
0 Geology and soils,
• Greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions,
0 Hydrology and water quality,
Land use and planning, and
• Noise
Air Quali
Staff consulted with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution control District APCD to
identify any potentially significant impacts to air quality and to create mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed project will generate emissions (pollution) both short -term
(construction) and long- terra (operational). Standard mitigation measures have been
included to reduce the short - terra im pacts to a less than significant level. The
pertinent mitigation measures included to reduce the long -term impacts to a less
than significant level include a reduced parking requirement to promote alternative
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 11
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 12
modes of transportation and replacement of the existing bus stop on East Grand
Avenue with a bus turnout.
The proposed project is considered both a Type A and Type B project regarding
toxic air contaminants — Type A projects are those that generate toxic air
contaminants while Type B projects are those that place sensitive receptors within
1 ,000 feet of existing sources of tonic air contaminants. A detailed health risk
assessment was conducted for the proposed project which found that the proposed
project does not exceed maximum thresholds for either Type A or Type B projects.
Certain commercial uses -may generate objectionable odors that would impact
adjacent residents. As such, a mitigation measure has been included to prohibit
these specific uses in Subarea 3. Additionally, a mitigation measure has been
included to establish a `no idle' zone for any diesel - powered deliverer trucks to
minimize idling to the maximum extent feasible.
Cultural Resources
Staff consulted with Mr. Fred Collins of the [Northern Chumash Tribal Council
(NCTB) to identify any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources and to
create mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
There is potential for significant impacts to cultural resources should any substantial
deposits of prehistoric cultural materials be present on the project site. A mitigation
measure has been included that requires inspection by a qualified archeologist of
any areas where native (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed prior to construction
activities to determine if any cultural resources are present.
Geology and foils
A geotechnical study of the project site was conducted by GSI Soils Inc. A
mitigation measure has been included that requires adherence to all of the
recommendations contained within the geotechnical study.
Greenhouse Gas (lLHG ) m issions
Staff: consulted with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District APC to
identify any potentially significant impacts from Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and to create mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a lass than significant
level.
A mitigation measure has been included that requires a number of GHG- reducing
measures be incorporated into any construction plans, subject to review and
approval by the APCD.
Hydrology and Water Q uali�
A mitigation measure has been included that requires several grater quality best
management practices ( BM Ps) be incorporated into any construction plans.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 12
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE '13
Land Use and ,.Plannin
mitigation measure has been
Amendment that strengthens
Enhancement Plan EGAEP .
Specific Plan Amendment.
included to require language in the Specific Plan
its relationship to the East Grand Avenue
Staff has added this language to the pro posed
Noise
Operation of commercial uses will generate noise that impacts adjacent residents.
Mitigation measures have been included to restrict commercial delivery hours to
between :00 AM and 10:00 Pull and also to require a noise barrier to shield
adjacent residents from delivery-related noise.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project
site and also published in the Tribune on Friday, January 1, 2011. A Notice of
Continuance from the .January 25, 2011 meeting to the February 8, 2011 meeting was
posted on Wednesday, .January 26, 2011. Because consideration of this item was
continued to a date certain, no further notification was required nor given. Attachment g
contains all public comment received since January 25, 2011.
Response to Public Comment
Eased on the amount and content of public. comment received to date regarding the
proposed project, it is clear that further clarification of several issues is necessary. Staff
has identified, listed and attempted to address these issues as follows:
Commercial delivery trucks servicing subarea 3 will impact trafric
volume and safety on South c urtland street.
Please refer to "Expanded Traffic Analysis if above.
2. The proposed project fails to provide diversity Land use Policy LU
6-1).
Land Use Policy L -1 states. the foIIowing:
Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial,
offices, residential and other e compatible uses that support
multiple neighborhoods and the greater community, and
reduce the need for external trips to adjacent r isdic ion , by
designating Mixed Use areas along and near major arterial
streets and at convenient, strategic locations in the
community.
y.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 13
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PACE '14
After the General Plan was updated in tog, the City updated the
Development Code (Title 16 of the Municipal Code) to achieve
consistency with the General Plan, as required by State law. As part of
the Development Code update, the city established several mixed -use
zoning districts, each of which identifies uses that are allowable and
conditionally allowable within the district — thereby providing for a diversity
of uses in mixed -use areas. Providing for a diversity of uses is not the
same a requiring a diversity of uses — as such, there are no requirements
for developments to include a certain mix of uses, nor are there any
restrictions that limit the total number of like uses in any given area.
3. The proposed project is not compatible le In size and scale with the
rural setting and small town character of the city (Land Use Policy
LU -2.
Land Use Policy LU -2 states the following:
The MU category shall provide areas for businesses offering
the provision and sale of general merchandise,
hardwarelbuilding materials, food, drugs, sundries and
personal services which meet the daily needs of a multi-
neighborhood area (trade area populations range from
15, 000 to 20 ., 00o people; roughly equivalent to the size of
Arroyo Grande). Typical businesses in the MU categor
include general merchandise andlor specialty stores such as
supermarkets., hardwar lappliance outlets, building
ma erials home improvement stores, restaurants, and
general servicesofficers, business plazas and parks. Mixed
use development shall be compatible in size and scale to
ensure preservation of the 'rural setting and small town
character' of the City. This category encompasses
agriculturally-related businesses and services such as
veterinary services and other farm suppor t suppl .
The above policy specifically identifies all proposed commercial uses
(supermarkets, restaurants and general merchandise) as typical
businesses in the lie -Else category. The size and scale of the
proposed project is compatible with the existing "rural setting and small
torn character" as it relates to existing commercial properties on East
Grand Avenue, both in terms of lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR).
Furthermore, the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Courtland street
is specifically targeted for high- inensily development in Land Use Policy
L U -1o.1.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 14
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY Y , 2011
PAGE 15
Promote development of a high intensity, mixed use.,
pedestrian activity node centered on the Lour land
StreetlEast Grand Avenue intersection as a priority example
of revitalization of this corridor segment known as Gateway.
46' The proposed use will adversely affect existing commercial uses
(Land Use Policy LU 5-6).
Land Use Policy 5-6 reads as follows:
Allowable uses within the MU category shall not include uses
that adversely affect surroundi ng commercial or residential
uses, or contribute to the deterioration of existing
environmental conditions in the area.
All proposed uses are allowable in -the Gateway Mined -Use GMU zoning
district, which is the underlying zone of the project site, adopted to
implement the above policy. Uses that are deemed to aversely affect
surrounding commerci al or residential 'uses are prohibited in the GMU
zoning district. Examples of these uses include adult b- usinesses gas
stations and vehicle sales and service facilities. Like ..uses are not
considered to adversely affect one another.
5* The proposed project should not be approved until the city obtains
an adequate water supply.
Although the City implemented a moratorium on development projects in
2009 based on. water supply concerns, these concerns were adequately
addressed and the moratorium was allowed to expire in 2010
(development applications that were in process, including , the proposed
project, were exempted from this moratorium). Water. -conservation
programs have resulted In utilization of existing water supply to drop from
99% to 78% over the past two years and follow-up testing has shown no
evidence of seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin. While the City
is pursuing additional water supply to meet long -term needs, there is
adequate existing supply to meet not only current needs, but the needs of
the proposed project as well.
5. The proposed project violates California Vehicle code section 21460.
This section of the California Vehicle Code. specifies under which
conditions a person driving a vehicle may cross a double yellow line. As
the proposed project is not a person, it cannot violate this section of the
California Vehicle Code.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 15
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8,2011
PACE 16
7. The Initial Study has not considered potentially significant impacts
- to hydrology and water quality (Section IX( b)), land use and planning
(Section X(b )), transportation and traffic (sections XVI, and (c)),
utilities and service systems (Section X II. c and mandatory
findings of significance (section d,
Hydrology and Water Quali
Section IBC. b asks if the proposed project mould:
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level .g., the production rate of
pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)
Please refer to response f#.
Land Use and Plannin
Section . b asks if the proposed project would:
Conflict with the applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of any agency with judsdiction over the project
(including., but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project does not conflict with any City land use plan, policy
or regulation that has been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental affect.
Transportation and Traffic
Section Xl.b asks if the proposed project would:
Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results
in substantial safety risks?
The proposed project is not located within, nor is it adjacent to, an airport
planning area — it will not affect air traffic patterns,
Section XVI.(c) asks if the proposed project would:
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 16
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY Y . 201'
PACE 17
Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous
intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment that
would substantially increase hazards?
The proposed project has been conditioned to relocate the curb return
located at the southwest corner of East Grand Avenue and south
courtland street to safely accommodate turning radii for large 7'
wheelbase delivery trucks. As conditioned, the proposed project will not
increase traffic hazards.
Utilities and Service Sy stems
Section II. c asks if the proposed project would:
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities
As stated in the Initial Study Mitigated Negative declaration, the Poplar
Ponding Basin was designed and built to accommodate the additional
stormwater discharge from development of the project site.
Mandatory FindinggfS.inificance
Section d asks if the proposed project would:
Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
There is nothing in the record, including studies, staff: reports and public
comment to indicate that the proposed project will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, judged in light of potentially significant
impacts under established thresholds.
The allowed uses for the project site should be restricted to the
following fiat:
Bath /skin care — Bath & Body Works '
Toddler /child care 2
Family arcade
Fabric Store — Beverly's
Bakery/special cakes 1
Gym'
Bagel shop 1
Physical therapy
New book store — Barnes & Noble
Crafts 1
Hair style /cutting I
Laundry mat'
Pet store /supplies
Education /tutoring
Specialty boutiques /clothing
Music store '
Pool hall 1
Kitchen supplies '
Bike shop /bike repair'
Organ iclsugar -free foods 3
Men's apparel '
Family therap vsupport
Shoe store
Antique store
Second -floor offices '
coflrl uter store/repair '
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 17
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE '18
Gourmet food /supply' Jewn elry store /accessories
lied }Stop 2 Local art '
Each of the above uses has been coded based on Municipal Code
Section 1 .30.030 (Commercial and Mixed—Use Regulations) — all uses
coded "1" are allowed or conditionally allowed in the Gateway Mined -lase
(GIVIU)zoning district, all uses coded "2" are not permitted in pedestrian -
oriented storefront locations on the ground floor on East Grand Avenue or
in prime real estate space within shopping centers, and all uses coded "3
are consid a grocery use (conditionally allowed While many of the
above suggested uses are allowed in the GI IU zoning district, excluding
all others may conflict with Land U se Policy LU -10.1 (refer to response
#3).
9. The proposed uses are too intense.
Land Use Policy LU -2 (refer to response ##3 ) specifically states that the
Mixed-Use MU category shall provide areas for businesses that meet the
daily needs of a multi-neighborhood area (trade area populations are
typically 15,000 — 20,000 people). lases in the MU category are intended
to be intense enough to serge not only the immediate neighborhood, but a
larger area that may include customers that live outside of the City.
Furthermore', Land Use Policy LU -10.1 (again, refer to response ##3
specifically targets the intersection of East Grand Avenue and eourtland
Street for high-intensity development.
10. There are discrepancies between the project traffic study and the
Wood Rodgers traffic study.
The Wood Rodgers traffic study was prepared for the proposed Brisco
Road interchange project. it includes traffic counts taken in Zoo, Zoo
and 2009. The traffic counts taken in 2905 and 2007 are higher than
those taken in 2009 — the study uses the terra "existing" to refer to a
reasonable worst -case traffic operating condition that occurred between
the years Zoo — 2009. Traffic counts for the project traffic study were
taken in October and November of 2009. These counts are also less than
those taken in 2005 and Zoo. It can be expected that different traffic
studies will contain some variations in traffic counts for the same
intersections, as traffic counts fluctuate from day -to -day.
11. The left turn pocket from East Grand Avenue to south eourtland
Street is not adequate to accommodate delivery trucks.
Larger (67' wheelbase) delivery trucks may turn left from East Grand
Avenue onto South Courtland Street. This may cause traffic to queue
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 18
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY 8. 2011
PACE 19
behind the delivery truck, especially other vehicles attempting to make the
same left turn. While this may-cause occasional delay at the intersection,
the frequency at which these delays occur does not constitute a significant
impact. With relocation of the curb return (refer to response #7 above),
these left turn movements of larger trucks do not pose a safety risk.
12. south eurtland street is a non - commercial neighborhood street.
As discussed under "General Plan Consistency" above, South eourtland
Street is classified as a collector street in the City's Circulation Element. It
is meant to carry more traffic than a local (residential) street.
13. The Poplar Pending Basin was almost full after 2.7" of rain on
December 18, 2010.
The Poplar Ponding Basin was not empty prior to December 18, 2010 — it
contained water from previous storm events'. The 2.7" of rain that fell on
December 18, 2010 was part of a storm event that.-dropped " between
December 17, 2010 and December 19, 2010. Despite receiving over five
( 5 ) times the average rainfall of 2.57 inches for the month of December,
the City's stormwater system performed as designed. As previously
discussed (reference #7 above), the Poplar Pending Basin was designed
and built to accommodate the additional stormwater discharge from
development of the project site.
14. A Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be considered if more than
one 1 potentially significant impact is identified; otherwise an
Environmental Impact Report EiR is required.
Section 15070 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Q uality Act CEA states that:
Mitigated Negative Declaration is not intended to be a new
kind of document. It is merely a Negative Declaration
prepared in a slightly different situation. The Guidelines
would continue to give Lead Agencies the option of allowing
applicants to modify their projects so that the Lead Agency
could make a finding -that the project would not have a
significant effect on the environment.
The portion of this section dealing with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration provides efficiencies in the process
where the applicant can modify his project to avoid all
potential significant effects. The applicant can avoid the time
and costs involved in preparing an EIR and qualify for a
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 19
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10 -001
FEBRUARY UARY 0, 2011
PACE 20
!Negative Declaration instead. The public is still given an
opportunity to review the proposal to de ermine whether the
changes are sufficient to eliminate the significance of the
effects.
The Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for a project is not limited or otherwise restricted based on the number of
potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial study, as the purpose
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to identify mitigation measures to
reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
11S. Approving another grocery store would violate Land Use Policy LU
6-68
Please refer to response #4.
16, The Mitig ated Negative Declaration does not address economic
impacts of .the. proposed project.
Section 1 131 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) states that:
Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as
significant effects on the environment. Are EIR may trace a
chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a
project through anticipated economic or social charges
resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn
by the economic or social changes. The intermediate
economic or social changes need not he analyzed in any
detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and
effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical
changes.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that any economic or social
effects of the project gill cause a physical charge to the envircnrnent. .
17. Environmental Impact Reports EIF s or, at least, separate surreys
should be required*
Please refer to response #14 regarding preparation of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Separate analysis of each subarea is not required
under the provisions of the California Environmental u lity Act (CE QA)
because the "project" as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
contains enough detail to adequately assess potential impacts relating to
the development of each subarea.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 20
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 10-001
FEBRUARY # 2011
PAGE 2'1
18. There are discrepancies between number of trees shown on the site
plan and landscape plan and some proposed trees may affect
vehicular line-of-sight.
Where discrepancies exist between the site plan and the landscape plan
regarding proposed landscaping, the landscape plan shall prevail. No
trees are proposed to be planted in the sidewalk along South Courtland
Street — rather, th will be planted in a 10' easement area along t he
perimeter of the property. The final landscape plan will be checked for
compliance with applicable city standards, including the required vision
triangle, prior to issuance of a building permit.
19. How is building height measured?
As defined in Municipal Code Section 16.04-070, building height is
measured by obtaining the vertical distance from the average finished
grade to the highest point of the building, exclusive of incidental
appurtenances. Finish grade for both subareas generally slopes from the
northwest to the southeast. The high point in Subarea 3 will remain below
the existing grade of East Grand Avenue at that point. Pad C (Subarea 3
sits 2' above Building D (Subarea — as Pad C approaches South
Courtland Street, it will be retained at a finish floor height of 83.5% ' above
the existing grade of South Courtland Street at that point. This results in a
grade difference of approximately ' between the two subareas at the
eastern end of Pad C, while they match grade at the eastern and western
perimeter.
2. What is the application fee for filing a specific Plan or specific Plan
Amendment?
The application fee for filing a Specific Plan or Specific Flan Amendment
is $7,000. This covers ap proximately 61 % of the costs incurred by the
City to process the application, excluding environmental review.
21. Does the city council have the authority to regulate uses within a
Specific Plan area?
The City Council does have the authority to regulate uses within a Specific
Plan area, consistent with the General Plan. Please refer - to "Exclusion of
Grocery Uses" above.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 21
CITY COUNCIL
SPA 1 0-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 22
Attachments (Attachments 1- previously distributed to City Council and on fire at City
Hall and on the City's website:
1. City Council meeting minutes, November 9, 2010
2. ARC meeting notes, December 6, 201
3. Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, December 7, 2919
4 Comparison o f proposed amendment with existing standards
5. Revised traffic study + truck turning exhibits
6. Traffic Study Peer-Review
rr
7 Draft (litigated Negative Declaration
8. Public comment
9. Public comment received since January 25, 2011
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 22
RESOLUTION No.
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED [NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 10-001; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER of EAST GLAND AVENUE AND SOUTH
COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY INk T
COMMERCIAL
CIAL
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 to amend the Berry
Gardens Specific Plan as it relates to the development of Subareas 3 and ; -and
WHEREAS, EAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted a
Resolution olution recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and approve Specific Plan Amendment 10-001; and
WHEREAS, EAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA , the State CE QA
Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CE QA
and has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a
duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Specific Plan Amendment Findings:
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow the development of
6.1 acres with both commercial and affordable multi- family apartment uses
consistent with the goals, objectives policies and programs of the General
Plan — specically Land Use Policy L U 5-10. 1,, which targets the intersection
of East Grand Avenue and Courtland Street for high - intensity mixed-use
development.
2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public
health, safety and welfare or result in an Illogical land use pattern;
Thera is nothing contained within the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
that will adversely affect the pudic health, safety or welfare. The proposed
Specific Plan Amendment contains mixed-use development standards
which are consistent with the Mixed-Use 1U land use designation ratio n s
described in the Land Use Element and which provide for an adequate
buffer between dissimilar uses (commercial and residential); therefore, the
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 23
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 2
proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in an illogical land use
pattern.
3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is necessary and desirable in
order to implement the provisions of the General Plan;
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment nt is necessary and desirable to
implement provisions of the General Plan regarding higher - intensity mixed -
use development of 6.1 acres of vacant lanai, consistent with Lanai Use
Policy L#. 5-10.1. The provisions of the existing Specific Plan are
undesirable, as they do not provide for an adequate rear yard setback in
Subarea 3, and the minimum side yard setback required in Subarea
prohibits development of affordable multi-family apartments at the density
described in the Land Use Element.
4. The development standards contained in the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment will result in a superior development to that which would occur
using standard zoning and development regulations.
The development standards contained within the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment will resell in a superior development to that which would occur
using standard zoning and development regulations or existing Specific
Plan development standards,, as the development standards contained
within the proposed specific Plan Amendment allow for development of a
higher - intensity mix of rises, including commercial and affordable multi-
family apartments.
5. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create internal
inconsistencies within the Specific Plan and is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Specific Plan it is amending.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create any internal
inconsistencies within the Berry Gardens Specific Plan and is consistent
with the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it provides for both commercial
and affordable multi - family apartment development and provides for a
transition between single - family residential and commercial development
Required CE QA Findings:
The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to Section 15063
of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act CE A , for Specific
Plan Amendment 10-001 -
2. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
public revie w. -A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials
is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering
the record as a whole, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 24
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 3
and finds that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a
result of development of this project. Further, the City Council finds that said
Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, E, E IT RESOLVED ED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts the [draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Specific
Plan Amendment 1g -001 (Exhibit " " ) with 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 gate, to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this Stn day of February, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 25
RESOLUTION NO.
PACE
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY II ETM RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORMA:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 26
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE
EACH I BIT `'
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 10-001
SOUTHWEST CORNER of
EAST GRAND AVENUE AND
SOUTH COU TLA[ D STREET
This approval authorizes an amendment to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan as it
relates to the development of Subareas 3 and 4.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and city
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Specific Plan
Amendment 10-00 1.
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the City Council at its meeting of February 8, 2011 (Exhibit "B"),
4 The applicant shall agree to defend at his /her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of
the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof,
or in the alternative to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the
City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's
which the city, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its
own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not
relieve applicant of his /her obligations under this condition.
PLANNING DIVISION:
5. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with twelve
12 copies of the complete Ferry Gardens Specific Plan, including all provisions
of Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 as approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
6. Bicycle lanes shall be provided for on both sides of South Courtland Street along
the project frontage.
`. Site plans shall be designed to minimize potential conflicts between delivery
trucks and customers.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 27
RESOLUTION O,
PAGE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM:
8. MM III -'I: The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and
adhered to for all construction - related permits:
•
Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
Use grater trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when
grind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non - potable) water shall be
used whenever possible.
0 All dirk stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed.
0 Permanent dust - control measures identified in the approved
revegetation /landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil - disturbing activities.
0 Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one 1
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast - germinating nature
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
a All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods
approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board APCD.
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paged should
be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on
any unpaved surface at the construction site.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered
or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard minimum vertical
distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with C C
Section 23114.
Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the
construction site.
Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed non -
potable grater should be used where feasible.
The contractor /builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and
implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints,
reduce visible emissions belo w 20° opacity and to prevent the transport
of dust off -site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall
be provided to the Air Pollution Control District APCD prior to the start of
any construction- related activities.
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors.
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 28
RESOLUTION No,
PACE
Use of alternative - fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible.
Signs that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced
at the construction site.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
9. MM 111 -2: Prior to any grading activities the project sponsor shall ensure that a
geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. if NOA is not present, an
exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If N A is found at the site, the
applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board
( ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure ATC for Construction, Grading, Quarrying
and Surface Mining Operations.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
10. MM III -3: All portable equipment o horsepower or greaten used during
construction must be issued a permit by either the CARP or the APCD.
Monitoring: Site inspection
Responsible nsible Party: Building Division
Timeline: During construction activities
'I. MM 111-4: Should hydrocarbon - contaminated soil be encountered during
construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty -eight hours. of
such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is
required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately
after contaminated soil is discovered:
• Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas
not actively involved in soil addition or removal.
• contaminated soil shall be covered with at least sic inches of packed,
uncontaminated soil or other TPH — non - permeable barrier such as plastic
tarp.. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.
Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due
to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.
• wring soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to
cause a public nuisance.
Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
Monitoring:
Site inspection
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 29
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE
Responsible Party: Building Division
Timeline: During construction activities
13. MM 111-5: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include
the establishment of a `no idle' zone for diesel -po wered delivery vehicles.
Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the
following techniques:
0 Each delivery vehicle's engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in
the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively
maneuvering.
The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent
feasible.
Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the 'no idle} zone, including
notification by letter to all delivery companies.
0 Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving. dock area to
remind drivers to shut off their engines.
• Diesel idling within 1,0 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted.
0 Use of alternative - fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible.
0 Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors.
Monitoring: Site inspection
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to certificate of occupancy, periodical during
operation of commercial buildings
14. MM -'l: Any areas where native (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by
construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall fiat be inspected by a
qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. If
cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be
conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified
and implemented.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 30
RESOLUTION Flo.
PAGE
15. MM Il11-1: The project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or
addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and
recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions
and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and
recommendations where necessary.
Monitoring Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
16. IIIIM 111 -2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and
updated geotechnical study based on the study prepared for the project by GSI
Soils Inc. dated April Zoo.
Monitoring: Flan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
17. MM V111-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following ' GHG- reducing
measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project
sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to
the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures:
Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric
appliances and tools.
Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative
emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide Soo tree
coverage w ithin 10 years of construction using lover ROC emitting,. low
maintenance native drought resistant trees.
No residential wood burning appliances.
Provide employee lockers and showers. One sho wer and . lockers for
every 25 employees are recommended.
Trusses for south - facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle
dead weight loads of standard solar- heated grater and photovoltaic
panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south - facing roof surface,
based on structures size and use, to accommodate_ - adequate solar
panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the
ideal average solar exposure shall be used.
• Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements.
Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted.
Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern e of
buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. .
Utilize green building materials materials which are resource efficient,
recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 31
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 1
0 Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.
Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the
high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south
facing windows (passive solar design).
0 Utilize high efficiency gas or solar grater heaters.
0 Utilize built -in energy efficient appliances i.e. Energy Star@.
0 Utilize double- panned windows.
0 Utilize low energy street lights i.e. sodium).
0 Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.
0 Install energy- reducing programmable thermostats.
• Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE
Energy Star@ rating to reduce summer cooling needs.
0 Eliminate high water consumption landscape e.g., plants and lawns) in
residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are
low ROG emitting.
Provide on -site bicycle _parking both short terra (racks) and long . term
(lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to
bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack
space per 10 vehicle /employee space is recommended.
Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the
connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the
need to operate diesel - powered TRUs at the loading docks.
Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or
covered racks lockers to service the residential units.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline': Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
18. MM 1111 -1: The following BIVIPs shall be incorporated into the project:
,Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow
infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain
system.
• Run -off Control Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average
volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre - development levels.
Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Dr in Facilities Label new storm
drain inlets with "o Dumping — Drains to Ocean„ to alert the public to the
destination of storm water and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into
the storm drain.
ehicle E ui ment Cleanin Commercial/industrial facilities or multi -
family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 32
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 11
provide a covered, berrned area for washing activities or discourage
vehicle /equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs
prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved
designed to prevent run -on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain
to the sanita sewe
Car Washing Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and
operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm
drain system. wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary
sewer or w astewater reclamation system.
Common Area titter Control. Implement trash management and litter
control for commercial and industrial J ro'ects or larg e-scale residential
p g
developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water
bodies or the storm drain system.
Food service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including
restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning
floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease
interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The
cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest rat or piece of
equipment to be cleaned..
• Refuse Areas. Trash compactors enclosures and dumster areas should
be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a elf -
contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water
cannot be diverted from the areas.
Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other
chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from
drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners,
va or roof cove and /or drain to the sanitary sewe system. Bulk
materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with
berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be
inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces
and covered. , Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control
and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.
, Cleanin_g, Maintenance and Controls. Areas used for
washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, rep air or processing must have
p p g
impermeable surfaces and containment berms, root covers, recycled
water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sever. Discharges to
the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of
an industrial waste discharge permit.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 33
RESOLUTION TIO NO,
PAGE 1
Loading Dock Controls. Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded
by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the
area. Position roof downspouts to direct storm rater away from the loading
area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary
server, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary
sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be
installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain.
Street/Parking Let Sweeping,: Implement a program to regularly sweep
streets, sidewalks and arkin lots to regent the accumulation of litter
p g p
and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped
and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater
containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and
discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
19. 11IIM X11I -1: All store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of :00 AM
to 10:00 PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of south
Dourtland Street shall be maintained.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit,
periodical during operation of commercial buildings
20. MM XII-2: Construction plans for any store located along the rear of Subarea 3
shall include a noise barrier, either a block wall or an extension of the store
building, to be not less than twelve (1 2) feet above the delivery area, tapering to
a height of sic 6 at the eastern property line (back of sidewalk) at a 1:1 ratio.
Additionally, any residential structures that, absent the noise barrier, would have
a direct line of sight to the delivery area shall include acoustical treatment to
reduce exterior noise levels by thirty 30 decibels, the cost of which shall be
borne by the developer of the store.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 34
ATTACHMENT
Public Comment Received
Since January 26,, 2011
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 35
L+ I_ , _, 1 . rI I I 1 D . :J4 0 0 :J3 z � .!� IDL4+ -i r� _ J �
+_.:)r_LLMC rAU r w',xL
Cookie Crock Warehous
Al Colony E nterprises, I
E . grand A
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
-%
Tel: (805) 921 -13Z
FAX: ( ) 927-16'2
1, 31 2 l 3v Facghn'le Transini;)si rt)
Ms. Teresa cClish,
Arroyo Grande Community ev lopment Direct
Arroo Grande. CA
R e: Staff Reports re: Cit - Council Meeting o f F bTuat ; 8. 2011
nslderaiion of Specific Plan Amendment; Tentative M arce l ?slap and C:on itio al Use
Permit; Southwest west Corner of East Grand Ave. and South Courtland St.: NKT Applicant
And related draft Mitigated NZ- Declaration
i ar .M . M ClIsh:
Today l learned about. some onfusi n veer the proposed specific plan amendment. An Arro yo Grand
architect recent] y asked City staff about filing an appiiCati ojn for are am en drnent to the B e rry Gardens Specific
Plan. He wished to apply for an overlay that weld 1h nit sales on Subarea 3 to a cer -mip pe rctntage o f ry -nt
taxable food products. He %vas told the price was S7,000,00. I've looked at tl1 C011TOtnunity D evelopment
Application Fees but carp find n listed price for dais appiIc 4atlon. bl case clarify the price for this application
because we y ne to file ore d p 4n on the City's r sp nst to this letter.
i understand his application aro due to c onfusion at the last Council inecting when a councilman asked for
clarification on use regulations for Subarea .3. He said staff I - sad told him that the Oty could not impose Such
restrictions. I respectfu ask the City to inirr► diatel f clairify this issue by confirming the Council has been or
+ill bc ir►form ed it dogs lave author' ' t restrtiet or regulat the use of Subarea 0f and riothin to the contrary
has been 5uggested by Staff. Fran I don't see how the City could perform its duty usider the general plan
with ut such power- �l understand The Cite bas 3m Pe se d use restrictions and re ct d applications based on uses
ire [l�� past. l don't b lieve an oth ppIicati n. eta for mod st overlay wou be riecess ar y, b ut if Staff
disagrees. l need to kn .SSA P.
'Ale believe another rooery store would a contrary to the General Plan and not ire ��, Est interests �f t
go
nei liborhood or tli Cit ' sx iierally. Wc believe it will create traffic jams, unemployment, blight aestheti
issues, and many negative environmental effects. It di; �r-tly impacf our Arro fFo Grande stare, Sp encer ' s F resh
Foods and other local businesses_ We were d rwied fair nof.ce an due process at die prior Nanning
C MITIissio11 meeting w operated (o ver my o iecti(in %vithout req ui ri ng. the ap hca t to state that 1b .42 U
, was a grocery star propriate advi fro Sta f prohably added to tbe prciudic - Ac cordingly., w e
�- sp - ask
or irr m dint clarification.
V Try! 'ffs'
Alpine Colo prises. h.
By RUSSELL S. 1 ►
Its General C ouncil
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 36
January 31, 2011
Mayor Tony Ferrara
City of Arroyo Grande
214 F. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Courtland Plaza, city Application 10-001 Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment
Dear Mayor Ferrara,
As a resident of Berry Gardens, I am n ot in favor of the Courtland Plaza project as currently
presented. I lire on the corner of Loganberry Avenue and South Courtland Street, next to Kingo
Park.
My concerns include:
0 Increased traffic through our quiet neighborhood streets.
a Air- fouling diesel grocery trucks driving and staging through our neighborhood.
Noisy truck deliveries at all hours of the night and early morning.
Primary entrance off Courtland Street, which is not suitable to handle the heavy flow of
cars and trucks.
Pedestrian safety at cornea and crosswalks, due to truck and increased car traffic.
Our neighborhood is already saturated with grocery stores; there are al read y established large
Spencer's, lions and Cookie crock grocery stores within a half -mile of our house. Why would a
new, additional large grocery store be needed — or supported by the community?
I strongly urge you and the City Council t have th Courtland Plaza project re- designed to
ensure my concerns have been addressed.
Sincerely,
A ult",, 4h*'�
Donna Moon
1 504 Loganberry Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 37
February 2, 2011
Cit Council
City of Arroyo Grande
214 . Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Lang ton and l arbara white
1526 Huckleberry Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: Courtland Plaza Proposed Development
Please vote NO.
x
Y 3
i f
As residents of Berry Gardens we feel it Is a beautiful neighborhood and we value it very
much. It is considered "safe" and many children come here on Halloween to trick or
treat.
The development proposes a large grocery store be built. This proposal allows for truck
traffic which creates a hazard on Courdand Ave. Currently we have no need another
market. we Feel this will damage our locally owned markets and may cause closures.
The proposal includes low income housing. This is good. But is should include open
space for children to play and not be intrusive on existing homes.
We appreciate our City Council working to protect the very special mature of our
co ununity and know that a commercial development that is more appropriately designed
is in the best interests of all of Arroyo Grande.
Sincer
enda , e' NCO
Page 38
Dear Mayor Ferrara,
As a resident of Berry Gardens, I am not in favor of the Courtland Plaza project as currently
presented.
My concerns include:
0 Increased traffic through our quiet neighborhood streets.
0 Pedestrian safety at corners and crosswalks, due to truck and increased car traffic.
• Noisy truck deliveries at all hours of the night and early morning.
0 Air - fouling diesel grocery trucks driving and staging through our neighborhood.
• Primary entrance ofd~ Courtland Street, which is not suitable to handle the heavy flog of
cars and trucks.
Our neighborhood is already saturated with grocery stores. Within a half -mile of my house,
there are large Spencer's, V ons and Cookie Crock grocery stores. Why would a new, additional
grocery store be needed — or successful?
I strongly request that you and the City Council have the Courtland Plaza project re- designed to
address my concerns.
Respectfully
Kevin Moon
1594 Loganberry Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 39
� l F_ VLf 1
Cookie Crock Warehouse
Alpine C Enterprises
122 1 - G rand A ve.
A rroy o Grande, CA 93420
Toed: (505) 927 - 1302
FAX= x;805)) 927-162-9
2/3 / 011 y Facsimile Transmission
Ms. Teresa M cClish
Arroyo Grande Community Development lir ctor
ATTo *o Grande, CA
Fie: Staff Reports re: C ltv Counc Meeting of February 8 2011
Consideration of Specific P Ian Ax nendrri en.t; Te ntative Parcel Map ; and Conditional U se
Pen it; Southwest Corner - of East Gt nd Ave. and oU th Cour d and St.: NKT Applicant
And related draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (iNfIND); PSS14 Pro
Dear Ms. e fish:
We respectfully ask that this letter- th two att ached excerpts from the City's Stagecoach E x press
N ewsletters (Agri I --June 2 010; ,duly -September 20 1 and the attached letter from Del Clegg. Jr.
our Vice President be made a part of the Staff klemoranda for these three agenda items. W
lope to supplement this letter at the Council Meeting.
We * e pectfu ask that these applications be continued for at lei 3 0 days so that we and other
interested parties may have tirne to respond to the revised 14ID acid gather additional evidence
o n the physical darna es caused by the social and economic impact of the Project. See
Discussion on. Deficiencies 01 and below. �' lteinath el r, we ask Staff to recommend an EI
for the Project.
We h ave offere some other altemative5 to be considered and assessed:
• Limiting the gross sales o nontaxa food items on Subareas 3
Re qum ` ng owners o f Sub area 3 , P a d C to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior to using
the Pad as a grocer'v,
We have attempted to find -out if Staff believed some type of overlay imposing the abov
restriction on the Specific Flan Amendment was nece ssar-y o r app but Staff has not
responded to my letter o f Janes 3 3. r 20 11.
We resp c fuIl y ask you to respond to our concerns Oncludi ng my letter of 1:`31 by 5 - 00 p.m
Friday Fe bruary 4. 2011 in order to g us a lim opportunity to p for the February 8
2011 Council Meeting. We ask also that Staffrespond to the deficiencies in the l fND stated
below by this date and time. ,
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 40
This letter will primarily address additional defeCTS the NfND as revised January 2 01 L
An Environmental Impact Report R Should be Done for the Project Because There is
Substantial Evidence that It ill avv a Signifi Effect on the E nvironment.
The scope of this Project will have normo impact on the existing n l borhood and
businesses. Thep � portion of the p�rQje t consist of the following:
• Subarea 4: A unit comp of affordable housing on 1 acres si tuat d ad�accnt to an
existing nei ghborhood of le fa nily ho1isiiig. The City makes no claim that t is
p ortion of the Project is a tempt.
Subarea ; On 4.47 acres, a commercial devel opment consisting of separate parcel to be
used for retail (Pad A 5 sq f : restaurant (Pa B 6,767 sq ft); parking (Parcel 3,
25.759 fl) some typ of sp store . Pad D 5 s q f and a grocery store (Paid
"5 .786 sq ft. This portmon of the Project shares a common boundary with the 36 units
of affordable housing.
The Project is located on an un developed land near the in tersection of ourdand St an
East Grand Avenue. Th intersec w i ll nee to be w i de d an a b ic ycle l ane an
two - way left turn lave will be added to Courtla St.
