Loading...
Agenda Packet 1999-11-09 ---- ---- - CITY COUNCIL ~W;; 0/ AGENDA ~ 8f~ Michael A. Lady Mayor Robert L. Hunt City Manager Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attomey Thomas A. Runels Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Steve Tolley Council Member Jim Dickens Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9,1999 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: CUB SCOUTS, WEBELOS DEN 2, TROOP 432 VICKI SMITH, DEN LEADER 4. I NVOCA TION: STEVE CARR CALVARY CHAPEL OF ARROYO GRANDE 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. II ------- ------- --- AGENDA SUMMARY. NOVEMBER 9, 1999 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.a. Village Glen Annexation and Elementary School #12 (General Plan Amendment 97..004, Development Code Amendment 97-(09) (MCCANTS) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final EIR; 2) Adopt a Resolution making findings as required by CEQA based on the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the ,significant and unavoidable impact for traffic; 3) Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 97-004, thereby amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram and designating a 19.1 acre portion of the site as Public Facility and the remaining portion as Rural Residential; and 4) Introduce Ordinance amending the City's adopted Zoning Map and pre-zoning a 19.1 acre portion of the site as Public Facility and the remaining portion as Rural Residential, preliminary to annexation of the property. 7.b. Drainage Master Plan for the City of Arroyo Grande (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Approve a Drainage Master Plan which provides an evaluation of the City's drainage facilities, recommends drainage policies, and presents a capital improvement program to help mitigate drainage problems in the future. 7.c. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Portions of Chapters 6 and 7 of Title 6 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to Sewer and Water Rates and Charges (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Conduct second reading and adopt the Ordinance; and 2) Adopt a Resolution establishing certain water and sewer rates and charges. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS: Persons in the audience may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to all communication but, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. Upon completing your comments: . You may be directed to staff for assistance; . A Council Member may indicate an interest in discussing your issue with you subse"quent to the Council meeting; . The Council may direct staff to research the issue and subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of a memorandum or staff report); or . No action is required or taken. AGENDA SUMMARY - NOVEMBER 9, 1999 PAGE 3 9. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted in parentheses. 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. 9.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Approve the listing of cash disbursements to vendors for the period October 16 - October 31, 1999. 9.b.. Statement of Investment Deposits (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of October 31, 1999. 9.c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfulld Advance from the Sewer Facility Ew1d(SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Receive and file the September 1999 ca_sh report and approve the interfund advance from the sewer facility fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of September 30, 1999. 9.d. Minutes of City Council Meeting of October 26. 1999 (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve minutes as submitted. 9.e. Rejection Of Claim Against City . S. Sanderson (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Reject claim for damages. 9.f. Contract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) for Medical and HO$pitallnsurance (SNODGRASS) _ Recommended Action: Adopt Resolutions electing to be subject to the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act. 9.g. Disposal of Surplus Bicycles (TERBORCH) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution declaring the listed bicycles as surplus for donation to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and donated to needy children. 9.h. Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Purchase of a Copy Machine (FIBICH) Recommended Action: Authorize the solicitation of bids for the purchase of a copy machine for the Building and Life Safety Division and authorize the City Manager to award the bid. 9.i. Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande - Phase lA, PrQject No. 90-97-02, Progress P~ment No.2 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize progress payment in the amount of $18,873.95 to B & H Communications, Inc. AGENDA SUMMARY - NOVEMBER 9, 1999 PAGE 4 9. CONSENT AGENDA (continued): 9.j. Award of Bid - City Corporation Yard Gate Security System (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Award bid in the amount of $6,500 to Central Coast Fence for the purchase and installation of a security gate system. 9.k. Optical Detection Devices at East Branch. Street at Mason Street. Project No. 90-99-2. Progress P~ment No.1 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize progress payment in the amount of $8,885.70 to Lee. Wilson Electric Company. 9.1. Bikew~ One - Paulding Middle School Bikelanes, PrQject No. 90-98-1, Progress P~ment#3 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize progress payment in the amount of $66,204.81 to Maino Construction Company, Inc. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 6. Chapter 4 of the ArrQYo Grande Municipal Code Instituting' a Mandatory Commercial and Industrial Recycling Program (MCCANTS) Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to establish a mandatory commercial and industrial recycling program. 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Approval of Franchise Agreement with TOSCO, Corporation for Existing Oil Transmission Pipelines (CARMEL) Recommended Action: Approve a new non-exclusive Franchise Agreement with Tosco Refining Company by and through its subsidiary Unocal California Pipeline Company. 11.b. Fiscal Year 1999/2000 First Quarter Budget Status Report (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Approve the budget adjustments and recommendations as outlined in the First Quarter Budget Status Report and supporting schedules. 12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondencellnformation for the City Council presented by the City Manager. 14. . ADJOURNMENT AGENDA SUMMARY - NOVEMBER 9, 1999 PAGE 5 * * * * * * * Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473- 5414. * * * * * * * In ,compliance.withthe Americans with Disabilities Act,ifyouneed"specialassistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * * * * * * * Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www.arroyogrande.oro ~-"'< 7... CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande to consider the following item: CASE: Village Glen Annexation and Elementary School #12 (General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009) REPRESENTATIVE: Gary Young APPLICANT: Village Glen Homes LLC ! LOCATION: Unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County, adjacent to and north of James Way near Mesquite Lane, APN 047- 132-013, 047-132-016, 047-132-005, 047-132-017, 047- 132-008,047-132-009,047-132-010,047-132-014. PROPOSAL: The project is a request to annex approximately 86.3 acres into the City of Arroyo Grande, with a Rural Residential (RR, 1-acre minimum) land use designation for 67.2 acres of the site, and a Public Facility (PF) land use designation for the remaining 19.1 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Certification of the Environmental Impact Report with Mitigation Measures and Statement of Overriding Considerations. A 64-acre portion of the site would be developed with forty residential lots and an elementary school. The elementary school would be on 19.1 acres in the northwest comer of the site. Thirty-six of the residential lots would be clustered pursuant to a requested planned unit development designation and developed with single-family residences. The lots would range in size from 12,601 to 46,447 square feet. Four lots would be custom-home sites ranging from 4.3 to 8.6 acres. Two additional areas of approximately 11-acres each would also be annexed and designated Rural Residential (RR, 1-acre minimum). Alternatives to the project may be discussed including alternative land use designations and zoning. Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the Director of Community Development before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of the hearing. Any person interested in the proposal can contact the Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-5420 during normal business hours (8:00 - 5:00 p.m.). IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAYBE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. ---.-..-.....-------- Date and Time of Hearing: November 9,1999 at 7:00 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 inistrative Services/Deputy City Clerk Publish 1T, October 29, 1999 ------ MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL h FROM: KERRY McCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR . ~ SUBJECT: VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION (WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE); CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVALS OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-004 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council: 1 ) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2265, and Planned Unit Development 97-563; 2) Adopt a resolution making findings as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the significant and unavoidable impact for traffic; 3) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 97-004, thereby amending the General Plan land Use Diagram and designating a 19.1-acre portion of the site as Public Facility and the remaining portion as Rural Residential; and, 4) Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the City's adopted Zoning Map and pre-zoning a 19.1-acre portion of the site as Public Facility and the remaining portion as Rural Residential, preliminary to annexation of the property (Development Code Amendment No. 97-009). FISCAL IMPACT: A Fiscal Impact Analysis for the project was performed by Crawford, Multari, Clark & Mohr. The report, provided under separate cover to the City Council, is dated September 17, 1999. The report concluded that the residential section of the annexation as proposed would provide modest fiscal benefits to the City. ______..'...M....____.~__.__ Staff Report: James Way Annexation November 9, 1999 Page 2 Because the proposed school site is a public facility, it would pay no property taxes, nor would it generate significant amounts of revenue. The fiscal impact analysis estimated that the school site would generate costs in excess of revenues of approximately $52,000 per year. The report also noted that communities should have a mix of uses, not all of which can be expected to generate income in excess of revenue. The report does not analyze or disc~ss the indirect fiscal benefits of the school site. Most significantly, good school facilities are critical if the City is to succeed in attracting new businesses. Currently, severe overcrowding in area schools is a disincentive for businesses to relocate to Arroyo Grande. The City Manager and Economic Development Director have indicated that this subject has been repeatedly raised in discussions with potential new businesses. It is reasonably foreseeable that taxes and other revenues derived from businesses relocating to Arroyo Grande, at least partly as a result of the presence of a new school, will more than offset the direct fiscal impact of the school. In addition, the report incorrectly assumes 525 people, both students and faculty, projected to occupy the school facility are a new impact on City services. In fact, this projected school population is at least partly a redistribution of students and faculty currently located at schools within the City. Those students and faculty relocated from school sites within the City will have no new impacts on City services. Thus, the true financial cost to the City is significantly less than stated in the report. The General Plan requires that the City Council find that the proposed annexation would generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services. Staff feels that this General Plan policy is impliedly inapplicable to annexations intended to accommodate public facilities for the simple reason that public facilities are exempt from property taxation and do not operate on a IIfor profit" basis and, therefore, generate no revenue. To interpret otherwise would mean that any site pre-zoned public facility could nat be annexed into the City. Additionally, the General Plan also contains an objective related to the need for facilities such as schools. It states: "Maintain an adequate inventory of lands' for the conduct of public, quasi-public, and institutional activities, including protection of areas needed for future public, quasi-public, and institutional uses." It is arguable that the need to provide facilities such as schools, and the documented difficulties experienced by the School District in finding an acceptable site, clearly outweigh the policy that requires that an annexation "...generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services." Further, the residential portion does generate a net positive fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The project involves the proposed annexation of an 86.3-acre area located north of James Way in the vicinity of Mesquite Lane. - -------------- -_.