Residents of the Berry Gardens community, including Mayor Ferraro, have expressed
concerns a bout the Projects environmental impact on their commu ty, especially in
terms o f tra ffic and noise. The defective traffic studies cued in the NNB have not
addressed the cuing issues on Fast Main St. o r the traffic congestion on Courtland St, that
will be caused when d liver , trucks cue to enter the loading dock.
The physical impact of the Project has ignited many ontro •er ies, includins the following:
The proposed grocery store is located Nvithin vwo mil of C ookie C roc k Wareh
pencer"s Fresh Market, S colafis, T Jo es, Albertsons, Cent Mark and Vons.
Wal-Mart and I -Mart have recently expanded their grocery lines. Also Nvithin this area
are t wo Rite - Aids an a C VS, a of which se groceries. The area is saturated w ith
grocery outlets. The proposed grocer y mill damage existing grocery businesses, cause
unemployment and bfi& in existing shopping centers, especially where anindependent
grocer (such as Spencers Fresh iiaret and our store) are aut tenants.
petition with more than 5,000 signatures against the Project has been submitted to the
City_ Petitioners have objected to the scope of the Project and its environmental impact.
The NfND is silent on this Petition. ( If this Petition is not already the record, we ask that
it b e included for the next council meeting.)
The proposed grocer store is contrary► to the representations made to John Spencer by
City- officials 'when he elected to open his A rroyo Grande location. i
2
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 41
The incompetent and deceptive planning or the Pro,�ect '.5 another example of the
favoritism. shown. Nick Thompson and NK ". In nay earlier letters I described some
illustrations of the ways Staff wid r timate (emitted) certain costs to the City of the
prior Farm Ctedit transaction. A t the coined meeting on January 25. 201 the City
Manager revealed t wo more examples: the Staff "forgot" to budget more than
S 1 .00 . 00 for new fumiture and omitted 50 for an elevator in the new buiIding
The elevator rev ladon is particul arl y shoe i ng because one pn*ma ry J ustifieation for
sellinz the o build t KT was th a t they weren't ADA, compliant, H ow could the
City M anager omit the ADA costs of the new building?
Water su pply and the risk of salt wa intrusion into the ground water supply has been a
primary concern for the City r over the last t wo years. In the same Comic'] meeting in
which he re vealed the elevator oy rsi ht, the City Manager announced that Staff had
discovered more acre feet of water available to the City from Lopez Labe and_
consequently, the C ity no longer had a water shortage. The N4Ni barely touches on the
water supply issues, includes no discussion of this sudden diseoVery, fails to provide any
estimate of grater usage b y the Project or homer N T and PSHH Nvill mitigate the water
slioarta e. The cumulative -e impact on the water su pply and salt gat r intrusion is never
mentioned in the MND. See Deficiency below.
We have provided to tial evidence t1i t NKT has deliberately failed to repair,
maintain and upgrade our center. Part of its motivation in establishing a new grocery
stare is to drive do-v% the va l ue of our business so he and th e City can put us out o
business and re- develop our shopping center. The �I fails to discuss the economic
etTects of the Project and fails to address the conflict between the Project and applicable
requirements in the lard use element of the General Plan. especially the requirement that
anv n ew development e consistent with the nu al nature of Arroyo Grande and not
conflict with ex isting businesses. A thorough I is needed to weigh these impacts s
the City and the public can begs to understand the impact of the Project on local
businesses and the risk of bli ht to nearby shopping centers, especially. {suc a with b
Spencers and us ) where independent grocers are the anchor tenant. The EIR should
discuss. among other cgs* whether it sh.oald in - vest R e d eve l opment Funds in upgrading
existing centers, hog - the Project endangers other centers by tak a patrons and
ph impact on the �i� if ot }oceris are rced out ofbusiness. No
mitigation. measures for they cons quences have been discussed in the NN D.
The applicants NKT and People's Self Help Housing pSI �� have no entitlements regarding
the Projects and must obtain Conditional Use Penults a well a amendments t the Berry
G ardens Specific Plan. At pres the Pr is inconsistent With the existing B erry Gardens
Specific Plan as well as the General Flan.
At prior Council and Planning Commis ton meetings, members of the public have testified and
presented evidence of the Pro . ect' s si gnificant e nvironmental effects in terms of traffic, cyst-,
noise. odor, air quality, mconsistencv with the General Plan and in ef on existing
bu,5inesses, existing land uses and the Berry G ar d ens community. o ur prior su ha
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 42
discussed some of these effects in g reat detail. �� a presume a ll these submissions wi b e ma de
part of the official record in this matter.
The record clearly shows substantial eviJence that the Project may have significant
env effects e ects that require an 1 . See additional discussion on. "rci n ies # r� d #4
bloc.
At this point, we will address a few the many) cot her deficieri6es i t the M], which
accomp the Staff Report for the January ; � l meeting. �e ash. staff to respond to each
of these deficiencies.
fleiency #1: The Planning omission's Defective Consideration of the Applications
a n d the MND
The City has established the Planning Commission to make recommendatioiis to the Council
regarding CI Ps, parcel reaps and environmental consequences of proi *ects. Municipal Code
Section 2.1 .o 8 oh Cal. Gov . Code S ection 65900 of se q . As an advisory body, the Pl annin g
Commission is required to review the MNC before it is adopted by the Council. 14 Ca Cod
Begs Section 15074
Over our objections, the Plying Cornmissiori at its meeting o n I ece nber 7- 2010 considered
the NfND and the applications without taking in -to account that Pad C is to be used as a grocery
store. The use was intentionally orritted from tl � Nf! Indeed, the version of the NfND
submitted to the Planning Comm-is s 1on'had the term :$4 g rocery"" crossed -out ( i.e. - This
omission denied interested pares the right to corn ent on an accurate NI ND. As we have
pointed out in earlier letters, this amounts to a denial of fir notice and due process. Pub. Res C
Section 21092 14 Cal. Code Begs Section l o 7a.
It is important to note that the Planning Commission recommended denial of these applications
on September 7, 20 10 and October 19 20 10 . App licants we able to get approval only after the
MND and the applications had been changed to remove reference to a grocery store (i-e.
.
Th the only approvals obtained from the Planing Commission r used on
defective Staff memoranda and a defective NI . Additionally, as stated in my letter of Jan uary
1, 2011, Staff seems to have g 1hren ALKe Corr mi s Rion inaccurate legal advice..
It was are outrageous insult to the p .opl of A rroyo Grande and t the pla process w hen
Staff and representatives ofNK sat thr ugb the Planning Commis s'1011 meeting on D ecember 7 ,
201 w ithout revealing that Pace C would be used as a grocery store. No w that the Staff h as
disclosed the use of Pad C as a grocery, the NULD must b e corrected and revised and re-
consideired by the Pima -dug Comniission before Lit can be adopted.
i notice of any hearing o an MNTI must give interested panties sufficient time to review it.
G ilroy Citizens f R esponsi ble onsi in v s- Cit of Gilroy 140 CA4th 911 (2006). B ecause the
revised IVIND has not yet been pu blished or circulated, interested partie wi ll be prejudiced if th e
Council considers its approval during the February 8 meeting.
4
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 43
Deficiency Defective N for the Council's January , olt Meeting.
The same f la -rit the ran d ct • �. . � . was zn l c� E the Staff r for the
January 2 5. 2011 Council meeting. Presumably this 'will be amended to re flect the use of P ad C
as a grocery store and new c alculations for x T, traffic, noise, axed odor v - 111 made before the
Council rneeting on February 8, 2011. Such last kni note. a me ndments w ill p rejudice interested
parties from making a conscientious review of ihe N IND. In th circumstance . intereste
parties ill once a g ain b denied the right to mzL e comments on the I ND and denied fair ]notice
acid due process. A continuance of at least thirty d vs is needed to allox %p interested parties a Fair
op ortw1ity to review and respond t a revise MND.
To repeat: A, n ti ce of any hearing on are iID m ust g ive interested parties sufficient time to
review it. Gilroy Citizens for Res onsible Plannin vs. City Of GilrgL 140 CAAh 911 (2006).
Because the revised M #D has not yet been published car circulated, 'interested parties will be
prejudiced if the Council considers its approval during the February m etinz
Deficiency #3: The MND does Not Sufficiently Address Certain P hysical Impacts of the
Projec
W e repeatedly have emphasized that the %CND does not adequately address issues such as water
supply, traffic noise or odor_ We have pointed to the conflict of the P ro j ec t w ith the land use
element of the re legal Plan. AVe have and rscorttd the negative u' np acts of locatm' g a grocery
store adjacent to a residential housing project. We have provided evidence from a civil engineer
of um led traffic issues and expert testimony that another grocery store in the area will lead
to unemploy damage to existing g oc r y stores# and blight. W e h ve provided you
evidence that 'MKT has failed to maintain, repair or upgrade our center out of a desire to put us
out of business and re-develop the center. Staff` h as ig many' of our comments.
Staff is re quired to explain its findings t -ou h narratives included in the NIND but has said tittle
about the water su pply and salt pater - i t rusting issues an conflicts with th General Pl an. It has
said no ping about the odor issue or e how the proposed traffic and noise mitigation
measures wl I I reduce these impacts to less than ).gn)ficant. The � D is silent on the physical
consequences of the social and econo imp acts of the Proj A th ese matters have been the
subject to a great deal of controversy,, fair argu lent exists that the Project requires-an E IR. No
iL-In . vs. city of ` Los Ang6cs 1. C rd (1974); Quail Botanical Gardens F ound, Inc. v s.
0tv of Encinitas, 29 CA 4th l 9 (1994); Fdends of " Str et ors. City of` a •r •ard, 106 CAM
988(1980.)
While a M offers a method of streamlining e nvirorunental review, con lusionary statements
in an N are insufficient s i the refu -aI t diseus issues where a fair argument exists about
e nvironmental impact.
The draft N IND fails these tests in many ways. Take, for example, I tern V111 in the NIND about
Greenhouse emissions. Staff admits that the Pro -j e .t , %-ill produce nine tires the threshold 900
metric tons of GHG per year. It then gives a list of mitigation measures suggested by the APCD
acid concludes that G14G emissions w ill b 'J th ati significant. The MND fails to discuss bow
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 44
and to what extent the measures w ill reduce the GHG below the goo metric ton standard. It
offers no evidence that these measures will do so.
Item Xll pro another example,! MI l! -. , the .fN' notes that the developer c the
(crossed - out) store - rill p ay for a.eo ica-i i�rea�tment to reduce r' oise levels - � decibels
4_ or in some o f ihe PSHH units. The NINB fai to describe such ireatment. bow it will reduce noise
level s below a significant le vel and, fails to sug b st ' a ny m ech - anis rn by which the NKT w ill be
legally required to fund the acoustical tr atnicnts.
Item X ' ll Provides another example- Arroyo G rwide has declared a water moratorium for the
last two con secutive summers. Its effoTts to buy water from the O ca o Community Senic s
District have been unsuccessful. In the WD,. Staff estimates per capita water use will stabilize
at 16 gallons p er dad- and notes that every new• development in the City is required to either
implerne nt a water neutralization pro ra n. and pa a %vatear neutrali ation fe - The Nom' D does
not a ddress the cumulative effect of the water use by thi Project, provide any supporting . data for
its estimates, o r explain which water mitigation measures should be required for this Project. It
does not even inc lude an estimate of how muc water the P ci will use. At the Co
meeting on January} 25 . the City manager announcqd that he had discovered additional water in
the City's calculations of w ater f r6n. Lopez Lake- Gi *ren' he ,background of 'two grater
moratoriums and salt water I ntrus io-1 issues, the N N should discuss hoer such water becan
suddenly available, the actual water needs of the Project, the actual mitigation ranea ures to b
imposed on NiKT and PSSH and how such mitigation measures will reduce the Project impact to
less than significant.
As a minimum beginning point. Staff , rnust p rovide some narrative explai n how the mitigation
measures will reduce all these impacts to k9s than significant and the expected results of s
mitigation measures. Alt mativeiv, it should recommend an E IR.
of
D eficiency ##4: The NIND Fails to Address the Economic Consequences of the Project. An
FIR is Needed.
The record very clearer shows that ' e approval of a riew grocery store is controversial, to say the
least. At the Council meeting in November. ember. 201. NKT submitted a sur vey V fith respect to a
Food 4 Less being located on Pad 3. Al on g with ,other interested parties, v. have presented
expert testimo and evidence that the area is satuTaied w ith grocery stor and a new grocery
store will cause blight and unemplo3mient.
Under CFQA the City must prepare are EIR wheDever substantial evidcace in the record supports
a faira r g ument that a project will have a significant effect on the environment. No oil I nc. ors.
City of L os .Axes 13 Card (1 974); Quail B otanic al Gardens F ound. I nc. vs. C ilL of
Encinitas 2 9 C Mth l 1 994); F riends of "B (Street v s. . 0 i ty of H an K a rd ; 106 CA d 9 8 8
( 1980- )
Where a project may cause a physical change as a result of its economic or social effects, an E IR
is necessary Title 14 Cal Code Reps Section 1506#0 states: i
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 45
: ere a physical chxige x s c used y econom1 or Social effects o a roi t, the physical
change may be regarded as a siarnficant ect ' a the same manner as a y other p iysica change
resulting from the project. [See also subpart a
In Citzens A5s'n for Sensible l ev. v s. Cowan Y of l *c 172 C wed I H, 1 the court field that
an EIR should be required when a new shopping center could cause a loss of patronage for
existing businesses and additional blight.
In Citizens for Ouality Groxyth ms's. Cit of Mt. Shast 198 CAM 433 (1958) the court held that
an EIR should consider the economic problems of a prof ct that could result in business closures
and pbysical deterioration of doxvntoiAm area.
The record clearly shows that a fair argurnent exists, supported by credible evidence. that the
r ject may have a devastating impact on nearby shopping centers. For this reason alone, an
EIR is necessar y for the project.
We avv-ait your re
ery cAns.
lie Colony ntetprises,'hic.
B RUSSELL S. READ
Its General-Council
N
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 46
C OOKIE
Alpine Colony Enterprise, Inc
1240 Knoll wood. Catrhria ViIl g€t Square
Cambria, a!-1 -erni 93428 .
January 31. 2011 -
City Council
Arroyo Grande, Ca
Re: Council Meeting o January , 2011
Agenda Items 9A th ro ug h 9C. N i T Application for Courtland St. Project.
h
Dear Council Members. `
i have been employed in t he grocery business for forty. gears_ I gr w up in San Luis 0 bils po and own
Cookie Crock Ma rk t , a major emplo er in our coo nty. i am 'Currently the Chairman of 'the board for
California Independent Grocers Association based in Sacramento Ca. This association represents
independent grocers in California in legislature matters at state, federal, acrd l caI ieveIs. Our association
represents grocers with over 0 Billion in annual sales in our state. I have guest lectured at Cal Poly
San Luis ON spo regarding t he grocery industry and participated as a panelist on many industry issues. #
have also given expert o plinip n and to timony to rn a ny locaf, state, a nd federal legislators.
Points of interest.
-1 am sorry for the length of this fast minute correspondence, but do to the fact that substantial charges
to the project plan and Pack of appropriate notice we not g iven in a timely fashion this has
necessitated my response.
-Tbis project has been equated to the center across ti';e st riee t (CVS Drugs, form a Ily Longs Drugs),
regarding usage and traffic several times. I must point out that a grocery stores impact on utili ati n
and traffic are significantly greater than normal to m rp e r ial and certainly a drug store... Grocery stores
have average customer visits of 2.3 time per week vs . Drug stores carp expect two visits per month on
average. Truck and delivery traffic rnulEiplies by 4 to 6 tires that of normal commercial or drug store
usage. These demon strated grocery vis Its are the reason waI -Dart and drug stores are actively adding
food items to their selections to increase foot traffic and by extension car traffic.
-This project as per the General flan and the additional overlays v er in place before NKT purchased it.
The specific plans stated that the property would enhance the rural community. It would incorporate
issueri such as pa rking ire the rear of the puo peay, extensive pedestrian walk not marked walks thr
the parking lots, covered drives and waIkw rs, extra trees, a nd extra win all giving a nice friendly
environment for browsing s h oppP_ rs_
-It i5 also of interest to many, when on October 19" o the Arroyo Grande Planning Co mmis ion.
continued consideration regarding the Grace Bible Churc h 4 square' foot classroom building because
they sent the p [a ns back can the prior m eting to ncIude extra wlndo' ws and faisci s cha nge , at a
significant cost to the nonprofit organ"Lation. This nevo buIldin ` location could only re asonab ly be
viewed from the applicants own property. Here we lave a major development in the Gateway Corridor
in everyone's view and wi ndow o r esthetics are somehow n o longer a n issue. l protest.
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 47
-M and many other are concerned that waft has lost all objectivity regarding'this development. C ertani v
they have missed many important is .ies in their zeal to -e n #horse this project. I ncl Licing ite MS Such as th
lack of sustainable water, sewer, drainage, st orrnwuLer runoff to the Poplar Ponding Basin, revised
geote hn ica I study, and earthgvake ground liquefaction do to the a cte ground fi d irt deposited on
the property and need for reinforced footings etc..
-A Ppr'oxim ate I 000 people s i g n ed petition against this d veIoprnent a s recently reported by Cal Coast
News. These sig natures we r collected in only a couple of days, again because of poor staff notification.
The C itizens* of this c ommunity want the development that coincides with the General Plan and t
additional Plans specific to this property a planned.
-John Spencer and I are not afraid of cc mpetlti Vic opened our stores in a highly competitive area in
the middle of all this competition. I t ook over an abandoned store from V on is and Spencer's took over
a n abandoned Albertsone store. Jahn had extensive discussions w ith the city re arding any future
d evelo pr ent o n Co gre #and Street before he establish °d his Arroyo Grande locat ion. H was convinced
that any future de elopment co I re emble the Ii ;$tation imposed by the Berry Garden and Gateway
Plans. My S hopping Center on the other hand was purchased by ITT. My landlord has made no repairs
or improvements ors my center since. they took over ownership. I don't mind co repetition but when
y our landl want you out of your location and refuses t o - improve rel center as he attempts to
develop a new competitor, rt's like trying to swim with the elephant tied t o our foot. This is truly unfair
competition w hich this council will become a part to.
it is unconscionable to think the council would approve the ourtlaod project in these economic tunes
a nd in this over grocery stored location. TMs would not only cannibalize existing sales by as much a s
twenty -figs percent causing mass employe e. layoff and probable store closures resulting in th
dilapidation of their correspond shopping centers, butt is economic ripple effect could also have
devastation effects on the local business environment.
I grew up in this county and my wife was raised in Arroyo Grande. We have watched the gro wth and
understand why people move [sere from the big citi es . W a p p re te good planning (Berry Garden
Specific Plan, The Gateway Mixed - U ss and East Grand Avenge Enhancement plans) and , adverse ly
understand the conce of " any develop wi ll d "... This is a ba project which exemplifies the
divergence from the General plan, et al. This is planning at its worst and will make this community look
like the big citi es that people moved away from. Please deer these agenda Rems for the good of our
citizens, We don't need another strip center on Grand Ave. with the same selection that already exists.
Thank you for your consideration.
),eo,
1�e i )
too#
Ebel Clegg Jr.
Co o kie Crock Mark
1221 E_ Grand Avenue
Arroyo Grande, Ca. F
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 48
Be A Centennial
Ban,pier Spansor
T l 1 -1 fo 111 j i i � - .1z 1.1i c (_ it E li
I I)p".1 L11 al �, 11 m-cr. avv*. Full dra i,3- j Ila is ill JLr
c ull- with a awjor et-,apt
on Julv� I CtIll fenturing eliterikimuncl)C,
pa I a d r- a n es
A a re!if wzvv t o
�t I ppv) I Find tip 11").1
f 01 i S t 11 LQ
T
0 11 S�w (�nq� k)f the
ha [I Lo
TII)Lr, 11 0 it C (1�'
for the in.-l'odi (if
Ole ve�lr. cif ;i 1?.3nr
sopo i i s ovs n i o is $40i� Cc�r *ii<1iv1djiak ujid
M T) 1 11 (1 C) f) ft� I' F1
r d 1-ausinc�SC-S.
7.ji k)rls all
A ah9cady
at wovk lor stx-erv) nionth.; and
It 4,A[V .1`01 6,)r improvements to
191 ;1760 VrIC11 Sri-lice tirCa 1 to 111C
21 + .1L C
Sponsor or becowlh-_
III Ibc evcnl arc �Ivn;IL47ic-
')
BUDGET IS BALANCED WATER S TRA TEGIES
-he Cii APPROVED
io mamtai a I J%,A,--e1ojnncnt moraterium Ill
balanced hudfm thik-o[� FjnDl Y C ar
pi act.- sink,---e 'Novcnibcr 4- 10 due to
21 () I I bile �:Itrjl�z with Nvalct supply -.md pot'%Nit'lal
j) C 3 " I L C 5
1i r c, u g ir, e ri'i c i e n %,0, y
.f - - - ZO 1 0
-
I ;cavvaler it expired is Tul -
rt!L1V (!f 1301 1 r A 21 ezil 1 % 1-1 T1 ( S 11 *11ic CeI11161 Cudorsed a 11\1111bcr of
1-fleasures ul 'address thelce
iond Hie -%,v.ater hai
horli'all.: Illav cont:n.w Irl "p)-cut tn I ri
�p p %.f 1�� I
-_xtrenicly efTcc-6-vo. MIty X10 ter
ve
k r r
r
awl n�
. e C k - )l I t inu -
.-S - F ly ` i 1 -7 V �L j I' .
I kI Z 1, T -$'I 4C j) S': T. 4 4- 1 %� _ qje (.- jtV
Mid 1-1 e. expamled, L I
I 1\;.) gi -,I I r&i m ti,�: i pa I kiu M zi "Severel ReISIVICICU V/mer
A
y cunO tion. rn t.'; .I (I 0r. I o
A 4,
- cis , 1 o pi ki
Wt,c Conservration rcs(rictioll" I I av C ct- I I I C
T'.07 I orLs.
I k e
in p I a because it is
chesm reductioliF ir �Mkr 10
P
L ICE BUILDING meet fuzu-re dexpand. Shoil-Econ su f) r
PnONS STUDIED nit;i1mrcs ako include a teen rorai%�, wazer
P kirell;4SC ag"relcinclit with
1111C final vuqe For 1he puiic< staticill
bo _ , ,,CC 0 devz 1opincilt of two new. wells Pulsidz
4 j
7-
j ust
the rv-tricted
tiler �: 6-` needed, .-Xs a rGsuft, ffic Cit LONT-Lerni !->1 rate ki [I ti r
I d� qkmv ,,rlld n.1%xvialive WaNS 11)
40F C011sidcraion 61LWIC ICC %WIECC 30d
which to etdJre s -%rorrlit dcric'XI)CIes Apr pw-cjv�e �Ir Stale water, A n u m L-4 e r
a - all tcms y cled writer, czy!� airc
( . vec
the citv iyc
�,,cin Studied. Mearox
id.,lit"fied 4.1- w mice[ ctillrent a j t .,;--jj I p:jng in srrt)0rjjj_z a i m it~ d
a ipw;c, patidna xrid cidner
wd l'ut (A 4% a te!
pur hazc o w
f State
4 wld be de-Inved m ll,:
6 i)i capital ca ou
will Ibc �_-rns_idered by ssary. Romes w.,cc By
Vie 'AlptleT b,
1 ti I i,
3eveloocr fees could be
^C11 To WWI' 11101st Of die CO
%.. ;11-:14-sbed S �
CHILD CARE PROGRAM 111111 T17C ?in ell oil
(111,: CA of Arrop G),.mdc Rccreanon In Ms)[ion child 1) V zri. I V A1110F.Mit wa er
-
elf - c pro rani is miderway. The pro Fay swr A-ugust lit ;ink[ v�,M operate IN.Jonda 11cccs-;311' To ac uil of
.!11 " o 4 , I I i 11 a it Rramc h, flar I o. c. an Q c eai-, `V- I cm, eouzL%jry �ol s. S ite; ter. z, rc opm I �Cav�-; current Gicneral Phw is t_
f1 C
`1 ITI ;IJ11. JV NOIC11 �60101 Stal-1.5 a ft
lid unl %%hmn s"'1100 pur-sucd. ft &voul not includ - water f'of
W ,
hs;x- a wt St3le 01 ter
JF Mit U111 -nry U -s f Z%
z, 1 6:00 r, -in F u 4.rs T cr �sitc due co ho 0
' re a publiez
Knzwd aanwi-, Contests. cr.311s. celothl". Sports, g uc-*t spezekcr.s. 0, 1MZ_
ftt7 M
ov.i�Alrrkem cklssos, aild a I-A1111. parents I-61-1-V p I ct r c ichrmafl on on watcr
�istt
o i is e n�a Tion incenlives is 1w41able by
I IS tv e2_1 k)' b ca I I' T t ; - 5.t `' . (, ;ontactin tbc Ci( at 4 73-5440
4 7
" A HARVIEST iFwn L
Ff VE CITIES. =" SK E TAC;.?,A.-.LL LEA GUE
'Fbe so I -i o d fio ir L17 e 0 i 0 0 11 F i v e (.` i 6 &, Yo I I th I it k e. th a's I Lea e Ili 'Tile 1-1tv is onz�c a -.i W-5ponSol'
pl-up T it: *�.
o r L13 t: 7 3 Annual Arro Grandc
%appro-achlog. Tbi3 prourain provides, lij�u'ucticvl ond co-flipetitioll 01 O.Ju s 1 1 , 1 -,, i- it d je s, I
A 'n
1 1) 7;? Harvest Feqjvaj, which will
K", ill 1 L: I,%
to e SCI).
" — 9` -4 16 ( p,.
re re dw fish ft paradc. boofts, fooJ,
I'lild 11-om ,Iil 7,00 p_iw at the Oty 01." AITOV0 (31-W-idc *qk.dA.-'cpmaii".s Club
('01-1MIJ11itv cenler. 2 1 1 VZrooll sircel ill A'rr Gratide. ri- will be. -,4ci jvitie coniest5 and cm.
This year`F t�eiine is *1 fan-res(lng Chir
-lber 6'$- 'al ttk�! Arri:� Co-andc Rccrc-;k6t-pii 0 r1t, ii c a, 1 2" 42 1 A %, I i
I k C11 sc 9r 00
�A r (j,.,-I i i d pz i - p I a7.* Pip-, d S5 5 fo i - -,-I tor� "Id3im)"al ranifl Neleinciries." Actividos Ukc pletee 4:01)
, 1.11 . p.1n. tio t)-00 pm, w 17-fida Septernber
1-tetpistrat -,.Cj after 041not)el- 7 %vill b!:� %char an additioital S.2.0.
t i ow; w; rccr-
I-C, Z s I n c. I Li d c a t c a rn p i %c i i i v cr pa c. Ka C), Z.. I'- ,-,I I 1 11 an d a,%v a I - d VrJ L I i CC S W i C i I I a C r 24;h. ThU pamde bqC fit 10.00 mnl,
Oil Szktul4dta September 'nth 311d
N1"Vcr111?Cr 11"' alld will m)(1-rualk, be Udd at local sch.,x4s. <31JI110.5 turd CChCdU1cJ to
*r frw
1 activider- conclude -at 51 . D 0 p.
;tsrt Noveti-lbcr ?9". Volunteer coadics, refuccs, scol. Ckee-pet-s, aod team sponsovs
trsiormation. cckntaci 473-5474.
are nec-ded -rci- all dtivisiosis� For morie iiiforma."ion. plea 4e call Lhe %rro (.-Mandc
-.5474
al 4-,, 3'
r��
A Item 9.c.
Pa 49
CITY OF
4�
`i,��I��1T !�3■ t1� 1
-.. � t -. .. r r .., - i. � -. �. ."�.. ,,�.. ..�.t � " .. � ... t .�. .. �� -..... +,.. -��rt , r..,.... �� +. ,� w N +.r a+ +, +�. •. t t t - i � � r .r -ryr.ti t +t. + .wa�+r .....
Ap — .1a a 20
EVELOPMENT MORER 'Am TO R I UM EVA C TED
TO ADDRESS WATER ISS
1 try �.' � .> [: L-Ai: 4) Arroyo vv,, 5uppl - :it t• .''- ck'"�lls L�.�,
{() � .,.. �� �• 1�, _+ •+ �4li �r�� -iJ U'iJ� �, ad L +# V FS����i 4 +F ��4�,�1���1�4 t��l��
on 01c Tipp ok-zl t�f 1) e w dc:vdoj - 1t1wnt p rQjcus. ` fie'. pkirpoi c of i.1' ; OrtIt "Titus i5
�A���1�4 "��c)TI�, >��.� ��;���;1�+ ���` #fir c`��;�i�. � r�p� #t�• *- C�'�','������i��li( �
:ti7tli M vvii -1 r�:��t� };� Elul 111 %:u.% ���:x Li� M!CJ��ic�;� ���;i�,rs���� ��:� ;,�ai�:! fir: {1:� ��?� ►-
ilic W l _ 'c � _`v #4 ' 1 , : i,d 1..;:1 c ,..c. *r' kclg h.c.ncd 1.V
iil la ing polef"I{ij1
��;- k *.�.;���1 1t,1� #.1�1;�if �`� °i��C� ��`'��`i:'ifl:T� ��`1e�` ] ";'•3s+ � � r �,�,F , � � �. ..� ,,, ,,,
sca atVr is 0tu'."I (it i. frith i} clots 1 1() t :' cnea , L;r1 1 1 I 1 011
{.iii',' NN aIcr .1 Q ca i t' 1 11 01114OUTIM
1 - 11i> MLIT,110111111 - n Apj)NS 10 3 nckov dcl. F ro'c"t appliza 111,11 will
fcciti 1 ric a `icu 1~4'atcr s r act connQ.,1 io n. f r that 1 a -, y kcc i\. ed
i►ilpv w or ihosc - wkh apphc:ations iNst 1 1 -,1 c: #`MI 1v3ccc-,,fvA
CL) t' 1r-'Cl : rC 1 W11 l f L P rij1 ct: I hal W; I c ;111;(c r
�krL� nol in J. During. 1110 t11i)1`�1�.()fjjt]?j � �cr4 �:+ . ��thc� 1�� ��4� � 3�ct�i ►��� ;Y
1 } •'14L bc aL Hill eous 'sod, ul not p o wed.
��L +�l�'[1 c +a� 't�'wE��'1" ; �'}�� Y c����t {��1 .il � ��� ���- 1'�'•��ItS � ti'{ �? Il�l Itl,, � L�C�� .''- C. �f�i:.: a��:t *r''i {�.`+
G r i '• 1i `t' i.�17;}.'i ?T # 4 k; - i '13 :i1 [ ± k t 1 1 w: 1Ci - &c' 1cr s }'`t}�:in.
Ucl(MV 1' lL fi l '... i'k. hol will
re V i s - .I . - 'r -.i iN ' k1)
iii l }rpornjcd In Lk Tja1i ()iISCfiv: Lili.)+'1
iiy a t 73- - U fc.r i vfic.rjiiatio il (,i1 1'• ail z ' cx r � +'i�t3[ fii' IIICLMI I v€` .
f
DER TRUCK GRANT
c 'I ty has been aw-ird d a grant sa oiler
;p ra ftls. It w iR ena ble t he C11v to ccv a
}clam ;frc� �14�partltlent. vu J rrr c %d. I 1=
t.irge- t (f f01 J P LY t:V 2 0 1 0
D ,aria, -% - 1a of 11 nickand Sew '4y -s Fcdcr l
this is the al-v rd for ppir -ca Tarp Lhc
mmon ibis ;ear- The r!Lnv cquipsi, t 1-1-k
c y.p w t 111 c a rat i 0 r1 by ca rlA 011.
, ci ' r ; lc s %v oIc on M v asoure A - 1 0. %v h i C b ;ecks appri_, nI t ► 1141 SLI UP to m I ion o r b can ; to n! ;'stick
R, - :
S1 ,()
j 41 1 ' (.i }1[ vi '11 ] .' t�t7i i] 'i + ��,. } i trt] '43 'r ec"t z r'i.� tiv -c � 1iZ niea - 4� ri� '� a I sk , cc 1i ��l�fc bo n issu 1ri wl } 3 rot
XP 0Csm1) "'re 5 1ar on. It3csn d -, .jII be IropaIJ front a ri i1 � }t)rs ����fiiv s Ir ni an'assc- „sn.cnt on property a �:sr� ironi ch
-,mvici-4 raw- '..
x assc
01; ioc 't= inns {i:t cd uL qua 111311 }11c- �t "rt; f; �. 1 � - , :��. 't1L`r f ii` the ��� er r. .
�
t” I! 1 i.
�r
ON , I I ' _c( wi r f.t�i.� w..i +. J! �.� x eul 13111111 - 1 7 ■ 7 1 ' �J � ' . F ': ' � '" : �tiR i! 1 IL
_ '•,.
i i x /�++ # r at e.
05w} +:�....� -• t*�.. #i- ;'ii�.l i' -'.. t ., + �i14C ..'.Vt #
l - �le lle - kv f lid oz r o sed to :1 jocc %1 '`l � i' , ,' � -, 4 .�
'
_��� t r rr'. �? ;? � ,� � �� r � 1 .i�![. ��r`t?r�� ��1`�t�:�4..�r +_ . :�� ���. ��]� ' i� "` �::� ;;� #,� ;,.: }��• ::�
`?:iz+<li r }� {It'}!1. t17:�� 1st:[ IIiC ti• 77 y7
_tc�..:�c�iI . .• c� .,SJ sJ� #: of ;i
I1 1 11' c . ;iti II. c Ii � i1 , t i .. ,f R � ' c - 1
•.�' i - . + ..... ..��1+
r -,3 #,r .11 1t111r 1 ., i ii[:r, Jtc. - 1 sy: %t1:nri and ''• ..
�:V?JFIM I 10 ic w i ils i�.ni - cr- C. (IQ nc 4j 1 ����1���1���,t�l �r:��4 ;. C. ?14 . �'�# '��� �?a1r�3i��- ;F • V �
Is a� pr op o sed io 5JQ pu�dviascd by Lb: Fcdcra! gc Jrruu 7 1 x r
��i t.�.C}O 11C:
!- 1 jWL11Lj� 11111l.S Ctl(kIC T ;1 1k) - illfcrc.st lipan p1 f.1i � -� 16ky �fi �,+ {t ��f���� Now
0c p. ; rt i vie w o At -vWuII ur f� -,r +,'(�1 i:1) tt�:�i�� , �±� �.', ��`4� >. � fi:� { ��'�� ��� .-d fji ±il,�. C.1.�� riy at n host in icxz) ng for
S
' :: )jji 1g C01MI Pr. PpeL'1XS Mid iu� lv t6 i��mcc ar slrGt� oltd i' pPE:i« 1 &-Vwicc 1) 1' � ti 1��lyl i � ' i I i+1s(1 i � �� � � t !: t= �tix ?11
:, it F1 alt - - L - �n Road w l i I be �o 14 3- -n l fli i�roccec ��►� # i 1 �.-1 Ll �� � �`�� �l �� �1�3t'� i# ?ll f t he posts o f i�_�jec l .
op - tilinci4( #il { 3 -5i? if y' <:� i �; � I is M x Ir' v�r1 R.�1 1 1� e jinn- ;l s: na! �a�it�r�, 1 i ) s hau I
vo j, " (A.
y
M •
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 50
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Ili'
:7
�
`i � = ..
y `.•
*
�+
Er
-.. � t -. .. r r .., - i. � -. �. ."�.. ,,�.. ..�.t � " .. � ... t .�. .. �� -..... +,.. -��rt , r..,.... �� +. ,� w N +.r a+ +, +�. •. t t t - i � � r .r -ryr.ti t +t. + .wa�+r .....
Ap — .1a a 20
EVELOPMENT MORER 'Am TO R I UM EVA C TED
TO ADDRESS WATER ISS
1 try �.' � .> [: L-Ai: 4) Arroyo vv,, 5uppl - :it t• .''- ck'"�lls L�.�,
{() � .,.. �� �• 1�, _+ •+ �4li �r�� -iJ U'iJ� �, ad L +# V FS����i 4 +F ��4�,�1���1�4 t��l��
on 01c Tipp ok-zl t�f 1) e w dc:vdoj - 1t1wnt p rQjcus. ` fie'. pkirpoi c of i.1' ; OrtIt "Titus i5
�A���1�4 "��c)TI�, >��.� ��;���;1�+ ���` #fir c`��;�i�. � r�p� #t�• *- C�'�','������i��li( �
:ti7tli M vvii -1 r�:��t� };� Elul 111 %:u.% ���:x Li� M!CJ��ic�;� ���;i�,rs���� ��:� ;,�ai�:! fir: {1:� ��?� ►-
ilic W l _ 'c � _`v #4 ' 1 , : i,d 1..;:1 c ,..c. *r' kclg h.c.ncd 1.V
iil la ing polef"I{ij1
��;- k *.�.;���1 1t,1� #.1�1;�if �`� °i��C� ��`'��`i:'ifl:T� ��`1e�` ] ";'•3s+ � � r �,�,F , � � �. ..� ,,, ,,,
sca atVr is 0tu'."I (it i. frith i} clots 1 1() t :' cnea , L;r1 1 1 I 1 011
{.iii',' NN aIcr .1 Q ca i t' 1 11 01114OUTIM
1 - 11i> MLIT,110111111 - n Apj)NS 10 3 nckov dcl. F ro'c"t appliza 111,11 will
fcciti 1 ric a `icu 1~4'atcr s r act connQ.,1 io n. f r that 1 a -, y kcc i\. ed
i►ilpv w or ihosc - wkh apphc:ations iNst 1 1 -,1 c: #`MI 1v3ccc-,,fvA
CL) t' 1r-'Cl : rC 1 W11 l f L P rij1 ct: I hal W; I c ;111;(c r
�krL� nol in J. During. 1110 t11i)1`�1�.()fjjt]?j � �cr4 �:+ . ��thc� 1�� ��4� � 3�ct�i ►��� ;Y
1 } •'14L bc aL Hill eous 'sod, ul not p o wed.
��L +�l�'[1 c +a� 't�'wE��'1" ; �'}�� Y c����t {��1 .il � ��� ���- 1'�'•��ItS � ti'{ �? Il�l Itl,, � L�C�� .''- C. �f�i:.: a��:t *r''i {�.`+
G r i '• 1i `t' i.�17;}.'i ?T # 4 k; - i '13 :i1 [ ± k t 1 1 w: 1Ci - &c' 1cr s }'`t}�:in.
Ucl(MV 1' lL fi l '... i'k. hol will
re V i s - .I . - 'r -.i iN ' k1)
iii l }rpornjcd In Lk Tja1i ()iISCfiv: Lili.)+'1
iiy a t 73- - U fc.r i vfic.rjiiatio il (,i1 1'• ail z ' cx r � +'i�t3[ fii' IIICLMI I v€` .
f
DER TRUCK GRANT
c 'I ty has been aw-ird d a grant sa oiler
;p ra ftls. It w iR ena ble t he C11v to ccv a
}clam ;frc� �14�partltlent. vu J rrr c %d. I 1=
t.irge- t (f f01 J P LY t:V 2 0 1 0
D ,aria, -% - 1a of 11 nickand Sew '4y -s Fcdcr l
this is the al-v rd for ppir -ca Tarp Lhc
mmon ibis ;ear- The r!Lnv cquipsi, t 1-1-k
c y.p w t 111 c a rat i 0 r1 by ca rlA 011.
, ci ' r ; lc s %v oIc on M v asoure A - 1 0. %v h i C b ;ecks appri_, nI t ► 1141 SLI UP to m I ion o r b can ; to n! ;'stick
R, - :
S1 ,()
j 41 1 ' (.i }1[ vi '11 ] .' t�t7i i] 'i + ��,. } i trt] '43 'r ec"t z r'i.� tiv -c � 1iZ niea - 4� ri� '� a I sk , cc 1i ��l�fc bo n issu 1ri wl } 3 rot
XP 0Csm1) "'re 5 1ar on. It3csn d -, .jII be IropaIJ front a ri i1 � }t)rs ����fiiv s Ir ni an'assc- „sn.cnt on property a �:sr� ironi ch
-,mvici-4 raw- '..
x assc
01; ioc 't= inns {i:t cd uL qua 111311 }11c- �t "rt; f; �. 1 � - , :��. 't1L`r f ii` the ��� er r. .
�
t” I! 1 i.
�r
ON , I I ' _c( wi r f.t�i.� w..i +. J! �.� x eul 13111111 - 1 7 ■ 7 1 ' �J � ' . F ': ' � '" : �tiR i! 1 IL
_ '•,.
i i x /�++ # r at e.
05w} +:�....� -• t*�.. #i- ;'ii�.l i' -'.. t ., + �i14C ..'.Vt #
l - �le lle - kv f lid oz r o sed to :1 jocc %1 '`l � i' , ,' � -, 4 .�
'
_��� t r rr'. �? ;? � ,� � �� r � 1 .i�![. ��r`t?r�� ��1`�t�:�4..�r +_ . :�� ���. ��]� ' i� "` �::� ;;� #,� ;,.: }��• ::�
`?:iz+<li r }� {It'}!1. t17:�� 1st:[ IIiC ti• 77 y7
_tc�..:�c�iI . .• c� .,SJ sJ� #: of ;i
I1 1 11' c . ;iti II. c Ii � i1 , t i .. ,f R � ' c - 1
•.�' i - . + ..... ..��1+
r -,3 #,r .11 1t111r 1 ., i ii[:r, Jtc. - 1 sy: %t1:nri and ''• ..
�:V?JFIM I 10 ic w i ils i�.ni - cr- C. (IQ nc 4j 1 ����1���1���,t�l �r:��4 ;. C. ?14 . �'�# '��� �?a1r�3i��- ;F • V �
Is a� pr op o sed io 5JQ pu�dviascd by Lb: Fcdcra! gc Jrruu 7 1 x r
��i t.�.C}O 11C:
!- 1 jWL11Lj� 11111l.S Ctl(kIC T ;1 1k) - illfcrc.st lipan p1 f.1i � -� 16ky �fi �,+ {t ��f���� Now
0c p. ; rt i vie w o At -vWuII ur f� -,r +,'(�1 i:1) tt�:�i�� , �±� �.', ��`4� >. � fi:� { ��'�� ��� .-d fji ±il,�. C.1.�� riy at n host in icxz) ng for
S
' :: )jji 1g C01MI Pr. PpeL'1XS Mid iu� lv t6 i��mcc ar slrGt� oltd i' pPE:i« 1 &-Vwicc 1) 1' � ti 1��lyl i � ' i I i+1s(1 i � �� � � t !: t= �tix ?11
:, it F1 alt - - L - �n Road w l i I be �o 14 3- -n l fli i�roccec ��►� # i 1 �.-1 Ll �� � �`�� �l �� �1�3t'� i# ?ll f t he posts o f i�_�jec l .
op - tilinci4( #il { 3 -5i? if y' <:� i �; � I is M x Ir' v�r1 R.�1 1 1� e jinn- ;l s: na! �a�it�r�, 1 i ) s hau I
vo j, " (A.
y
M •
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 50
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday - 01 February, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Jiro Guthrie
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch Street 4 L _ r
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re; Courtland Plaza,, City Application 10 -001 Berry Gardens Specific Plan Amendment,
Tentative Map, and Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr Guthrie,
am a resident of Arroyo Grande and have lived here since 1977 when I became a member of
the Arroyo Grande Police Department. I currently I live in the "Berry Gardens" subdivision. I
purchased my home in 2002 and have lived here since. I have seen a lot of development in
Arroyo Grande, but I am not in favour of the "Courtland Plaza" project as currently presented.
And. I am not alone. When friends, neighbors, clien #s, and members of my church with whom
I talk find out where I live, they ask me about the project in "Berry Gardens ". To a person,
their query is: "Why does the City want to put another grocery store on that vacant plot of
land ?" I remind them that the projectis not just about a grocery store. However, one
comment haunts me: "Why would the City want to locate a business that (ultimately) puts
pressure on three existing businesses that have been dedicated to and served the community
for over twenty (20) years ?" Of course they're tacking about VOWS, SPENCER'S., and
COOKIE CROCK, but I could not come up with a good answer.
There would seem to be a number of acceptable, alternative businesses within the project site
other than a grocery store. "Mary Ann's Hallmark" anchored the olde LUCKY'S- PAYLESS
complex since it's inception and was never replaced. What about a book store, or a shoe
store, or a series of boutiques? These businesses would compliment the STARBUCKS
across the street, would they not? Has the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce been
asked for suggestions or made specific recommendations?
Oh, I could cite the "lack of required open space plaza as defined by the GMU site
development standard table 16.35.020 (E) and illustrated by exhibit 13 or page 22 of the East
Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan ", or the "lack of keeping with the current Land Use
Policies...." for my reason to object. But, you've probably already heard that.
If is that one haunting question that says [should oppose this project in it's current form.
This is a decision that we will be living with for the life of the city. I urge you to re- design this
current plan and address the concerns of the residents of Berry Gardens and the surrounding
community.
1526 Strawberry Avenue
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 51
1461 Blueberry A v e
-�.rrr Grande, C 93420
` i r 1 • 1 February 2011
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Gentlemen,
I w ould like to submit nay comments on the proposed amendment to the 10 - Berry Gardens
S pecific Flan which would allover for the location of grocery store on one of the parcels.
I am the homeo wner and resident of Berry Gardens since it was developed, and I am very much
alarmed by an attempt to modify the Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
I believe that any development should benefit the public at lame, and cause minimal disruption
to the neighborhood. This is not the case for this proposal.
First of all, there is no need for another grocery store in this neighborhood, since there are
already three such stores within a walking distance from each other. The grocery store is one o
the most intensive operations in terms of deliveries, among all retail operations. The impact of
heavy truck traffic w ould destroy the Character of the neighborhood by noise, air pollution, etc.
The trucks which would commit themselves to drive into Courtland and find the loading dock
occupied, will have no alternative but to drive through the winding streets of the residential area.
The assumed traffic pattern in the proposal is totally unrealistic, practically laughable.
So what is the benefit in all of that? An unneeded store, a minimal saps tax revenue, no new
jobs, since any increase would come from the decrease of operation in existing grocery stores.
On the other hand, there will be more noise, more traffic, more pollution from the exhaust, and
quite likely, decrease in the property values. When we acquired the pro we relied on ferry
Garden Plan to be adhered to, and not changed without our consent.
Since the City Council previously rejected a proposed ba nk at this location as unsuitable, I
believe the grocery store should be even more unsuitable.
Instead, may I suggest a different type of retail business that is indeed lacking in the area and
would fill the size of the pod in the plan. For example, a movie theater, a craft warehouse like
Michael" el" or Beverly's, an electronics store like Best Buy or Fry's. Those are just a few
alternatives which w ould fill the need and cause far less impact on our neighborhood.
It is my hope that the Council will reject the proposal as it is currently presented.
Sin rely,
Stanislaw M. Kocimski
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 52
Dear Arroyo Grande council members and Planning staff,,
The purpose of this letter Is twofold. First to protest the proposed development at th
corner of Courland and Grand and secondly to admonish the elected officials for the lack of
notification to neighbors of this development and to the community at large.
The ro oed use for this land i overlarge and not needed b the Arroyo Grande
p p
community. [`here are three other grocery stores within walking distance of the proposed project
which do not adversely affect the traffic and health of residents, The safety of all who traverse
Grand Ave. will be negatively impacted by large trucks constantly motoring along a narro w street
even if portions are enlarged. Lame trucks waiting to turn or eater into C ourtlan d wi impede all
who attempt to use this entrance to Berm gardens. Hopefully of those vehicles not able to
pass none will be a fire truck or ambulance restricted in attempting to sage lures.
Other better uses for this land can and should be explored. The community could use a
movie theater which would generate more tax revenue than a grocery store where most items are
not taxed. Place the theater next to the empty Blockbuster building and perhaps another video
store will lease that long empty space. Look southward to Banta Barbara county which has a
small theater in both the Fairview shopping center and at the Camino Real marketplace with a
craft store and a linen More. A sporting goods store and a camera sure such as Sarny's camera
would do well for an area so beautiful and encouraging of healthy, outdoor activities rather than
polluting, idling true.
Another good use for this land is housing for seniors or disabled and possibly an assisted
luring center. Again in Santa Barbara there is an attractive unit called Heritage H ouse for seniors
along Hollister Ave across from iris's Inc. -- -also an attractive building and serving communit
needs. In this the 10& anniversary of Arroyo Grande we should be looking to the future and not
destroying event piece of land with ugly Stalinesque buildings, bringing negative impacts to
current residents and our children. The Grand Ave corridor from the 101 freeway to the ocean
should be thought of in a more conservatory w ay rather than just an ugly commercial zone.
Consultation with the neighboring cities could offer more satisfactory solutions .- -joint economic
development outreach father than accepting a developer out to make a fast buck. We live here
and do not grant or need the pr as curren formulated.
Secondly I mu t take the plannin department to task for not infonming nearby residents
of the proposed project agenda on Feb 8 . Had someone not knocked on my door and informed
rune of such I would still be in the dark. A sma ll sheet of paper tacked to a large sign when one is
focused on lights, traffic bike riders, skate boarders and pedestrians doesn't cut it. Shame on this
council also for appearing to slam this development down our throats without the transparency
and inclusiveness good government should be. Reject this project, take some thoughtful time
e pl o ni ng other options and listen to the electorate. We do not want this deveIopment. i 10 !
Margaret Sullivan Kocimski
Berry Gardens Homeowner
y�e�zyre�`
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 53
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 9.c.
Page 54
RO
IL
INCORPORATE
MEMORANDUM'
JULY 10. 1911
F y
TO: CITY COUNCIL
t
FROM: TER ESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY NITY DE EL PMEI T DIRECTOR
F
RYAN FOSTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION F TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ''10-001 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-001; SUBDIVIDE 4.47 ACRES INTO
FOUR . PARCELS OF 0,51, 0.59 2.56 AND 0.57 ACRES AND
CONSTRUCT FOUR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OF 5 6
35,796 AND 5,700 SQUARE-FEET RESPECTIVELY;. LOCATION —
SOUTHWEST CON E R OF EAST GLAND AVENUE AND - SOUTH
C URTLA D STREET; APPLICANT — NKT COMMERCIAL
DATE: F EBRUARY 8. 2011 (CONTINUED FROM JAN UARY 25, 2011)
RECOMMENDATION:
MENDATION:
The Planning 'Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Desolation
approving Tentative Parcel Map 0-001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff has developed- revised sales tax projections based upon typical per square foot
sales tax figures by use 'provided by the City's redevelopment consultant. These figures
are conservative because staff used the low end of the range .provided by the consultant
for each use. Pads A and D are ssurned -to be retail, but sales tax can vary
substantially based upon the specific tenant. Based on this data, the proposed project
is estimated to generate roughly $100,000 annuafl y in sales tak revenue.
Staff estimates that some There - In the range of $30,000 to $40,000 - of the revenue
would be transferred from other businesses in the city and would not be new net
revenue. However, ever, this is based n- staffs preliminary assumptions regarding where
shoppers would transfer from and is not based on any statistical surrey information.
Therefore It should be presumed to. be a less reliable estimate than the overall sales
tax projections.
It is also estimated that the project will provide $25,000 in annual property tax revenue'
to the City, $36,000 in annual ,ta in rement r Redevelopment to the Agency,
and a one -tine payment t the Redevelopment pment Agency of appr xi'mat ly $174,000 for
reimbursement of costs for construction of the Poplar Ponding Basin. Finally, the total
estimated permit and development impact fee revenue is $1.32 million. This revenue is
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
TPIVI 10 -001 AND CUP 10 -001
FEBRUARY 8, 2071
PAGE 2
designed to reimburse the City for its expenses and to cover the costs to mitig
cumulative impacts of development in the community.
BACKGROUND:
BACKGRO UND:
B erm Gardens Specific Plan
The project site is identified as Subarea 3 in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP
and is approximately 4.47 acres in size. The BGSP was amended in 2005 to establish
development standards for both Subareas 3 and 4. specific Plan Amendment 10-001 is
being processed concurrently with the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional
Use Permit, both of which have been designed based on the provisions contained within
Specific Plan Amendment 10-001.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10-001 Af CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 3
Pro`ect Description
The proposed project will subdivide and develop 4.47 acres located at the southwest
corner of East Grand Avenue and South courtland Street as follows-
Pad/Lot Lot size. Pad Size Use
A11. 22,419 SF 5 SF Retail/Commercial
12 25 SF 8,767 SF Restaurant
C/3 111 SF 35 SF Groce
D1 24,786 SF 5,700 SF Retail /Commercial
Previous Citv council Review
The City council was scheduled to consider TP 1 10-001 and CUP 0 -001 at its
meeting of November 9, 2010; however, consideration was continued due to concerns
with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment Attachment 1).
Architectural Review committee Review
The Architectural Review Committee AFC reviewed Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and
Conditional lase Permit 10 -001 at its meeting of D ece mber 6, 2010 (Attachment 2). The
AFC unanimously recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map and conditional Use
Permit 10-001.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning commission considered TPI 110 -00'1 and CUP 10 -001 at its meeting of
December 7, 2010 (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission. unanimously adopted a
Resolution recommend ing that the City council approve TPII 10-00 1 and CUP 10 -001.
Traffic Commission Recommendation
The Traffic commission reviewed .Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use
Permit 10 -001 at its meeting of January 10, 2011. The Traffic Commission
recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and conditional Use Permit 10-
00'1.
► ALYSIS of ISSUES:
Legislative vs. Judicial Acts
Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one of three categories --
legislative, quasi-judicial - or ministerial:
Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates,
zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local lair — rules that
apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California laver, legislative acts
are subject to initiative and referendum.
Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislative acts) to
projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10-001 AND CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 4
discretionary, based on the decision - makers interpretation and application of
policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are net subject to initiative or
referendum.
• Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local
government, such as the mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are
met.
The proposed project is a quasi -judicial action — if approved, it will grant the property
owner entitlements to develop the property in substantial conformance with the
approved plans, subject to any conditions of approval.
Project Revisions
The proposed project has been revised based on City Council. direction and to achieve
consistency with Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001. If Specific Plan Arne ndrnent is _rot
approved, the proposed project cannot be considered -as it is inconsistent with the
existing Berry Gardens Specific Plan. Specific revisions are discussed in detail below:
Rear Yard Setback
Based on City Council direction and revisions to Specific Plan Amendment 10-
00 , the rear yard setback (Pad C ) has been increased from 10' to 15'. When
combined with the minimum side yard setback required in Subarea 4, a minimum
of 25' will be provided between any commercial and residential buildings.
Parkr'r
Although Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 allows for a parking reduction (181
required s paces based on proposed project size), with a total of 226 - parking
spaces, the proposed project exceeds citywide parking standards. Citywide
parking standards require one 1 space for every 250 square -feet of
retail c rrrmercial /office building area and one 1 space for every 100 square -
feet of publicly accessible restaurant building area. This equates to total of 243
parking spaces; however, Section 16.56.050 of the City's Municipal Code grants
a 20% reduction in total parking requirements for common parking facilities
(those that are shared between individual uses). This equates to a total of 194
spaces. At 22 spaces, the proposed project is over - parked by 16.4%.
Maximum Building Size
Based on City Council direction and the inclusion of a maximum building size to
Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001, the largest., building proposed (Pad C ) is
35,786 square -feet. . This is less than the maximum allowed building size of
37,500 square -feet and 15,095 square -feet 30% less than previously proposed
(50,881 square - feet).
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
TPIVI 10 -001 AND CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 5
Bus Turnout
Based on City Council direction and revisions to Specific Plan Amendment 10-
001 , the proposed site plan has been redesigned to accommodate -a bus turnout
along East Grand Avenue. The bus turnout is located east of the driveway,
between Pads A and B. The turnout was designed based on consultation with
representatives from the Regional Transit Authority ITA.
Traffic Impacts
Due to community concerns relating to potential traffic impacts, staff requested that the
City's ,traffic consultant conduct a peer - review of the traffic study prepared for Specific
Plan Amendment 10 -001, which includes analysis of the proposed project. As a result
of this peer - review, the City's traffic' consultant recommends that the curb return located
at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland
Street be moved sic feet to the unrest, to better accommodate larger 7' wheelbase)
trucks raking right turns onto South Courtland Street from East Grand Avenue. This
recommendation has been incorporated 'Into Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001 and the
proposed project has been conditioned to comply with this requirement. It should be
noted that while this requirement will increase traffic safety, it will impact the proposed
eastern outdoor seating /plaza area on Pad B.
Truck circulation
At the Planning Commission meeting of December 7, 2010 (reference Attachment 3),
the applicant presented a site plan that placed the loading dock for Pad C. on the
western (interior) side of the project site. Based on concerns regarding potential
conflicts between delivery truck movements through the site with customers, the
Planning Commission recommended, and the Traffic Commission - agreed that the
loading dock for Pad C should be located on the eastern ( e x terior) side of the project
site, adjacent to South Courtland Street. The loading dock area includes
enclosed /screened areas for trash and recycling.
Delivery trucks will access the commercial portion of the pro posed project from South
Courtland street, via the southernmost driveway. The loading dock area (aisle ' +
approach) exceeds the standards set forth in Municipal Code Section 1 6.56.170 (Off-
Street Loading Areas) -- the aisle width is 30' (14' required) and the dock approach is
130' 113' required). It will be necessary for delivery trucks with a wheelbase of 2' or
greater to briefly pull forward into the drive aisle in order to maneuver into the loading
dock. This is not considered to be a hazard condition, as it is expressly allowed
under the provisions of Municipal Code Section 16.56.170(B)(1). 1= urthermore, at no
point during this maneuver will the ream of the truck enter a drive aisle. All delivery
trucks with a 0' wheelbase or less will be able to maneuver into the loading dock
without crossing into a drive aisle.
The need for larger delivery trucks to utilize a portion of the drive aisle to maneuver into
the loading dock is necessary due to requirements for a 16 rear yard setback,
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10-001 ADD CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY 8,2011
PAGE 6
alignment of the driveway with the existing commercial driveway on the east side of
South Courtland Street and the length of the screening wall. Therefore, the same
condition will likely exist for any size rear commercial store unless a rear delivery lane is
constructed behind the store, which would be an undesirable condition for the adjacent
residential use. An alley would be an inefficient use of land and create public safety
concerns. This option was rejected by the City Council early in the process. Other
alternatives would be to reduce the rear setback requirement or eliminate the screening
gall, which staff believes are a less optimal design solutions. The City's traffic
consultant will present a simulation at the meeting demonstrating how this condition
proposed loading are will function.
Several residents have expressed concerns regarding the potential delay of delivery
truck access to the loading area. The proposed project exceeds minimum standards for
fading area dimensions Municipal Code Section 16.56.170). The loading dock is wide
enough to accommodate two 2 delivery trucks at the same time. There is also
adequate queuing space for to 2 additional trucks alongside the fading dock.
Several residents have also e concerns regarding the potential for delivery
trucks to use South Courtland Street as a shortcut to Oak Park Boulevard. Staff
believes this would be an unlikely occurrence because South Courtland Street provides
an undesirable route for trucks (too circuitous, which is evidenced by the lack of truck
traffic from the CS development (directly east of the project site) using. South
Courtland Street as a shortcut. However, in an attempt to further address these
concerns, staff has added a provision to the proposed amend r ent than will provide a
visual /physical barrier between Subareas I and 4 along south Courtland Street. This
barrier will consist of bulb -outs or road undulations and north- facing signage where
South Courtland Street narrows to two lanes, delineating the entrance to a residential.
neighborhood.
Design Guidelines and Enhancement Plan
The Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed -lase Districts (Design Guidelines) were
adopted by the City Council in 200 4, after the City's mixed-use zoning districts were
created. The Design Guidelines reference the East Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan
(Enhancement Plan), which was drafted and circulated - (but not formally adopted) in
2002, prior to creation of the City's mixed-use zoning districts.
The Design Guidelines provide site and building design requirements and architectural
concepts. The following excerpts pertain to the commercial development of Subarea 3:
Include specially treated pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to
buildings.
Buildings should enclose streets, plazas or paseos and contribute to well defined
and walkable blocks. Building placement, streetscape elements and landscaping
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10-001 AND CUP '1 -001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 7
each define the public realm. Consideration should be given to connectivity
between adjacent developments.
Projects should integrate porches, balconies, decks and seating areas that are
located to promote pedestrian use of the street edge by providing Breather
protection, comfort security, and safety. Design shall incorporate handicap
accessible access, considerations for walkers e.g. lockers, bicyclists e.g. bike
racks) and transit patrons.
Parking shall be located away from East Grand Avenue and shared by multiple
owners /users.
• The desired configurations and locations for off- street parking lots, in order of
preference, are:
Shared double - loaded aisle to - side or rear of building partially on-site and
partially off -site on neighboring parcel;
o Stared off -site or public parking lot within 500 feet}
Double - loaded aisle to side, rear, above or below building on -site.
Buildings shall be two to three stories, with active fronts e.g. articulated entries,
detailed facades). A three -story component may be appropriate within a project
located on a large lot and when it can be appropriately integrated considering
adjacent buildings and uses. The maximum height of a building should not
exceed 35 feet except if additional height is needed to accommodate a design
feature that contributes to both the character of the building and the surrounding
area, and if upper - floors are recessed and massing is well articulated. For
example, an additional story or tower element on a building at a key intersection
may delineate a corner landmark building.
Ground floors should have clear articulation and a tall ceiling height e.g. 10-15
feet.), and have a high percentage fenestration arrangement of windows/doors —
g - 0% of the facade). A wnings and overhangs are encouraged.
Emphasize three - dimensional detailing on fagades such as cornices, window
moldings, and reveals to cast shadows and create visual interest on the fa ade.
The purpose of the Enhancement Plan is to "define a design framework for bath future
public improvements and further private developments that will enhance the functions
and aesthetics of this particular area [properties adjacent to East Grand Avenue] ". The
following objectives of the Enhancement Plan apply to the commercial development of
Subarea 3:
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10-001 AND CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY Y 8, 2011
PAGE 8
Provide for a diversity of retail and service c ommercial, offices, residential and
other compatible uses, in size and kale to fit the "rural. setting and small town
character" of Arroyo Grande, without duplication of the function or character of
other commercial areas.
• Plain for a revitalized East Grand Avenue Ted -Use corridor that has less of a
strip commercial aspect and more consistent, coordinated ,Hiked -use boulevard
ambiance with district activity subareas: Highway, Midway and Gateway.
Include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel
by walking, bicycling and transit as well as automotive access, along the entire
corridor.
Promote development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage with
rear yard and side street parking. Include substantial landscaping and
streetsoape improvements.
Propose functional design including specialized open space such as squares,
courtyards and plazas whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and
design such as proximity to public transit stops. Allover density bonuses and
shared or public parking reduction to increase development intensity and enable
more efficient utilization.
Propose designs for attractive streetsca pe including street trees- and other
landscaping, building fagade improvements, better signage and more consistent
and coordinated development design, including fearer driveways and
enhancement of off - street parking areas.
The proposed project appears to meet the goals and objectives of both the Design
Guidelines and Enhancement Plan, as required by Specific Plan Amendment 10-001.
Specifically, the proposed project includes:
Two 2 outdoor patio areas on Pad A and two 2 outdoor patio areas on Pad E;
• Three 3 tree islands bulb outs along East Grand Avenue;
Enhanced pavement in areas along East Grand Avenue;
0 Landscape buffer along East Grand Avenue, South Courtland Street and along
the East Grand Avenue driveway;
0 Enhanced pedestrian walkways throughout the site; and
Enhanced ACA access from Grand Avenue.
Additionally, the proposed project includes larger buildings than previously proposed
along the East Grand Avenue frontage and a fourth building has been added along the
South Courtland Street frontage to further enclose the street.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10-001 AND CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 9
Fire A
The proposed project includes an emergency access driveway located on the eastern
side of the property that connects to Subarea 4. Access between the two subareas will
be controlled through the use of bollards or other method ap proved by the Fire Chief.
The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of the California Fire
Code.
Landsca in en ace
The proposed project includes several landscaped areas and outdoor activity /plaza
areas, totaling 1 8,604 square -feet. This equates to an average of 1,721 square -feet for
every 5,000 square -feet of building area (Exhibit B, sheet DP1).
Content Stud
Ting aerial photog and the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), staff has
g p sta
prepared a content study comparing the lot coverage of the-proposed project to that of
existing developments in the vicinity (Attachment 4). Based on the results of the content
study, the proposed project is consistent with existing developments along East Grand
Avenue, especially those that consist of multiple retail /commercial tenants with a clearly
defined anchor tenant.
Use vs. Tenant
Much of the previous public comment regarding the proposed project has focused on
identified /potential tenants, specifically the anchor tenant (Pad C.. Although no tenant
is identified for Pad C at. this time, the proposed use remains as a grocery store. One of
the required findings for approval of a Conditional Use Permit CUP is that the
proposed use is permitted within the subject zoning district — although the project site is
part of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, the underlying zoning district remains Gateway
Mixed-Use GMU , which permits grocery store uses. The City cannot legally regulate,
prohibit or mandate specific tenants — it can only regulate uses. Furthermore, there is
nothing in the City's General Plan or Municipal Code that restricts the number of grocery
stores within any given area.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution, approving Tentative Panel Map 10-001 and
Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 as recommended by the Planning Commission;
2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution, removing Condition of Approval # 8, if
consistent with Specific Plan Amendment 10-00 1 action; or
3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution; or
4. Provide direction to staff.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
TPM 10001 AND CUP 10 -001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 10
ADVANTAGES:
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 will
generate additional sales tax revenue to the City and tax increment revenue to the
Redevelopment Agency. Approval will also accomplish economic development goals,
create jobs and enhance the western gateway to the city, particularly through
development of pedestrian - friendly street-front commercial buildings.
DISADVANTAGES:
Approving Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001 would
develop vacant property, increasing traffic in the vicinity and also provide additional
competition to existing businesses. While any development of this vacant property
consistent with the city's General Plan and the Berry Gardens Specific Plan will
inevitably increase traffic beyond existing levels, the increase in vehicle trips generated
by the proposed project will not exceed thresholds of significance as determined by the
City's environmental review, either in and around East Grand Avenue or through the
Berry Gardens neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEA Guidelines, staff
has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MIND) for Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001. Because the proposed project is
consistent with the project described in the II ND prepared for Specific Plan Amendment
10 -001, no further environmental review is required, as the potentially significant
environmental impacts have been identified and reduced to a less than significant level
through the application of mitigation measures in the MND. If the II ND is not adopted,
the proposed project cannot be approved at this time.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300} of the project
site and also published in the Tribune on Friday, January 14, 2011. A Notice of
Continuance from the ,January 2, 2011 meeting to the February 8, 2011 meeting was
posted on Wednesday, January 2, 2011. Because consideration of this item was
continued to a date certain, no further notification was required nor given. Attachment 6
contains all public comment received since January 25, 2011.
Response to Public Comment
Based On the amount and content of public comment received to date regarding the
proposed project, it is clear that further clarification of several issues is necessary. Staff
has identified, listed and attempted to address these issues as follows:
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
TPIVI 10-001 AND CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE I I
'I. The proposed project does not comply rrith the purpose and intent
of Municipal Code section 16.36.010.
A. Provide appropriately located areas for office uses, retail stores, service
establishments, and commercial commodities and services required by
residents of the city and the surrounding market area.
The proposed project is appropriately located on East Grand Avenue,
which is one of the City's three main commercial corridors (East and Vilest
Branch Street being the other two). Land Use Policy L -10.1 targets the
project site for high - intensity mixed-use development. Furthermore, the
Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed -Use Districts state that the
purpose of the Gateway Mixed-Use '(GMU ) design overlay district in
which the proposed project is located) is to provide the "continued
development of a larger scale store -front c ommercial gateway- area [that]
will accommodate buildings with a distinctive design on a larger scale- than
elsewhere in the City ".
B. Encourage the conce ntration of office and commercial uses for the
convenience of the public and to secure a more mutually beneficial
relationship to each other.
The proposed project provides a concentration of commercial uses,
including a grocer, a restaurant, and retail convenient to both existing and
proposed residential development.
C. Provide adequate space to meet the reeds of modem commercial
development. This includes off - street parking and loading areas.
The proposed project exceeds minimum standards for both off-street
parking Municipal Code sections 16.56.050 and 16.56.060) and loading
areas (Municipal Code Section 16.56.170).
D. Minimize a traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the
amount of land around therm.
The proposed building sizes are consistent with existing commercial
development on East Grand Avenue based on lot coverage and floor area
ratio — both functions of building size in relation to the amount of land
around them.
. Promote high standards of site planning, architecture and landscape
design for office and commercial developments within the city.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 11
CITY COUNCIL
TPIIA 10-001 AND CUP 10-001
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 12
The proposed project includes many features described in and
recommended by the Design Guidelines for Hiked -lase Districts, including
outdoor seating areas, enhanced paving areas and greens.
F. Promote compact community design to enhance safety and reduce
auto travel by providing shopping services, jobs and housing in proximity.
The proposed project provides shopping services to both existing and
planned housing in proximity to the project site.
2. The proposed project does not comply with Municipal code section
16-36.030(E).
Municipal Code section 16.36.030(E) requires commercial and mixed-use
projects to provide Zoo square -feet of publicly accessible open space
( exclusive of parking and driveway areas) for every 5,000 square -feet of
office or commercial building area. The proposed project includes a total
of 55,053 square -feet of commercial building area, requiring a total of
2,202 square -feet of publicly accessible open space ,03 5;000) *
200). Land -lase Policy LU -11.3 states that development in mixed-use
corridors provide functional design including of specialized open space,
such as squares, courtyards and greens whose frequent use is
encouraged through placement and design, such as in proximity to public
transit stops. The "green" adjacent to the bus turnout totals 2,357 square -
feet. Therefore, every if ail outdoor seating areas are excluded, the
proposed project complies with Municipal l Code Section 16.3 .030E .
3. The proposed project cannot adequately accommodate truck
deliveries.
Please refer to "Truck Circulation" above.
The project site cannot support a grocery store use due to truck
delivery and storage space requirements.
Please refer to "Truck Circulation" above. The proposed project includes
a screened area for both trash and storage of recyclable materials. The
size and shape of the proposed loading /storage area is compared to
existing commercial loading /storage areas in Attachment 7.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 12
CITY COUNCIL
TPIVI 10 -001 AND CUP 10 -001
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 93
Attachments (Attachments 1-5 previously distributed to City Council and on file at City
Hall and on the City's rebsite :
1. City Council Minutes, November 9, 2010
2. ARC meeting notes, De ember 6, 201
3. Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, December 7, 201
4. Content study
5. Public comment
6. Public comment received since January 25, 2011
7 Commercial loading /storage area comparison
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 13
RESOLUTION No.
RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 10-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT 10-001;
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER of EAST
GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH COU RTLA 1 STREET;
APPLIED FOR BY ITT COMMERCIAL
WHEREAS, the developer has filed Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001 and Conditional Use
Permit 10-001 to, subdivide 4.47 acres into four 4 parcels and construct four 4
commercial buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted
Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 10 -001
and Conditional Use Permit 10 -001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEOA , the State CEOA
Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rule's and Procedures for Implementation of CEOA
and has found that the project is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
adopted for Specific Arnendr ent 10-00 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a
duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Tentative Parcel Map Findings:
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with. goals, objectives,
policies, plans, programs intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande
General Plan, as well as any applicable Specific Plan, and the
requirements of this title.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Arroyo Grande
General Plan and subdivision development standards for Subarea 3 of the
Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed development of four ( 4 )
commercial rcial buildingrs., which meet all applicable development standards
for subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
3. The site Is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 14
RESOLUTION CVO.
PAGE 2
The proposed development meets minimum standards for lot size for
Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens specific Plan.
4 The design of the Tentative Parcel Map or the proposed improvements
ents
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
There is nothing relating to the design of the Tentative Parcel Map to
indicate that it will cause any environmental damage or that it would in ure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements ents is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
There is nothing relating to the design of the subdivision to indicate that it
will cause serious public health problems.
6. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements acquired .by the public at large for access
through, or use of, property within the proposed Tentative Parcel Map or
that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that
these alternative easements will be substantially equivalent to ones
previously acquired by the public.
There is nothing relating to the design of the Tentative Parcel Map to
indicate that it will conflict with any public access easements.
7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing
community serer system will not result in violation of existing
requirements as prescribed by Division commencing with Section
1 3000 of the California Water Code.
The community sewer system has adequate capacity to accommodate the
proposed subdivision.
8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the
result of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map to support project
development.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will not burden existing public
services which are adequate to support project development.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 15
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 3
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
I . The proposed use is permitted within the. subject district pursuant t o the
provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of
this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Flan,
and the development policies and standards of the City.
The proposed commercial uses are permitted within Subarea 3 by way of
the Gateway Mixed-Use GM zoning district) of the Berry Gardens
Specific Plan and complies with all applicable Municipal Coale
requirements, the goals and objectives of the General Plan (Lanai Use
Policies L U 5-2 and L 5-10. and the development policies and
standards of the City.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the
district its which it is to be established or located.