---------~------ Staff Report: James Way Annexation November 9, 1999 Page 3 Previous project: The project site was the subject of a previous application. The applicant in that case proposed to pre-zone the entire annexation area as Rural Residential (RR). Tract 2265 would have consisted of the same area occupied by the current tract proposal, but no school site was proposed. Instead, the proposal called for the development of 63 residential lots with a planned unit designation, and one open space lot of 33.5-acres that would have been occupied by one single family residence. An environmental impact report was prepared for the previous project. The City Council refused to certify the EIR, citing concerns regarding traffic and groundwater resources. Concern was also expressed concerning the manner in which the two 11-acre parcels would be pre-zoned, with consideration requested for considering a designation of Residential Estate (RE) allowing a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Following the action by the City Council, the applicant engaged in discussions with the Lucia Mar School District, and arranged for a review of the site to determine whether it might be an appropriate location for a school. These discussions resulted in a new application being filed for the current project. The applicant in the previous case, Gary Young, is the applicant's representative in the current proposal. Current project: The applicant has requested that the City "pre-zone" a 19.1-acre site as Public Facility (PF), for the future construction of an elementary school by the Lucia Mar School District. The remainder of the annexation area would be pre- zoned Rural Residential, allowing a maximum density of one residence per acre. Two parcels of approximately 11 acres each would be pre-zoned as Rural Residential (RR), but would not be the subject of a proposal for development by the applicant. The applicant has proposed Tentative Tract No. 2265 for the remaining 64 acres, of which 19.1-acres would be committed to the school site. The remaining portion of Tract 2265, consisting of approximately 45 acres, would be divided into 40 residential lots. 36 of these residential lots would be subject to a request for a "planned unit development" designation which, if approved, would allow the "clustering" of the lots, in effect allowing lots less than one acre in size. 4 custom lots, ranging in size from 4.94 to 7.90 acres, would be created on the remainder of the area of Tract 2265. The project site is subject to "pre-zoning" for the purpose of identifying the manner in which the City would zone the property if it is eventually annexed to the City. This would provide information required by the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the purpose of evaluating the annexation proposal for compliance with state law and sound planning practices, as ,~---------~- Staff Report: James Way Annexation November 9. 1999 Page 4 well as providing a basis for environmental evaluation of the eventual use of the project site. The proposals before the City Council at this time involve the proposed amendment of the General Plan and Development Code to pre-zone the site, consideration of the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact report (FEIR), and consideration of the findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the FEIR conclusions. As discussed below, the FEIR concluded that the proposed project would result in a significant, unavoidable impact for traffic. Annexation procedure: The applicant has applied to the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for amendment of the City of Arroyo Grande's sphere of service and annexation of the parcel to the City of Arroyo Grande. If these requests were approved by LAFCO, a hearing would be held by the City pursuant to the Knox-Cortese Act to allow persons inhabiting the proposed annexation area to register protests against the action. Depending on the outcome of the hearing, the City Council could take final action to record the annexation. Planning Commission recommendation: The project was 'considered by the Planning Commission on November 2, 1999. The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council take the necessary actions to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, make CEQA findings and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, approve the General Plan amendment, and approve the Development Code amendment. The Planning Commission commented specifically on the following aspects of the proposed project: Groundwater resources: The FEIR identified mitigation measures to assure that the water supply developed through the Deer Trail' well was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the General Plan. The Planning Commission questioned staff regarding the mitigation measures proposed for groundwater resources, and the timing of the well testing program. Traffic: Several aspects of traffic were mentioned as follows: . At its meeting on September 28, 1999, the City Council provided direction regarding evaluation of traffic impacts at Brisco Road/U.S. 101 interchange, and the Planning Commission inquired as to the effect of that policy on the proposed project. . The Planning Commission questioned the traffic consultant regarding the LOS determination for the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 interchange. -- ----- ----~-~ Staff Report: James Way Annexation November 9, 1999 Page 5 . The evaluation of the LOS on Rodeo Drive in the EIR was questioned, with regard to the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed project. . One suggestion called for committing traffic mitigation fees from the project to mitigation of traffic impacts on the residents of Rodeo Drive. Parks: The Planning Commission suggested consideration be given to committing funds paid by the developer for park fees to the development of a park on the north side af U.S. 101, an area currently underserved by park facilities. Fiscal imDact of Droiect: The General Plan requites that the project generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services. While the services required by the school may result in an overall fiscal deficit for the project, the Planning Commission concluded that the General Plan supports the presence of non-revenue producing activities in the community (e.g., schools, churches, parks) and that, given these interests, the revenues from the project were lIadequatell to provide such services. Environmental review: Even though the applicant's proposals for approval of Tract 2265 and designation of a portion of the site as a planned unit development are not before the City Council at this time, those proposals have been evaluated in the FEIR. This allows the Planning Commission, City Council, and the community to consider the environmental impacts of the entire project. It would also provide an environmental document for later project ..requests, as long as those requests were consistent with the project described in the FEIR. The FEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact for traffic: Impact D2: The Project would. contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact at the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 interchange which will fall below LOS C by the year 2005. CEOA requires that if the decision-maker (the City Council in this case) approves a project for which a significant impact has been identified, certain findings must be made, and a IIStatement of Overriding Considerations" adopted. The purpose of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is to confirm the policy decision of a City Council in approving a project for which an unavoidable significant environmental impact has been identified. The findings, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, must be based on substantial evidence in the public record. Because the project before the City Council is a new project, evidence produced in connection with the previous ~ -- --------_.._._--,--~--- Staff Report: James Way Annexation November 9, 1999 Page 6 application should not be relied on to support the required findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Issues: During hearings on the previous proposal for the site, the primary issues of concern were traffic, groundwater resources, and the pre-zoning of the site. Traffic and groundwater resources are discussed at length in the FEIR, and those discussions will not be repeated within this report. The applicant has proposed that the entire annexation site, with the exception of the 19.1-acre school site, be pre-zoned as Residential Rural (RR). Concerns regarding pre-zoning focused on the two 11-acre parcels. Pre-zoning of the two 11-acre parcels is primarily a policy decision. Concern has been expressed that the proposed zoning of Residential Rural (RR) would be inconsistent with the character of some of the existing neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project site. Property to the north of the annexation area, for example, is zoned Residential Suburban, a County designation allowing minimum lot sizes of 2.5 acres, and the' annexation site is adjacent to property to the west with a City zoning designation of Residential Estate (RE) with lots approximately 2 to 5 acres in size. Consideration has been given to pre-zoning the two 11-acre parcels as Residential Estate (RE), which would allow a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The applicant has not pursued this alternative. As discussed in connection with the previous project proposal for the site, the City Council has the discretion to pre-zone the proposed annexation area in the manner it chooses, based on its consideration of neighboring properties, character of the ~ommunity, and impact of the project on City services. In this case, pre-zoning of the two 11-acre parcels would not appear to have an impact on the proposal for Tract 2265, including the school site. Pre-zoning the two 11-acre parcels as Residential Estate (RE) would not affect the environmental review, since such a zoning would be less dense, and have less environmental impact, than the proposed zoning of Rural Residential (RR). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project. The FEIR is provided under separate cover. Alternatives: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: ---~- --------------- --,----.----- ----- --- ---------------~----~-,_._---------- Staff Report: James Way Annexation November 9, 1999 Page 7 1. Find that the FEIR is in compliance with CEQA, certify the FEIR, make the required findings due to the FEIR conclusion that an unavoidable and significant impact exists for traffic, approve the General Plan Amendment, and introduce an ordinance to amend the Development Code. 2. Find that the FEIR is not in compliance with CEQA, and direct staff to revise portions of the FEIR, re-circulate, and return to the City Council for consideration of the revised FEIR and, if appropriate, a Statement of Overriding Considerations; 3. Find that the FEIR is not in compliance with CEQA, and take no action on the General Plan amendment and Development Code amendment applications, thereby effectively denying the project; 4. Find that the FEIR is in compliance with CEQA, certify the FEIR, and deny the General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment applications, thereby denying the project. If the Council selects alternative 2, 3, or 4 staff will return with the appropriate resolution or resolutions at a later meeting. Exhibits: Resolution Certifying Final EIR Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations Resolution Amending General Plan Ordinance Approving Pre-zoning 1. Planning Commission Staff report for November 2, 1999 2. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting for November 2, 1 999 3. Letter from James Cote' to Council Members, November 3, 1999 4. Letter from Lana Charles to Council Members, November 3, 1999 5. Letter from George Hiester to City Council, dated October 31, 1999 6. Letter from William & Alice Daniel to Kerry McCants for the Planning Commission hearing on November 2, 1999 7. Petition from Canyon Way residents 8. Comments from Commissioner Parker Separate Cover: Final Environmental Impact Report Fiscal Impact Analysis S:ICommunity Development Dept. - SharedlDevelopment ReviewlProjectslJames Way with SchoollStaff reports Ice Sf 110999.doc ~ -----~--,-------- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT; (APPLICANT: VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC) WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Village Glen Annexation, including General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Tract 2265, and Planned Unit Development 97-56 (the "Project") was prepared by firma (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resou'rces Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seqH hereinafter the "State CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration at its meeting of November 2, 1999; and WHEREAS, at its duly noticed meeting on November 2, 1 999 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council accept and certify the Final EIR prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 9, 1999 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; "and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, incorporating all comments received and the response of. the City and the Planning Commission thereto. , Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby: Section 1. Certify that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA), the State CEOA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEOA Guidelines. Section 2. Independently review and analyze the Final EIR and consider the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution and taking action on the Project. Section 3. Adopt the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in the Final EIR which is incorporated herein by this reference. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1999. Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR . ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~b L \ 1fu:L) -, ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande as the lead agency has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Village Glen Annexation project, including General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Tract 2265, and Planned Unit Development 97-563 ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) and the CECA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEOA and the CEOA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report for the project and responding to the comments raised during the public review period and at the public hearings has been prepared which incorporates written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR in accordance with CEOA and the City's CEOA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 1999, and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on November 9, 1999, at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted Resolution No. 99- certifying that the Final EIR was completed incompliance with CEOA, the - ' CEOA Guidelines, and the City's CEOA Procedures; and WHEREAS, the City. Council has reviewed and considered information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Village Glen Annexation. NOW, THEREFEORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Qf the City of Arroyo Grande ,as follows: 1. The City Council certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final EIR: ---~"------ . ---- Resolution No. - Page 2 of 15 a. that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR arid in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, attached to this Resolution as Attachment IIA it and incorporated herein by reference, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that will avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental impacts for traffic identified in the Final EIR; . b. that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, the adverse environmental effects related to traffic are significant environmental effects that cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the Project is approved; c. that no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of Project approval; d. that all significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that: (1 ) all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially reduced as determined through the findings set forth in paragraph 3.a of this Resolution; (2) based upon the Final EIR and Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures and other documents in the record, specific economic, social, and' other considerations make infeasible other project alternatives ideotified in the Final EIR; . (3) based on the Final EIR and the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, and other documents in the record, all remaining, unavoidable significant environmental effects of the Village Glen Annexation Project are overridden by the benefits of the Project as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached to this Resolution as Attachment liB" and incorporated herein by reference, which Statement of Overriding Considerations is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council. ----~----- Resolution No. - Page 3 of 15 4. The City Council authorizes and directs that the Director of Administrative Services promptly file a Notice of Determination with respect to the Final EIR for the Project, specifically referencing therein that mitigation measures have been made a condition of project approval, findings have been made pursuant to Section 1 5091 of the CEOA Guidelines, and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote to wit: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1999. Resolution No. - Page 4 of 15 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: . KELL Y WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~L(LJL\ ~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY -~- Resolution No. - Page 5 of 15 ATTACHMENT "A" STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following potentially significant impacts have been identified in connection with the project, and the following mitigation measures have been adopted to mitigate the potential environmental impacts. Mitigation A 1: To mitigate impacts on school facilities and enable the school district to fund projects that include environmental mitigation resulting from school con~truction, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with Lucia Mar Unified School District to provide development impact fees, as determined by the District, and shall submit proof prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Applicant to enter into mitigation/impact fee agreement with Lucia Mar Unified School District. 2) Entity to Take Action: City to verify completion of agreement. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to building permit issuance. 4) Interested Agencies: Community Development Department, Lucia Mar Unified School District. Mitigation B 1 : To mitigate downstream flooding, the applicant has included a detention basin at the low end of the site and added storm drain inlets and pipes to route the majority of site runoff through the basin. The basin provides approximately 2.8 acre-feet of storage volume and will outlet into the existing Canyon Way channel upstream of the Canyon Way storm drain inlet and pipe. The detention basin peak discharge for the 100-year storm is approximately 120 cfs, equal to the 1 a-year undeveloped runoff. Advantages resulting from the Project storm drains and detention basin are: 1) Reduces downstream runoff to a pre-development condition, 2) Adds approximately 0.8 acres of ponding for additional groundwater recharge, 3), Reduces downstream runoff along James Way, 4) Provides sediment storage during construction. The disadvantage to the detention basin is that it requires periodic maintenance and cleaning. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Project will require design and installation of a drainage storm drain pipe system and detention basin in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Per the development code, all proposed drainage facilities associated with the Project shall be based on the 100 year storm. Resolution No. - Page 6 of 15 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to submit drainage plans to the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department for review and approval. 3) Timing/Duration: Plans to be approved prior to construction. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, State Department of fish and Game, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation 82: To mitigate potential degradation of surface water flows, all storm water releases should be designed to discharge into the Canyon Way channel and Tally Ho Creek in a non-erosive manner, and shall be subject to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The design of the on-site detention basin shall allow for the accumulation and removal of sediment. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Applicant to prepare engineering drainage plans with erosion and siltation measures per City of Arroyo Grande and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to submit erosion plans to the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department for review and approval. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to construction, monitor during construction. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, and State Regional Water Quality C~ntrol Board. Mitigation D 1 : 'To avoid or minimize safety' risks to school-age pedestrians crossing James Way, implement one of the following measures: Mitigation Option 1: Install a traffic signal at James Way and the Project access street. This traffic signal would operate full time and would be required to include pedestrian crossing indications, pedestrian actuation, and vehicular actuation for the side street. The location of the traffic signal equipment along with advanced warning signs would proyide the necessary visibility required for this type of intersection control. Mitigation Option 2: Install a traffic signal at James Way and Rodeo Drive instead of at the Project access street. Mitigation Option 3: Relocate the Project access street either 1 50 west or 250 east to gain adequate sight/stopping distance and install all-way STOP signs. Resolution No. - Page 7 of 15 Mitigation Option 4: Install all-way STOP signs as proposed and have a crossing guard present in the morning and afternoon. James Way should be posted for 25 MPH when children are present. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: As a condition of Tract approval, require an engineering analysis to determine the most feasible mitigation option providing the appropriate level of safety for pedestrians walking to school. 2) Entity to Take Action: City to require School District/Applicant' to provide engineering study. 3) Timing/Duration: Final mitigation selected and funded prior to issuance of grading permits. 4) I nterested Agencies/Department: LMUSD, State Department of Education. Mitigation E1: Groundwater Withdrawal. Unless the City C<?uncil approves other methods of offsetting the Project water demand, th~ following measures shall be incorporated into the Project' in order to further reduce impacts on the groundwater resource: The Deer Trail well should be drilled, constructed, and tested as recommended in the report by the applicant's consultant prior to issuance of a Project grading permit or final Tract Map approval by the City. Production testing of the well should include, as a minimum, a 10-hour step-drawdown test at a minimum of 5 steps, a 24- to 48-hour constant discharge test at a discharge rate close' to the well's maximum production capability (such as 1 50 gpm, for instance, if possible), and a 4- t08-hour recovery test. Throughout all the pumping tests, monitoring and recording of water levels in the Los Robles del Mar wells and the City's Oak Park well should be conducted. The test results should be evaluated by a professional qualified in the discipline, and compared to the assumptions and conclusions of Cleath (1998b) ~nd this analysis. if the results of the short-term tests described above verify the assumptions and conclusions of this analysis, the Deer Trail well should be pumped at the design project rate (30 to 35 gpm) for a minimum 30-day period. As before, monitoring and recording of water levels in the Los Robles del Mar wells and the City's Oak Park well should be conducted as part of the test. Monitoring of water levels in the Los Robles del Mar wells should be conducted on a monthly basis for two years following Project implementation. Regular monitoring of the City's Oak Park well should continue as part of the City's normal procedures. Resolution No. - Page 8 of 15 Ouarterly water level measurements should be taken after the initial two-year period. The water levels should be measured during approximately the same weeks each year. The applicant's geologist should perform an annual or biennial review of the water level and water production data. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Project will include drilling, constructing, and testing of the proposed well, and monitoring of water levels in nearby observation wells. A qualified professional should review observation data. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to drill and construct well. Working with City staff, testing should be conducted on. the well and observation well data collected. 