The proposed commercial uses are consistent and compatible with the
Gateway Mixed-Use GM ricer district
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed.
The proposed development is below maximum lot coverage and floor area
ratio A standards set forth for commercial development in Subarea 3
of the Berry Gardens Specific flan.
4. There are adequate provisions .for water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure public health and safety.
Adequate capacity for water, sanitation and public utilities and services
exist to serge the project; therefore, public health and safety will not be
impacted.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the
vicinity.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare nor would it be materially injurious to properties and improvements
in the vicinity.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 16
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED LED that the City Council of the City o Arroyo
Grande hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 10-001. and Conditional Use Permit 10-
0 1 with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On notion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the
following roll gall Grote, to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution vas adopted this 8 t " day of February, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 17
RESOLUTION N .
PAGE
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
O
ATTEST.
KELLY I ETMO E, CITY CLEF
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
T:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL., CITY ATTORNEY
EY
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 18
RESOLUTION No,
PAGE
EXHIBIT `A'
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10-001
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1
SOUTHWEST CORNER of
EAST GRAND AVENUE AND
SOUTH COU TLA 1D STREET
This approval authorizes the subdivision of 4.47 acres into. four parcels and the
construction of four commercial buildings.
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
'I. The developer shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, state, County and
City requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The developer shall comply with all conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel
Map 10-001 and Conditional Use Permit -001
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the City Council at its meeting of February 8, 2011 (Exhibit "B").
4. The developer shall, as a condition of approval of this tentative or final neap
application, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its
present or former agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City, its past or present agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or annul City's approval of this subdivision, which action is
brought within the time period provided for by laver. This condition is subject to
the provisions of Government Code section 66474.9, which are incorporated by
reference herein as though set forth in full.
PLANNING DIVISION:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
5. The developer may modify the approved site plan to increase the size of any
commercial building located along East Grand Avenue, provided that the total
square footage of the project does not exceed 58,500 square -feet and no
individual building exceeds 37,500 square -feet, subject to revie w by the
Architectural Review Committee and approval of the Director of Community
Development.
6. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall submit the language for
a fifteen (1 5) foot access, drainage and landscape easement for the benefit of
both Subareas, subject to review by and approval of the Director of Community
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 19
RESOLUTION ISO.
PAGE
Development.
7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide a n easement
for the benefit of the Regional Transit Authority (FTA) for a bus shelter located
on Parcel 2, to be reviewed and approved by the F TA.
8. The site plan shall be revised to relocate the curb return on the southwestern
corner of East Grand Avenue and South Courtland Street six feet to the west
in accordance with Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001.
g. The site plan shall be revised to include a visual /physical barrier on south
Courtland Street between Subareas 1 and 4 In accordance with Specific Plan
Amendment 10-001.
ENGINEERING ING DI ISIO :
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
10. Provide the recorded documents that created the lot to be subdivided.
11, Verify that the existing lift station in Tract 2260 has adequate capacity to serge
the proposed development. If not, design and fund the upgrade o r the lift station
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
12. All on -site sewer lines shall be noted as 1t private '.
13. Extend the ' sewer line in Courtland Street to serve the project (connection to
the Grand Avenue sewer line is impeded by existing water and gas lines).
14. The " water main loop through the project site shall be located in a 15' wide
grater main easement.
15. Remove and replace any damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the Grand
Avenue frontage.
1. Dedicate 10 feet of right -of -ray on South Courtland Street.
17. Install fall frontage improvements (including street widening, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, landscaping and street - lighting) on South Courtland street to City
Standards. No o n-street parking shall be allowed on South Courtland Street.
1. implement LID BMPs into the project design to the extent practicable, as
determined by the Director of Community Development.
19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall reimburse the
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 20
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE
Redevelopment Agency for the proportionate costs associated with expansion of
the Poplar Ponding Basin.
20. Prior to issuance of a grading perm it, the developer shall submit two ) copies of
the final project - specific Water Quality Management Plan W MF consistent
with San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board ( SLORWQCB )
requirements.
21. Underground all overhead utilities along the project frontage per City standards.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
22. Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations
or as directed by the Director of Community Developme or the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Maintenance.
23. Perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through
Friday, 7 A.M. to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or
contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance
outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or .approved by the Director
of Public Works. The City may hold the developer or contractor responsible for
any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these hours.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
24. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. . .
2. Submit four full -size paper copies and one 1 ' full -size mylar copy of
approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction.
26. Submit as -built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as
directed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance.
27. One 1 set of r ylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AultoCAD format
shall be required.
28. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department:
a. Grading, drainage and erosion control,
b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk,
C. Public utilities,
d. Water r and sewer,
e. Landscaping and irrigation,
f. Any other improvements as required by the Director of Parks, Recreation
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 21
RESOLUTION No,
PAGE 9
and Maintenance.
29. The site plan shall include the following:
a. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm
drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys.
. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed severer laterals.
C. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
d. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the
Property.
e. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
30. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed
streets, utilities and retaining walls.
31. Landscape and irrigation plans are required for landscaping within the public
right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development and Parks
and Recreation and Maintenance Departments. In addition, The Director of
Parks, Recreation and Maintenance shall approve any landscaping or irrigation
within a public right of way or otherwise to be maintained by the City.
HATE
32. Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande
does not allo w the use of hydrant meters.
33. The developer shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in
water demand created by the project by either:
Implement an individual water program' consisting of retrofitting existing off -site
high -flow plumbing fixtures with low flog devices. The calculations shall be
submitted to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance for review and
approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval prior to implementation; OR,
The developer may pay an in lieu fee.
SEWER
3. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
35. Underground -all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16-68.050 of the
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 22
RESOLUTION N N .
PACE 1
Development Code.
36. Submit all improvement vement plans to the public utility companies for pp r val and
comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director o Community
Development for approval.
GRADING
3. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance
38. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered Civil Eng ineer and
supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be
performed in accordance with the approved soils report.
g. Submit all retaining gall calculations for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development for galls not constructed per City standards.
n 1
g. All off -site drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-y
storm flow. The developer shall provide calculations to verify that the Poplar
P nding Basin can accommodate post - development storm flow from the project.
1. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan.
DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS
2. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a
document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the developer on 8 12
11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure
calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The developer shall be
responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City
processing.
PERMITS
3. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following:
a. Performing work in the City right of way,
b. Staging work in the City right of way,
- C. Stockpiling material in the City right of gray,
d. Storing equipment in the City right of way.
44. Obtain a grading permit prior to m en ement of any grading operations on
site.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 23
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 11
FEES
4. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due (for your information, the
"Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions" is
provided below.
4. Water Meter, service main, distribution, and availability fees, to be based o n
codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. Water neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
4. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
49. Traffic Signaliation fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
o. sewer hook -up & facility Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
51, Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being
developed.
2. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
3. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program SHIP fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with State
mandate.
4. Fire Protection fee to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit 'issuance.
55. Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
5. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval:
a. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate.
b. Plan check for im provement plans based on an approved construction
cost estimate.
C. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate.
d. Inspection fee of public works construction plans based on an approved
construction cost estimate.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 24
RESOLUTION TION I O.
PAGE 12
PROCEDURE E Fo PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS ATIONS of
EXACTIONS:
( A) Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying
all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by
meeting both of the following requirements
( 1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of
arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the
conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition.
( Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of
the following information:
(a) A statement that the required payment is tendered -or will be_
tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed
are provided for or satisfied, under protest.
( b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of
the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest.
(B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision A shall be filed at the time of the
approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the
date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to
be imposed o n a development project.
(C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision A may file an action to
attach, revie set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications
reservations, o r other exactions imposed on a development project by a local
agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice.
(D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of
this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is
approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a
tentative reap or tentative parcel map is not required.
( E) The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, o r other exactions occurs, for
the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific
development.
AGREEMENTS
57. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 25
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 13
imp rovements.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES
58. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code
Section 16.68.030, Improvement Securities.
g. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for revie w
by the Director of Community Development.
o. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost
estimate approved by the Director of Community Development:
a. Faithful Performance: 100 of the approved estimated cost of all project
improvements,
b. Labor and Materials: o of the approved estimated cost of all project
improvements
C. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all project
improvements. This security is required prior to acceptance of the project
improvements.
PRIOR T ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT
1. The Public Works plans shall be approved by the Assistant city Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANC
2. All utilities shall be operational.
3. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Ion -
essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities,
may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Director of Community
Development.
BUILDING DI ISOI .
64 Comply with the latest adopted California Codes.
65. Obtain County of San Luis Obispo Health Department approval where required.
FIDE DEPARTMENT:
T:
6. The number and location of all required fire hydrants shall be determined by the
Fire Chief.
Installation of an NFPA 13 system shall be required for all commercial buildings.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 26
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 14
68 Address number shall be Arabic numerals or Alphabet Letters. Numbers shall be
a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stole width of o. 5 inch in residential
commercial zones.
9. All driveways shall be designated and posted as "Fire Lane, No Parking ". All
designated fire lanes shall be red striped with the wor FIDE LANE stenciled
every 50 feet.
70. As per CFC 503.2.3, the driveway shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed loads of fire apparatus (75,000 pounds minimum).
71. Prior to delivery of combustible building materials on -site, the hydrants and water
system shall pass all required tests and be connected to the public water system.
72. Prior to construction of combustible materials, an all - Breather surface shall be in
place to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The surface shall be
of sufficient thickness to support the imposed load of a fire apparatus. The
access for use of firefighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job
construction site at the start of construction and maintained at all time until
construction is completed.
73. The grater system for the project shall be looped, either as a stand-alone system
or in conjunction with Subarea 4.
RECREATION EATIOI AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES:
7. A final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Director of Recreation and
Maintenance Services for revie w and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
T:
7. A final lighting plan and all proposed safety measures shall be submitted to the
Police Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7. The rear of any building along the southern property line shall incorporate graffiti -
resistant material.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
77. All trash receptacles shall be screened.
78. The site plan shall be revised to include one 1 additional tree in front of Pad B.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 27
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM:
AM:
79. IVIM III -'I: The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and
adhered to for all construction - related permits:
Deduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when
wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed ed (nor'- potable) water shall be
used whenever possible.
All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed.
Permanent dust - control measures identified in the approved
revegetation /landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil- disturbing activities.
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be re worked more than one 1
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast - germinating native
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods
approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board APCD.
All roadways driveways, sidewalks s and other areas to be paged should
be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 1 MPH on
any unpaved surface at the construction site.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered
or shall maintain at least two 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical
distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with C C
Section 23114.
Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto streets or gash off trucks and equipment prig to leaving the
construction site.
Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. eater sweepers with reclaimed non -
potable water should be used where feasible.
The contractor /builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and
implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints,
reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport
of dust off -site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall
be provided to the Air Pollution Control District APC prig to the start of
any construction - related activities.
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 28
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 1
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive re shall not be permitted.
• Use of alternative-fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible.
Signs that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced
at the construction site.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
g. MM I11-2: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a
geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if 'naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. if NOA is not present, an
exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If h1 A is found at the site, the
developer must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air- Resource Board
(ARB) Air To ins Control Measure ATOM for Construction, Grading, Q uarrying
and Surface Mining Operations.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
1. MM 111 -3: All portable equipment 50 horsepower or greater) used during
construction must be issued a permit by either the CAIB or the APCD.
Monitoring: Site inspection
Responsible Party: Building Division
Timeline: During construction activities
2. MM 111-4: Should hydrocarbon - contaminated soil be encountered during
construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight hours of
such contaminated soil being discovered to determine -if an APCD permit is
.required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented, immediately
after contaminated soil is discovered:
Corers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas
not actively involved in soil addition or removal.
Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of paled,
uncontaminated soil or other TPH — non - permeable barrier such as plastic
tarp. No headspe shall be allowed where vapors could aurnulate.
Covered piles .shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due
to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.
Daring soil excavation, odors shall ot be evident to such a degree as to
cause a public nuisance.
Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 29
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 1
Monitoring:
Responsible Party:
Timeline:
Site inspection
Building Division
During construction activities
3. MM 111- 5: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include
the establishment of a 'no idle' zone for diesel - powered delivery vehicles.
Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the
following techniques:
Each delivery vehicle's engine shall be shut Off immediately after arrival in
the leading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively
maneuvering.
The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum imum a tent
feasible.
Vehicle operators shall be made aware o f the `no idle' zone, including
notification by letter to all delivery companies.
Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to
remind drivers to shut off their engines.
Diesel idling within 1 ,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted.
Use of alternative- fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible.
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1 ,000 feet of
sensitive receptors.
Monitoring: Site inspection
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to certificate of occupancy, periodical during
operation of commercial buildings
84. MM -'l: Any areas where native (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed b
construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall fiat be inspected by a
qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. If
cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be
conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified
and implemented.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
85. MM 111 -1: The project proponent shall submit a reprised geotechnicai study or
addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and
recommendations in the original report are valid or, if the original conclusions
and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and
recommendations where necessary.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 30
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 18
Monitoring:
Responsible nsible Party:
Timeline:
Plan check
Engineering Division
Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
86. IIIIM V11-2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and
updated geotechnical study based on the study prepared for the project by GSI
Soils Inc. dated April 2006.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
87. IIIIIII'1 1111 -1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG- reducing
measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project
sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to
the APCD for revie w and approval, incorporating the following measures:
Incorporate o electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric
appliances and tools.
Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative
emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 0% tree
coverage within 10 years of construction using lover ROG emitting, to
maintenance native drought resistant trees.
•
No residential wood burning appliances.
• Provide employee lockers and shovers. One shower and 5 lockers for -
ever y 25 employees are recommended.
Trusses for south- facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle
dead weight loads of standard solar- heated water and photovoltaic
panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south- facing roof surface,
based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar
panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the
ideal average solar e shall be used.
Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements.
Measures used to reach the 20° ranting cannot be double counted.
• Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of
buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.
Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient
recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible.
• Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.
0 Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the
high summer sun, but not the to wer winter sun, from penetrating south
facing windows (passive solar design).
Utilize high efficiency gars or solar water beaters.
• Utilize built -in energy efficient appliances i.e. Energy Star).
Utilize double -paned windows.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 31
RESOLUTION CVO.
PAGE 19
•
Utilize low energy street lights i.e. sodium.
•
Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.
Install energy - reducing programmable thermostats.
Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE
Energy Star@ rating to reduce summer cooling needs.
Eliminate high water consumption landscape e.g., plants and lawns) in
residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are
low ROG emitting.
Provide on -site bicycle parking both short terra (racks) and long terra
(lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to
bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack
space per 10 vehicle /employee space is recommended.
Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the
connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the
need to operate diesel -po wered TRUs at the loading docks.
Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or
covered racks lockers to service the residential units.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
88. MM V11-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:
Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow
infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal stoma drain
system.
• Faun -off Control. Maintain past - development peak runoff rate and average
volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre- development levels.
Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Label new stoma
drain inlets with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean" to alert the public to the
destination of stor water and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into
the storm drain.
• Vehicle/Equipment Clea. rri . Commercial /industrial facilities or multi-
family residential developments f g knits or greater should either
p
provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage
vehicle /equipment gashing by removing hose bibs and installing signs
prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paged
designed to prevent run -on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain
to the sanitary serer.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 32
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE
• Car Washin Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and
operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm
drain system. Wastewater grater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary
serer or wa reclamation system.
•
Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter
control for commercial and industrial projects or large -scale residential
developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water
bodies o the storm drain system.
Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including
restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink o other area for cleaning
floor- rats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease
interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The
cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of
equipment t0 be cleaned.
Refuse Areas Trash compactors, enclosures and dur pster areas should
be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-
contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary server if crater
cannot be diverted from the areas.
Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other
chemicals stored Outdoors -must b e in containers and protected from
drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners,
vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer syste Bu lk
materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with
berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be
inspected for paper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces
and covered. Implement a regular program Of sweeping and litter control
and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.
• Cleaning, Maintenance and Pr cessia. .--,,Contr Controls. used for
gashing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have
impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled
grater wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to
the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of
an industrial waste discharge permit.
Loading Dock Controls Design loading docks to be covered, surrounded
by berms or curbs, o constructed t0 prevent drainage onto o from the
area. Position roof downspouts to direct st rmwater array from the loading
area. eater from loading d ock areas shall be drained to the sanitary
sewer, Or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 33
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 21
sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be
installed to prevent e of loading activities to rain.
Street Parking Lot Sweepi� Implement a program to regularly sweep
streets, side walks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter
and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped
and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Ilashwater
containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and
discharged to the sanitary severer.
Monitoring Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
g. MM X111-1: All store deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of :00 AM
to 10:00 PM, and the current parking limitations on either side of south
Dourtland street shall be maintained.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to -issuance of a building or grading permit,
periodical during operation of commercial buildings
90. MM X111-2: Construction plans for any store located along the rear of Subarea 3
shall include a noise barrier, either a block gall or an extension of the store
building, to be net less than twelve (1 2) feet above the delivery area, tapering to
a height of sic 6 at the eastern property line (back of sidewalk) at a 1 :1 ratio.
Additionally, any residential structures that, absent the noise harrier, would have
a direct line of sight to the delivery area shall include acoustical treatment to
reduce exterior noise levels by thirty 3 decibels, the cost of which shall be
borne by the developer of the store.
Monitoring: Plan check
Resp Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 34
TTAH 1 EST
Public Comment Received
Since January 26., 2011
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 35
Cookie Crock Warehouse
Al Colony Enterp Inc.
?� E. Grand A v -
rToyo Gran . C 934420 ,
TeI: (805) 9 2'" -1302-
FAX. (805027-1
1. l V 1 , v Facsimn!e Transarxission) of
Ms. Teresa M C1 ish.
Arroyo G rande Community De velopment Director
r rro o Grande. CA
lie= Staff Reports re: C1ty Counci1 Me ti ng of F ebruary 8. 2 011
Consideration of Specific Plan Amendment; Tentative Parcel dap; and Conditional Use
Permit Southwest Corner of East Grand Ave. and South Courfland St.; NKT Applicant
And related draft Mitigated 1Cgative Declaration
ration
Todav I Iearned about, some confusion over the proposed specific plan amendment. An Arroyo {o Grande
architect recently asked City staff about filing an app Iic tioal for are am en di nt to the Hera• G ardens Spe ci f e
PIan. H e w islied to apply for an ov rl ay that would lie it sales on Subarea 3 to a cermiP P ercentage ofnon-
taxable food products. Rewa5 told the price vas - 000.00. I've looked at 01 10 C C IMMU f it # D evelopment
application Fees but can find no Iist d price for t1iis app] K.ation. ['lease clarify the price for this ap plic ea 0n
because we may aced to file one dep ndin on the Cil - 5 response to this letter.
I understand his application arose d ue to confusion a t the la t Council iinecting when a councilman asked for
Iarifcation on use regulations for S+ib r a . Ike said staff bad told hire that the C Ity c o uld n of im pose suc In
restrictions. I respeetfufly ask the. City to Init nediat l , clarify this issue b confirming the Council has been or
xv i I I be inf r ed it does have authority to restrict or re izul ate the use of S ubarea 3 and riozh1n g to the contrary
has been suggested by Staff. Frankly- I don't We 11OW the City could per om its duty under the general plan
%vii gout such power- I understand The City h irnpo �� use rest tion are reJ cted applications based on uses
rt
in the past. I don't be] e- another a pp Iication. even for a modest overl would be rjecess ary, but if Staff
disagrees. l reed to kno w .ASAP.
A le be I ieve another cy rocery store would be contrary to the C neral Plan and riot in the best interests o the
net glibothood or the City* generally. NVc believe it will create rraffic jams, unemployment,, blight, aestheti
issues, and many negative nvironmen a -1 effects. It d1f - �ct1y im pact s our Arroyo G rande. store, Spencer Fresh
Foods and othe r local bus in s es_ We XVM denied fair ncit',ce an d due process at dhe prior Plannin.&
OITIT n i SS i011 rneeting wh ich operated vet tiff oki ect icon ; wlAL gout requiring th e app ic_arnt to state that thh use
%v as a grocery stor pr priate ad vice from - Staff prob. -W a - a dded to tl# ;�rciudice- Accordingly, we
rclX! a�orr irrltr� dia #e cl ari fi cation.
1pirie Ioi - prises, Inc.
By RUSSELL S. READ
Its General Council
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 36
January 31, 2011 � ..
[Mayor Tony Ferrara
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
E: Courtland Plaza, city Application 10-001 Berry Gardens specific Plan Amendment
Dear Mayor Ferrara,
As a resident of Berry Gardens, I am not in favor of the Courtland Plaza project as currently
presented. I live on the corner of Loganberry Avenue and South Courtland Street, next to Dingo
Part.
My concerns include:
0 Increased traffic through our quiet neighborhood streets.
0 Air - fouling diesel grocery trucks driving and staging through our neighborhood.
0 Noisy truck deliveries at all hours of the night and early morning. '
0 Primary entrance off Courtland Street, which is not suitable to handle the heavy, flow of
oars and trucks.
0 Pedestrian safety at corners and crosswalks, due to truck and increased oar traffic.
our neighborhood is already saturated with grocery stores; there are already established large
S pencer's, , Mons and Cool ie Crock grocery stores within a half -mile of our house. Why would a
never, additional large grocery store be needed — or supported by the community?
I strongly urge you and the city council to have the Courtland Plaza project re- designed to
ensure my concerns have been addressed.
Sincerely,
�d
Donna lion
1504 Loganberry Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 37
February 2, 2011
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
.angs on and arbara ate
1 526 Huckleberry Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
.e: Couland Plaza Proposed Development
Please vote N.
r
As residents of Berry Gardens we fuel it is s beautiful neighborhood and we value i very
much. It is considered `safe" and many children cone here on Halloween to trier or
treat.
The development proposes a large grocery store be built. This proposal allows for truck
traffic which creates a hazard on Courtland Ave. Currently eve have no need another
market. we feel this will d.arnage our locally owned market and may cause closures.
The proposal includes low income housing. This is good. But is should include open
space for children to play and not be intrusive on existing homes.
We appreciate our City Council working to protect the very special nature of our
community and kno w that a commercial development that is more appropr�atel r designed
is in the hest interests of all of Arroyo Grande.
Sincer $? �
Fe't - X
r464 A enda�e 9.d.
Page 38
Dear Mayor Ferrara,
As a resident of Berry Gardens, I am not in favor of the Courtland Plaza project as currently
presented.
My concerns include:
0 Increased traffic through our quiet neighborhood streets.
• Pedestrian safety at corners and crosswalks, due to truck and increased car traffic.
0 Noisy truck deliveries at all hours of the night and early morning.
• Air - fouling diesel grocery trucks driving and staging through our neighborhood.
0 Primary entrance off Courtland Street, which is not suitable to handle the heavy flow of
oars and trucks.
Our neighborhood is already saturated with .grocery stores. Within a half -mile of my house,
there are large Spencer's, lions and Cookie Cro grocery stores. Why w ould a new, additional
grocery store be needed T-- or successful?
I strongly request that you and the City Council have the Courtland Plaza project re- designed to
address nay concerns.
Respectfully,
Kevin Moon
150 Loganberry Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 39
02/ K 3 P/ 2 @11 09: 05 8059272344 LISSELLi E PAGE 02/12
Cookie Crock Warehouse
Alpine Colony Enterprises, Inc.
1221 E. Grand Ave.
Arroyo Grande, CA 9.3420
Tzar]: {805) 97 -102
FAX (805) 427 -1629
2.1" Ol ] OBE' Facsimile Transmission
GIs, Tercsa McClish
Arroyo Grande Community Development Director
Arroyo Grande, CA
Fie: Staff Deports re: City Council Meeting of February 8, 2011
Consideration of Specific Plan Amendment; Tentative Parcel Map} and Conditional Use
Pen -nit; Southwest Corner of Fast Grand Ave. and Sou' th Courtland St.; NKT Applicant
And related draft Mitigated Negati ve 3 cclaration (1*vIND); FSSH Project
Dear Ms. Mc fish:
We respectfully ask that this letter. the two attached excerpts from the C it 's Stagecoach Express
Newsletters A ril -Jun 2010: July - September 20 1 and the attached letter fi-om Del Clegg, Jr,
our Vice president be made a part of the Staff Memoranda for these three Agenda :terms. We
hope to supplement this letter at tie Council Meeting.
We 'respectfully ask that these applications be continued for at least 30 days so that we and other
interested parties may have time to respond to the revised NN and gather additional evidence
on the physical damages caused by the social and economic impact of the Project. See
Discussion on Deficiencies #I and 92 be] o w. Alternathe el y, we ask Staff to Teconimend are EI
for the Project.
We have offered some Other alt r ti • to e considered and assessed:
Limiting the gross sales of nontaxable food items on Subarea 3.
• Requng owners of Subarea 3, pad C to obtain a Conditional Use Pert prior to using
the Pad as a grocery.
We have attempted to find -Out if Staff believed some type of overlay imposing the above
restriction on the Specific Plan Arn nd ent w necessary or appropriate but Sad` has not
responded to my letter of January 31 2011.
We respectfully ask you to respond to our concerns (including my letter of 1/3 1 b p..
Friday February 4. 0I t in order t ove us a limited opportunity to prepare for the February
2011 Council Meeting. We ask also that Staff respond to the deficiencies in the NfND stated
below by this data and time.
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 40
02 0 3 2011 09:05 8059272344 PU TSE LL RE D PAGE 03/
This letter w ill pn'marily address additional defeCTS in the N fND as remised January 20 L
An Environmental Impact Report ( Should he Done for the Project Because There is
Substantial Evidence that It ill a •e a Significant Effect on the Environment.
Th e c o � o this Project will have an enormous imp on the existing neig borhood acrd
businesses. The physical portion of the pre ject consists of the following:
• Subarea : A 36 unit complex of affordable housing on 1.63 acres situated adjacent to an
existing neighborhood of fawn ly# h liSing. The City mak no c that this
portion of the project is exempt.
Subarea 3 : On 4.47 ages, commercial development consisting of separate parcel to be
used for retail (Pad oo s : restaurant (Pad B 6,767 s ; parking (Parcel 3,
25,7'59 :some type of ecialt store (Pad , 00 s feet); acid a grocery store (Pad
C '"3 1 5.786 s ai ft. This portion of the Project shares a common b ndar r wit the 36 units
of affordable housing.
The Project is located on ari undeveloped land near the interscction of C ourfland St, and
East Grand Avenue. The intersection wi ll need to be Ax idened and a bicycle lane and
tiro -way left torn l ane wi ll be added to ourtl nd St.
Residents of the Berri Gardens community, including Mayor Ferraro, have expressed
co �
r cerns about the Projects envirorumental impact on their corn mundtY, especially iR
terms of traffic and noise. The defective traffic studies cited in the � r[NB ha ve not
addressed th e cur issues on East Main St. or the traffic congestion on ourtland St. that
cuing
will be caused when delivery hacks cue to enter the loading dock..
The ysica l impact the Project has ignited many contro rersies incl din the following.
The Proposed grocery store is located witbin too miles of Cookie Crock Warehouse,
Spencer's Fresh Market, Scolaris, Trader .does Albertsons, Central Market et and Vons.
Wal - Mart an K -Mart have recently expanded their grocery lines. Also within this area
are two Rite - ,bids a n d a VS, all of w sell groceries. The area is saturat d �ith
grocery outlets. The proposed grocety gill damage existing groery businesses, cause
unemployment and blight in existing shopping centers, especially where a independ nt
grocer (such as Spencers Fresh Market and our store) are anchor tenants.
petition with more than 5,000 signatures against the Project has been submitted to the
City. Petitioners have objected to the scope of the Protect and its environmental impact.
The NND is silent on this Petition. (If this Petition is not alread y the rrcord� we ask that
it be included for the next counci m eet in g.)
• The proposed g rocery store is contrary to the representations made t John Spencer b
City officials when he elected to open his Arroyo Grande location.
2
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 41
The incompetent and deceptive planning lot the Project is another example of the
favoritism shown Nick Thompson and NKT. In my earlier l etters, 1 described some
illustrations of the ways Staff w iderestimated omitted certain costs to the City of the
prior Farm Credit transaction. At the Council meeting on January 25, 201 the City
Manager revealed two more examples: the St "forgot' to budget more than
1 0 for ne w furniture and omitted $50 for an elevator in the new building.
The elevator revelation is particularly shocking because one primary justification for
selling the old buildings to NXT was that they weren't AIWA. compliant. Homer could the
City 't ana g er omit th AD costs of the new building?
Water supply and the risk of salt water intrusion into the ground water supply has been a
p
rimary concem for the City over the last two •ears. In the same Council meeting in
which he revealed the elevator oversight, the City Manager announced that Staff had
discovered more acre feet of water available to the City from Lopez Lake axed,
consequently, th City no longer had a water shortage. The N Ni barely touches on the
water supply issues includes do discussion of this sudden discovery, fails to provide any
estimate of water usage by the Project or how N T and PSIH Nvi II mitigate the water
shoria e. The cumin at ve impact on the water supply and salt water intrusion is never
mentioned in the 1ND- See Deficiency #3 below.
We have provided substantial evidence tliat NKT has deliberately failed to repair,
maintain and upgrade our seater'. Part of its motiva on in establishing a new grocery
store is to drive dox% . the value of our business so he an the Ci can pint us out of
business and re-de velop our shopping center. The DvIND fails to discuss the economic
effects of the Project and fails to address the conflict between the Project and applicable
requirements in the land use element of the General Plan, especially the requirement that
any new development be consistent with the nu al nature of Arroyo Grande and not
conflict with e xisting businesses. A thorough EIR is needed t o weigh these impacts s
the Cite and the public can be in to understand the impact of'the Project on local
businesses and the risk of blight to nearb y shopping centers, especially (such as with hotly
Spencers and us ) where independent grocers are the anchor tenant. The EIR should
discuss, among other things, whether it should in vcst R edevelopment Funds in upgrading
e centers, how the Project endangers other centers by taking array patrons, and
physical impact on the Cite if the other roces are forced out of business. No
mitigation measures for the conse luences have been discussed in the NWD.
The applicants ;� ` and Feopl e's Self Help Housing (PSG, have n o entitlements regarding
the Projects and must obtain Conditional Use Permits as well as amendrn nts to the Berry
Gardens Specific Plan. At present the Project is inconsistent with the existing Berry Gardens
Specific Plan as we as the Genera Plan.
At prior Council and Planning Commission meetings members of the public have testified and
presented evidence of the Pr jcct's s e n vi ronmental effects in terms of traffic,, dust,
noise, odor, air quality, inconsistency with the General Plan and indirect effect on existing
businesses, existing land uses and the Berr Gardens conunuru y. o ur prior sub missions h ave
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 42
2 11 0 9: 0 5 80592 72344 F.0 LL# E D PAGE 05/12
discussed some o f these ef ire great detail. We presume a th submissions wi b e ma de
part of the official record in this matter.
The record clearly* sho ws substantial evitlence that the Project may have significant
environmental effects that require are EIR. See additional discussion on Deficiencies # and #4
below.
A t this point. we will address a fey, %r ( of the man y ether deficiencies in the NUKD whic
accompanied the Staff ,deport for the Januar y 2 5,. d2M0 I I meeting. we ask staff to respond to each
of these deficiencies.
D eficiency ##i: The Planning Commission's Defective Consideration of the Applications
and th M ND.
The City has established the Planning Commission to twice recommendations to the Council
regarding CUP s, parcel maps and en vironmental consequences - of projects. Municipal Code
Section 2 .18.080; Cal. Gov. Co de Section 659 of seq. A an advisory body, th Pl ann ing
Commission is required T review the �� before it is adopted by the C ouncil. 14 Cal. Co
Regs Section 15074(a).
CK-rcr our objections, the flanging Commission at its meeting on December 7 2010 considered
the MND and the applications without taking into account that Pad C is to be used as a grocery
More. the use was intentionally omitted from the M D_ Indeed, the version of the NfN
submitted t the Planning Commiss} on had the ter . grocery" crossed -out (i. hi
o�� ission denied interested parties the right comment on an accurate �I . re have
pointed out in earlier letters, this amounts to denial of fair notice and due process. Pub. Res C
Section 21092; 14 Cal. Code legs Section 1.508
it is imp ortant to note that the Planning Commission recommended denial of these applications
on September 2010 and October 19, 2010. Applicants were able to get approval only after the
N&M and the applications had been changed to remo ve reference to a grocery store (i.e.
. Thus, the only appro vals obtained f om the Planru ng Conunission were based on
defective- Staff memoranda and a defective N Additionally, as s teed in y letter of January
1, 2011, Staff seems to have giNt n the ommis -Sion inaccurate legal advice.
It was are ouvageous insult to the people of Arroyo Grande and to the planning process when
Staff and rep resentatives o f NK sat through the Plying Comrmssion meeting on December 7,
2 010 Without revealing that Pace C would be used as a grocery store. No w that the Staff has
disclosed the use of Pad C as a grocery, the 1 must be corrected and reprised and re-
considered by the Planning Commission before it can be adopted.
notice of any hearing on an MNt must give interested parties sufficient time to review it.
Gilroy Citizens R esponsible RLaiming vs- City of Gilr 140 C 4t 1 2006. Because the
re vised IVIND has not fret been published or circulated, interested parties will be prejudiced if the
Council considers its approval during the Feb ry 8 meeting.
4
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 43
+r 023 _ 09■ 05 80592 FEU S ELLRE D PAGE 06/1
Deficiency #2-. Defective NIND for the Council's January 25 2 011 Meeting.
The same N fND % -rith the same defects. i. r arace
, ) was in the Staff repo t for the
January uar y ; 2011 Council meeting. Presumabl y this Avill be amended to reflect the use of Pad C
as a grocery store and n ew calculations for GHOT, traffic, nose, and odor will made before the
Council meeting on February* 8, 2011. Such last minute amendments will prejudice interested
parties from making a conscientious review of the HIND. In these circumstances., interested
parties Nvill once again be denied the right to make coinments on the N4ND and denied fair notice
aid due process. A continuance of at least thirty- da •s is needed to allow interested Parties a fair
r
opportunity to review and respond to a reused MND.
To repeat: A notice of any hearing on an NEND must give interested parties sufficient time to
review it. Gilrov Citizens for Res onsible Planning vs. City of Gi lr 140 CA4th 911 (2006).
Because the revised M #D has not vet been published or circulated, interested parties x6 h
rludiced if the Council considers its approval during the February 8 meeting.
Deficiency #3: The M D foes Not Sufficiently Address Certain Phys Imp of the
P roject.
W e repeatedly h ave emphasized that the�D does not adequately a dress issues such as water
u pl ► *, traffli c, noise or odor. We b. eve pointed to the conflict of he Project ith the lard use
element of the General flan. We have underscored the negative impacts of locating a grocery
stage adjacent to a residential housing project. We have pr ovided evidence from a civil engineer
of unresolved traffic issues and expert testimony that another r er store in the area will lead
to unemployment, damage to existing grocery stores, and blight. We have provided you
evidence that NKT has failed to maintain, repair or upgrade our center out of a desire to put u
out of business and re-develop the center. St,3ff has ignored many of our comments.
Staff is required to explain its findings though narratives included in the M ND but has said little
about the water supply and salt water intrusting issues and conflicts with the General Plat. It has
said nothing about the odor issue or explained how the proposed traffic and noise mitigation
measures will reduce these impacts to less than significant, The NND is silent on the physical
consequences of the social and economic impacts o . f . the Project. A these matters have been the
subject to a great deal of controversy, a fair argu lent e s that the Project requires an Ells. No
Q iLlnc. vs. City of Los Anul 13 Card l 9 4 *1; Quail B
otgni hardens 'ound� lr� . �� .
Citv of Encinitas. 29 CA4th 159+7 (1994); Friends of #` Su et ors. City of a ward 106 CAM
988 (1980.)
While a MND offers a method of streamlining envirorunen a.l review, conclusionary statements
in an BIND are ins uffi cien t as is the ref al to d iscuss issues w here a fair atgument exists about
environmental impact.
The draft NIND fails these tests in many ways. Take, for example, Item V111 in the NWD about
Greenhouse emissions. Staff admits that the Project produce xdne times the threshold'of 900
met ri c tons of G G per year. It then gives a list of ' mi ftation measures suggested by the A. CD
a nd concludes that G G emissi will be less thall significant. The MND fails to discuss homer
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 44
02/03/2011 09: 05 80592722 RUSSELLf PACE 07/12
and to what extent the measures w ifi reduce the GIG belo w the 900 metric ton standard. I
offers no evidence that these treasures will do so.
Item X11 provides another example.! ' In M X 1 - 2, the % B not that the developer ofth
g. Krerere . (crossed -out) store, rill pay for acoustical 'treat ' m to reduce ho.i,se levels b y .3 o decibels
in some or the PSHH u nits. The MNB fails to describe such treatment, how it will reduce noise
le , els belo w a signifi level and fails to su ,st and. mechanism by which the NKT wi b e
t
legally required to fmid the acoustical treatments.
Item X 11 provides another example. A rroyo Grande has declared a water moratorium for the
last two consecutive summers. Its efforts to bud# water from the Oceano Community Services
WF
District have been unsuccessful. In the MN , Staff es im to per capita water use 11 stabilize
at 160 -16 gallons per day and motes that every new development in the City is required to either
implement a water neuttali ation program and pad' a i &pater neutralization fee. The lam# does
not address the cumulative effect o the grater use by this Project, provide any supporting data for
its estimates, or explain w hich pater rn�ti ation measures should be required for this Project. It
does not even include are estimate of how much - %eater the Project will use, At the Council
ineeting on January 25). the City manager announc qd that be had discovered additional water in
d
the City' s ca lculatio ns of at r from Lop L ak e. 6 backg of fv o water
moratoriums and salt water intrusion issues, theM sh discuss how such water b ecam e
suddenly available,, the actual x -ater needs of the Project, the actual mifi atio measures to b
imposed on NKT and PSS14 and how such mitigation measures will reduce the Project impact t
less than significant.
A s a minimum beginning point. Staff must provide some narrative explaining how the mitigation
measures will reduce all these unpacts to less than significant and the expected results of these
mitigation measures. lternatively, it should recommend a EIR.
D eficiency #4: The NIND Fails to Addrem the Economic Consequences of the Project. An
EIR is Needed.
The record very clearly shows that Ae app ro •al of a new grocery stare is controversial, to say the
least. At the Council meeting in November. 20 i 0, NK submitted a survey - with respect to a
Food 4 Lass being located on Pad 3. Along N interested parties, we lea - ve presente
expert testimony and evidence that the area is saturated with gro cery stores and a new grocery
store will cause blight and unemplo mient.
Under CEQA the City must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports
a fai r argument that a project will have a significant effect on the environment. No Oil. Inc. ys
City of L os An el 13 O 6 (1974); Q uai l B ot ani ca l Gatdens FounSL. I nc. v s. Ci,
Encinitas, 9 C 4th 1597 (1994); F riends f" " Street �s. City of Ha vad 106 CA .3 988
(1980.)
Where a project may cause a physical change as a result of its economic or social effects, an EIR
is necessar Title 14 C Code legs Section 15064(e) states:
IL
6
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 45
021/ 0 I1 09: 05 8059272944 RUSSaLREAD PAGE e8
"Where a physical charge is c u, ed by economic or social effects of roject, the phy sical
change may be regarded as a significant effect In the same manner as any other p hysical change
resulting fr th p roject." [See. also subpart ] s
In C itzens ss'n for Sensible Dev. v Count * � Ire o I7 CAM 1 (1985 h eld — the court h � th
an EIR should be required hen new shopping center could cause loss of atrona a four
existing businesses and additional blight.
In Citizens for O uality GroiAqhV5. City of Mt. Shasta, 198 CAM 433 (1988) the court held that
an EIR should consider the economic problems of a project that could result in business closures
and physical deterioration of a doix- mtovkm are-a.
The record cle rl v shows that a fair argument exists, supported by credible evidence, that the
Project may h �vc a devastating impact on nearby* shopping centers. For this reason alone, n
EI is necessary or the project.
We a %vait your r
A lp ine Colony Enterprises, Inc
B y RUSSELL S. READ
Its General Council
r
� 1
7
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 46
0 / 2011 09 0 S 5059272344 i RUSSELLREAD PAGE 09/12
COOKIE
Alpine Colony Enterprise, Inc
1240 Knollwoo , arc -bria Village Square
ambria, a' ;`rrni 93428 .
January 31. 2011
City Council
froyo Grande, C_ 2
Re: Council Meeting of Januafy 25,,2011
Agenda Items 9A through 9 N K T Application for Cou rtlad S Project.
[dear Council I lernbers.
I have been ermployed ire the grocery business For forte gears. I grew up in San Luis Obispo and own
Cookie Crock Markets, a major ernplover irk our county. i am currently the Chairman of the board for
California Independent Grocers Association based in Sacramento Ca, This association represents
independent grocers in California in leg islati e mat tes -s at state, fed eral " and local levels. Our association
represents S rovers with over Billion in annuaI sales if our state. l have guest lectured at Ca I Poly
San Luis Obispo regarding the grocery industry and participated as a panelist on many ind ustrV issues. i
have a[so given expert o pinip n and testimony to many local, state, a rid federal legislators.
Points ofinterest:
-i am sorry for the length of this last minute correspondence, but do to the fact that substantial charges
to the project plan and lack of appropriate notice were not C ive n in a timely fa.Sh ion this ha
necessitated my response.
-This project has been equated to the center across the street (CVS Drugs, formally Long's Drugs),
regarding usage and traffic several times. i must point out that a grocery store's impact on utili ati n
and traffic are significantly greater than normal commer i t and certainly a drug store... Grocery stores
have average customer visRs of 2.3 times per week v s,, D rug' stores can expect two visits per month on
average. Truck acrd delivery traffic muIiipiie.s by 4 to 6 times that of normal ommercial or drag store
usage. These demonstrated grocery visits are the reason Wal-Mart and drug stores are actively adding
food items to their se I ctlon s to increase foot traffic and by extension car traff1 .
-This Project as perthe General Plan and the additional overlays were in place before N KT pur haled it_
The specific plans stated that the property would enhance the rural community. It would incorporate
issues such as pa {king in the rear of t he property, extensive pedestrian walkways, not marked wal s thru
the parki ng lots, cove re d drives and waI kway s, extra trees, and extra windows, all giving a nice friendly
environment for browsing shoppers-
- I t i ts a #so of inte re St to nnany, when on October 19'" 2010 the Arroyo Gra nde Planning Cornmis ion,
continued consideration regarding the Grace Bible Church 4,000 sq ulare foot classroom building bacause
they sent the plans back on the prior meeting to i n d ude extra~ wlndo' ws and fascia chang s, at a
. Y
significant cost to the nonprofit organ!{.ation. This new buildings' location could only reasonably be
viewed from the applicants own property. Here we havr riaJor development In the Gateway Corridor
in ev rvone`s view and window or esthetics are someho w no longer an issue. 1 protest.
Agenua item va.d.
Page 47
0 /FJ3.9 2011 8059272-3 RUSSSELLI E PAGE 10/12
-1 and many other are concerned that staff has lost all objectivity regarding th is de e loOment . Certa nly
they have missed many important iss.ies in their zeal to endorse t h is project. Incltrcing items such as tha
lack of sustainable water,, sewer, drainage, storrrrwaLer runoff to the Poplar Ponding Basin, remised
geotechn ica I study, and earthquake ground liquefaction do to the extensive ground fill dirt deposited on
the property and need for reinforced footings etc.. .
-AP P ro xi mate IV oo people signed petition asainst this developtrnent as recently reported by Cal Coast
News. These signatures were collected irk only a couple of days, again because of poor staff notification.
The Citizens' of this community want the development that coincides with the General Platy and the
addition-al Plans specific to this property as planned.
t
-John Spencer and 1 are not afraid of co mpetitlon. We opened our stores in a highly competitive area in
the middle of all this competItlon. l took over an abandoned store from lion's and Spencer's tools over
an abandoned Albertsons' store. John had extensive d1scu slon s with the city regarding any future
developr ent on Courtland Street before he established his Arroyo Grande location. He was convinced
that arty future d eve Iopment wou Id resemble the Imitations imposed by the Berry Carden and Gateway
t
Plans. Idly Shopping Centeron the other (rand was purchased by ITT. hey landlord has made no repairs
or improvements on my center since they took over ownership. I don't mind competition but when
your landlord wants you out of your location and re fu se5 to improve m y seater a S h attempts to
de eloP a new competitor, it's like trying to swim with the elephant tied to our feet. This is truly unfair
competition which this council will become a party to.
It is unconscionable to think the council would approve the Courtland project In these economic times
and in this over grocery stored location. This wo uld not only cannibalize existing sales by as much as
twenty-five percent causing mass ernpl et: layoff and probable store closures resulting in the
diIaPidation of their corresponding s hopping centers. but a onomrc ripple effect rrwrouId also have
devastation effects on the local business environment.
I grew up in this county and my wife was ralsed in Arroyo Grande. We have watched the gro Eh and
understand why people move he re from the big cities_ We appreciate good planning (Berry Garden
Specific Plan, The Gateway M i ed- U st and East Grand Ave nue Enh a ncem e nt Plans) and - adversely
understand the concept of "any develapr ent wilI do "... This is' a bad project which exemplifies the
divergence from the General Plan, et al. This is planning at its worst and will make this community look
Iike the big cities that People moved away from. Pie ase deny these agenda items for the good of our
citizens. We don't creed another strip center ors G rar :d Ave. with the same selection that already exists.
Thank you for your co nsider Lion.
Del Clegg Jr. `
Cookie Crock Markets
1221 E_ Grand Avenue i =t
Arroyo Grande, Ca.
4 r
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 48
02A3/2011 09:05 8059272344 RUSSELL READ PAGE 11/12
1 :I Ic
{
STAGECOACH EXPRESS
Be A C entenn i al
Banner Sponsor
J11 I) 1f - 0 a 111 0 Tzu.k 1.11c '� 'C
r 1 �
�� f
#; 4i •. +} F ,� 'r �' � i tilt' e r Ci
AIN Yrtofl�or one of the
d. f
lllJI 1w[I
=�-t W�4 rlir III 01C City
r0l 010 111. 'orily fit
! %!cjt At Wflt'k 661' sc %e a :110r)t1IS acid
Pl:.m.i :tit•c in dcs] -- a Cor im r(� ernelit t()
� �•' R1 t!ij t! CI] Sr! IrCa sjCl(1 tt) tilt
�'dTIY
iii 1 1'111ation tw to
BUDGET IS BALANCED
tip, . i1 v r cceIl: y approved
illanced udac! Ehl - our h Fi czl Year
l ltl' ll Cat ell r : V tca;u S
use of Cxces< W11 .
s h on ia I i, ti i ay ,-, o i tirat-c in owcur 4 -
P1 il+i oe . t` .Torn. tir%` : +rd' ad- ender way III
,`�QCr for r1casw �`.• t.,+ E.! ir'.�1��.� in Lim' �
r IL q
POLICE BUILDING
OPTIONS STUDIED
1 "fie. final :ele r(ir the P lio Station
b 1Cd L r 'R k � 7 '�:, _l ►t chrin of
the 66_7 :;i needed - 1 s it rri.strli. t c City
IS nOW Znl& :alt --rr ativc ways ill
fl1 #: *ice 1wlS;'. 1 #Til;'Irll +t r111
I c. :%.d_ fro th . L , iiII d i'sig are �+ ;I
id , znt ilfie d Hr` OplitullS W +Cet CX.lITefi1
will bk- -_-nnsiditred by
CHILD CARE PROGRAM
Regri gyration ror the Ciro of Arroyo Cr1'3# do lRecre -al oli 01iiUrt'l1 hi kiotion child
;.arc program is widerway. The progv.no h #6me A wtoust 19 and ►.Fill r,pente 'Monday
From 7:00 o.m. to tvile 1 dlclol stars and Eum - m - mn .7, cool 1 : .- =' •, 1-'-
J[ CAI WHO :06 p.m. Fees *cl per iiv- dlac to h ours r:F 'E
or auon, Ili pro -Vid ', rill]- fi ll #d a tiv ii1�' . S. SlIc h w
b oard piriLs. conrestsi. cr fi . oclering. sports,. gwsl speakers,
ellr q... .hmem cl,rssws, wid n hunienk*rk clull. Parents may
dicir INlJI a1. .h ec-iti..slfiC+17 Di vision (Iffiti:.c Iocaic
al 1 2 __ I A N ' or s [` by caII 4 7 4 7 , 1
FIVE C1 TIES SA SKE TWORMWeAr-MLL LEAGUE
- 1T 11e Burl -tjp Period for Elie � 10 - 201 1 Five Cities Yojilh Lcaf V It e is
* € {;t'cRlll a1L 'I'tr:tiU'V1 ?(I1
p
[tt~l[?I tt ?! S it 1'
' �w
4'
and Mr'r 11� ri .�. : + i C �. ? :� #11Ei';.�limi 'xill to pla.-`c Scp� c Irlt - per 14 "' 1 63 0 ,
P0 nad 1 �`0i w ,,11 = - 0 Imll. ell fl i ty o" Arroyo �rat'c�t �:1'xd,�'�irt�� ll Club
('001 M%A11iVY C gent c r. 21 1 V zr r , vii S ircci in . r'ro I,cle. Laic rqg� t j on w be.
uak cn q, %14 11111 Cr 2 ' ' }cl el %er 6, Al tttc Arroyo ~hand ccre:atinsi Office, 1221 Acih
i J� y i i +y r� +y#
try %.: ��� f #'�' � � r c. 1 i1C l f�+ c I 7 0 `�: platEr asi� � f6i. :1 LRddillo "al ral"i *
rl%C Ill bar. [zenlisirations rccc after Oct(A er 7 -will Chairfgu[1 <td rtioii I S" O.
:'.11 "r il it learn piclarc . pR ti ti. 1 - -ts tirl and awards. Pra ticcs will begin after
c vcmbcr I V and wdl jiornwalks be beld at local whoo!s. Gamca tire schedu(od IQ
5tsrt No xembcr 29`' Volujitecr c aclics, rcfcrec. iin icam sponsors
ai iiet:dcd f *.:r all divisi w For mi - .)r infortN Vi n. plc;i a cet1 the Gralide
I {:I'cii iorp 1) 1vI I n a( ' _3'-, '1 { ? i' � r r1I i 1V'�4',�� Y`
LCIP
WATER S TRA TGS
APPROVED
The dt.Ajelop r1 nt m oraterium h ;
place. since ovw1ibcr 2 dui: to
0QC %1! 'n= With liar to SUPPIV ar:cl 1) UNiVal
,'Cow incrusion expired in July 2010.
T tic Co11i1C1l crodorsed a n uiv b c of
T he weter cws :* 'aliorl rr.qraln h as
ti
incentivcs will
31 lie cvpf -md d. Whil- the (..'ity aS, ni,i
ons m n restrictiotis lave br-en left +
Ili place b c u c it is essenkial t `
al:io inchide a tentp( ' intr wazer
pwidwc a gre tilcin with 1:: -an0 and
ct'm�l pmelit of hvo new. Nell, o ulside,
tho. rc: trico t# groundwater a iil.
L On" -1 f131 strute i�� 111111
cons dcrasi ii include j r �'c1ed eater an
P 11 Ch a of S Tatt Wa W - I - A number of
p lic- t r 16l' i - ecycl d mn ater , ,y t ms arc
purChase cif SLam, water t o the !ng j�-�-ty
rte t , eve c , 12cr lees cou _ b
e stabli-sheJ to cavcr most of the
a le is711t r c Im ct
pwrsuc d. It w ould not iriclu l c water foe
lririnlI' ;'1 t1 *'itrr W
po rc;ha c -v(j i trA rt~ quire a public
1
N-1 co r c information on walcr
o+ r tin ill entiveS is v ilable b '
tlutot t o c City t f - ;- 44(1. }
. HARVEST r" V L
file ttv is oncc aplin i o-von.w
r the ' A nnual Arroyo G rand c
fCaWrt Elld fi =h ft y. l;aradlc, L - 10 th , C000.1,
fAcirn- oriel." Activities takc place 4 :00
p.m. tr) 9:00 p.m. oti r-cida September
IC -41h. 3hc parack bcgirt�- at 10: n.m.
a ctivities concha ar '51 p.ni_ For
informati m, contacl 4
i Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 49
05 068d
•p•6 WON Bpu0Bbr
njj inoy? E�CMUL1.�,I IJUI jVU0Sjt llt
= � .1
�`W a S1543 - 1 ) j 0 It IL71 Ijod 11 r ej nj 01 p 11 u l I I im. gip'XI X911d 41 PILM 1) 1 q I li. pPC) j u wc, Ir1 L10
UOMIN .Y)I110 �ll���t`' =� Z)LU - Ml ,- ) i kl ��31� '�E.!?���).1(�:� �s��� ll;�:tt� i 1I1y* j 3.�IS��� �; �14�i�?� r� [�
1 f + �1'l• �R. .}I<� 14 +�t��If -�;r a ..
' E'` , i ': �i tl�r t p. �� .t � #.} i : ' x: : , �:! . 1�ji Wj .�lLrRUIL,��l��, ,�c r a.sr���xi )r+l : �r �.o �L����!�'la�:��:�(!
11 aul i.1 poxl I o we "Ii o.t4.1 owl isnxn�[��- .��t�r
NUMUO'rJ to! . "[ii U A01- Ir►_MOO N ,:(I rojQv `Lj: %hid acodoi � :�,ip spi.iocl — it 1
Al ' Imo• 7o. p r. �c:). ��[� tLlC�1l1 � f)�tl. ��.�}�1��� '� ±�1;�� �Ilm1:: "tLIIILU�xsx �
1 ' i t 1 - '
�i »•: ... y r ' + [ u4' l. v -1 - � r"1 l `I;)I r.,' ;:l!toIIt.'z) x1.12.1 LLV lily '
l 1 � �' " All 1t
-`' 1* ` ..�? al -t Li. i '.f }t4UJ+ # .!t 1 '' 11!p r. o 11pu *jr -oAJ #� tR'•um 11 f yL; t7' r { - Ill t -
.r..... l` .. i� W .xc! rrtirxtiv r ,. i R z, :gut jc�:, : -I
W D JQ_ +l:?l 810,. 11 IJ: I 'wd `A' J ; Iri Ill:xu - wl 7 a tii'i # '�-C.n .1 vnf r: iz
,
3y trod uu ?xin tipdoid uo juo u-NVI SL UR U10 -#j. ip0 . 0 V(tiQt?Li V10D a 1I.It�.l �,,lo � ���+ 't"Ii1' -JC'.] � '�[ ; L) !Ll)t�:Z��:tI :�
I j j
AOJ x:0()7 r J) n �I UOq Cb. - 0` 11! -V� X22.11 'I CZLL %, .. IpUrI ! V n , .lo xx1.10 -1 r I IIoIIr � f .11"l N r
I1jiaU :? 01 SPuo j UOgJt W 9S m dr, of In. -koid n :xli q -: t , 'o i- V a.rrmwn uo m km of pz� aq j 'N �1r`r: P!! ,� `��# ;��rt) 1 0
' r JAS: . q U O IkrUZ0 !0 Ur P 0711 j1N
1 .t PA s -A _ rya uclatim14 j to xoP I
' } 10 r, f .10,E Ila; u?
• jvl;: r: yr%x otm so p iq pampa s s ::. i
It {N o al# off .tl . +n a q Seth j!, 2
1NVan Hanai a3am
1N3WlZlVd34 3Uld
0 1 art! �' -•--�1
+ 4 ±lJL::: txI 11 1Lj;;, ;.1 + � ] JzgI�m wo li �t�r m" 041, J'01 ov t ;(:, k In . 1t I
I< Jl;;U0.3 :' I"E'. 1Ir� '�L,1 .1 :.# LLi 1:4.'� -1 �1 �� L I� r: i til :` ++ I �I )Ili ^C41 , I + OEM
'1WU15 r., ] !i1 , x'�['PC1_:c t i
Ui1:LE10 �AIP % ; A11V 4 1,Nj W,11 3J 61 IM1 ; - Iq
jp"A i'6I:j+?u.V, NiglIj "�Lnjjlj ' -�4i [ Lit pD1zjdkU00 iti P) kILION.JINt'.ls`.tu
�,
%W011dO X. jddll= .1, -V LL.} 40tjlglj
X,)410 + ( k r! a tiL',I ?tll t L11 mjn - ppR.dwl IOU cjclr 11 jV,
1 Ik I ! 4r113,�;{ [ lk:'! .1p C..1dd!
j ►t :; [ fi1:1;l 1 t# rc: rr`t _•, p .4 %1 11 mIdd : umi - rowisku
Irl ws -nr'5t %w irAt ,no q In '!ioal "' i.11 �!I ]���•.r. .0 l[�cfj:�(j tit
S +L101'. .4 Mil 11 -'ahij 11111 1101 II.R{rSL
IL +'' ■ -: �.:;� I ilia .::��',;•:i; c; rqualo Dole' ip fit! ?
A * . ` .J M, VY
�ft���.�.r�'���J ll1 �.'w'.i'�.I �Lr.!<: '?Ir�'..1� • �.�iti ';±��.� [1� -'��!� � ��:#.� �J,SIx���i ll�.lfll:�.l:��i,:(1� :��!L ��
0I +.#t•J1 1 # VInz V VKD10PV 1 ti:.111 r! Lk1 1)LLU ' . k? n a r'A% 'gmimcc:
ljol
taNL T. 7 �1' JAR - �.Jkldht V)12,Y4
t t� x.Lt t3. ka�E -�tx t . s+ ! y� • �-+w !" ju :� It �.. � n t � i �3 - ;j j,i 11! . Lc
Cl'1�r1 mo . liL +�• C1 }: }�_
�t r J ? ' 1 �} xr.'+t� C .'li �.� v o �7�L� ±- a �"1!L` • c i ilS.
ft
1`•:� Vii'
M'3 A - i
t���
li lt '
14
rt:•:. F
' kill
k•,.`+-
iii
[ X1.7[ '; � 1���l�i�
0 A .L10
Tuesday - 01 February, 2011
Mayo Pro Fern Jiro Guthrie
City of Arroyo Grande
' i
214 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 E3 -3
Re: Courtland Plaza, City Application 10 -401 Berry Gardens Specific Phan Amendment,
Tentative Map, and Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr Guthrie,
I am a resident of Arroyo Grande and have lived here since 1977 when I became a member of
the Arroyo Grande Police Department. I currently N live in the "Berry Gardens" subdivision. I
purchased my home in 2002 and have lived here since. I have seen a lot of development in
Arroyo Grande, but I am not in favour of the "Courtland Plaza" project as currently presented.
And, I am not alone. When friends, neighbors, clients, and members of my church with whom
I talk find out where I live, they ask me about the project in "Berry Gardens ". To a person,
their query is: "Why does the City want to put another grocery store on that vacant plot of
land ?" I remind them that the project is not just about a grocery store. However, one
comment haunts me: "Why would the City want to locate a business that (ultimately) puts
pressure on three existing businesses that have been dedicated to and served the community
for over twenty (20) years ?" Of course they're talking about VOWS, SPENCER'S, and
COOKIE CROCK, but !could not come up with a good answer.
There would seem to be a number of acceptable, alternative businesses within the project site
other than a grocery store. "Mary Ann's Hallmark" anchored the olde LUCKY&PAYLESS
complex since its inception and was never replaced. What about a book store, or a shoe
store, or a series of boutiques? These businesses would compliment the STARBUCKS
across the street, would they not? Has the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce been
asked for suggestions or made specific recommendations?
Oh, !could cite the "lack of required open space plaza as defined by the GMU site
development standard table 16 (E) and illustrated by exhibit 13 or page 22 of the East
Grand Avenue Enhancement Plan ", or the "lack of keeping with the current Land Use
Policies...." for my reason to object. But, you've probably already heard that.
It is that one haunting question that says I should appose this project in it's current form.
Thisis a decision that we will be living with for the life of the city. 1 urge you to re- design this
current plan and address the concerns of the residents of Berry Gardens and the surrounding ft �
community.
t�
1526 Strawberry Avenue
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 51
1461 Blueberry Ave
Arroyo Grande, CA 9 420
1 #+ AJ r i
1 February 2011
City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Gentlemen,
I would like to submit my comments on the proposed amendment to the 10 -001 Berry Gardens
Specific Plan which would allow for the location of grocery store on one of the parcels.
I any the homeowner and resident of Berry Gardens since it was developed, and I am very much
alarmed by are attempt to modify the Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
I believe that any development should benefit the public at large, and cause minimal disruption
to the neighborhood. This is not the case for this proposal.
First of all, there is no need for another grocery store in this neighborhood, since there are
already three such stores within a walking distance from each other. The grocery store is one of
the most intensive operations in terms of deliveries, among all retail operations. The impact of
heavy truck traffic would destroy the dharacter of the neighborhood by noise, air pollution, etc.
The trucks which would commit themselves to drive into Courtland and find the loading dock
occupied, will have no alternative but to drive through the winding streets of the residential area.
The assumed traffic pattern in the proposal is totally unrealistic, practically laughable.
So what is the benefit in all of that? An unneeded store, a minimal sales tax revenue, no new
jobs, since any increase would come from the decrease of operation in existing grocery stores.
On the other hand, there will be more noise, more traffic, more pollution from the exhaust, and
quite likely, decrease in the property values. when we acquired the property,, we relied on Berry
Garden flan to be adhered to, and not changed without our consent.
Since the City Council previously rejected a proposed bark at this location as unsuitable, I
believe the grocery store should be evert rmdre unsuitable.
Instead, may I suggest a different type of retail business that is indeed lacking in the area and
would fill the size of the pod in the plan. For example, a movie theater, a craft warehouse like
Michael's or Beverly's, an electronics. store like Best buy or Fry's. Those are just a few
alternatives which would fill the need and cause far less impact on our neighborhood.
It is my hope that the Council will reject the proposal as it is currently presented.
Sin 'Vely,
Stanislaw M. Kocimski
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 52
05
Dear Arroyo Grande council members and Planning staff,
The purpose of this letter is twofold. First to protest the proposed development at the
corner of courtland and Grand and secortdly to admonish the elected officials for the lack of
notification to neighbors of this development and to the community at large.
The proposed use for this land is overlarge and not needed by the Arroyo Grande
community. There are three other grocery stores within walking distance of the proposed project
which do not adversely affect the traffic a nd health of residents, The safety of all who traverse
Grand Ave. will be negatively impacted by large trucks constantly motoring along a narrow street
even if portions are enlarged. Lame trucks waiting to turn or eater into eourtiand will impede all
who attempt to use this entrance to Berry gardens. Hopefully of those vehicles not able to
pass none Will be a fire tack or ambulance restricted In attempting to save lives.
Other better uses for this land can and should be explored. The community could use a
movie theater which would generate more tax revenue than a grocery store where most items are
not taxed. Place the theater next to the empty Blockbuster building and perhaps another video
store will lease that long empty space. Look southward to Santa Barbara county which has a
small theater in both the Fairview shopping center and at the Camino Real marketplace with a
craft store and a linen store. A sporting goods store and a camera store such as Samy's camera
would do well for an area so beautiful and encouraging of healthy, outdoor activities rather than
polluting, idling trucks.
Another good use for this land is housing for seniors or disabled and possibly an assisted
living center. Again in Santa Barbara there is are attractive unit called Heritage Douse for seniors
along Hollister Ave across from Gids's Inc. -- -also an attractive building pnd searing community
needs. In this the 100 anniversary of Arroyo Grande we should be looking to the future and not
destroying even piece of land with ugly Stalinesque buildings, bringing negative impacts to
current residents and our children. The Grand Ave corridor from the 101 freeway to the ocean
should be thought of in a more conservatory way rather than just an ugly commercial zone.
Consultation with the neighboring cities could offer more satisfactory solutions -- -joint economic
development outreach rather than accepting a developer out to make a fast buck. We live here
and do not want or need the project as currently formulated.
Secondly 1 must take the plan nin ' department to task for not informing nearby residents
of the proposed project agenda on Feb . Had someone not knocked on my door and informed
rye of such I would still be in the dark. A small sheet of paper tacked to a large sign when one is
focused on lights, traffic bike riders, skate boarders and pedestrians doesn't cut it. Shame on this
council also for appearing to slam this development dowry our throats without the transparency
and Inclusiveness good government should be. Reject this project, take some thoughtful time
exploring other options and listen to the electorate. We do not want this developrnent.i!l
Margaret Sullivan Kocimski
Berry Gardens Homeowner
-.0/0
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 53
r f
Agenda Item 9.d.
Page 54
`
INCORPORATED
# rn
MEMORANDUM
I
JULY 10. 1911 �
F ID Vt
To: CITY COUNCIL 1 REDEVELOPMENT ELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD of
DIRECTORS
FROM: TE ESA MCCLISH, oMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT IF ECTOI
Y: RYAN FOSTER, ASSOCIATE PLANT EF
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-003;
CONSTRUCT A THIRTY -SIC 3 UNIT APARTMENT T COMPLE ON
1.63 ACRES; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST EST CO NE of EAST GRAND
AVENUE AND SOUTH COU TL ND STREET; APPLICANT —
PEOPL.ES' SELF -HELP HOUSING CORPORATION ATION AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LOAN AGREEMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY UAI Y , 2011 CONTINUED FROM JANUARY , 1 1
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City council adopt a Resolution
olution
approving conditional Use Permit 10-003. In addition, staff recommends that the
Redevelopment Agency Beard of Directors adopt a Resolution approving an affordable
housing and loan agreement and authorize the Executive Director to execute the
agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed affordable housing and loan agreement will commit $930,000 in financial
assistance to the proposed project, which has been budgeted and will be paid for from
Redevelopment elopment Agency housing set -aside funds. This equates to less than $25,000
per unit, which is cost effective in helping the city meet its state housing obligations for
lo and ver income units.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CUP 10-003
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND:
Location
Berry Gardens Specific Plan
The project site is identified as Subarea 4 in the Berry Gardens Specific Plan GSP
and is approximately 1.63 acres in size. The BGSP was amended in 2005 to establish
development standards for both Subareas 3 and 4 — Subarea 4 was designated for
development of multi - family apartments.
Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 is being processed concurrently with the proposed
Conditional Use Permit, which has been designed based on the provisions contained
within Specific Plan Amendment 10-001.
Transfer o f Affordable Housing Deed Restriction
In order to both facilitate development of affordable housing on Subarea 4 and
commercial development ent n Subarea 3, the Redevelopment Agency acquired the
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CUP '1 -003
FEBRUARY 8. 2 077
PAGE 3
Subarea 4 property from NKT Commercial and then sold it to Peoples' Self-Help
Housing PSHH. The property was sold to PSHH for the same price that the
Redevelopment Agency paid.
As part of this transaction, an affordable housing deed restriction from property 'owned
by PSHH at 205 El Camino Real was transferred to Subarea. 4, which allowed the El
Camino Real property to be redeveloped by the south County VCA (currently under
construction). The specifics of the deed restriction have been incorporated into Specific
Plan Amendment 10 -001. The Subarea 4 property provides both a larger parcel and
better location for. the PSHH residential project than the El Camino property.
Project Description
The proposed project will develop a thirty -sic 36 unit multi - family apartment complex
consisting of one (1), two 2 and three 3 bedroom units. All units ►i'll be deed -
restricted for low and/or very-low income eligible tenants, which exceeds the
requirements of the deed restriction recorded on the property. A single -story community
building with manager's office is, located at the entrance to the complex and the
apartment buildings are both two and three -story — the three -story buildings are located
at the rear of the site, adjacent to the parking lot to satisfy California Fire Code
requirements. The proposal includes a total of fifty -four off - street parking spaces,
which is consistent with the provisions of Specific Plan Amendment 10-001.
Previous City Council Review
r
The City Council was scheduled to consider CUP 10-003 at its meeting of November g,
2010; however, consideration was continued due to concerns with the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment (Attachment 1).
Architectural Review Committee Review
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed Conditional Use Permit 10 -003 at
its meeting of December 6, 2010 Attachment . The AFDC unanimou s ly reco m. mended
approval of conditional Use Permit 10 -003.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered CUP 10 -003 at its meeting of December 7, 2010
(Attachment 3). The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that
the City Council approve CLIP 10-003.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
Legislative vs. Judicial Acts
Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one of three categories —
legislative, quasi-judicial or ministerial:
Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates,
zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local later — rules that
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CUP 10-003
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 4
apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California law, legislative acts
are subject to initiative and referendum.
Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislative acts) to
projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are
discretionary, based on the decision - rakers interpretation and application of
policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or
referendum.
• Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local
government, such as the mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are
met.
The proposed project is a quasi-judicial action — if approved, it will grant the property
o wner entitlements to .develop the property in substantial conformance with the
approved plans, subject to any conditions of approval.
Project Revisions
The proposed project has been revised based on City Council direction and to achieve
consistency with Specific Plan Amendment 10 -001. If Specific Plan Amendment is not
approved, the proposed project cannot be considered as it is inconsistent with the
existing ferry Gardens Specific Plan. Specific revisions are discussed in detail below:
Side Yard Setback
Based on City Council direction and revisions to Specific Plan Amendment 10-
001, the side yard setback (adjacent to Subarea 3 ) has been increased from ' to
10'. When combined with the minimum rear yard setback required in Subarea 3,
a minimum of 25' will be provided between any residential and commercial
rcial
buildings.
uildinq Height and Fire Access
The proposed project contains one (1), two 2 and three 3 story buildings. The three -
story buildings are located at the rear of the property, and none are closer than forty
(40) feet to adjacent single - family residential development. The proposed project meets
the requirements o f the California Fire Code, as all buildings exceeding thirty 30 feet in
height are located adjacent to a fire lane.
Amenities
The proposed project includes a community room located at the front of the property for
indoor activities. Common outdoor areas are located bet buildings, shielded from
the parting lot. Fiat -flog townhouse units include private rear yards.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CUP 10-003
FEBRUARY , 2011
PAGE 5
Loan Agreement
Proposed financial assistance is recommended in the form of a residual receipts loan,
which means that it will be repaid as funds are available. The senior housing complex
on North Courtland Street was funded through a similar approach. Peoples' Self -Help
Housing will also be seeking State tax credits and County funds to make the project
financially feasible (Attachment .
Redevelopment Agency Boundaries
Prior to the lot line adjustment that was approved in 2009, one of the subareas -eras in
the Redevelopment Area and the other was not; now half of each subarea is in the
Redevelopment Area and the other half is not. - Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency
Board of Directors must find that the Agency's expenditure of lour and moderate income
housing funds outside of the Redevelopment Area benefit the project area. Staff is
waiting for feedback from the County to determine if any changes to the project area
boundary will be necessary for tax increment purposes.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for City Council Redevelopment lopment Agency
Board of Directors consideration:
1. Adopt a Resolution, approving Conditional Use Permit 0-003 as recommended
by the Planning Commission and adopt a Resolution approving an affordable
housing and loan agreement and authorize the Executive Director to execute the
agreement;
2. Do not adopt the attached Resolutions; or
3. Provide direction to staff.
► ANTAGES:
Approving the proposed project will provide the City with a mix of one (1), two and
three 3 bedroom rental units, all of which will be affordable and located adjacent to
public transportation and existing and proposed commercial development.
DISADVANTAGES:
Staff has not identified any disadvantages associated with the recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance w ith the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) Guidelines, staff
has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
(NIND) for Specific Plan Amendment 10-001. Because the proposed project is
consistent with the project described in the I II D prepared for Specific Plan Amendment
10-001, no further environmental review is required, as the potentially significant
environmental impacts have been identified and reduced to a less than significant level
through the application of mitigation measures in the IVII D. If the MND is not adopted,
the proposed project cannot be approved at this tire.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CUP 10-003
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 6
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project
site and also published in the Tribune on Friday, January 14. A Notice of Continuance
from the January 25, 2011 meeting to the February 8, 2011 meeting was posted on
Wednesday, .January 26, 2011. As of February 3, 2011, staff has not received any
public co mment regarding the proposed project.
Attachments (previously distributed to City Council and on file at City Hall and on the
City's website :
1 . City Council meeting minutes, November g, 201
2. ARC meeting notes, December 6, 2010
3. Draft Planning Commissi n meeting minutes, December 7, 2010
4. Affordable housing loan agreement
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL AL USE
PERMIT 10-003; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER of EAST GRAND AVENUE AND SOUTH
COURTLAND STREET; APPLIED FOR BY PEOPLES'
SELF -HELP HOUSING
WHEREAS, the developer has filed Conditional Use Permit 10 -003 to develop a thirty-six
(36) unit apartment complex on 1.63 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted a Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 10-003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Mate CEQA
Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA
and has found that the project is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
adopted for Specific Amendment 10-00 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a
duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the
provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of
this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan,
and the development policies and standards of the City.
The proposed residential use is permitted within Subarea 4 of the Berry
Gardens specific Plan and complies with all applicable Municipal cipal Code
requirements, the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the
development policies and standards of the City.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the
district in which it is to be established or located.
The proposed residential use is onsrstent and compatible with existing
adjacent residential and commercial development and would not impair
the integrity or character of the Gateway Mixed-Use Specific Tarr GM -
SP district.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 7
RESOLUTION No,
PAGE
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed.
At 22 dwelling units per acre, the proposed development is below the
maximum density of 28 dwelling units per acre allowed for residential
development in Subarea 4 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure public health and safety.
Adequate capacity for water, sanitation and public utilities and services
exist to serge the project; therefore, public health and safety will not be
impacted.
5. The. proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the
vicinity.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare nor mould it be materially injurious to properties and improvements
in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 10-003 with the above findings and
subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
O motion b y Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the
following roll gall vote, to unit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 8 t " day of February, 2011.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 8
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONY F E F A A, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMOF E, CITY CLERK
APPROVED E AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J, CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 9
R ESOLUTION NO.
PAG
E 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 -003
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
EAST GRAND AVENUE AND
SOUTH COU TLAND STREET
This approval authorizes the development of a thirty -sic 3 knit apartment complex n
1.63 acres.
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
The developer shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, state, county and
City requirements as are applicable to this project. .
2. The developer shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit 10 - 008 .
3.. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the city council at its meeting of February 8, 2011 (Exhibit "B").
4 . The developer shall agree to defend at his /her sole e any action brought
against the city, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of
the issuance- of said approver, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof,
or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The developer shall reimburse
the city, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorneyts fee's
which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay
as a result of such action. The city may, at its sole discretion, participate at its
on e in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not
relieve the developer of his /her obligations under this condition.
ENGINEERING DIVISION:
SPECIAL. CONDITIONS
8. Verify that the e lift station in Tract 2260 has adequate capacity to serge the
proposed development. If not, design and fund the upgrade or the lift station to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. .
6 . All on -site sewer lines will be noted as "private. )p
7 . The 8" water main loop through the project site shaII be located in a 15' pride water
rain easement.
8. Dedicate 10 feet of right- of�way on South courtland Street.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 10
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
g. Install full frontage improvements (including street widening, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, landscaping and street - lighting) on South Courtland Street to City
Standards. No on-street parking shall be allowed on South Courtland Street.
10. Implement LSD BMPs into the project design to the extent practicable, as
determined by the Director of Community Development.
'I 1, Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall reimburse the
Redevelopment Agency for the proportionate costs associated with expansion of
the Poplar Ponding Basin.
12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit to 2 copies of
the final project - specific hater Quality Management Plan WQMP consistent
with San Luis Obispo Regional Hater Quality Control Board ( SLORWQCB )
requirements.
13. Underground all overhead utilities along the project frontage per City standards.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
14. Clean all streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the end of the day's operations or
as directed by the Director of Community Development - or the Director of Parks,
Recreation and Maintenance.
15. Perform construction activities during normal business hours Monday through
Friday, 7 A. III. to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or
contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance
outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or approved by the
Community Development Director. The City may hold the developer or contractor
responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these
hours.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
16. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications.
17. Submit three fall -size paper copies and one 1 full -size rnylar copy of approved
improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction.
18. Submit as -built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed
by the Community Development Director. one 1 set of mylar prints and an
electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 11
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE
19. The following Improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the Community Development Department:
a. Grading, drainage and erosion control,
b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk,
C. Public utilities,
d. Water and sewer,
e. Landscaping and irrigation,
f. Any other improvements as required
Director.
21.
The site plan shall include the following:
by the Community Development
a. The location and size of all existing and proposed grater, sewer, and storm
drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys
b. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals.
C. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
d. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property.
e. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed streets,
utilities and retaining walls.
22. Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right of gray, and shall
be approved by the Community Development and Parks, Recreation and
Maintenance Departments.
VVATFP
23. Whenever possible, all grater mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The
Director of Pars, Recreation and Maintenance must grant permission to dead end
grater mains.
2. Construction grater is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande
does not allover the use of hydrant meters.
2. One domestic use grater meter and one irrigation meter is required for the
apartment. project.
26. The developer shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in
water demand created by the project by either;
a. Implement an individual crater program consisting of retrofitting existing
high -flow plumbing fixtures with logy flow devices. The calculations shall be
submitted to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance for review
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 12
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to
the City Council for approval prior to implementation; OIL,
b. The developer may pay an in lieu fee for each new residential unit.
,RFF
27. A new manhole is required for connection of the proposed 6" sever lateral to the
serer rain in Courtland Street.
28. All severer laterals w ithin the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2 %.
29. All sewer mains or laterals crossing o parallel to public hater fa shall be
constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards.
30. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the development'
impact to District facilities.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
31. Underground all new public utilities in accordance with Section 16.68.050 of the
Development Code.
32. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paging.
33. Submit the Utility Plans to the public utility companies for review and comment.
Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Community Development Director for
approval.
34. Prig to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public
utilities shall be operational.
3. Insert project specific conditions here.
TF F FT
36. Obtain approval from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance prior to
excavating in any street recently over -laid or sl urry sealed. The Director shall
approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an
overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal.
3. All trenching in City streets shall utilize save cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned
and filled with epoxy.
38. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 13
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE
39. Street structural sections shall be determined by an -Value soil test, but shall not
be less than " of asphalt and " of Class II AB.
40. Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal any roads dedicated to the City prior to acceptance
by the City may be required as directed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Maintenance.
CURB GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK
41. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Courtland Street as directed by
the Community Development Director.
42. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
.
43. Install ADA compliant facilities in accordance with current City and State
standards.
44. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and side walk to
prevent damage due to root growth.
1 A im
45. Perform all grading in conformance with the City Grading Ordinance.
46. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and
supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be
performed in accordance with the approved soils report.
47. Submit all retaining gall calculations for review and approval by the Community
Development elopment Director for walls not constructed per City standards.
r)PAINAr.F
48. All off -site drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year
storm flow. The developer shall provide calculations to verify that the Poplar
Ponding Basin can accommodate post - development storm flow from the project.
49. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 14
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 9
DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS
50. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a
document separate from a neap, shall be prepared by the developer on 8 1 11
City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions sketches, closure
calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The developer shall be
responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing.
51. The developer shall dedicate pedestrian access easements to the back of the
meandering sidewalk.
52. Street tree planting and maintenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all
street right of grays. Street tree easements shall be a m i n im u m of 10 feet beyond
the right of way, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered
by public utility easements.
53. A Public Utility Easement PUE shall be reserved a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent
to all street right of gays. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the
installation or maintenance of the pudic utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities.
PERMITS
54. obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following:
a. Performing work in the City right of way,
b. Staging work in the City right of way,
C. Stockpiling material in the City right of way,
d. Storing equipment in the City right of way.
55. obtain a grading permit prig to commencement of any grading operations on site.
FEES
56. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due (for your information, the
"Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions" is
provided below.
57. Water deter, service main, distribution, and availability fees, to be based on
codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
5. Dater neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
59. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 15
RESOLUTION No,
PAGE 1
building permit issuance.
o. Traffic Signaliation fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
1. Severer hook -up & facility Permit fees, to e based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
2. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being
developed.
6. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates In effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
64 Strong Motion Instrumentation Program SMIP. fee, to be based on codes and
rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with State
mandate.
6. Park Development fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
66. Park Improvements fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
67. Street Tree fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
68. Community Centers fee, to b e based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
69. Fire Protection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
o. Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
71. Fees to be paid prig to plan approval:
a. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate.
. Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost
estimate.
C. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate.
d. Inspection fee of public works construction plans based on an approved
construction cost estimate.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 16
RESOLUTION NO,
PAGE 11
72. Impact fees to specific capital improvement projects as determi by the
Community Development Director.
PROCEDURE E FO PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS lTIONS o
EXACTIONS:
S:
(A) Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying
all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related t the development project by
meeting both of the following requirements:
(1) Tendering - any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of
arrangements to pay the fee when d ue or ensure performance of the
conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition.
( 2 ) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of
the following information:
(a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will 'be
tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed
are provided for or satisfied, under protest.
(b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of
the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest.
(B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision A shall be filed at the time of the
approval or conditional approval of the development or within go , days after the
date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to
be imposed on a development project.
(C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision A may file an action to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications
reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local
agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice.
(D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of
this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or _ parcel reap is
approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a
tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required.
( E) The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for
the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific
development.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 17
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 12
AGREEMENTS
8. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required
improvements.
74. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions as required by the City.
IMP SECURITIES
b. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code
Section 16.68.090, Improvement Securities.
76. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by
the Community Development Director.
77. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost
estimate approved by the Community Development Director:
Faithful Performance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of , all
improvements,
Labor and Materials: % of the approved estimated cost of all
improvements
One Year Guarantee: 0% of the approved estimated cost of all
improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the
improvements.
OTHER DOCUMENTATION
8. Tax Certificate: The developer shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's
office indicating that there are no unpaid takes or special assessments against the
property. The developer may be required to bond for any unpaid takes or liens
against the property. This shall be submitted prior to plan check.
g. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works prior to plan check.
PRIOR F TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANC
80. All utilities shall be operational.
1. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non -
essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities,
may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Community Development
Director.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 18
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 13
82. Prior to the final 10 of occupancies for the project are issued, all improvements
shall be fully constructed and accepted by the City.
BUILDING DIVISION:
88. All buildings shall comply with the latest adopted California Building Codes.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
8. The number and location of all required fire hydrants shall be determined by the
Fire Chief.
8. Installation of a NFPA 18 Fire Protection System shall be required for all
residential units.
86. Installation of an NFPA 13 system shall be required for the community building.
8. Prior to occupancy, provide a directory map sign shall be installed at the
entrance to the site that shovers the location of all dwelling units. The directory
sign should be of a size that is easily readable and shall be approved by the Fire
Chief prior to installation .
88. Fire extinguishers shall be located within ' of all front doors of each residential
unit in a protective enclosure with appropriate signs posted.
89. Gas meters shall be labeled with units served and signage posted, FEED in color
with letters 1 11 minimum in height, indicating the location.
90. Electrical room electrical meters shall be posted with signage, FEED in color,
with letters 1 H minimum in height, stating: ELECTRICAL ROOM unit serviced.
91. Address number shall be Arabic numerals or Alphabet Letters. Numbers shall be
a minimum of 4 inches high with minimum stoke width of o. 5 inch in residential
commercial zones.
92. The driveway shall be designated and posted as "Fire Lane, No Parking ". All
designated fire lanes shall be red striped with the words FIFE LANE stenciled
every 50 feet.
93. As per CFC. 508.2.3, the driveway shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed bads of fire apparatus (75,000 pounds minimum).
.
9. Prior to delivery of combustible building materials on -site, the hydrants and water
system shall pass all required tests and be connected to the public water system.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 19
RESOLUTION NO.
PACE 1
95. Prior to construction of combustible materials, an all-weather th r surface shall be in
place to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The surface shall be
of sufficient thickness to support the imposed load of a fire apparatus. The
access for use of firefighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate
construction site at the start of construction and maintained at all time until
construction is completed.
96. The water system for the project shall be looped, either as a stand-alone system
or in conjunction with Subarea 3.
RECREATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final landscape /irrigation plan shall be
submitted to the Director of Recreation and Maintenance Facilities for revie w and
approval.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
98. A final lighting plan and all proposed safety measures shall be submitted to the
Police Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM:
AM:
99. MM IlI -'I ; The following conditions shall be included on all construction plans and
adhered to for all construction- related permits:
Reduce the amount o f disturbed area where possible.
Use water trucks o sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust-from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when
wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be
used whenever possible.
All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or as needed.
Permanent dust - control measures identified in the approved
revegetation /landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil- disturbing activities.
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one 1
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast - germinating native
grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods
approved in advan by the Air Pollution Control Board APCD.
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paged should
be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads -should be
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 20
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE 1
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on
any unpaved surface at the construction site.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered
or shall ,maintain at least two 2 feet of freeboard minimum vertical
distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with C C
Section 23114.
•
Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto streets or gash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the
construction site.
Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Hater sweepers with reclaimed (non -.
potable) grater should be used where feasible.
• The contractor /builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and
implement these measures as necessary to minimize e dust complaints,
reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport
of dust off -site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall
be. provided to the Air Pollution control District (AP CD prior to the .start of
any construction- related activities.
• Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1 00 feet of
sensitive rece ptors.
0 Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
Use of alternative- fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible.
0 Signs that specify the no idling requirement shall be posted and enforced
at the construction site.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: - Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
9. MM 111 -2: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a
geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If [VOA is not present, an
exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If ,VOA is found at the site, the
developer must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board
(ARB) Air Tonics Control Measure ATCI I for Construction, Grading, Quarrying
and Surface dining operations.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
10. MIDI 111 -3: All portable equipment bo horsepo wer or greaten used during
construction must be issued a permit by either the GARB or the APCD.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 21
RESOLUTION CVO.
PAGE '1
Monitoring:
Responsible nsible Party:
Timeline:
Site inspection
Building Division
During construction activities
11. MIS 111-4: Should hydrocarbon - contaminated soil be encountered durin
construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty -eight 8 hours of
such contaminated soil being- discovered to determine if an APCD permit is
required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediatel
after contaminated soil is discovered:
Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas
not actively involved in soil addition or removal.
Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed,
uncontaminated soil or other TPH — non- permeable barrier such as plastic
tarp. N o headspa a shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.
Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due
to grind or grater. No openings in the covers are permitted.
0 During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to
cause a public nuisance.
Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
Monitoring: Site inspection
Responsible Party: Building Division
Timeline: During construction activities
14. MM -1: Any areas where native (non - stockpiled) soil will be disturbed by
construction activities (grading, footings, utilities, etc) shall first be inspected by a
qualified archeologist to determine if any cultural resources are present. If
cultural resources are present, a phase two archeological study shall be
conducted by a qualified archeologist and further mitigation measures identified
and implemented.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible nsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
15. ABM VIA: The project proponent shall submit a revised geotechnical study or
addendum to the original study that either states that all conclusions and
recommendations in the original. report are valid or, if the original conclusions
and recommendations are not valid, includes updated conclusions and
recommendations. where necessary.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 22
RESOLUTION o.
PAGE '1
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
16. MM 111 -2: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of and
updated geotechnical study based on the study prepared for the J ro'ect GS1
p
Soils Inc. dated April Zoo.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Engineering Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
17. MM 1111 -1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG- reducin
measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building .permits, the project
sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations. based on these measures to
the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures:
Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric
appliances and tools.
Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative
emissions from parked vehicles. design should provide 0% tree
coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low
maintenance native drought resistant trees.
No residential wood burning appliances.
Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for
every 25 employees are recommended.
Trusses for south - facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle
dead weight loads of standard solar - heated water and photovoltaic
panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south- facing roof surface,
based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar
panels. For south faking roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the
ideal average solar exposure shall be used.
Increase the building energy rating by 20° above Title 24 requirements.
Measures used to reach the 20 rating cannot be double counted.
Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern e of
buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.
Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient,
recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible.
Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.
Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the
high summer sun, but not the to wer winter sun, from penetrating south
facing windows (passive solar design).
Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters.
Utilize built -in energy efficient appliances i.e. Energy Star.
Utilize double -paned windows.
•
Utilize lover energy street lights i.e. sodium),
Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 23
RESOLUTION NO.
PACE 1
Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats.
Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE
Energy Star@ rating to reduce summer cooling needs.
• Eliminate high water consumption landscape e.g., plants and lawns) in
residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are
low ROC em itting.
Provide on-site bicycle parking both short terra (racks) and long term
(lockers, or a locked room with standard racks .and access limited to
bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack
space per 10 vehicle /employee space is re ommended.
Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the
connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the
need to operate diesel -po wered TRUs at the loading docks.
• Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or
covered racks rockers to service the residential units.
Monitoring: Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit
18. MM V111 -1: The following B 11Ps shall be incorporated into the project:
• Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow
infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain
s
Run -off Control. Maintain post - development peak runoff rate and average
volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre - development levels.
Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Label new storm
drain inlets with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean" to alert the public to the
destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into
the storm drain.
Vehicle /Equipment ,Cleaning Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-
family residential developments of 50 units or greater should either.
provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage
vehicle /equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs
prohibiting such uses. V ehicle /equipment washing areas shall be paved
designed to prevent run -on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain
to the sanitary sewer.
Car Hashing Commercial car gash facilities shall be designed and
operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 24
RESOLUTION o.
PAGE 19
drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitar
sewer or wastewater reclamation system.
Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter
control for commercial and industrial .projects or large -scale residential
developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to ulster
bodies or the storm drain system.
• Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including
restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning
floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease
interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary server system. The
cleaning area should be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of
equipment to be cleaned.
Defuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas should
be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. t. Install a self -
contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary severer if water
cannot be diverted from the areas. .
Outdoor Storage _Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, 'coolants, and other
chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers - and protected from
drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners,
vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitar sewer ' s stern. Bulk
materials shred outdoors must also be protected from drainage with
berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be
inspected for paper function and leaks, shred on impermeable surfaces
and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control
and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.
Cleaning, Maintenance and Processin Controls. Areas used for
washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have
impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled
water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to
the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and approval of
an. Industrial waste discharge permit.
•
Loading Dock Controls Design loading docks to be covered,, surrounded
by berms or curbs, or constructed to prevent drainage onto or from the
area. Position roof downspouts to direct stormater array from the loading
area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary
sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary
sewer. Door skirts between the trailers and the building should be
installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain..
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 25
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
Street Parking Lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep
streets, sidewalks and parking lots to regent the accumulation f litter
and debris. Debris resulting from pressure crashing should be trapped
and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. flash grater
containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and
discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Mon rin : Plan check
Responsible Party: Planning Division
Timeline: Prier to issuance of a grading permit
Agenda Item 9.e.
Page 26
o
t1V ORPOR TED
`Y 10, 1911 ' MEMORANDUM
FOR
To: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of PRESENTATION BY PG &E ON SMART 'METER
PROGRAM
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,2011
RECOMMENDATION:
TIOI :
It is recommended the City Council receive a presentation from PG&E regarding the
SmartMeter program and provide direction to staff on any desired follow -up.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no known fiscal impact to the City regarding this item.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 11, 2011 meeting, Mayor Ferrara requested staff, and council
concurred, to make arrangements with PG&E regarding the SmartMeter program.
According to PG &E, the program was driven by the California Public Utilities
Commission CPUC in response to the 2000 -2001 energy crisis. The CPUC
authorized PG&E to deploy SmartMeter technology in July 200 6. PG&E is scheduled to
begin installation of SmartMeter electric meters in this area in May 2011.
ANALYSIS of ISSUES:
The SmartMeter system collects electric usage data from homes and businesses and
transmits it to PG&E via a wireless communication net work. The goals of the program
are to allover for price structures that vary by time of day to encourage off-peak usage of
electricity, provide automated meter reading for all customers, and to provide a platform
for innovative technologies, such as hone energy automation, distributed generation
and storage, and plug -in- hybrid electric vehicles capability. A FACE sheet and CPUC
report on the SmartMeter Program are attached. Staff has arranged for a
representative from PG &E to make a presentation at the Council meeting.
Issues identified by the public include concerns regarding health impacts, privacy, and
Increased energy costs. As a result, the city of Watsonville has adopted a moratorium
through an urgency ordinance on the installation of SmartMeter technology in their
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF PRESENTATION BY PG &E ON SMARTMETER PROGRAM
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
PAGE 2
community. A copy is attached. The city also received a resolution provided by the
Chum ash Village Homeowners Association in the City of San Luis Obispo, which they
have distributed to jurisdictions throughout the county. Staff has not researched the
issue, but believes a moratorium by the City would likely not be enforceable since the
service is regulated by the C.PUC.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the council's consideration:
-
Receive the presentation;
Provide staff direction to prepare additional information and analysis for
consideration.
ADVANTAGES:
TAGES:
The system is designed to help customers conserve energy, provide more cost efficient
and accurate metering, and obtain more state -of -the -art services.
DISADVANTAGES:
Concerns have been identified regarding the system and have expressed that the
system should be voluntary.
ENVIRONMENTAL F EVIE If:
No environmental review is required by the City for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday,
City's website on Friday, February 4, 2011. One citizen
City with concerns regard the program, who was
additional public input was received.
February 3, 2011 and on the
has previously contacted the
notified of the meeting. No
Attachments:
1. PG &E Smartll eter FACE Sheet
2. PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment
Public Utilities Commission
3. City of Watsonville Urgency Ordinance
4. Chumash pillage Resolution
Report Commissioned by the California
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 2
SmartMeterTM FAQ and Help
SmartMeter Tm FAQ and Help
How the SmartMeterTM system works and what it
can do for you
What is the s artl leter System?
The SmartMeterTbI system collects electric and natural gas usage
data from your home or business. Sm rtl leterTm electric meters
record residential electric usage hourly and commercial electric
usage in 15 minute increments. Smartt leterTm natural gas modules
attached to gas meters record gas usage daily. This data is
periodically transmitted to us via a secure wireless communication
network.
How is Privacy and nay Smartt leterTM Data managed?
Protecting our customers information is a top priority. PG&E
applies the same privacy protection standards to all data collected
by the company from customers including the usage data collected
by the SmartMeter" system, We treat each customer's personal
information and data as confidential, consistent with all regulatory
requirements, including those established by the California Public
Utility Commission (CPU C). See PG&E's Customer Information
Privacy Policy.
How do Radio Frequency concerns relate to
Sr artMeter" Devices?
PE uses wireless radius attached to an electric meter to send
customer usage information securely and wirelessly with its
Smartt leterTm devices to PG&E for data collection. This technology
allows our customers to letter manage their energy consumption.
For more information, see the Understanding Radio Frequency
page.
Can the SmartMeterTM system help control nay costs?
The SmartMeterTM system lets you track your energy use anytime
throughout the month, so you can male smart decisions and
control your energy costs.
Is the SmartMeter TM system available to all
customers
The S artMeterTM system will be rolled out to all PG&E customers
by mid -o1.
Will it rate meter reading more convenient?
The SmartMeter TI system will allow PG&E to read your meter
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/smartrneter/facts/
Pagel o
Fare RSS Print
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 3
SmartMeterTM FAQ and Help Page 2 of 3
without setting foot on your property and without interrupting
your schedule.
Will it help pinpoint power outage-s?
In the future, the SmartMeter TM program will help us improve your
service by giving us the ability to pinpoint power outages and
restore your power faster.
Will in t lIati rr disrupt my schedule?
You do not need to be present for the upgrade, but we will need
unobstructed access to the meter(s). And going forward, we'll
collect your meter readings without setting foot on your property.
How long does it talc to install the SmartMctcrl device?
It takes less than 15 minutes to install the SmartMeter T device.
The upgrade will take place during regular business hours and in
most eases will tale about five minutes.
From the Community
Join the conversation Photos onflicku
' Grant will provide
energy retrofits for
Chico homes -
hico Enterprise
Record
http : bit.ly g
I P &E's
Innovators Pilot
Program
ir
New on See Your
Power; Learn how
one customer used
her S a►rtMeterT
as a diagnostic tool
to identify some
incredibly
inefficient - and
hill- raising -
appliances
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/smartmeter/facts/ Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 4
A.07-12-009 GMMP1jt
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment
Report
Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Prepared and Presented by Structure Consulting Group, LLC.
" 61
';eN7
StrLictLire TM
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 5
A.07-12-009 COM MP1 /jt2
12335 k ingsride, #401
22 Structurew Houston, TX 77024
Voice: 713.733.0500
Fax: 882.482.0371
September 2, 2010
Ms. Julie Fitch, Director
Energy Division
California Public Utilities Commission
Dear Ms. Fitch:
We are pleased to present our final report, "PG&E Advanced Metering Assessment ", focused on Smart Meter
accuracy and Customer High Bill Complaints as contracted for by the California Public Utilities Commission on
April1 2010, and completed on September 2, 2010.
Sincerely,
Stacey Wood
Principal
The Structure Group
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary to Structure consulting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 6
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Structure Consulting Group Overview
Structure consulting Group, LLG ("Structure"), is a global consulting firm focused exclusively on the energy
and utility industry, providing services and technology solutions in North America and Europe. Since opening
the doors in 1998, Structure has seared over 100 organizations through all stages of business transformation,
frrn the beginning of wholesale energy markets to the Smart Grid revolution.
Structure focuses in providing a spectrum of services across business advisory, program management,
solution delivery and implementation, and performance improvements and was recognized as the Advisory
Firm of the Year 2010 by Energy Risk Il aga ine.
Structure assists companies in implementing their Smart Grid initiatives through comprehensive strategy
development, business case creation and refinement, vendor and system selection, program management,
process re- engineering, system implementation, legacy system integration, and testing of components and/or
end-to-end solutions.
The Structure workforce is comprised of diverse utility and energy professionals with extensive experience in
the energy industry, as well as regulatory program development with NERC, FERC, and other compliance
standards.
Structure specializes in key energy industry areas including Smart Grid /Distribution Operations/Distribution
Automation, SCADA & Energy Management Systems, Energy Trading & Risk Management, and Competitive
Energy Market Solutions.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 3 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LLC. 9/1/10 Structure consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 7
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Limitations
In connection with preparing this Report, Structure Consulting Group "Structure" examined reproductions of
documents provided by Pacific Gas & Electric ("PG&E") and the California Public Utilities Commission
C'CPUG'). Structure relied upon the completeness and accuracy of all documents and other information
requested by and provided to Structure, as well as such other records, agreements, test results, and
documents requested from the CPUC and PG &E and deemed necessary or relevant as the basis for our
Report. In such examinations, Structure assumed i the genuineness of all documents reviewed by Structure,
(ii) the conformity of the copies received by Structure to the original documents, and (iii) the authenticity of the
original documents. Structure further assumed that each of the parties to the documents and agreements
reviewed by Structure had the full power, authority, and legal right under its governing documents, corporate
legislation, and applicable laws and regulations to execute and perform its obligations under all documents
executed by it. Structure assumed that the documents reviewed by Structure were free from any fraud or
misrepresentation and the truth, as were the accuracy of representations and warranties in our interviews with
PG &E employees and ether representatives. This Report was based solely upon the information received by
Structure from the CPLIC, PG&E employees, PG&E Customers, PG&E vendors and representatives.
Structure assumed that the information received was accurate and complete information and documentation.
Subject to the foregoing, Structure has conducted an independent assessment of the matters that Structure
believes to be reasonably necessary to produce this Report. Structure was limited in scope and was not
requested nor performed an exhaustive review of all Smart Meter system deployment documentations,
configurations, and meter installations. Structure has used its reasonable efforts and impartial assessment to
ensure the independence and accuracy of the facts contained in this Report.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 4 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure consulting Group, LLC. 911110 Structure consulting Group, LL .
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 8
A.07 -12 -009 C0M/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
MstructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities commission
Executive Summary Table of Contents
StructureConsulting Group Overview ....■■.■....■..■■ ...........................■ .....■..■■..■■.............................■. ....■■....■■ ................................ ..............................3
Limitations ................................................................ a................................................................................................................... ..............................4
ExecutiveSummary .........................■...■. ... ...... .....■.■...■.............................•...■ ...■ ....■■...■....■■.....................■...■ ......■.■■.■.................... ...■...........................
A Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. ..............................6
B. Summary of Key Findings .............. ............................... ..
C Work Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................1
.1 Laboratory Meter Testing ........................................................................................................................................ ................... ..........10
D.2 Field Meter Testing ....................................... ............................... -- ,............. ..................14
C-3 End -to -End System Testing .....................................:......................... ............................... .---- ,,.,,,...,...14
AHigh Bill Complaint Analysis .................................................................................................................................... ..............................1
C.5 Best Practices Associated with Smart Meters ..................................................................................,...........----------- ,,..,,,......................1
C-6 Security Assessment .................................................................................. ............................... ..................., ...................17
D. Detailed Summary of Observations and Findings .......... ................................................................. ..............................................................
16
D.1 Laboratory Meter Testing ............................................--,,,,..,,...,.....,...,...............................,.------......,,.,.,,.. .............................18
D.1.1 Laboratory Meter Testing Findings Summary .....................................................................................................................
1
D. 1 .2 Laboratory deter Testing Findings Details ....... ..................................................................................... ...... .......................16
D.2 Field Meter Testing ............................................................................................... ...............................
D.2.1 Field Meter Testing Findings Summary... ............................................................................................................................
19
D.2.2 Field Meter Testing Findings Details .................................................................................................... ...............................
21
D.3 End -to -End System Testing ................................................................ ............................... ...........
24
D.3.1 End -to-End System Testing Findings Summary .......................................... ............................... ..
24
D.3.2 End- to-End System Testing Findings Details ....................................................................................... ...............................
25
D.4 High Bill Complaint Analysis ...........................................•.•.......... .........................................................................................................
26
D.4.2.1 Customer Complaint Process ............................................................................................................ ...............................
27
D.4.2.2 Customer Interviews ................................................................................................... .............. .................
30
D.6 Best Practices Associated with Smart Meters .................................................... ............................... ...
32
D.6 Security Ass es ment --------------------„.,---...,..,,,..,,,.,,,...,...,,.............,,......................................................................... ...............................
34
D.7 Other Observations ................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
34
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 5 of 34
to Structure Consulting Group, LLC. 911110
Report is considered Final by
Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 9
A.07 -12 -009 C0M/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Executive Summary
A. Introduction
Pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission ( "CPUC") decisions D-06-07-027 and D-09-03-026, Pacific
Gas and Electric "PG &E" was given approval for full deployment of an Advanced Meter Infrastructure AMI
Project that included upgrading both metering and communications networks as well as the related
computerized systems and software for 5.1 million electric meters and 4.2 million gas meters within the PG&E
territory. PG&E's AMI Project, subsequently named the SmartM ter Program, initiated meter deployment in
2007. During the first half of 2010, PGE actively deployed Smart Meters at an average rate of 176 2 000 gas
and electric meters per month. As of .dune 2010, 3,146,000 electric and 3,101,000 gas Smart Meters had been
installed throughout PG &E's service territory.
By the fall of 2009, the CPUC had received over 600 Smart Meter consumer complaints about "unexpectedly
high" bills and allegations that the new electric Smart Meters were not accurately recording electric usage,
almost all of which were from PG&E's service area. The initial CPUC complaints were supplemented b
complaints provided by Senators Dean Floret D- Shafter and Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), identified during
town hall meetings in Bakersfield and Fresno. In response to these complaints, the CPUC committed to
conduct an independent review to determine whether PG &E's Smart Meter system was correctly measuring
and billing electric usage.
On April 1, 2010, the CPUC contracted with Structure Consulting Group LL "Structure" to provide an
independent report related to testing and validating meter and billing accuracy of PG&E's residential electric
Smart Meters. The five month evaluation, labeled the PG&E Advanced Metering Assessment Report and
hereafter referred to as "The Assessment", culminated in the production of this report, issued on September 2,
2010.
The Assessment focused on addressing residential electric Customer concerns that Smart Meters caused
higher energy bills. The Assessment's scope and objective was to independently assess whether PG&E's
electric Smart Meter system and related billing system had been measuring and calculating electric usage
accurately, and billing PG&E C ustomers appropriately for their usage. The Assessment included meter
testing, end -to -end system testing, an evaluation of high bill complaints, and an evaluation of PG&E's Smart
Meter deployment as compared to industry best practices.
Structure segregated The Assessment's scope into the following areas:
Laboratory Meter Conducted to establish whether the meters used by PG&E tested
Testing accurately at a functional level and under normal and extreme
environmental conditions.
Field Meter Testing Involved testing Customer meters at their premises to determine
Registration Accuracy within an established tolerance range. Customers
were selected to provide a representative cross- section of PG&E's
p opulation base, as lic ble to the field testing scenarios.
End-to-End System Comprised of a combination of laboratory and field tests, to determine
Testing the effectiveness of PG &E SmartMeter and billing systems' efficacy to
capture meter data information.
copyright 2010. Confidential and Propr1etary Page 6 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure consulting Group, LLC. 9/1/10 Structure consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 10
A.07-12-009 CM P 1 jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities commission
i Assessment Scope
x1 y
High Brir complaint
Performed on a subset of the Customers identified as part of the High
Analysis
Bill complaint population to determine trends in high bills associated
with meter type, usage patterns, and billing issues. The Customer base
for this analysis was drawn from complai nts received by the C P C, town
hall meetings organized by state senators, and PG&E. Customer
interviews were conducted from the High Dill Complaint group to evalute
the circumstances related to the complaint PG &E's handling of the
complaint, and _ any , associated resolutions.
Best Practices
Assessed across the energy industry to provide insight into Smart Meter
Associated with Smart
operations compared to PG&E's Smart Meter program.
Meters
Security Assessment
Performed a review of PG &E's cyber security framework focused on
PG&E's Smart Meter system as part of the evaluation. The review was
limited and conducted with a focus on the smart grid system utilizing the
applicable sections of the `SAM] System Security Requirements"
developed by the Smart Grid industry's OpenSG AMITSEC Task Force.
The security assessment was performed to determine whether controls
were established and documented around indus rv- standard criteria.
Figure 1: Structure's PG&E AMI Assessment Scope
Str performed an impartial and independent evaluation, employing reasonable efforts to complete the
engagement work agreed to by the CPUC within a reasonable tirmefrarne and with the understanding that
supporting documentation and information was provided by the C P C and PG &E on a ti el y basis.
Throughout the duration of the Assessment, Structure did not share the results or findings of the Assessment
with PG&E, with the exception of results for a limited number of field meter tests that showed an out of
tolerance or unable to test condition. This limited disclosure to PG &E was done independently of this report to
allow PG &E the opportunity to promptly investigate the situation and take any mitigation measure at their
discretion to minimize the impact on the Customer. The findings from this study were developed
independently of the CPUC and PG &E with regards to previous or current litigation and or regulatory actions.
While this report may be utilized by the CPUC to determine future requirements related to Smart Meters and
the impact of Smart Meters on Customers, Structure's obligation associated with this evaluation should be
considered complete upon delivery of this report to the CPUC. Dissemination of the report and its contents will
be at the discretion of the CPUC in accordance with applicable State of California regulations,
This Executive Summary should not be taken stand alone from the entirety of the report, and should be
considered a culmination of information, facts, tests, explanations, and limitations described throughout the
entirety of the report.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 7 of 34 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LLC. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 11
A.07- 12 -009 COM /MPi /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
92 StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
B. Summary of Key Fi nding
From April T 201 to August , 2010, Structure reviewed relevant documentation related to PG&E's
SmartMeter equipment, systems, and processes and compared it to industry standards, independently -
performed customer interviews, and PG &E- provided gender specifications and internal documentation. This
evaluation principally consisted of an assessment of PG &E' s accuracy and conformity to meter standards,
analytical procedures applied to customer data, business processes, and practices. Due to the number of
systems and process within the PG &E framework, this Assessment reflects Structure's opinion on only the
scope of work which Structure was requested to perform.
The CPUC tasked Structure with addressing three broad questions related to PG &E's SmartMeter system,
focusing on residential electric Customers. Working independently and with the facilitation of the CPUC,
Structure's Assessment yielded the following findings related to CPUG's inquir involving PG&E's residential
electric SmartMeters .
Does PG & E's S m artMete r� system measure and bill electric usage accurately, both now and since
PG &E's Smart Meter deployment began?
PRESENT: While structure cannot ensure that all issues related to the Smartt feter program have
been identified or that future issues may not develop at a later date due to process, controls or
technical modifications instituted after the completion o f The Assessment, Structure's evaluation
provides the reasonable conclusion that PG E's SmartMeters are accurately recording electric
usage w ithin acceptable CPUC tolerances, and are being accurately utilized in customer billing.
SINCE DEPLOYMENT: Although Structure was unable to test electromechanical and Smart Meters
since PG&E's program began, structure reviewed PG E's Smart leter program documentation
issue logs, incident reports, and analysis of historical customer complaints and did s not identify
systemic issues in the measuring and billing of electric usage within PG E s Smart Peter s ystem for
the deployment period prior to our Assessment beyond arose that had already been previously
reported to the CPUC. Identified exceptions related to meter and billing issues appeared to have been
limited and did not appear to have been prevalent in the overall deployed Smart Meter population.
2. What factors contributed to Smart Meter high bill complaints?
High bill customer complaint analysis took the form of scrutinizing PG&E's internal meter data
processing activities, reviewing historical data provided by PG&E, and performing Customer interviews
related to high bill complaints. Structure's A ssessment identified multiple factors that appeared to
contribute to the escalation of Smart Meter high bill complaints durin late 2009 and early 2010,
including:
• Cust omer u sa ge:
o Meter deployment schedules coincided with increased energy usage caused by a heat
wave.
Some Customers experienced load changes that were reflective of oranges in personal
circumstances. Examples included room additions, pool additions, and equipment
malfunctions.
0 Electromechanical ureter degradation that was also identified as part of Structure's field
ureter testing.
• Fates:
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 8 of 3 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/1/10 Structure Consulting Group, LLG.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 12
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
� Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
o Rate increases com pounded the financial impact of the additional weather - rel usage,
resulting in higher bills that occurred as Smart M eters were being installed.
o Incorrectly applied rates that were based upon historical premise assumptions.
o Rate - based inquires that increased as customer bills escalated. Requests for new or
renewed financial assistance through California Alternate Rates for Energy CARE were
identified as potential reductions of financial impacts related to higher hills.
Customer service:
o PG&E processes did not address the Customer concerns associated with the new
equipment and usage changes.
Customer skepticism regarding the new advanced d ureter technology was not effectively
addressed by PG&E on a timely basis.
0 customers interviewed during this assessment did not consider their complaint resolved,
despite indications from PG&E and CPUC that the Customer agreed with the resolution
0 PG &E Cus tom er complaint resolution did not provide of interval ream in forma tion avail ale
with Smart Meters., which may have assisted Customers' understanding of hourly usage
patterns.
Process Issues:
o Customers indicated that communi notifications surrounding physical ureter
Installation were lacking, or that the Customer had issues with the installation personnel.
o PG &E utilized field ureter reamers for an average of 131 days after Smart Meters were
installed, resulting in similar ureter reading errors as electromechanical ureters. The
transition to automate the Smart Meter data for use in billing was not c l ear ly addressed
with customers.
0 PG &E's system tolerances related to billing duality control were not stringent enough,
resulting in multiple bill cancelations and re- billings, which were confusing to Customers.
3. Flow aloes PG &E's SmartMeter Program's past and current operational and deployment compare
against the framework of industry best practices
Structure found PG&E to have been historically in compliance, or have recently come into compliance,
with the majority of Best Practices Associated with smart Meters. Structure identified several items of
partial or non - compliance related to industry best practices during The Assessment, which have been
recognized by PG&E through their presentations of information as shortcomings to be addressed:
a. The lack of documentation verifying compliance with the Meter Deployment best practice to
deploy WANILA IJ collectors prior to meter deployment.
i. By not deploying the communicat backbone prior to ureter deployment, the time to
transition ureter reading from manual to Advanced Metering Infrastructure MI
system readings is exacerbated# extending to are average of 131 days over the
implementation period. This allows a continuation of the higher error rate associated
with manual ureter reading, and may contribute to the perception that the Smart
Meters are inaccurate.
b. The inability to verify compliance around:
C opyright 201 Confidential and Proprietary Page 9 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL C. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 13
A.07 -12 -009 C0M/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
2$ Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
i. The Meter Data Managements MDMS)Inlerface best practice to correlate AMI meter
events and alarms with validation, Estimating and Editing (V EE) and Customer
Information System (CIS) audits and checks for automated exception handling; and
it ". The VEE Best Practice of MDMS must provide an -lure method, with workflow,
resolving validation errors rather than reports.
These leases have created a situation where data required manual editing, causing cancel re -bills and
delayed {processing of Customer data In a relatively small portion of the bills processed. The
cancel/re -bills and delayed processing potentially increased the days within a billing cycle presented In
Customer's bills, as reflected in a portion of the High Dill complaints, and furthered Customer
perception that Smart Meters may not have been accurate.
Based upon Structure's review of requested PE documentation and Structure's associated testing,
Structure determined that previously- identified issues brought to CPU 's attention were being appropriately
addressed by PG&E. Structure's testing did not uncover issues that would challenge that PG E's Smart
Meters were accurately measuring and recording electric usage, or that PG&Fs internal systems were
accurately utilizing this data for billing purposes. Structure identified no relevant correlation between installed
Smart Meters, impacts to billing on installed Smart Meters, and residential Customer Smart Meter high bill
complaints. Structure did identify certain events and circumstances, including sub - optimal Customer service
and variable implementations of industry best practices that contributed to the increase in Smart Meter high bill
complaints. The concerns uncovered should be addressed, but did not appear to be related to the ability of
PG&E's Smart Meter System to measure and bill electric usage correctly.
Overall, structure found that the AM1 technology deployed by PG&E appears to be 1
consistent with industry standards based upon the goals of the AMI irrrplenwntation
and upgrades approved by the cPUC, and accurate from a metering and billing
perspective. structure identified gaps in Customer services and processes related to
high bill complaints, and determined certain PG&E practices to be partially non -
compliant relative to industry beet practices.
The following Figure provides a high -level summary of Structure's findings for each of the PG&E AM[
Assessment's areas of focus.
Copyright 2010. confidential and Proprietary Page 10 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to structure consulting Group, LL. 9/1/10 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 14
A.07 -12 -049 C0M/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
MstructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Laboratory Meter Testing
low
All of the Smart Meters tested in Structure's independent laboratory
passed the accuracy testing. The Smart Meters subjected to
environmental stress testing in a controlled temperature chamber at
reference, high, and low temperatures all fell within the American
National Standards Institute ANSI standards.
Field Meter Testing
• Structure Pa slFail Criteria was based upon the CPU
Standard of ±2.0% for electromechanical meters and Smart
Meters.
e Of the 613 Smart Meter field tests, 611 meters were successfully
tested and 160% passed Average Registration Accuracy. One
meter was found to have serious errors and be malfunctioning on
arrival, and one was found to have serious event errors upon
installation; these meters were therefore excluded from testing.
• Of the 147 completed electromechanical meter field tests 141
meters passed and 6 failed Average Registration Accuracy. One
meter was found to be non4unctional, registering zero on all
tests, and was t heref ore excl uded f rom testing.
End -to -End System Testing
By utilizing a representative, small sample size to confirm meter -to-
bill system accuracy, Structure did not identify deviations during
testing that indicated a systemic problem in the meter billing
s stern's accuracy.
High Bill Complaint Analysis
After reviewing and analyzing over 1 High Bill complaints,
Structure did not identify pervasive issues with meter data or billing
systems. Results from 20 High Bill Complaint Customer interviews
identified service issues around complaint management by PG&E
and the CPUC-
Best Practices Associated
Structure found PG&E to have been historically in compliance, or
with Smart Meters
have recently come into compliance, with the majority of industry
best practices associated with Smart Meters. Structure identified
several items of some concern during the Assessment, which have
been recognized by PG&E, through their presentation of information,
as shortcomings to be addressed.
Security Assessment
Structure concluded that PG&E has developed a cyber security
framework that meets the objectives established in the Smart Grid
industry's OpenSG AMI -SEC Task Force "AMI System Security
Requirements" that were reviewed as part of this evaluation.
Figure : Structure's
PG&E A I Assessment Findings Summary
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 11 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LLc.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 15
A.07 -12 -009 COM /MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
C. Work Scope
Structure's evaluation focused primarily on evaluating meter accuracy and advanced metering system
capabilities to accurately determine and bill Customer electric usage for PG &E "s residential electric Smart
Meter installations. Structure also evaluated PG &E's Smart Meter system deployment current and historical
business practices against industry best practices and standards and assessed PG &E's AMI security
framework. The Assessment also included addressing the influx of high bill complaints that were perceived by
Customers as being Smart Meter - related. Historical meter accuracy and associated meter replacement
firmware upgrades were not tested as part of the scope of this engagement, as Structure was not able to
evaluate the meters at the time that these complaints were initiated.
During project planning and initiation, PG &E provided a system overview that included previous meter testing
performed, meter reading and billing transition scheduling, and high bill complaints received. Based upon the
overview provided, Structure consulted with the CPUC to increase the meter accuracy testing and associated
Customer complaint analysis on PG&E 7 s electric Customers as part of The Assessment. Structure worked
with the CPUC to modify the project scope to better evaluate PG E's AMI systems based upon data
availability, budget constraints, and the available timefrae. Some scope modifications resulted from
additional efforts required to complete the proposed work, as discussed in the Scope of Work section of this
report.
During the course of The Assessment that spanned April to August of 2010, Structure independently tested
over 750 Smart Meters and 147 electromechanical meters. Structure also reviewed the 1 ,378 electric Smart
Meter Customer accounts from a PG &E provided list of 2,915 Smart Meter electric and gas high bill -based
complaints. Structure requested that PG&E provide a detailed explanation of 73 accounts where Structure
identified billing data anomalies that could not be attributed to the Customer's usage profile. Structure also
attempted to contact over 100 of the high -bill complaint Customers, resulting in 20 high-bill complaint phone
interviews. Structure reviewed the accounts of each of the interviews with PG&E's cornpiaint resolution team
for farther analysis.
Throughout the evaluation, less than a 1,000 pages of double sided hard -copy sheets were transmitted in
consideration of California's green initiatives. Approximately 6GB of zipped compressed data in the form of
1,600 documents was provided b y PG &E, which contained approximately 27,000 pages or slides and 2,000
worksheets. Structure electronically pulled 2.4 million sample Customer stratifications from over 6.2 million
Customer meter locations.
During the course of the project, Structure reviewed manufacturer specifications, procedures, and relevant
data associated with meter manufacturers, communication network, and meter data management and billing
systems. Structure also held interviews with PG&E vendors and performed site visits to PG &E and vendor
facilities to observe processes and procedures. Detailed methodology, procedures, test results, and identified
isles can be found in the appropriate sections of this Assessment.
Structure's work included meetings and interviews with PG&E resources and subject matter experts and
Customers to obtain insight and information relevant to our evaluation. Structure also maintained a call center
associated with the field ureter testing that allowed Customers to address questions associated with the
evaluation meter testing. In addition, a meeting was held with the TURN consumer advocacy group at their
request. As part of the assessment, Structure reviewed documents and held over numerous interviews with
PG&E personnel, focused on process and methodology. Additional time was spent with PG&E security
personnel to conduct the security assessment.
The number of meter tests and customer interviews performed was based upon cot benefit analysis
conducted by Structure in conjunction with the CPUC at various points throughout the project. The sample
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 12 of 34 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Croup, LL. 911110 Structure Consulting Croup, LL.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 16
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
2$ StructuriF Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
sizes selected were determined to provide a reasonable representation of the PG &E meter and high bill
complaint populations based upon the PUC- requested scope of work.
The project scope was divided into the following areas:
Laboratory Meter Testing
* Field Meter Testing
• End -to -End System Testing
• High Bill Complaint Analysis
• Best Practices Associated wrth Smart Meters
• Security Assessment
From the initial I FP response throughout the project, Structure contracted for the services of THmark
Associates "Trimark" . Trimark's credentials included certification as a Meter Service Provider ( MSP) in
California by the CPU C. Trimark has provided metering and meter data management services for over nine
gears within California and throughout North America. The synergy between the two companies allowed
Structure to utilize Trimark as a dedicated contractor to perform the meter- based field and laboratory testing
defined throughout this report. As the sole contractor to Structure for this Assessment, further reference to
Trirnark work within this report may be included under the Structure reference.
The following sections provide scope overviews associated with each of the key project areas.
C.1 Laboratory Meter Testing
Laboratory meter testing was performed in a qualified, non -PG &E laboratory located within the PG &E territory
and overseen by Structure resources. Structure verified meter accuracy and factory programming laboratory
tests on a representative meter sample set obtained from PG E *s warehouse facilities. Structure allocated a
portion of the sample set meters for end -to -end and environmental testing, and the remainder for installation at
residential C ustomer premises.
Structure utilized a subset of the PG&E warehouse randomly selected meters to perform environmental testing
in the laboratory, where the meters were subjected to temperature -based stress tests. An additional set of
meters were used for end -to -end system testing to monitor meter activity from installation through billing. The
tests are highlighted in the following Figure, Summary of Structure's Test Scenarios, Scenarios 1 and 2.
Copyright 2010. confidentlal and Proprietary Page 13 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/1/10 structure consuFting Group, LLG.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 17
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
� Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
The laboratory and field test scenarios were developed as a representative set of tests normally used by utility
companies to determine compliance to Public Utility Commission accuracy standards based on ANSI Standard
1 2.20.
C .2 Field Meter Testing
The Assessment's field meter testing utilized the Standards for Meter Installation, Maintenance, Testing and
Calibration as set forth in the Direct Access Standards for Metering and Meter Data DASi11INID and American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards to verify the accuracy associated with PG&E's Smart Meters.
Structure also performed field testing on a sample of electromechanical meters installed at electric residential
Customer locations in order to confirm meter accuracy. The guidelines for testing were based on DASMI ID
standards that were established in 1998, which provided for electromech meters and did not include
updates applicable to Smart Meter systems. Meter accuracy was monitored based upon the DASMMD
requirements. Based upon discussion with CPU C, the DASMMD standards were the established regulatory
guidelines to be followed. The PG and manufacturer comparisons were utilized for reference purposes
only.
Field meter testing was conducted using six scenarios that were identified by Structure to test both the
electromechanical and Smart Meters in the field and evaluate both the accuracy of Customers'
electromechanical and Smart Meters and the associated procedures. The conducted tests are summarized in
Figure 3, Scenario 3 through Scenario 8. Customers whose meters were selected for testing were contacted
by mail and/or by a Structure representative to describe the process and test coordination.
Each of the field testing scenarios was conducted by Structure and accompanied by PG &E's meter
technicians, and followed industry - standard established procedures as described in this report and associated
documentation. All meter testing was performed by Structure technicians for Scenarios 3-7; in Scenario 8,
Structure observed PG E *s field processes for shadow meter tests. The field meter testing included:
• Site veri
• Meter type and form factor verification
Proper installation
Meter program and accuracy verification
Field -based testing focused on residential meters; thus, testing of commercial meters was excluded from the
scope and the test scenarios.
C .3 End -to -End System Testing
End - -End System Testing included bo Iabortory and field testing.
End -to -End laboratory testing was performed on five PG &E Smart meters, with five ElsterTm digital meters
used as "shadow" meters. Each of these meter pairs were subj to a different amount of load, reflecting
measurement at various rate tiers over the test period. In addition: the end -to -end "shadow meters were also
subjected to common exceptions to normal conditions including power outages, voltage swells, voltage sags,
and loss of Radio Frequency reception. Inclusion of common exceptions facilitated testing PG &E's capability
to perform validation, editing, and estimation (VEE) processes in compliance with CPUG rules, and without
introducing errors into Customer bills.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 14 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Gaup, LL. 311110 Structure Gonurting Gaup, LL.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 18
A.07 -12 -009 C0M /MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
99 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
"Proxy" C ustomer accounts were created within PG &Ers billing system for eac of the end -to -end meters
giving Structure the ability to determine PG &E's application of billing determinants and rate assignments as
well as the accuracy and the timeliness of physical bill issuance to residential e Customers. The end -to-
end test process was designed for completion over the course of one PG&E billing cycle.
End -to -End field testing utilized the field testing shadow meter installations for selected High Bill Complaint
Customers as part of field meter testing Scenario 6 The field testing shadow meter setup used the existing
installed PG& Smart Meter and an Elster digital shadow meter installed side -by -side to measure the
Customer's usage simultaneously through both meters. Structure also utilized these same installations to
verify the flow of meter usage and event data from the Customer premise, through the AMI and Billing
systems, to the Customer's receipt of the printed bill.
A PG &E- provided representation of PG&E's metering and billing system connectivity is found in the Figure
below. The information tested in end -to -end system testing was processed through these systems.
bMng I Fining Sptem Rs I
Snort x
M�eur Mohr
reeg IBC
cry.. Web
op
'w Led C OMMA =
do
Fhmsft
VVeb
OF Mah y
r
Heed Ends [;ad
Figure : PG&E-Provided Representation of PG E #s Metering /Billing systems Connectivity
C .4 High Bill Complaint Analysts
To perform the High Bill Complaint Analysis, Structure examined the entire population of 1,378 Smart Meter
electric high bill complaints consisting of those officially filed with the C PUC, those provided by the office of
Senate Majority Leader Dean Floret D - Shafter , and Smart Meter High Bill Complaints specifically identified
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 15 o 34 Report is considered Final by
to structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/1110 Structure Consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 19
A.07- 12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
22 PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
and provided by PG &E for the period September 17, 2007 to April 30, 2010. Structure further refined the High
Bill complaint list to focus on determining the underlying mature of the complaint by utilizing account information
and reviewing detailed historical usage for 1,066 of the Customer complaint accounts with available historical
usage data specifically related to residential electric Smart Meters. The detailed analysis of 1,000 accounts
was done by evaluating the High Bill Complaint Oustomers' usage patterns and account specific information
prior to and after Smart Meter installation to identify impacts of weather, extended bill cycles, cancel re- bills,
estimated meter reads, and usage spires on Customer complaints.
A targeted selection of 73 Customer complaints was chosen based on account activity that suggested the
potential for identifying underlying system or process issues, and was further analyzed to identify contributing
factors for the complaints. The analysis on the 73 complaints included a detailed review of complaint
resolution documentation, usage analysis, complaint history, account history, and Customer Service and
Customer interaction notes. Structure utilized the 73 complaints reviewed and an additional 27 complaints with
similar profiles to contact Customers for potential interviews. O f the 100 potential Customer interview
participants, 20 agreed to participate in one -on -One interviews focused on documenting Customer rationale
when initiating the complaint process, the Customer's experiences, premise conditions, energy usage, and the
Customer's insight into the subsequent PG &E resolution process. Structure followed the 20 Customer
interviews with an examination of each of their accounts with the PG&E Escalated Complaints team, to better
understand the PG&E processes followed and the PG &E outcome of the Customer complaint.
Structure also specifically reviewed Customer usage and resolution status associated with 231 of 300
Bakersfield and Fresno electric Smart Meter town hall complaints, including the underlying analysis performed
by PG&E and the associated resolution process for these accounts.
C.5 Best Practices Associated with Start Meters
To evaluate Best Practices, Structure reviewed PG E's documentation of past and current operational and
deployment policies, processes, and procedures against a framework of industry best practices. The
framework was developed by Structure subject matter experts with combined electric and gas field operations,
and billing experience of over 75 gears, and presented to three independent Smart Meter industry experts for
review and input. Structure compiled the contributions of these experts, applied it to the framework, and
compared P &E's policies, processes, and procedures against the established framework.
The Best Practices work included review of eight key areas associated with Smart Meters:
• Meter manufacturing quality control
• Meter installation standards
• Meter equipment safety
9 Meter deployment
• Meter Data Management interfaces
Validating, Estimating and Editing for monthly and interval data
• Account biding
• High bill complaint troubleshooting
The Best Practice analysis also identified business process improvements initiated by PG &E since January
2010 to enhance meter accuracy and increase customer satisfaction. inclusion of the improvements was
intended to document PG&E's efforts to align with industry Best Practices associated with Smart Meters.
copyright 2010. C onfidential and Proprietary - Page 16 of 34 Report is considered f=inal by
to structure Consulting Group, LL. 311110 Structure Consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 20
A.07 -12 -009 C0M /MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
ructurT Commissioned by the 2$ St California Public Utilities Commission
Best Practices included in this report are reflective of the current industry environment for the areas addressed,
as provided by Structure and industry experts retained by Structure. The views and opinions expressed in The
Assessment may net reflect the views or opinions of all industry experts, and may change as Smart Meter
systems continue to mature.
C.6 Security Assessment
Structure performed a review of PG &E's cyber security f ram ewrvork focused on the smart grid system as part of
The Assessment. The revi was limited based on priority, time, and budget, and was conducted with a focus
on the smart grid system, utilizing the applicable sections of the "A MI System Security Requirements"
developed by the Smart Grid industry's OpenSG AMI -SEC Task Force. The security assessment was
performed to provide a confirmation that controls were established and documented around:
• Corporate Cyber Security Approach
• Confidentiality and Privacy
• Data and System Integrity
• System Availability
Identification and Authentication of Users
• Authorization of Users
• Accounting and Non- Repudiation
• Anomaly Detection Services
• Boundary Services and Interfaces
• Cryptographic Services
• Resource Management Services
• Development Rigor
• Organization Rigor
• Handling and Operating Rigor
Accountability
Per The Assessment's scope, Structure utilized several methods to perform the review, including interviews
and documentation reviews of PG&E policies and procedures, referred to as a "paper" review of PG&E's
security framework. The review included interviews with key PG&E personnel tasked with managing security,
inspection of relevant PG &E documents, and revie w of third -party audit reports where applicable and available.
The information obtained through these methods was then compared against the applicable sections of the
"A I System Security Requirements" standards developed by the Smart Grid industry's OpenSG A I -SEC
Task Force. A comparison to cyber security "best practices" was also performed.
An in -depth qualitative assessment of PG&E's framework implementation was beyond the scope of this
Assessment. An evaluation of this mature would have taken several months to evaluate each major sub -
system within the Smart Grid system, as well as additional time to evaluate the implementation within P &E's
security framework. An in -depth review would involve reviewing firewall rules, system configurations, user
permissions, training, background checks, etc.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 17 of 34 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LLG.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 21
A.07 -12 -409 C0M /MP1/jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
MstructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
D. Detailed Summary of Observations and Finding
The following summary of Structure's findings reflects the results of The Assessment's testing and analysis.
Structure found the sum ad ed results to be representative of the overall PG &E AM] program; however, due
to the accelerated nature of the engagement, Structure's Assessment was limited its ability to express an
opinion on all of the AMI processes and procedures used at PG&E. Accordingly, the results should be taken to
the context of the data reviewed.
D.1 Laboratory Meter Testing
D.1.1 Laboratory Meter Testing Findings Summary
Structure utilized a laboratory testing facility that was independent from PG&E to conduct tests for meter
accuracy, environmental stresses, and end -to -end system functionality. Structure selected 174 Smart Meters
from PG &E's warehouses using a randomized selection process based on representative vendor and meter
type criteria, and then tested the meters for accuracy in the independent laboratory. All of the tested Smart
Meters passed the accuracy testing. Structure then utilized a portion of the selected Smart Meters for
environmental stress testing, and found all of the meters to fall within the American National Standards
Institute ANSI standards when tested in a controlled temperature chamber at reference, high, and low
temperatures.
D.1.2 Laboratory Meter Testing Findings Details
Structure set aside 18 of the 174 meters selected from the warehouses as "spares ", and conducted laboratory-
based accuracy tests on the remaining 156 stock PG &E Smart Meters selected from the five randomly
selected PG &E warehouses. The sample set consisted of a range of meter types and meter manufacturers
representing a representative sample of meters available in the PE in-stock inventory, which were procured
using a random meter selection methodology.
The Results of the Laboratory Accuracy Tests were:
0 100% of the 156 PG&E stock Smart Meters tested were within an accuracy range of 99-81% to
1 00.1 %, with an average accuracy of 100.01 °lam and a standard deviation of 0F0 o %.
• The meters passed the ±0.2% acceptable accuracy standard established by the meter manufacturer,
which also satisfied the CPUC accuracy requirement of ±2.0 °lam.
Following an initial test to verify the accuracy of the meters at full load, light load, and with a 0% power factor
in accordance with ANSI standards, a subset of these meters were used in Structure's laboratory and field test
scenarios.
Environmental testing consisted of subjecting six of the PG&E Smart Meters to extreme hot and cold
conditions in a controlled environmental chamber designed to accurately replicate these conditions in
accordance with ANSI C12.20 specifications. The meters were planed into the environmental chamber for 24
hours and allowed to reach "equilibrium ". The temperature was then adjusted, and the test performed.
The summary findings from the Environmental Laboratory Meter Tests were:
• when subjected to +50 degrees Celsius +122 degrees Fahrenheit) for 24 hours, all of the meters
tested within the ±2 °lam CPUC standard; however, one out of the six meters did not conform to the ANSI
C12.20 maximum deviation of ±0.5% from reference test temperature standard used by the meter
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 18 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL C. 9/1/10 structure Consufting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 22
A.07 -12 -009 C4M/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
manufacturer. The non-conforming meter exceeded the allowed 0.5% deviation by 0.07% during the
full load test. The non - conforming meter's deviation was slightly out of tolerance on the Full Lead and
Light Load test, but the meter passed the CPUC standard for accuracy when adjusted for Average
Meter Registration Accuracy (Full Load Test + Light Load Test) /2.
When subjected to -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit) for 24 hours, all of the meters tested
within the PG&E and CPUC criteria of ±0.5% and ±2 %, respectively. All of the meters passed the
ANSI C 12.20 maxi m u rn deviation of ±O.5% from the reference test temperature standard used by the
meter manufacturer.
D.2 Field Meter Testing
D.2.1 Field Meter Testing Findings Summary
Structure conducted field tests on 797 meters using defined procedures and protocols for each of the following
six scenarios.
• Scenario : Electromechanical Meter Test and Smart Meter Field Replacement
• Scenario : Non -High Bill Complaint Smart Meter Field Test
• Scenario : High Bill Complaint Smart Meter Field Test
• Scenario : High Bif l Complaint Shadow Meter Field Test
• Scenario 7: Non -High Bill Complaint Electromechanical Meter Field Test
• Scenario : High Bill Complaint PG&E-Installed Shadow Meter Test Verification
Structu re's field tests measured accuracy of the meters at full load, light load, and with an applied power factor.
The results were tracked to acceptance levels for the CPU ±2% for both Smart Meters and
electromechanical meters), PG&E (-+0.5% for Smart Meters, ±2% for electromechanical meters), and the
manufacturer (±0.2% for Smart Meters, ±2% for electromechanical meters). Structure's Pass/Fail criterion
used in this report was based upon the CPUC standard of x-2.0% for electromechanical meters and Smart
Deters.
Structure attempted 897 field meter tests and completed 797 field meter tests, including both Smart Meters
and electromechanical meters. Structure was unable to complete the remaining 100 meters due to normal
reasons, such as meter banks on apartment buildings preventing the installation of the dual socket required for
testing and meters locations that required extension ladders for access. Overall, a statistically valid,
randomized sample of Smart Meters representing the entire installed base of Smart Meters in the P &GE
territory was found to pass accuracy reading. Using the CPUC pass/fall criterion of ±2.0 °lam, 611 of the 613
Brn art Meter field tests were completed, with 100% passing C P UC registration accuracy readings. Two Smart
Meters were found to have serious errors and be malfunctioning. one meter was found to have serious errors
and be malfunctioning on arrival, and one was found to have serious event errors upon installation; these
meters were therefore excluded from testing. The Average Registration Accuracy of the 611 meters tested
was 100.067 %, with a Standard Deviation of 0.271 %. of the 147 completed electromechanical meter field
tests, 141 meters, or 95.92 %, passed and 6, or 4.08% failed accuracy readings.
Structure identified one meter that was registering a zero read during the field meter testing. After further
examination of PE's issue logs, the error was identified as a "data storage" issue. These data storage
issues had been identified by PG&E in 12,735 meters as of May 2010, potentially resulting in a subset of
Customers receiving zero usage or lower estimated bills. Data storage issues are one type of exception
disclosed by PG&E, and may include:
• Negative intervals
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 19 of 34 Report is considered Final b
to structure consulting Group, LL G. 9/1/10 structure consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 23
A.07 -12 -009 COM /MPi /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
99 Structures Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
• Large intervals
• Zero tabl
• Negative register readings
• Table resets
Structure noted that these data storage issues were identified in early October 2009, with replacements
starting in May 2010. These errors were disclosed to the public and to the CPUC in May 2010. PG&E
subsequently initiated processes to address these issues in a timely and effective manner. As of July 2010,
the outstanding data storage issues had been reduced to 1 ,525 meters.
The following Figure illustrates the number of meters that passed and failed the accuracy test for all of the
Structure Field Meter Testing Scenarios, delineated by electromechanical meter tests in blue, and Smart Meter
tests in yellow. The field testing scenarios were referred to as "High Bill Complaint" and "Non -High Bill
Complaint' populations. The High Bfll Complaint population was derived from complaints received directly by
the OPUC. or PG&E and these received at the town hall meetings organized by state senators. Non -High Bill
Complaint refers to Customers who had not filed a high bill complaint through one of these channels.
N /A -S: Not Applicable -Shady Meter
Of the 613 completed Smart Meter field tests, 511 meters were successfully tested and 100% passed Average
Registration Accuracy. one meter was found to have serious errors and be malfunctioning on arrival, and one
was found to have serious event errors upon installation; these meters were therefore excluded from testing.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 20 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9!1110 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 24
A.07- 12 -009 COM /MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
D.2.2 Field Meter Testing Findings Details
description o Structure's field testing scenarios and summary of the scenario -based testing results are
presented in the following Figure. The field testing scenarios were referred to as "High Dill Complaint" and
"Non -High Bill Complaint" populations. The High Bill Complaint population was derived from complaints
received directly by the CPUC or PG&E and those received at the town hall meetings organized by state
senators. Nora -High Dill Complaint refers to Customers who had not filed a high bill complaint through one of
these channels. Average registration accuracy is calculated using the equation Light Load Test + Full Load
Test)/2 and refers to the average accuracy of a "register, which maintains a measure of the total power
consumption that passed through the meter over time.
Each of the following scenarios was performed independently of each other, and involved a unique Customer
premise.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 21 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL C. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 25
A.07-12-009 C WM P 1 jt
Mstructure"', PG&E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
.;_
cenario 3
Electromechanical Meter Test
Structure used a representative
- One Smart Meter was found to have a
Smart Meter Field
sample of 50 Customers that
serious event error and be malfunctioning
Replacement
were scheduled to have their
upon installation, and was therefore excluded
electromechanical meter replaced
from testing.
by PG&E. The electromechanical
meters were removed and
100° of the 44 tested smart Meters used for
accuracy tested in the field at full
this scenario passed PUC "s accuracy
load, fight load, and 0% power
testing acceptance standard of ±2.0% in the
factor. A laboratory- tested Smart
field test.
Meter was then accuracy- tested
Field test results of 44 of the previously
in the fl ld before being installed
laboratory- tested Smart Meters indicated an
in the Customer's premise. The
results of each of these tests were
Average Registration Accuracy of 100.27%
recorded by the Structure
during the field tests with a standard deviation
contractor. 47 successful
of 0.112 %.
electromechanical meter tests
and 44 successful Smart Meter
One electromechanical meter was not
tests were conducted for this
found to be functional, registering zero on
Scenario. The difference in
number of electromechanical
all tests; and was therefore excluded from
tests and Smart Meter tests was
testing.
due to 6 electromechanical
• 41 of 47 testers electromechanical meters
meters that failed. These meters
passed the CPU 's accuracy testing
subsequently did not receive a
standard of ±2.0% in the field test.
Smart Meter installation at the
. Six of the 47 tested electromechanical meters
time of the test; therefore,
Structure did not conduct a Smart
failed the GPUC Accuracy Standard of
Meter test at that premise.
±2. 0%, with one failing the Full Load and
Power Factor tests, one failing the Light Load
test, one failing the Power Factor test, and
three meters failing the Light Load and Bower
Factor standard tests.
a Two of the six electromechanical meter
failures failed the Average Registration
Accuracy standard. All field-tested
electromechanical meters that were replaced
with Smart Meters were returned to PG&E
with an indication of whether or not they
passed the field test.
• The 47 tested electromechanical meters had
an Average Registration Accuracy of
93.556 %, with a Standard Deviation of
1.343% for the successful tests.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 22 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LLC. 911/10 Structure Consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 26
A.7 -1 -009 MMPIjt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
92 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Copyright 2010. C onfidential and Proprietary Page 2 of 3 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/11/10 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 27
Structure
Field Testin Scenarios and
ReSLMS
7 7
Scenario 4
Non -High Bill Complaint
A representative sample of 532
One Smart Meter (of the 532) was foun to
S mart Meter Field Test
Smart Meters was chosen from
have a serious event error and was
the population of PG&E
malfunctioning, and was thins excluded from
Customers where a Smart Meter
testing. The communication module on this
had previously been installed by
P E and the ustomers were
device was func tional and had been reporting
not in the High Bill Complaint list.
zero usage for almost six months.
These meters were removed from
* 100 °lam of the 531 tested meters tested within
the Customer's meter socket and
the G PUC accuracy standard of
placed in a calibrated field test set
± ,0 %.Av rage Registration Accuracy ranged
on -site at the Customer's
from 98.345 % to 100.78 with an average of
pr where the meters were
then accuracy- tested at full load,
1 00.075 % and a standard deviation of
light load and a 0% power factor.
0.275%.
In addition, the existing internal
ureter program was verified to
confirm proper functionality.
Scenario 5
High Bill Complaint Smart
Structure selected 50 S mart
All 36 Smart Meters tested passed the GPU
Meter Field Test
Meter installations from the High
acceptance standard of ±.0 °lam.
Bill Complaint population to verity
� The Average Registration Accuracy for the
that the meter was properly
installed and to field test the
scenario meters was 100. with a
registration accuracy of the
Standard Deviation of 0.351
installed Smart Meter. 36 Smart
Meter tests were conducted for
this Scenario. At each location,
the Smart Meter was removed
and installed in a calibrated field
test set, where the meter was
accuracy tested at furl load, light
load and a 50 power factor. In
addition, the existing internal
meter program was verified at
functioning ro erl ,
S cenario 0
High Bill Complaint Shadow
Structure selected 20 locations
* The results of the 19 shadow meter tests
Meter Field Test
from the High Bill Complaint
showed that the shadow ureter reads were in
population to install a Field
concer with the Smart Meter reads.
S hadow Meter setup, and
completed tests at 19 locations.
* The bills frorrr both the lab- tested shadow
The Field Shadow ureter setup
meters and the field- tested shadow meters
consisted of the existing installed
matched the expected results from manual
PG&E Smart Meter and an Elster
bill calculations.
digital Shadow meter installed
Structure encountered four unauthorized
side -bar -side to measure the
PG&E meter swaps/meter tests during the
Customer's usage simultaneously
execution of this scenario, as rioted in the
through both ureters. These
meters were used to establish the
"Unauthorized P Meter S waps" section
accuracy of the Customer meters
of this report, and in Appendix F:
already installed by performing a
Unauthorized Scenario B Meter Swaps
weekly accuracy check and
Exhibitions. These meters were
comparing the readings from the
subsequently not tested by Structure in the
two meters. in addition to verifying
field, but were retrieved from PG&E and
Smart Meter accuracy, these
installations were also used to
evaluated in the laboratory with no rioted
verify the end -to -end accuracy
issues. Structure selected additional
thru the PG&E AMl system to the
accounts to test in lieu of the meters excluded
customer bill.
from test sample due to the unauthorized
meter swap.
Copyright 2010. C onfidential and Proprietary Page 2 of 3 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/11/10 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 27
A.07-12-009 0M MP1 /jt2
StructurT
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
Comm the
California Public Utilities Commission
Struclurc.
Field Testin Scenarios * Re
T
7 7P &P,:i - i 7tt z y � 5 +
f k"
Scenario 7 [Von -High Bill Complaint
structure used a representative
• scenario 7's test includ 100 installed
Electromechanical Meter
sample of 190 installed PG&E
P electromechanical meters, with no
Field Test
electromechanical ureters to verify
failures on the CPUC Standard of ± 2.0%.
the accuracy of these meters in
the field. The meters were
. The 100 meters had an Average Meter
removed from the customer
Registration Accuracy of 99.798% with a
installation and placed in a
standard Deviation of 3.828 °lam.
calibrated field test set to verify
. The minimum Registration across all tests
their accuracy at full load, light
(Full Load, Power Factor, and Light Load)
load, and at a 0% power factor.
was 38.1 %, and the rnaxirnum registration
across all tests was 101. 5%.
Scenario 8
High Bill Complaint PG&E
Structure accompanied PG&E
O the 2 meters selected for scenario 8, 1
Installed shadow Meter Test
Meter personnel during the
were successfully completed with no
Verification
installation of 18 shadow meter
identified deviations, and nine were unable to
tests performed by PG&E. These
installations consisted of the
be completed due to premise restrictions and
installation of a side-b
meter installation rooting schedules.
electromechanical meter and
In all test cases, PE complied with
Smart Meter at the site of
internally documented practices and
Structure-selected High Bill
procedures for the shadow test verification.
Complaint Customer's premises.
Structure reviewed P &E "s
installation practices to determine
if they were in line with
documented installation, testing
and meter reading procedures
and to determine ff PE
followed their documented
Dractice and procedures.
Figure : structure's Field Meter Testing summary of Results
D.3 End -to -End System Testing
D .3.1 End -to -End System Testing Findings Summary
End - to - end system testing was used to verify the accuracy of the PG&E Smart Meters, data communications
and associated systems, estimation routines, and the customer billing system, including bill panting. A
laboratory end - -end test scenario was used to simulate system exception handling in a controlled
environment, including the addition of a meter access point that seared as the collection point for the meter
information that was sent back to PG&E.
End - to - End laboratory testing was performed on fire PG&E Smart Meters, with five Elster digital meters used
as parallel, side -by -side measurement, referred to in this Assessment as " hadov ' meters. These end -to -end
laboratory tests involved creating a proxy Customer account, installing a Smart Meter for this account and an
electronic meter side -by -side to shadow the account's usage, and conducting tests from the time of installation
through to receiving a bill. Structure established shadow meter test boards and conditions in the independent
laboratory for use in the end -to -end system testing, to determine whether the Smart Meters were accurately
C opyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 2 of 3 Report is considered Final by
to Structure consulting Group, LL. 9!1119 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 28
a.07- 12 -009 continrtP1rt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
measuring energy consumption as compared to an independent electronic Meter. A field end -to -end test
scenario, Scenario 6 , was used to test the actual performance at Customer- i nstalled facilities.
Structure did net identify issues during the testing of the meter billing system accuracy. Structure encountered
an issue with PG &E' set -up of the proxy accounts, wherein Structure specified a specific billing address and
PE sent all of the proxy account bills to the wrong address. PG &E indicated that this occurred because
they did not follow their standard practices.
D..2 End -to -End System Testing Findings Details
Twenty -sic Elster digital meters procured from the Elster meter manufacturer were laboratory - tested for
accuracy and utilized as an auxiliary /additional meter to record energy consumption on the secondary meters,
hereby referred to as a "shadow' meters in both the laboratory end -to -end testing and the field end -to -end
testing scenarios.
End -to -end laboratory testing was performed on five PG&E Smart Meters, with five Elster digital meters used
as shadow meters. Each of these meter pairs was subjected to a different amount of load, reflecting
measurement at various rate tiers over the test period. In addition, the meters were also subjected to common
exceptions to normal conditions often found in the field, including power outages, voltage swells, voltage sags,
and loss of Radio Frequency reception. Inclusion of the common exceptions facilitated testing PG E's
capability to perform validation, editing, and estimation (VEE) processes in compliance with cPUC rules, and
without introducing errors into Customer bills. The referenced VEE standard was California Interval Data VEE
Rules Revision 2.0.
"Proxy" Structure Customer accounts were created within PG&E's billing system for each of the laboratory-
based end -to -end meters, giving Structure the ability to determine PG &E's application of billing determinants
and rate assignments accuracy and the timeliness of physical bill issuance to residential electric Customers.
The end -to -end test process was designed for completion over the course of one PG&E billing cycle.
Structure encountered an issue with PG &E's set -up of the proxy accounts wherein Structure specified a
specific billing address to be used instead of the premise address and PG &E sent all of the proxy account bills
to the wrong address. Structure specifically requested use of the billing address instead of the premise
address in order to accommodate a specific route and satisfy the specified bill cycle. The proxy bills were seat
to the [I premise address that was created for the proxy accounts, which was a fictitious address created by
PG &E for internal use for a premise that does not exist. Structure contacted PG&E when the bills were not
received, and subsequently received the bills. PG &E indicated that the bills were sent to the incorrect address
because they did not follow their standard practices for account setup. PG &E failed to note on the account that
bills were to be sent to the billing address, instead of the premise address, and told Structure that the billing
system defaulted to the premise address for bill delivery.
End -to -end field testing utilized four Scenario 6 field test shadow meter installations on selected High Bill
Complaint Customers. The field test shadow meter setup used the existing installed PG&E Smart Meter and
an Elster electronic shadowy meter installed side -by -side to measure the customer's usage simultaneously
through both meters. The meter comparison results are discussed in the Field Meter Testing section.
Structure also utilized these installations to verify the flown of meter usage and event data from the customer
premise, through the PG&E AMI and Billing systems, to the Customer's receipt of the printed bill.
Structure experienced initial laboratory testing setup challenges that were resolved within the first days of
testing. The challenges identified during setup did not impact the overall scope or development of testing
conclusions. The results of the end -to -end tests included:
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 25 of 34 Deport is considered Final b
to structure Consulting Group, LL. 0!1110 Structure Gonsurting Gaup, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 29
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
92 Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
End -to -End laboratory system testing verified that the representative sample of five Smart Meters
being billed through the PG&E systems had average accuracies compared to the reference Elster
meters of 0.06% with a standard deviaton of 0.001 Meter Data Management System MDMS
validation routines were verified to be working accurately under the tested conditions, and billing
matched the expected results.
Meter readings were verified as accurate between the Advanced Metering Infrastructure AI
head -end, the Meter Data Management System MD S : and the Customer care and Billing
CC &B systems.
Application of billing determinants were verified as accurate, including the assignment of baseline
allocations, transition of billing through seasons, and transition of billing through new tariffs.
D.4 High Bill Complaint Analysis
D..1 High Bill Complaint Analysis Findings Summary
Structure obtained the complaint register associated with the electric Smart Meter High Bill Complaints from
both PG &E and the GPUC since the implementation of Smart; Meters through June 10, 2010, for inclusion in
our analysis which included usage history for 1,373 records. A detailed analysis was performed on 1 of
these records. The records were analyzed for usage sensitivity to weather, unusual spikes, meter problems,
manual or system based issues, meter reading issues, rate impacts, and service issues. Structure further
analyzed a targeted sample of 73 complaints that were identified as having multiple issues and would likely
provide the greatest insight into potential PG &E system or process issues. Structure contacted 100 High Bill
Complaint including the 73 researched complaints, and conducted interviews with 20 Customers that had filed
complaints during the period and exhibited excessively high bill periods, cancel re- bills or complaint resolution
codes that reflected a potential problem. The 73 complaint accounts were also included in the field meter
tests.
As a result of the high bill complaint analysis, Structure did not identify problems with the Smart Meter data
utilized for billing. Structure identified the following factors that contributed to high bill complaints during late
2009 and early 2010:
• customer Usage:
o Meter deployment schedules coincided with increased energy usage caused by a heat
wave.
0 Some Customers experienced load changes that were reflective of changes in personal
circumstances. Examples included room additions, pool additions, and equipment
malfunctions.
0 Electromechanical meter degradation that was also identified as part of Structure's field
ureter testing.
• Rates:
0 fate increases compounded the financial impact of the additional weather-related usage,
resulting in higher bills that occurred as Smart Meters were being installed.
0 Incorrectly applied rates that were based upon historical premise assumptions.
o Rate -based inquires that increased as Customer bills escalated. Requests for new or
renewed financial assistance through California Alternate Fates for Energy (CARE) were
identified as potential reductions of financial impacts related to higher bills.
• Customer Service:
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 26 of 34 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LLC. 911!10 Structure Consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 30
A.07-12-009 CMM P l! jt
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
o PG&E processes did not address the Customer concerns associated with the new
equipment and usage changes.
o Customer skepticism regarding the new advanced ureter technology was not effectively
addressed by PG&E on a timely basis.
o customers interviewed during this assessment dial not consider their complaint resolved,
despite indications from PG&E and CPUC that the Customer agreed with the resolution
0 PG&E Customer complaint resolution did not provide of interval read information available
with Smart Meters, which may have assisted Customers' understanding of hourly usage
patterns.
Process Issues:
• customers indicated that communications/notifications surrounding physical ureter
installation were lacking, or that the Customer had issues with the installation personnel.
• PG&E utilized field ureter readers for an average of 131 days after Smart Meters were
installed, resulting in similar meter reading errors as electromechanical meters. The
transition to automate the Smart Meter data for use in billing was not clearly addressed
with customers.
• PG 's system tolerances related to billing quality control were not stringent enough,
resulting in multiple bill cancelations and re- billings, which were confusing to customers.
Additionally, Structure determined that the PG&E complaint resolution process was inefficient and ineffective in
providing Customers with resolution details and education related to Smart Meters. Recent process changes
adopted by PG&E created Customer Relations resources that were focused on Smart Meters along with a
group focused on resolving escalated complaints. Structure performed a complaint walithrough with both the
PG&E groups and was satisfied that additional focus was being placed on resolving Customer complaints.
D.4.2 High Bill Complaint Analysis Findings Details
D...1 Customer Complaint Process
The Customer complaint process followed multiple paths, including contacting the CPUC Consumer Affairs
Branch (CAB) to file a complaint and tiling directly with PG &E's Customer Relations Department. in some
cases, Customers registered complaints with both the CPUC and PG &E. Typically, Customers had filed more
than one complaint with PG &E. Included in the CPUC complaint list were complaints received during town
halls hosted by Senators Dean Floret D -Shaft r in October 2009. The complaint process is illustrated in the
Findings section of this document.
All complaints filed with the CPUC were provided to PG&E for resolution and expected to either be resolved in
10 days or to provide a required o credit to the Customer. CPUC was responsible for communicating results
back to the Customer. Complaints filed with PG&E were handled through the Customer Relations call center
and logged into the Customer's account profile.
The following Figure illustrates the number of Smart Meter high bi11 complaints received by PG &E on a monthly
basis.
Copyright 2919. confidential and Proprietary Page 27 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9!1119 structure consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 31
A.07- 12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
MstructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Smart Meter Bill Complaint File Date
350
300
250
200
150
too
50
n
+ + r F 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 i i r i r r
0 C om plaint Ana ly d ■ C om p lain Post Ana lysi
Figure : PG&E-Provided mart Meter Electric Customer Account Complaint
Structure noted a disproportionate number of complaints filed with the CP C than with PG&E, as indicated in
the Figure below.
Snrart�lM�r �lectrlc Customer Account Complains
Town Hall Mwd ngs
PG&E Customer Reiations
CP C Con r er Wa h.. .
Figure : structure- Identified Smart Meter Electric Customer Complaints
Structure was told by PG&E that a complaint was not marked as a Smart Meter complaint if the Customer did
net mention that they had a Smart !Deter. This approach may result in complaints net being accurately coded
C opyright 2010. C onfidential and Proprietary Page 2 of 3 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/1/10 Structure consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 32
Zoo 400 - oo Soo 1000'
CPUC Consumer mer
PG Customer
Town Hall Meetings
Aff.Wrs'Br
Relations
Customer C
9
267.
205
Figure : structure- Identified Smart Meter Electric Customer Complaints
Structure was told by PG&E that a complaint was not marked as a Smart Meter complaint if the Customer did
net mention that they had a Smart !Deter. This approach may result in complaints net being accurately coded
C opyright 2010. C onfidential and Proprietary Page 2 of 3 Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 9/1/10 Structure consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 32
Zoo 400 - oo Soo 1000'
A.07 -12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
2$ Structure Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
and reported as Smart Meter complaints. Some Customers interviewed indicated that complaints were
registered with both the CPUC and PG&E, although only the CPUC record was identified.
Structure also performed a historical usage analysis utilizing an aggregated Smart Meter complaint inventory
file provided by PG&E. The file included identification of the complaint source, relevant complaints, and
related account detail. Structure conducted an analysis of the Smart Meter Complaint inventory to remove
duplicate and non -Smart Meter billing data, and concluded that of the 2,915 Smart Meter complaints that were
filed by PG &E Customers from September 2007 through April 2010, there were 1 g 378 distinct Customers that
filed complaints related to residential electric accounts. Structure's evaluation included a further detailed
review that evidenced 1,066 represented electric residential Smart Meter Customer accounts.
Subsequent to the conclusion of our analysis Structure received additional nigh complaints from both PG&E
and the CPUC. Structure reconciled the lists and determined that an additional 117 CP C CAB Customer
complaints had been excluded from the PE- provided consolidated list. Structure utilized the complaint lists
and supplemental complaints as the basis for our testing selection, but did not 'include a complete analysis on
these accounts.
As part of a follow -up to the Town Hall meeting complaint process, Structure reviewed the detailed Customer
analysis performed by PG &E and the associated complaint resolutions. The PG&E analysis included a
comparison of the Customer's average daily usage in kWh v. the monthly average temperature for the region
to demonstrate the trend in usage pre- and post- Smart Meter installation.
Structure reviewed the Town Hall Meeting historical usage profile for each complaint to determine accounts
that were 'impacted by weather. Structure included the Town Hall complaints within the potential selection
group for the Customer I nterviews and in the Smart Meter High Bill meter tests for further validation.
Structure also performed an independent analysis on the high bill complaint Customer accounts by reviewing
the historical usage for 1,378 accounts, and performing detailed analysis on 1,066 accounts. The analysis
performed included:
• weather impacts on average daily usage
• Average Daily gage prior month prior year
• Extended billing cycles
• Unresolved complaints
• Cancel/re-bill review
Structure compared the historic average daily kilowatt hours kWh usage for each of the 1,066 Customer
accounts with the objective of determining if the high bill complaint Customers experienced increased kilowatt
hour (kWh) usage after installation of Smart Meters due to weather. The comparison utilized the 2006 and
2009 years with similar summer profiles and determined that in % of the 2009 complaints, the average daily
usage was less than the 2006 summer although the 2006 summer months were hotter. Structure verified that
the weather in the same July /August period for 2007 and 2008 was 2 to 3 degrees cooler than in 2009. The
remaining 14% of accounts required additional analysis to determine the potential cause for the increased
usage.
Structure also reviewed the average daily usage for the same period of the prior year for each Customer
Complaint account history, and identified less than % of the records for the complaint Customers that
exceeded 150% of the same period prior year. Structure utilized the 150% value to reflect the differential in
weather between 2008 and 2009 and focus on identifying unusual spikes in energy usage-
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary - Page 29 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to structure Consulting Group, LL. 911/10 structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 33
A.07 -12 -009 COM /MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
92 StructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commissio
Additional complaint analysis focused on the extent to which bills were included in an extended billing cycle, or
delayed bills, outside of the typical (27-32 day) billing cycle. Structure's evaluation discovered that in 2009 and
2010, approximately % of the bills reflected a billing period beyond the standard cycle, although less than
0.4% extended past a 45 day window. Extended billing cycles that resulted in higher overall bills were
identified as contributing to high bill complaints. Structure recalculated several bills and determined that the
appropriate baseline adjustments were included in the bills and that the bills were accurately calculated.
Structure also noted that during late 2009 and early 201 , a significant portion of corn plaints were not resolved
within the C P UC-requ i red 10 day complaint resolution period. PG & E indicated that the resolution time period
e ctended welt beyond the 1 0-day timeframe date to the infIux of complaints during the second half of 2009 and
early 2010. Structure calculated that PG&E took more than 10 days to resolve complaints for more than %
of the Customer accounts during this time period. Structure did not revie w all accounts to identify whether the
PUG credit for account resolution was provided, but did identify that in several cases where detailed review
was performed, the adjustment was properly applied after Structure's additional review and discussion with
PG&E.
The cancel/re-bills documented by PG&E represented 1% of the total (nigh bill complaints. A portion of the
cancel /re -bills related to overbilling from estimated meter reads identified by Customers subsequently required
adjustments by PG&E. Billing adjustments were also made to compensate for meter installation issues.
D.4.2.2 Customer Interviews
Structure contacted 100 high -bill complaint Customers for potential in -depth interview participation related to
their high bill complaint. Of the 100 Customers contacted, 20 Customers agreed to be interviewed. Some
Customers permitted inclusion of their information in The Assessment, and permitted Structure to follow up
with PG &E on their behalf. The Customer interviews focused on the nature of the complaint described to
PG&E, PG &E's approach to resolving the Customer's complaint, and the current status of the complaint. The
20 Customers participating to interviews were also included in the field meter testing population.
Based upon Customer interviews, Structure identified gaps in PG E's approach taken to resolve Customer
complaints, including but not limited to:
• Some Customer complaints were not logged into the service history on Customer accounts.
• Follow-up with Customer was not performed on a timely basis.
• PG&E indicated that account was resolved did not align with Customer perception.
• Lack of resolution communication back to Customer.
• Customer lacked clear understanding of complaint resolution process.
• Customer consistently treated by PG &E as wrong, until the Customer proved to PG &E that they were
right.
a Customer perception of Smart Meter functionality resulted in complaint escalation.
0 PG&E front -line customer call representatives lacked professionalism while dealing with Customer
complaints.
Underlying cause of billing issue not discovered in most cases, even when monetary resolution was
reached.
Recent process changes adapted by PG&E allocated Customer Relations resources focused on Smart Meter
along with a group focused on resolving escalated complaints. Structure performed a complaint walkthrough
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 30 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to structure consulting Group, LL. 911/10 Structure consulting Group, LLC.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 34
A.07 -12 -009 COM /MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22structurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
with both of the PG&E groups and was satisfied that additional focus was being placed on effectively resolving
Customer complaints.
In regards to the CPUC complaint resolution process, Structure noted that the Complaint closure letter
Customers received from the CPUC provided no further information than had been provided by PG&E, and
both were considered to be ineffective.
Structure followed -up on the Customer interviews by reviewing the Customer Complaints with PG &E. As an
outcome of Structure's review with PG &E, two accounts were adjusted based upon the Customer's satisfaction
of certain criteria, including low income CARE eligibility and major customer equipment malfunctions, which
were subsequently repaired by the Customer.
During the interview process, Structure identified discrepancies in the retroactive application of the CARE
eligibility for two Customers. These discrepancies were later resolved by PG&E, following Structure's
inquiries, in favor of the Customer.
Of the 20 Customer interviews completed, Structure identified the following non - unique account issues:
0 9 Customers experienced un usual l r high bills in the initial months after the Smart Meter was installed
0 Explanations identified:
a Estimated meter reads
■ Cancel/re-bill adjustments
■ weather related
■ Usage pattern adjustments
• 9 Customers do not have an explanation, peronallr or frorn PG&E, for the spike in electricity usage.
Potential explanation identified:
■ Electromechanical degradation {similar to those found in field testing}
• 5 Customers were on the wrong rate structure, or PG&E changed their rate structure as a result of
their complaint.
o Explanations included:
■ Historical premise classified incorrectly affecting the baseline applied to the premise
8 Lapse in CARE qualification, or not registered for lower income -based programs
1 Customer experienced a S00% increase in kwhs used after Smart Meter installation
0 Explanation included:
■ Correction of estimated meter reads.
■ Note: The lack of adequate PG&E exception and validation controls resulted in the bill
bei rig processed.
• 2 Customers interviewed experienced electrical problems due to Smart Meters causing "surges" or
interruptions in timed electrical services such as security lights and hot tub pumps.
o Explanations included:
■ There is a possibility for a meter in close proximity to FCC Part 15 Unlicensed Radio
Frequency RF devices and transmitting data via a 1 watt radio transmitter to create
operational interference e.g., static, trip, or outage) when the RF signal passes
though these devices. This is an issue that is prevalent with any RF device, such as
walkie-talkies, garage door openers, etc. Electrical issues may be due to a matter of
proximity to the transmitter, strength of the transmitter, frequency of the transmitter,
and the impact on the neighboring device.
• FCC Part 15 Unlicensed RF devices include:
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 31 of 34 -- Report is considered Final b
to Structure Consulting Group, LLC. 911110 Structure Consulting Croup, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 35
A.07 -12 -009 C0M/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
MstructurT Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commissi
o Motion sensors
o Garage door openers
o Baby monitors
o wireless telephones
o Wireless speakers
PG &E has determined that certain models of Ground Fault Interrupter GFI
breakers (such as those used on het tubs) may be impacted if they are in
close proximity to the meter. PG&E has also engaged Smart Meter
manufacturers to develop low power transmitter solutions to the GFI
interference issue, and has trained the installation contractors to listen for GFI
tripping upon installation of a new meter.
On average Customers indicated a 4. 5 month delay between complaint submission and ultimate resolution.
The quickest resolution was reached in four days; however, the longest resolution took 12 months and
significant effort on the part of the Customer.
While the Customer interviews and related detail account reviews provided significant insight into potential
issues within the Smart Meter program, Structure did not identify recurrent issues that impacted the overall
population of High Bill Complaints analyzed.
D.5 Best Practices Associated with Smart Meters
D..1 Best Practices Associated with Smart Meters Findings Summary
Structure found PG &E to have been either historically in compliance, or to have recently come into
compliance, with the majority of industry best practices associated with Smart Meters. Recognizing that some
of these practices have matured over P &E's three year AMI deployment period, it is reasonable that they
have recently come into compliance with standards associated with best practices. Some concerns wer
noted around PG &E's practices related to Meter Deployment, Meter Data Management Interfaces, and VEE.
The following Figure presents a pictorial representation of Structure's evaluation of PG&E's historical and
current adherence to industry best practices.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 32 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to structure Consulting Group, LL C. 9/1/10 Structure Consulting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 36
A.07- 12 -009 COM/MP1 /jt2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
22 Structuri Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
Fiaure : tructure "s Summary of PG&E Best Practice comMiance
The Findings section of this report addresses the specific areas in which PG&E is historically and /or currently
not compliant with best practices.
D..2 Best Practices Associated with Smart Meters Findings Details
Although PG&E was not in compliance with the recommendation to utilize IEC 61968 interoperability
standards PG&E provided documentation that it was employing a set of interoperabilit r standards for MDM
Interfaces.
O f some concern is the lack of documentation verifying compliance with the Meter Deployment best p rac ti ce to
deploy IRAN /LAN collectors prior to meter deployment. By not deploying the communication backbone prior to
meter deployment, the time to transition meter reading from manual to AMI system readings is exacerbated,
extending to are average of 131 days over the implementation period. This allows a continuation of the higher
error rate associated with meter reading and may contribute to the perception that the Smart Meters are
inaccurate.
Additionally, the inability to verify compliance around the Meter Data Management Interface best practice to
" C orrelate AMI meter events an alarms with VEE and CIS audits and checks for automated exception
handlings' and the VEE Best Practice of "MDMS must provide an on -line method, with workflow, resolving
validation errors rather than reports" has created a situation where there is manual editing of data causing
numerous cancel /re - bills and delayed processing of Customer data. This, coupled with extensive manual,
instead of automated, exception handling of issues has allowed many metering and billing errors to occur on a
repe titive basis over t ime, furthering the perception that the Smart Meters are not accurate.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 33 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 37
Structure's Summary of PG&E Best Practice Compliance
■ Current
■ Historical
10
3
}
i
0
M
o
/
C r
o -Val
CD
•
E E
2
76 co
'�
//
a)
0
C
f
f
Fiaure : tructure "s Summary of PG&E Best Practice comMiance
The Findings section of this report addresses the specific areas in which PG&E is historically and /or currently
not compliant with best practices.
D..2 Best Practices Associated with Smart Meters Findings Details
Although PG&E was not in compliance with the recommendation to utilize IEC 61968 interoperability
standards PG&E provided documentation that it was employing a set of interoperabilit r standards for MDM
Interfaces.
O f some concern is the lack of documentation verifying compliance with the Meter Deployment best p rac ti ce to
deploy IRAN /LAN collectors prior to meter deployment. By not deploying the communication backbone prior to
meter deployment, the time to transition meter reading from manual to AMI system readings is exacerbated,
extending to are average of 131 days over the implementation period. This allows a continuation of the higher
error rate associated with meter reading and may contribute to the perception that the Smart Meters are
inaccurate.
Additionally, the inability to verify compliance around the Meter Data Management Interface best practice to
" C orrelate AMI meter events an alarms with VEE and CIS audits and checks for automated exception
handlings' and the VEE Best Practice of "MDMS must provide an on -line method, with workflow, resolving
validation errors rather than reports" has created a situation where there is manual editing of data causing
numerous cancel /re - bills and delayed processing of Customer data. This, coupled with extensive manual,
instead of automated, exception handling of issues has allowed many metering and billing errors to occur on a
repe titive basis over t ime, furthering the perception that the Smart Meters are not accurate.
Copyright 2010. Confidential and Proprietary Page 33 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LL.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 37
a.07- 12 -009 c0nniMP1rr2
PG &E Advanced Metering Assessment Report
�
Structu're Commissioned by the
California Public Utilities Commission
PG &E has recognized, through the presentation of information, their shortcomings on these issues and has
been actively pursuing remedies such as process improvements and the recent consolidation of the Billing,
EE, Smart Meter Engineering, and Troubleshooting operations into one Operation Center.
D.6 Security Assessment
D.8.1 Security Assessment Findings Summary
Structure concluded that PG&E has developed a cyber security framework that meets the objectives of the
Smart Grid industry's OpenSG A I -SEC Task Force `{AMI System Security Requirements" that were reviewed
as part of this evaluation.
D.6.2 Security Assessment Findings Details
Structure independently reviewed P &E's cyber security f ram evwrork as it applies to their Smart Meter system.
Structure also evaluated PG &E's cyber security framework against industry best practice standards to identify
deviations in current and historical business practices. Structure concluded that PG&E had developed a cyber
security framework that met the objectives of th O p enSG AMI - SEC Taste Force "AMI System Security
Requirements" that were reviewed as part of this evaluation. An assessment o the implementation of the
cyber security f ram ewo rk was not within Struct 's agreed -upon scope of work
D.7 Other Observations
Structure submitted data requests, using PG&E's standard request procedures as agreed to with PG &E and
GPUC to obtain information used as the basis for this report. At PG &E's request, Structure assigned priorities
to the data requests to facilitate response focus and expedition. While PG&E accommodated the requests,
8% of the requests were substantially delayed dine to PG &E's internal processing and legal review. The
delayed resulted in Structure requiring additional time and resources to process, integrate and reconcile
information to an effective manner once received. While Structure does not feel that the delayed information
impacted the results of the Assessment, the receipt of limited data and the differences in data presentation in
the received data impacted the amount of time required to complete the planned analysis and fled to scope
modif icati ons and a revised project compl etion date of September 2 201
Copyright 201 Confidential and Proprietary Page 34 of 34 Report is considered Final by
to Structure Consulting Group, LL C. 911110 Structure Consulting Group, LL C.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 38
C ITY [A I L d
ORDINANCE NO. (CM)
AN EMERGENCY CY INTERIM ORDINANCE CE of THE CITY COUNCIL of
THE CITY of 1 ATSONVILLE ESTABLISHING A M ORATORIUM of
TWELVE 12 MONTHS ON THE INSTALLATION LLATIOI of SMARTMETERS
AND RELATED EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE CITY of II ATSONVILLE
OR IN, ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC
STREETS AND PLACES WITHIN THE CITY of WATSON MLLE, AND
DELCRING THE URGENCY THEREOF
WHEREAS, S, the City of Watsonville (the "City"), through its police pourers granted
by Article X1 of the California Constitution, retains broad discretion to legislate for public
purposes and for the general welfare, including but not limited to matters of public
health, safety and consumer protection; and
WHEREAS, Article X11 of the City Charter expressly grants the City authority to
regulate public utilities within the City of Watsonville; and
WHEREAS, the Council adopted a franchise agreement with PG &E'
predecessor, Coast Counties Gas and Electric Company by Ordinance 435 on or about
September 2, 1945; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the City retains authority under Article X11, Section 8 of
the Constitution to grant franchises for public utilities, and pursuant to California Public
Utilities Code section 6203, "may in such a franchise impose such other and additional
terms and conditions..., whether governmental or Contractual in character, as in the
judgment of the legislative body are to the public interest;" and
WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code section 2902 reserves the City's right to
supervise and regulate public utilities in matters affecting the health, Convenience and
safety of the general public, "such as the use and repair of public streets by any public
utility, the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under,
Ord No. C
:1C NCIL12D1O1O824101 rnartMet r Moratorium A=
r# /19/2010 2:19:28 PM AJ � UP
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 39
or above any public streets, and the speed of common carriers operating within the
limits of the municipal corporation;" and
WHEREAS, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") is now installing
SmartMeters in Central and Northern California and will be installing these meters in the
City of Watsonville in the very near future; and
WHEREAS, concerns about the impact and accuracy of SmartMeters have been
raised nationwide, leading the Maryland Public Service Commission to deny permission
on June 21, 2010 for the deployment of SmartMeters in that state. The Mate of Ha waii
Public Utility Commission also recently declined to adopt a smart grid system in that
state. The CPC currently has pending before it a petition from the City and County of
San Francisco, and Other municipalities, seeking to delay the implementation of
SmartMeters until the questions about their accuracy can be evaluated; and
WHEREAS, major problems and deficiencies with SmartMeters in California
have been brought to the attention of the City of Watsonville City Council, including
PG E's confirmation that SmartMeters have provided incorrect readings costing
ratepayers untold thousands of dollars in overcharges and PG &E's records outlined
" risks" and "issues including an Ongoing inability to recover real -tire data because of
faulty hardware Originating with PG&E vendors; and
WHEREAS, the ebb and flog of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailed
information about private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment by
moment, allows the reconstruction of a household's activities: when people gale up,
when they come home, when they go on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath.
SmartMeters represent a new form of technology that relays detailed hitherto
confidential information reflecting the times and amounts of the use of electrical power
Ord No. _ (CM) 2
0ACOUNCU201=8241MmartMeter Moratorium.do
ri 8119/20/0 2:19:23 PM
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 40
without adequately protecting that data from being accessed by unauthorized persons
or entities and as such pose an unreasonable Intrusion of utility customers' privacy
rights and security interests. Indeed, the fact that the CPUC has not established
safeguards for privacy In its regulatory approvals may violate the principles set forth b
the J.S. Supreme Court in K llo v. United ! States (2001), 533 U.S. 27; and
WHEREAS, significant health questions have been raised concerning the
increased electromagnetic frequency radiation EIVIF emitted by the wireless
technology In SmartMeters, which will be in every house, apartment and business,
thereby adding additional roan -made EMF to our environment around the clock to the
already existing EIVIF from utility poles, individual meters and telephone poles; and
WHEREAS, EAS, FCC safety standards do not exist for chronic long-term exposure to
IIF or from multiple sources, and reported adverse health effects from electromagnetic
pollution include sleep disorders, irritability, short terry memory loss, headaches,
anxiety, nausea, DIVA breaks, abnormal cell growth, cancer, premature aging, etc..
Because of untested technology, international scientists, environmental agencies,
advocacy groups and doctors are calling for the use of caution in wireless technologies;
and
WHEREAS, EAS, the primary justification given for the SmartMeters program is the
assertion that it will encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage f rom
daytime to evening hours- however, PG&E has conducted no actual pilot projects to
determine whether this assumption is in fact correct. Non-transmitting time-of-day
meters are already available for customers who desire them, and enhanced customer
education is a viable non - technological alternative to encourage electricity use time-
shifting. Further, some engineers and energy conservation experts believe that the
Ord No. _ M
QACOU N ILX 01 0\08241 MmartM ter Moratorlum.docx
ri 8/19/2010 2:19:28 PM
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 41
SmartMeters program - -in totality -- could well actually increase total electricity
consumption and therefore the carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS, EAS, because the potential risks to the health, safety and welfare of
Watsonville residents are so great, the City Council wishes to adopt a twelve 12 month
moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters and related equipment within the
Watsonville City limits. The twelve (12) month period will allow the CPUC petition
process referenced above to be completed and for additional information to be collected
and analyzed regarding potential problems with SmartMeters" and
so WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and
welfare because, without this urgency ordinance, SmartMeters or supporting equipment
will be installed or constructed or modified in the City without PG&Fs complying with
the CPUC process for consultation with the local jurisdiction, the City's Code
requirements, and subjecting residents of Watsonville to the privacy, security, health,
accuracy and consumer fraud risks of the unproven Smartt leter technology; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have
a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance does not authorize construction
or installation of any facilities and, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such
construction and installation to order to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare. This Ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act CEA pursuant to Section
15061 b3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Ord No. M) 4
QACOU N I L\201 0\08241 Mmart eter Moratorium.docx
ri 811912010 2 :19.28 P
Agenda Item 11.a.
Page 42
NOW, THEREFORE, E, THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of WATSONVILLE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN s FOLLOWS:
Section I. No Smartt leter may be installed in or on any home, apartment,
condominium or business in the City of Watsonville, and no equipment related to
SmartMeters may be installed in, on, under, or above any public street or public right of
gray in the City for twelve 1 months from the date of this Ordinance, at which time the
Watsonville City Council, shall consider whether to extend or terminate this prohibition
in light of the then - current data on Smartlleter privacy, safety, accuracy and health
effects.
Section 2. Violations of the Moratorium may be charged as infractions or
misdemeanors as set forth in Section 1-2.10 of the Watsonville onville Municipal Code or
otherwise as set forth in Article I of Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Watsonville Municipal
Code in the discretion of the City. In addition, violations shall be deemed public
nuisances, with enforcement by injunction or any other remedy authorized by laver.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the city of
Watsonville to direct all City Departments, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and
intent of this Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding
paragraph.
Section 4. This City Council finds and determines than: a there is a current
and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare; b the moratorium must
be imposed in order to protect and preserve the public interest, health, safety, comfort
and convenience and to preserve the public welfare; and c it is necessary to preserve
the public health and safety of all residents or landowners adjacent to such uses as are
Ord No. M
:1 IVCI L1 01 X108241(1 martMeter Moratorium.doc
ri /19/2010 2:19:23 P
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 43
affected by this interim ordinance as well as to protect all of the citizens of Watsonville
by preserving and improving the aesthetic and economic conditions of the City.
Section 5. Any provision of the Watsonville nville Municipal Code or other
ordinances of the City inconsistent herewith, to the extent of such inconsistencies and
no further, is hereby suspended during this interim ordinance.
Section 6. If any provision Of this interim ordinance is held to be
unconstitutional, it is the intent of the City Council that such portions of such ordinance
be severable from the remainder and the remainder be given full force and effect.
Section 7. The interim Ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure
adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 602 Of the Watsonville City Charter and
California Government Code Section 65858 and is necessary for preserving the public
peace, health, safety, and property, and the general welfare and urgency for its
adoption are set forth in the findings above.
Section 8. This interim ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately
upon its adoption and shall remain in effect until August 25, 2011, unless otherwise
modified by ordinance, and on August 26, 2011 t it shall be of no further force and
effect.
Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this interim ordinance to
be published once in the offi cial ne wspaper with in fifteen 1 days after its adoption.
Ord No. _ M
A OUN IL1 01 =8241 Mmart l ter Moratorium -docx
ri 8/19/2010 2:19:23 PM
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 44
j 414 -- - - 2+31 t 11:52A FROM:
RES LUTTO NO. 20l o- 10
TO:47303GG P.2
RESOLUTION OF THE BE ARD OF DIRECTORS
F THE CHUMASH VILLAGE HONMOWNERS ASS CIATl N
DECLARING OPPOSITION REGARDING THE INSTALLATION
F PG E "SMA PT DETERS" IN CHUCASH VILLAGE
CHUMASH TILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
City of San Luis Obispo, Califomia
WHEREAS, on ,duly 20, 20 , the California Public Utilities Commission
approved the request of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to install advanced metering
infrastructure (AMT), which includes replacing existing electric meters with so- alied
"Smart peters "'; and
VIMREAS. the Board of Directors understands that PG&E has begun installing
the Smart Meters in the San Luis Obispo area; and
AREAS, citizens of the San Luis Obispo area have expressed concerns about
the insulation of Smart Meters relating to health concerns and privacy and increased
cost of utilities; and
AREAS, the Board of Directors understands the Public Utififics Commission,
in approving the Smart Deters program, did not consider pos ihie heath impacts or
give adequate consideration to privacy concern, and to greatly iner ascd cosh to users of
the utilities; and
WHEREAS, the meters will be installed on private pmperty.
NOW, THEREFORE, RE, E IT RESOLVED by the Churnash Village Homeowners
Association Board of Directors, that
! .
The Chumash Village Homeowners Association .Board of Directors requesis
PG&E not to ill any Smart Meter , repeaters, antennas and any related
wireless equipment in Chumash viliagc.
2. The Chumash Village Homeowners Association ward of s requests
PG&E and the California Public Utilities Cession to provide an
appropriate mechanism for residents to appeal higher billings due to Smart
Meters before any Smart Meters are installed i Chumash village.
3. The Chumash Village Homeowners Association Board of Directors supports
the Resolution 63-10 of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay,
Cafifornia declaring concerns regarding the installation of PG "Smart
Meters" in their City.
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 45
j l - 7� - 20 t 11:52A FROM: T : 4730386 P.
Resolution N o. 2010-01
Page Two
PASSED AND ADOPTED b the Chumash Village Homeowners Association
Board of Directors at a regular meeting thereof held on the 11 day of January 2011 on
the following vote:
YES:
NOE S: - --
ABSENT:
BILL RI SON, Preaid nt
A TTEST:
ML ES ENGLISH, M eager
Agenda Item I I.a.
Page 46