3) Timing/Duration: The well to be drilled and short-term testing conducted as a Tentative Tract Map condition of final approval prior to grading permit issuance or final Tract Map approval by the City. Long-term testing to be continued after Project approval. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, LAFCO. Mitigation E2: Well Interference. Unless the City Council approves other methods of offsetting the Project water demand, the following measures shall be incorporated into the Project to further reduce impacts on the groundwater resource.' Monitoring of water levels in all the Los Robles del Mar wells should be conducted on a monthly basis for two years following Project implementation. Regular monitoring of the City's Oak Park well should continue as part of the City's normal procedures. The applicant's geologist should perform an annual or biennial review of the water level and water production data. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Project will include drilling, constructing, and testing of the proposed well, and monitoring of water levels in nearby observation wells. A qualified professional should review observation data. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to drill .and construct well. Working with City staff, testing should be conducted on the well and observation well data collected. Resolution No. - Page 9 of 15 3) Timing/Duration: The well to be drilled and short-term testing conducted prior to final Project approval. Long-term testing to be continued after Project approval. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande. level of Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the above measures would reduce potential Project specific impacts of well interference. Therefore no residual impacts are associated with the development. Mitigation E3: Water Quality The water quality impacts of the Project are considered less than significant, provided the assumptions used in this analysis are reasonably accurate. However, several measures are recommended for implementation into Project design to further reduce impacts on the groundwater resource: I The Deer Trail should be drilled, constructed, and production tested as recommended in the report by the applicant's consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit or final Tract Map approval by the City. Near the end of the short- term production testing, a water quality sample should be collected by a qualified laboratory technician, and sampled by a State-certified laboratory. If elevated concentrations of iron and manganese are found in the water, it will be necessary to design a blending scheme, or to design and install a well head treatment system to reduce the iron and manganese concentrations to acceptable levels. Mitigation. Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Project will include drilling, constructing, and water quality sampling of the proposed well. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to drill and construct. well, and contract for sampling and testing of the produced water at a laboratory approved by the City. 3) Timing/Duration: The well to be drilled, sampled and tested as a Tentative Tract Map Condition of approval prior to issuance of a grading permit or final Tract Map approval. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, State Department of Health Services, LAFCO . level of Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the above measures would reduce potential Project specific impacts of water quality. Therefore, no residual impacts are associated with the development. Resolution No. - Page 10 of 15 Mitigation F 1 : To reduce visual impacts of proposed grading on the school site and to conform with City policy for landform grading, the school grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following mitigation techniques. . to the extent feasible, use landform grading on cut slopes around the wooded knoll to be retained in the northwest corner of the site, with varying slope ratios and curves. . create varying slope ratios below 2: 1 to the extent feasible on fill slopes. . revegetate the cut and fill slopes with plants native or characteristic to the environs. . provide tree planting on the slopes and/or in the campus core that substantially screens or softens the visual appearance on the school viewed from the north and northeast Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: District to prepare revised grading plan and landscape plan to incorporate landform grading and screen planting. 2) Entity to Take Action: District to submit plan to Community Development Department for approval. 3) Timing/Dur~tion: Prior to issuance of grading plan. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: Community Development Department, Public Works Department. Mitigation G1: To mitigate potential impacts to Pismo clarkia a spring survey was conducted in 1999, which showed no Pismo clarkia. Since the Initial Study upon which the CDFG based its request for a second study incorrectly identified the survey as occurring in 1998, it appears the 1999 survey satisfies the CDFG request. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Applicant prepared 1999 spring survey for Pismo clarkia,,:, 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to grading permit issuance. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: Community Development, Department of Fish and Game. level of Impact After Implementation of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the survey adequately confirmed presence/absence of Pismo clarkia. Resolution No. - Page 11 of 15 Mitigation G2: To mitigate removal of significant native and non-native vegetation that affords watershed protection and potential wildlife habitat, the south-facing fill slope on the school site shall be revegetated with native trees, shrubs and grasses up to 30 feet from the top of the slope. ' Final grading plans shall contain tree protection plan to retain eucalyptus trees outside of graded areas. (The top 30 feet should be low fuel, irrigated planting for fire safety.) Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: School District shall prepare revegetation plan for south-facing fill slope. 2) Entity to Take Action: School District. 3) Timing/Duration: Implement prior to occupancy. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande Community Development and Fire Departments. Mitigation 1-1 - Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Project) The following measures are recommended to reduce PM,o emissions related to Project construction activities: . Water all areas where ongoing construction activity has exposed more than 500 square feet of bare soil at least twice daily; . Spray all dirt stockpile areas with water as needed to suppress fugitive dust emissions; . Implement permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and landscape plans as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; . Stabilize all disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD; . Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, et cetera, as soon as possible after grading. Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding and soil binders are used; . Enforce a speed limit of 1 5 mph for unpaved surfaces at the construction site; and . Sweep paved streets adjacent to the construction site at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring , 1) Action to be Taken: The previously-described measures shall be incorporated into a mitigation plan for construction-generated particulates that is to be promulgated to on-site constriction crews. Resolution No. - Page 12 of 15 2) Entity to Take Action: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to implement this plan. 3) Timing/Duration: The mitigation plan shall be in force throughout all construction phases. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, SLOAPCD. Mitigation 1-2 - Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Project) To minimize the Project's operational impacts on air quality: . Assure that all residential heating needs are adequately provided by means other than wood burning appliances. . If fireplaces are to be provided in more than 1 0 percent of the Project's residential units, equip those fireplaces with Phase 2 catalytic ins~rts to reduce air pollutant emissions. In addition, incorporate the following into the Project to the maximum extent feasible: Residences: . Link cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel; . Increased street tree planting . Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools; . . Use solar water heaters; . Use built-in energy efficient appliances; . ' Use double-paned windows; . Use energy efficient interior lighting; . Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; . Use sodium streetlights. School: . Increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; . Orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; . Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles; . Use sodium parking lot lights; . Use energy efficient interior lighting. Resolution No. - Page 13 of 15 Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1 ) Action to be Taken: Incorporate the above measures into Project infrastructure plans and residence design. ' 2) Entity to Take Action: Project Applicant, through appropriate representatives (e.g., architect). 3) Timing/Duration: Implement before construction begins. 4) Interested Agencies/Qepartment: City of Arroyo Grande, SLOAPCD. The Final EIR identified the following Impact as significant and unavoidable: Impact D2: The Project would contribute to a significant cumulative traffic . impact at the Brisco Road / U.S. Route 101 interchange which will fall below LOS C by the year 2005. . The EIR noted that General Plan Policy 8.2(f) provides that when a Project would cause the level of service to fall below City standards, that the necessary improvements should be required either through conditions of approval, development (impact) fees, or establishment of assessment districts. While the Project does not, by itself, cause the level of service at the Brisco Road/101 interchange to fall below LOS C, the Project would contribute to the cumulative impact on the intersection. The Project would contribute traffic impact fees to the City fund used for major roadway projects identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. While the payment of such fees may be considered adequate 'mitigation for a Project's contribution to the cumulative impacts, this is not so in the present case due to the planning and funding needed for major interchange improvements. Requiring the Project applicant to fund the interchange improvements is infeasible, due to the planning, funding, and engineering considerations . for a major interchange improvement. In addition, the interchange improvements are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans, making it infeasible for the project applicant to design and construct the interchange improvements on its own. Caltrans is currently considering. changes to the interchange. Finding: Although the "no project" alternative would eliminate the significant impact on traffic, the social and economic benefits of the Project's inclusion of an elem~ntary school site make this alternative undesirable and infeasible. Further, the significant impact on traffic is considered acceptable based on a determination that the social and economic benefits of the Project outweigh the risks of the significant environmental effects of the Project, as specifically described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Resolution No. - Page 14 of 15 A TT ACHMENT "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared by the City with regard to the Project, and was circulated for public review. Public hearings were held to receive' public comments, and written comments were received regarding the document. The City has prepared a final EIR that responds to each comment. The City Council has certified the final EIR. The final EIR has identified the following significant and unavoidable environmental effect that would result from the Project: Impact D2: The Project would contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact at the Brisco Road / U.S. R9ute 101 interchange which will fall below LOS C by the year 2005. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CECA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council hereby adopts and makes the folJowing Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated social, economic, and other benefits of the Project. The Council specifically finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding thoat the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental impacts, of the Project, and is an overriding consideration that justifies and warrants approval of the Project. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Schools playa crucial role in the City of Arroyo Grande. The General Plan identifies the importance of maintaining a small-town, rural atmosphere, and neighborhood schools are a critical element in this effort. The need for a new school is of paramount importance to the City. The presence of a viable and effective public school system is essential to the social and economic well-being. of the community, making it possible to attract new businesses to the area, contributing to a healthy real estate market, and improving educational opportunities for the children- of the community. There is abundant evidence in the record that the Lucia Mar Unified School District has too many students for the available space, and a new school site in the City is needed. The School District has been searching for a new school' site, and a committee of school officials and community representatives has, under the authority of the School Board, been searching for potential school sites in the community. Despite long and diligent efforts, the committee has been unable to -------~~ Resolution No. - Page 15 of 15 identify a site that is both feasible, and available. The proposed Project would result in a site being made available that the District and the State of California has reviewed, and found to be suitable. In the absence of approval of the Project, the School District may be unsuccessful in identifying or obtaining any new school site within the City. As a result, school overcrowding would continue to worsen, as well as the negative impact such overcrowding has on both the students and the community as a whole. A school site is especially needed on the east side of U.S. Highway 101. Historic growth patterns in the City have resulted in a substantial number of students residing on the east side of U.S. 101, but all school sites are located to the west of U.S. 101. This results in substantial additional traffic generation, as parents deliver children to and pick-up children from school, crossing the freeway at the various interchanges, but primarily at the Brisco Road/1 01 interchange, which is the subject of Impact D2, referenced above. Approval of the Project would have the beneficial effect of reducing vehicle trips on such interchanges, including Brisco Road/1 01, and by reducing the number of miles traveled by school buses (and also thereby reducing their impact on air quality), as students would reside in closer proximity to the school site. The data to support these overriding factors can be found throughout the record of proceedings, including the demographic data submitted by the Lucia Mar Unified School District and in the minutes of the Planning Commission hearings on October 5 and November 2, 1999. ---~----_..---~------- RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -004 (APPLICANT: VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC) WHEREAS, the applicant, Village Glen Homes LLC, has submitted an application to amend the General Plan land Use EI~ment and General Plan Map to designate the project site area, described in Attachment "A" to this Resolution, as Rural Residential (RR), allowing a density of one unit per acre, and Public Facility (PF) to accommodate a school site; and WHEREAS, amending the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Map as requested would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 1 999 the Planning Commission, following a duly noticed public hearing, recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Annexation, Tract 2265, and Elementary School #12 project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the application for General Plan Amendment 97-004 at duly noticed public hearings on November 9, 1999 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Annexation Findings 1. The proposed annexation will not impact the amount of water resources available elsewhere within the City; 2. Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic identity as a rural, small town community; the goals and desires of the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing available resources; Resolution No. - Page 2 of 3 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan, particularly in regard to protection of agricultural and open space lands, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the General Plan.; 4. Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation; 5. Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards; 6. The proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City. services to the project site area designated for residential development. The City Council recognizes that the project site area designated Public Facility for use as a school is exempt from property taxation and generates no revenue. General Plan Amendment Findings 7. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the Plan. a. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment are insignificant, or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as identified in the Village Glen Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh th,e potential impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Map by designating the project area as Rural Residential and Public Facility as described in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote to wit: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1999. - Resolution No. - Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RLlliT L. 1tu.L1 , ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY A 1\ ACHMEN1' A / ~ / ~~ / - ^' ,:, ~f)' , ./ \\~ s '/ '~.~ . r".." () ~ . ~ ~ 11ft:; $ \ " -:::.\ / ~ \\ . ':)" / "'-.. \ .>~~ . , '. . \\ ""0 / I o!7(J I \ '. . ./ ., \ ~\\ "\ '. f!~jl ?-\ ~ " , I ~ , ~ /'~ .. \ t.....; \. \ , , '. .... .\ \ ~, \ ' ,\ 01 \. CO\Jo:" b\sPO \\ pub\ic SaO LOIS 0 , \\ " \ Fac'i\itV \\ \ \ t 1 9.1 ac) \\ \ \ ,\, , ' \. \\ . \ \ '\ \ , \\ \\ Rura\ \\ / ~" V . \ ~,. ',. '.l Resident\a ~" / ) t67.2 ac) j~~" -. . ~ ~ I '-' ~~~;. , z,;. ~ / - ~~ ;! ~ - / $ I G\ (...::::;;;.-' ~ / I I I i/~ I . I!> ?I--- i T' l ( c.; ,.~ ~~c ~ \ ...yff2 ~., ,;\)fJ ,,'-\ I . .:~) i' ORDINANCE NO. C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF ARROYO GRANDE; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -009, APPLIED FOR BY VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map indicates that the area identified in the attached Exhibit A ("project area"), located north of James Way, is located in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Village Glen Homes LLC, has fil~d an application for Development Code Amendment 97-009 to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project area as Rural Residential and Public Facility; and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described areas; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1999 the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Annexation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 1999, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on November 9, 1999, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 2. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. . ORDINANCE NO. C.S. PAGE 2 3. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Development within the Village Glen Annexation area would be required to meet development and de~ign standards that insure orderly development and a unique and aesthetically pleasing design. 4. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, California hereby adopts Development Code Amendment 97-009 amending a portion of the Zoning Map as follows: SECTION 1: Development Code Section 9-01.080 (B) also known as the UZoning Map of the City of Arroyo Grande" is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit liB" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2: 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 anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 3: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Determination. SECTION 4: Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall be published once, together with the names of the Council members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 1 999. - ORDINANCE NO. C.S. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~ku L. /tul;)' ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT 1 Hearing date: 11/2/99 Agenda Item No. II.E. r- PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET APPLICANT: Village Glen Homes LLC 2720 Mattie Road Pismo Beach, CA 93449 FILE/INDEX: General Plan Amendment 97-004 Development Code Amendment 97-009 PROPOSAL: Proposed annexation and pre-zoning of 86.3-acre parcel. Pre- zoning for school site (19.1 acre) would be Public Facility (PF), remainder would be Residential Rural (1-acre minimum) LOCATION: The project is located north and east of James Way, adjacent to the northern city limit in unincorporated County lands. See Exhibit 1, Location Map. REPRESENTATIVE: Gary Young Hearing Notices sent on October 21, 1999. Staff Report Prepared by Tom Buford. Site Inspection bv Kerry McCants and Joe Prutch on October 25. 1999 Parcel Size: Annexation area is 86.3 acres. Tract 2265 is proposed for approximately 64 acres of the site. Tract 2265 would include 36 clustered lots located on approximately 18.1 acres of the tract, four custom lots on 26.76 acres, and a 19.1 ~acre school site. Terrain: The proposed annexation area straddles a ridge, sloping upward from James Way towards the north. There is a steep slope on the eastside of the ridge, which combir:'led with a ridge from the north, forms a small canyon in the upper middle of the property. Vegetation: There are several vegetation types on the property. The site has been grazed by cattle over many years so that native vegetation has been almost completely removed. The I I I ._._____ _.____n_..____________ ---~------------- -- ---- __J Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 2 of 20 present vegetation consists primarily of introduced annual grasses and forbs. There are also stands of mature coast live oaks, primarily along the northern edge of the annexation boundary. There are few young oaks, and most of the underlying growth has been replaced by introduced annual grasses. Two species of lupine have been observed on the site, the blue lupine and the tree lupine. Existing Land Use: The annexation area has six existing residences. Five of these are located outside of the area proposed as Tract 2265. Existing General Plan Designation: County of San Luis Obispo: Residential Suburban Existing Zoning Designation: County of San Luis Obispo: Residential Suburban Proposed General Plan Designation: Rural Residential/Public and Quasi-Public Facility Proposed Zoning , Designation: Rural Residential/Public and Quasi-Public Facility Surrounding Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: North: Residential Suburban (County), with lot sizes averaging 2.5 acres East: Rural Residential (City), with lot sizes of approximately one acre within the City limits South: Existing residential (Royal, Oaks P.D. 1.3) within the City limits; southwest corner of annexation area adjacent to open space lot. West: Existing residential uses within the City limits zoned RE (Residential. Estate) with lots approximately 2 to 5 acres in size, and residential Planned Development (Tract 1834- Phase 5), currently undeveloped, with planned lot sizes of 12,400 square feet to 26,000 square feet. --~- ---- Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 3 of 20 RECOMMENDATION 1) Recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Map 2265, and Planned Unit Development 97-563, as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Arroyo Grande's CEQA Implementing Procedures; 2) Recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 97- 004, thereby amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram and designatin~ a 19.1-acre portion of the project site as Public Facility and the remaining portion as Rural Residential; 3) Recommend that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment No. 97-009, therebl amending the City's adopted Zoning Map and pre-zoning a 19.1- acre ,portion 0 the project site as Public Facility and the remaining portion as Rural Residential, preliminary to annexation of the property; and 4) Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution making findings regarding the environmental impacts of the project, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the Planning Commission takes other action requiring modification of documents prepared for this meeting, staff will return with the appropriate resolutions for adoption by the Planning Commission. FUTURE PROJECT ACTIONS The Commission's review of this project will eventually include at least two additional discretionary actions, neither of which is before the Planning Commission at this time. These actions would be scheduled if the project site is eventually annexed to the City: . Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2265 to create 40 residential lots, and 1 lot of 19.1 acres as the future site of an elementary school. . Approve Planned Unit Development 97-563 to allow clusteriAg of 36 of the 40 residential lots in Tract 2265. These proposed actions have been identified and evaluated in the environmental documents. PROJECT HISTORY The first application for annexation of the James Way parcel was filed with the City in June 1995. An environmental impact report was prepared and completed on November 30, 1998. . Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 4 of 20 BACKGROUND The project originally proposed for the site consisted of a tentative tract map for 64.2 acres with 63 residential lots, and one open space lot. Two separate 11-acre parcels were included in the annexation proposal. The entire annexation area would have been pre-zoned as Rural Residential, with a 1-acre minimum lot size. The applicant requested a planned unit development designation for a portion of the site, which would have permitted the clustering of the residential lots. The Planning Commission considered the project on March 30, 1999, and the City Council considered the project on April 27 and June 8, 1999. An environmental impact report had been prepared for the project (James Way EIR), and the first issue considered by the City Council was certification of the James Way EIR. After considering the Planning Commission's favorable recommendation, the City Council refused to certify the James Way EIR. Council comments indicated that the mitigation proposed in the James Way EIR for traffic impacts at the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 Interchange was not acceptable. Other concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council related to the impact of water use on City supplies and on neighboring properties, as well as the pre-zoning for the two 11-acre parcels. The primary focus of the discussion concerning the traffic issue involved the analysis of the level of service (LOS) at the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 Interchange. The James Way EIR consultant analyzed existing traffic in the community, and also considered the traffic that would be generated by other proposed or approved projects in the area. The consultant concluded that when these cumulative traffic levels were considered, the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 Interchange would operate at a LOS D. The James Way EIR identified the threshold for environmental significance for traffic. The threshold identified in the EIR provided that the acceptable level of service for intersections in, Arroyo Grande is LOS C or better. If a project would cause deterioration in the level of service from LOS C to LOS D or worse, the project's environmental impact would usually be considered significant. Likewise, if an intersection was already operating, or was forecast to operate, at a LOS D or worse, and if the project added to the problem, that too would be considered a significant impact. The James Way EIR then indicated if improvements were planned for an intersection forecast to operate at a LOS D or worse, and if those improvements would improve the level of service to LOS C or better, then a short-term exposure to a LOS D could be accepted, and the impact would be considered less than significant. Pointing to the ongoing efforts with regard to re-designing the interchange (i.e., the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 Project Study Report [PSR]), the EIR concluded that any of the alternatives proposed in the PSR would improve the intersection to an LOS C. Based on this, the EIR concluded that the impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level, and no mitigation was required. Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 5 of 20 The City Council did not accept this analysis. During the Council discussion, concem was expressed that the process of designing, funding, and constructing the improvements to the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 interchange was not subject to any definitive timetable, and the improvements were, therefore, not sufficiently definite to apply the exception to the general rule regarding a project's impact on level of service. The City Council also expressed concem regarding the impacts on groundwater that could result from operating the proposed Deer Trail Well. Concern was also raised regarding the requested pre-zoning to Rural Residential (minimum 1-acre), with some support shown for pre-zoning a portion of the annexation area as Rural Estate (2.5-acre minimum). At the conclusion of the discussion on June 8, 1999, the following motion was made and adopted (3-1; Runels): Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved that the Council find the E.I.R. not in compliance with C.E.Q.A. and further direct staff to seek appropriate revisions to portions of the EIR to include acceptable traffic mitigation measures consistent with the Arroyo Grande General Plan, if the applicant is willing. If the applicant was not willing the Mayor Pro Tem further moved that the Council deny certification of the EIR and take no action on the General Plan Amendment and the Development Code Amendment applications. Following the City Council action, the applicant revised the project. In the re-submittal, the applicant proposed that a 19.1-acre portion of the site be pre-zoned as Public Facility (PF) for use by the Lucia Mar Unified School District as the future site of an elementary school. The new project reduced the number of single-family residences to 40, proposing 36 clustered single-family residential lots, and 4 large lots in the area previously proposed as a single open space lot. Because the applicant had proposed a project with new land uses, staff treated the application as a new project. The Village Glen Annexation (With School) project has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee. The environmental impact report and fiscal impact analysis have been prepared based on the new configuration and the presence of an elementary school site. DISCUSSION Proiect description The proposed project includes a request for the City, to annex 86.3 acres north of James Way, pre-zone 19.1 acres of the site as Public Facility (PF) and the remainder Rural Residential (RR). This would include an amendment of t~e Land Use Diagram of the General Plan, to so designate the property. The Rural Residential land use designation would allow a density of one residential unit per gross area, consistent with the RR zoning. --~---- __~_....J Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 6 of 20 Approval of the General Plan and Development Code amendments as requested, would change the land use designation from Residential Suburban (County) to Public Facility and Rural Residential, and rezone the property from Residential Suburban (minimum lot sizes of 2.5 acres) to Public Facility and Rural Residential (density of one residential unit per acre). In effect, the site is "pre-zoned" to advise the applicant and others of the intended zoning to be applied by the City if annexation of the site occurs. Neither the tract map nor the request for a planned unit development designation are before the City for action at this time. These requests have, however, been included in the environmental review for the project based on the applications for such actions already on file with the City. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2265 would subdivide approximately 64 acres of the annexation area, creating 40 residential lots (1-40) and one lot (Lot 41) to be pre-zoned as Public Facility (PF). Ofthe residential lots, 36 (1-36) would be "clustered," with lot sizes ranging from 14,247 square feet (0.33 acres) to 37,094 square feet (0.85 acres). 4 large lots would be created, ranging in size from 4.94 to 7.9 acres. The Planned Unit Development request would permit clustering of residences on lots 1-36, thus allowing residential lots less than one acre in 'size. Access to the project is proposed at two locations on James Way. The circulation system consists of a local street (36-feet paved in a 60-foot right-of-way) and one short cul-de-sac. The 11-acre parcel southwest of the proposal could potentially link the Rodeo Drive cul-de-sac to a street stub-out within the tract. The 11 acres northeast of the proposal, consisting of four parcels, would continue to have access from Canyon Way. Secondary emergency access to the school site would be provided by an extension of Canyon Way north of the clustered residential lots. Proiect Location The project site is located on the northern edge of Arroyo Grande outside the City limits (see Map 1-Vicinity Map). Map 2-Annexation and Pre-zoning Area shows the site and surrounding property pattern. To the north, large lot residential land uses are located on Printz Road. To the east, in the City of Arroyo Grande, developed residential areas exist on Canyon Way. To the south, single family residential developments occur along James Way. To the west, large lot residential development exists on Easy Street, which is within the City limits. Annexation Area The annexation area is approximately 86.3 acres in size (see Map 3-Annexation Properties). The proposed Tract comprises approximately 64 acres of the area. Five other parcels, under various ownership, are also included in the annexation (see Table P-1 below). There are six (6) existing residences within the annexation area. The City of Arroyo Grande surrounds the project area on three sides, and annexation of the property would be consistent with LAFCO policies requiring that annexations be logical in character. -- -----' Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 7 of 20 Table P-1 Annexation Area Ownership and Acreage Parcel Number Name & Address Size 47-132-05 Mrs. Jean James 11.0 ac. &17 765 James Way, A.G. 47-132-08 Tarvin C. and Paula B. Clark 2.5ac. 352 Canyon Way, A.G. 47-132-09 Allen L. and Ramona Logue 2.5ac. 356 Canyon Way, A.G. 47-132-10 Zenis and Helen Walley 3.0ac. P.O. Box 276, A.G. 47-132-14 Richard J. and G.L. Brekke 3.0ac. 390 Canyon Way, A.G. Lots not included in the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 2265 would be eligible for connection to City water and sewer service, as well as other City services such as police and fire, after annexation. These lots could be subdivided in the future into smaller lots with a minimum size of one acre if they are pre-zoned as Rural Residential. These parcels would be subject to separate City approval and environmental review if annexed and zoned as requested by the applicant. Comments at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project originally submitted focused on the pre-zoning requested by the applicant. The applicant .has requested that the entire annexation area, with the exception of the proposed school site, be pre-zoned as Rural Residential, one-acre minimum. The alternative proposed would be to consider pre-zoning the two 11-acre parcels not included in proposed Tract 2265 as Rural Estate, having a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres. The view has been expressed that development of these parcels under Rural Estate zoning would be more in character with existing development in the area, and have fewer impacts on City services and resources. Access One area of concern raised on several occasions relates to access to the project site and the proposed school site. As originally proposed, the project included one point of ingress/egress to James Way, at the southwest portion of the site. An emergency access road from the school crossing the site and connecting with Canyon Way was also provided. Several comments were received involving this original road layout design, and concern was expressed regarding safety at the school site given only one primary access point. The applicant has redesigned access to the project, and the design now on file would provide, in addition to the secondary emergency access via Canyon Way, two points of ingress/egress to James Way. One is located on the southern portion, and one on the southwest portion of the project site. Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 8 of 20 The design and types of roads would be conditioned by the Public Works Department to require widths that accommodate the amount of traffic generated within the project. The applicant has proposed that the road from James Way to the school site (Road 'B') and the road through the tract to the school site be 40-feet curb-to-curb, with a sixty-foot right-of-way, and the other streets be 36-feet curb-to-curb, with a 60-foot right-of-way. The street design would remain preliminary pending review of the tract map following annexation. Concerns regarding access to the school site have been raised as part of the environmental review process. These concerns focus on design of access at the school site itself,' access at James Way and impacts from vehicle trips generated by school traffic, and the impact of the school on Canyon Way. Pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to Canyon Way is part of the project design. Residents on Canyon Way have expressed qoncern that parents would utilize Canyon Way as an alternative location for dropping off and picking up students, thus creating additional traffic on Canyon Way, which has a narrow cul-de-sac. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS CEQA Review The California Environmental Quality Act sets forth-specific procedures for evaluating and disclosing the environmental effects of proposed activities. The City has adopted local "implementing procedures" to provide objectives, criteria, and procedures for the orderly evaluations of projects pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Section 9 of the City's Implementing Procedures sets forth the steps to be followed in preparing and reviewing Environmental Impact Reports. The "decision making body" for the project (in this case the City Council), must certify that the CEQA process has been completed, and that significant environmental impacts created by the project have been mitigated where feasible, before approving. the project. The Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Council on the adequacy of the environmental document in meeting the CEQA requirements. If the Final EIR concludes that the project would have a significant impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the project cannot be approved unless the City Council adopts a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This Statement, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, would document the benefits of the project considered by the City Council to override the project's adverse impact on the environment. As noted elsewhere in this staff report, the Final EIR for the project has concluded that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment due to traffic. If the project were approved, therefore, the City Council would be required by CEQA to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Staff believes that evidence already in the record is sufficient to support such a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This includes the following: -------------------- Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report. Village Glen Annexation Page 9 of 20 . There is abundant evidence that the School District has too many students for the available space, and a new school site in the City is needed; . The School District has been searching for a new school site, and a committee of school officials and community representatives has, under the authority of the school board, been reviewing potential school sites in the community; . The committee has been unable to date to identify a site that is both feasible, and available; . Schools are a crucial part of the community, supporting the General Plan goals of providing a community with a small-town, rural atmosphere that provides the necessary services for citizens, one of which is education for its children; . The presence of a viable and effective public school system is essential to the social and economic well-being of the community, making it possible to attract new businesses to the area, contributing to a healthy real estate market, and improving educational opportunities for the children of the community; . The proposed project would result in a site being made available to the School District; . The School District has reviewed the site, and has concluded that it is a feasible site for an elementary school; . In the absence of the project, the site would not be available to the school district. A proposed Resolution containing a Statement of Overriding Considerations for City Council action, and for Planning Commission recommendation, is attached. General Plan Amendments Section 9-03.020 et seq., of the Development Code sets forth the procedural steps to be followed in reviewing requests for a General Plan Amendment. The Planning CQmmission must review such requests for consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and recommend by resolution to the City Council that the proposed amendment be approved, approved in modified form, or disapproved. Specific findings are provided to assist the Commission in making its recommendation to the City Council. Amendments to Zoning Districts Section 9-03.040 et seq., of the Development Code sets forth the procedural steps to be followed in reviewing requests for amendments to Zoning Districts. The Planning Commission must review such requests, and must recommend by resolution to the City Council that the proposed amendment be approved, approved in modified form, or disapproved. The purpose of the Commission's recommendation is to ensure consistency between the Development Code and the General Plan. Specific findings are provided to aid the Commission in making a recommendation to the Council. Annexation Annexation is a term used to describe the attachment or addition of territory to a city or special district. An annexation results in a change to a political boundary line between a city and a county. Annexation may affect the level and responsibility for certain public Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 10 of 20 services being provided to residents, business owners, and property owners within the affected territory. The annexation of territory to a city or district is governed by the California Government Code. The State law regarding annexation was established "to encourage orderly community growth and development which is essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state". The State law establishes special boards to review and approve all annexation proposals within each of California's 58 counties. These special boards are called "local agency formation commissions," or LAFCOs. In this county, the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency 'Formation Commission must review and authorize all annexations. In order for LAFCO to consider an annexation request, the Arroyo Grande City Council must first approve the request. The City Council would be "pre-zone" the proposed annexation area before the annexation request is submitted to the County LAFCO by the applicant. Pre-zoning identifies the zoning district that would be applied to the project site if the territory is ultimately annexed to Arroyo Grande. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY . The General Plan for the City of Arroyo Grande contain.s provisions that relate to annexations and extensions of City services. The following policy and implementation actions concem the findings that must be made in connection with such a request: 10.1 Permit the annexation of unincorporated areas within the General Plan . study area when consistent with the General Plan in limited circumstances. Implementation Actions Require all of the following findings be made prior to permitting annexations: 1. The proposed annexation will not impact the amount of water resources available elsewhere within the City. The total projected water demand for the proposed project is estimated at 37 acre-feet per year. This corresponds to a well output of 23 gallons per minute (gpm). (EIR pg. IV- E5) The EIR concluded that the minimum well capacity that should be shown to serve the proposed development is 32 to 35 gpm. The applicant has proposed supplying water for the project by the construction of a new water supply well, located approximately one mile west of the project. The new well, located at the intersection of Deer Trail Circle and Equestrian Way (the "Deer Trail well"), would be dedicated to the City by the applicant. The City would be responsible for serving the project following annexation. Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 11 of 20 The Deer Trail well would extract water from a deep aquifer zone in what is known as the Pismo Foundation. The Deer Trail well would draw water from a different aquifer than that over which the project is located. Cleath & Associates tested the Deer Trail well site, and submitted a report dated July 3, 1998. The Cleath report concluded that the Deer Trail well would be capable of producing a continuous discharge of 100 gpm. The EIR took output from the City's Oak Park well into account, and concluded that production from the Deer Trail well could be half of that forecast by Cleath. This quantity would be sufficient to satisfy output requirements for the project. Cleath concluded that the aquifer is not in a state of overdraft. (Cleath, p. 5) The water quality of the Deer Trail well is unknown. Based on the water quality of the City's Oak Park well, which taps the same aquifer, it is likely that the water will contain elevated concentrations of hydrogen sulfide; manganese, and iron. Water quality testing would be required if the well were brought on line and proposed for use in the City's water supply system. Presence of the above minerals, or certain other constituents, would require treatment at the well head prior to use. The Final EIR discusses groundwater resources on page$ IV-E1 to IV-E11. The EIR proposed mitigation measures to respond to environmental impacts concerning groundwater withdrawal, well interference, and water quality. The EIR concluded that with incorporation of the mitigation measures, residual impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Even though the EIR reached this conclusion, the City must determine whether the applicant's manner of satisfying the project demand for water is consistent with City policy. The EIR notes: The City must make a policy decision regarding the feasibility of incorporating and operating [a] low-producing water well with water requiring wellhead treatment into the municipal water supply system. Typically, wells that produce the volume of water expected from the Deer Trail well are significantly more expensive to maintain and operate than larger production wells located closer to the main supply grid. This issue becomes particularly relevant because the Deer Trail well will likely require wellhead treatment, and because it will interfere, albeit in a relatively minor fashion, with operation of the existing Oak Park well. Although the new well is expected to provide the City with a quantity of water at least equal to the volume of the project demand, the new well will not necessarily improve the City's water supply capability, except for creating redundancy in the system by essentially creating a backup well for the Oak Park well (EIR pg. IV- E9). To address issues of timing, quantity, and quality, specific mitigation measures have been included in the EIR and will be made conditions of approval for any subdivision -------------' Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 12 of 20 approvals. The issue of operational costs to maintain and operate the well are policy issues requiring a determination by the City Council. Alternative measures that provide equal mitigation could also be approved by the City before acceptance of the Deer Trail well. 2. Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic identity as a rural, small town community; the goals and desires of the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing available resources. James Way serves as one of the main thoroughfares for residential developments in the foothills. The annexation proposal would incorporate into the community one of the few remaining County parcels having frontage on James Way. Upon annexation the project area nearest James Way would be zoned consistent with the City's Rural Residential District, which establishes development standards consistent with the community's basic identity as a rural residential area. This designation is also consistent with the land use and zoning designations of adjacent properties. A 19.1-acre site would be zoned as Public Facility. The stated purpose of the request is to permit the Lucia Mar Unified School District to construct and operate an elementary school at the site. Construction and operation of an elementary school would be consistent with the community's goals. The applicant has applied for approval of a vesting tentative tract-map and planned unit development designation for the portion of the site to be committed to residential development. Although neither the tentative tract map nor the planned unit designation are before the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration at this time, the requests provide guidance concerning the character and extent of future residential development on the site, and have been included in the project description on which environmental review proceeded. Annexation would provide the City with land use authority over development of the site. Incorporating the site into the City would also provide the City with an income stream from the property, in the form of real property taxes and other assessments, that would not be present if the property were developed as an unincorporated area. The extent to which income offsets the cost of providing services is analyzed in the fiscal impact study. Annexation and development of the site would be consistent with previous development activity in the James Way vicinity. The City, through conditions imposed on the tentative tract map approval, could control, to some extent, the character, extent, and intensity of development on the site. This would be consistent with the desire of community residents to have a significant role in planning for the future of the community. Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 13 of 20 3. The proposed annexation is consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan, particularly in regard to protection of agricultural and open space lands. The project site is within the county-designated urban reserve line (URL) for the City of Arroyo Grande. This is analogous to the sphere of influence, and identifies the area for urban and suburban growth within the next twenty years. Framework for Planning, which is Part I of the County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, contains public service policies for maintaining a distinction between rural and urban development by requiring extension of urban services to areas within the URL, and restricting the extension of such services beyond the URL. The primary purpose of the policies in the County's Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the pattern of identifiable communities and to discourage premature intensive development in areas without infrastructure required to serve such development. Related to these policies is the general goal of encouraging the phasing of urban development, first using vacant or underutilized parcels as "in-fill" parcels and other properties adjacent to existing development. San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building has advised LAFCO, by memorandum dated August 27, 1995, that it views the annexation of the project site favorably. The memorandum (Attachment 9) comments on the various urban services that could be provided to the site if annexation were to occur, and that would otherwise be provided either on an individual basis (e.g., septic systems, water wells) or occur in a less carefully planned manner (e.g., drainage). The tentative tract map proposes clustering of residential lots within a portion of the annexation area for the purpose of preserving large areas of open space and reducing development impacts. This design would be consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives and Policies 2.1 (a, e, g); 6.3 (e, g); and 7.1 (d). 4. Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation. The Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted by Crawford, Multari, Clark and Mohr has examined and analyzed the costs and benefits of the annexation proposal consistent with the guidelines established by the City. The analysis, dated September 17, 1999 is presented under separate cover as Attachment 11. The report updated a previous report for the same site conducted in August 1996. Table 4 in the Fiscal Impact Analysis summarizes the General Fund Analysis. This analysis estimates that the residential portion of the project will generate annual General Fund revenues of about $1,032 per unit. General Fund costs are estimated to be about $999 per year. Therefore, the residential portion of th~ project would generate modest fiscal benefits to the City of about $33 per unit per year. The previous fiscal analysis stated that if the property were developed in County jurisdiction, the net loss per residential unit would be $179.00 per year. __.J Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 14 of 20 With regard to the inclusion of the school site within the proposed annexation area, the report concluded that because an independent public school district operates the proposed school, no property taxes would be paid on this portion of the site. There may be a small increase in taxable sales associated with expenditure made by teachers while in Arroyo Grande; however, this amount is not expected to be significant. No other 'General Fund revenues are expected to be generated by the existence of the school site. 5. Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards. The applications before the Planning Commission for consideration at this time include only the General Plan amendment and Development Code amendment. These actions, by themselves, would have no fiscal impact on the City, and would require no additional infrastructure or services not already provided to the project directly, such as roads, or indirectly through mutual aid agreements for police and fire services. As previously stated, the project area is sur~ounded on three sides by the City. In addition, the City provides service to this area under current mutual aid agreements. As identified in the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the project, revenues collected from the proposed tract would exceed service costs provided under current city standards (See Table 4 - General Fund Fiscal Impact Summary). In discussing the findings required by the General Plan, staff has evaluated not only the annexation request itself, but the proposal put forth by the applicant concerning the likely development of the site. The project analyzed in the EIR and Fiscal Impact Analysis included 36 clustered residential lots, one 19.1-acre parcel designated as Public Facility for a future school site, four custom lots, and two 11-acre parcels. Em The City maintains a fire department consisting of forty volunteers, one full-time, paid captain, and a full-time, paid Fire Chief. The fiscal impact report noted that ensuring an adequate level of response is sometimes difficult with a volunteer-based department. Average response times in the City are approximately 12.6 minutes for fire, and 8 minutes for medical emergencies. The project site is, and will be, accessible via established and improved roadways, and response times would be similar to the established standards. The City has not adopted standards for staffing and response times for fire protection, nor has the City adopted impact fees to cover the cost of additional facilities that might be needed due to future development. The establishment of fire impact fees is currently under review. The City conducts an annual review as part of the City Council's budget process. This procedure would be used to determine the requirements for additional staffing and facilities that might be needed to serve the proposed project as well as other areas of the community. Planning Commission, November 2. 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 15 of 20 Police The City Police Department is currently staffed with 23 full-time sworn personnel, 16 of whom are in uniformed service. The department also employs 8 auxiliary officers on a part-time basis. As with the Fire Department, the City has not adopted standards for staffing and response times for police protection services, nor has the City adopted impact fees to cover the cost of additional capital facilities that might be needed due to development. The City conducts an annual review as part of the City Council's budget process. This procedure would be used to determine the requirements for additional staffing and facilities that might be needed to serve the proposed project as well as other areas of the community. Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal is provided to the project site by South County Sanitary Service, Inc. Solid waste is hauled to one of the several landfills located in San Luis Obispo County. Cold Canyon Landfill serves the City and is located approximately four miles north on Highway 227. The landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately twenty years. San Luis Obispo County and the City of Arroyo Grande have prepared a long-term waste management plan to meet state standards that contains goals for waste reduction and recycling. .Development within the annexation area would be subject to all requirements contained within the plan including mandatory recycling and greenwaste collection. The EIR prepared for the project concluded that there is adequate capacity for solid waste disposal to accommodate the proposed project. Wastewater The project area lies within the boundaries of the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. The District operates a wastewater treatment plant in the community of Oceano that serves Arroyo Grande and surrounding communities. The treatment plant, which is licensed to treat 5.0 million gallons ef effluent per day, is projected to meet the demand for sewer service within the District through the year 2015. The EIR analyzed the projected demand for sanitary sewer service from the proposed project of 40 residences and a school, and noted that the project demand of 16,175 gallons per day would constitute approximately 0.07% of the remaining capacity of the treatment plant. The study concluded that there is adequate wastewater treatment plant capacity to accommodate the project buildout. Schools The project lies within the Lucia Mar Unified School District. The District provides primary and secondary education in southern San Luis Obispo County. -~" Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 16 of 20 The District is currently charging an impact fee for new residential construction. The District has reached agreement with the applicant regarding the impact fees to be charged and is satisfied that impacts of the proposed project on the school system have been fully mitigated. The School District is the Trustee Agency designated by CEOA with the authority to determine the adequacy of mitigation measures required to address the impacts created by the project. Parks The City maintains and operates a system of parks,' and also operates recreation facilities and programs. The City Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan seeks to establish and maintain a ratio of four acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population. To achieve this objective, the City employs provisions of the Subdivision Map Act that allow local governments to require the dedication of land, and/or the payment of money in the form of in-lieu fees. The City has adopted an implementing ordinance, and assesses and collects such fees. Collection of the in-lieu fee is considered sufficient to offset the additional demand for parks that would result from project buildout. Traffic The project analyzed in the EIR and traffic study conducted in connection with the project includes 40 single-family residences, buildout of the two 11-acre parcels, and the 19.1-acre school site. The traffic study analyzed the impact of project traffic on the following intersections: . Brisco RoadlW. Branch Street/U.S. Highway 101 Northbound ramps . East Branch StreetlTraffic Way . East Branch StreetlWest Branch Street/Grand Avenue . Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 interchange (2 locations) . EI Camino Real/Halcyon/U.S. Highway 101 southbound ramps . Rodeo Drive between James Way and the intersection of the proposed Grace Lane extension. The traffic study and EIR also analyzed the impact of the project on Rodeo Drive and the proposed extension of Grace Lane. The EIR concluded that the vehicle trips generated by the project would not cause traffic volumes on Rodeo Drive to exceed the basic local and collector capacities. Comments have been received concerning the sight distance at James Way. The EIR indicates that the location of the proposed tract access road would not provide a safe sight distance for vehicles on James Way when children are crossing. Several mitigation measures were proposed, including relocation of the project access either 150 feet west or 250 feet east. The project applicant has, since the date of the traffic study, responded to this concem by designing a second access to the tract, which would be located to the east of the proposed tract access road in an area with adequate -----~---_.~~~ Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 17 of 20 sight distance. Mitigation measure options identified in the EIR will help to avoid or minimize safety risks to school age pedestrians crossing James Way. A second impact identified in the EIR relates to the Brisco Road/U.S. 10t interchange. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D in the future, and the EIR identified a significant impact with regard to project traffic at that intersection: To mitigate its share of cumulative impacts the Project would contribute traffic impact fees to the City fund used for major roadway and intersection projects identified in the Circulation Element. Generally, payment of impact fees is considered adequate mitigation for a project's share in cumulative impacts. However, in this case, the timing and feasibility of the needed interchange improvements is uncertain. For this reason, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts at the interchange (Impact D2) is seen as significant and unavoidable, because no feasible mitigation within a definite time frame can be identified by the project proponent that would avoid the cumulative impact. As noted below (see Environmental Assessment), the presence of a significant and unavoidable impact would require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with approval of the project. The addition of daily traffic from the project was not expected to significantly change any level of service on a City roadway. 6. The proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services. One of the purposes of the fiscal impact study was to determine whether the revenue from the proposed project would be sufficient to pay for City services to be provided. The study used an average cost approach to estimate public service costs for the proposed project. This process evaluates the cost of providing the service (e.g. a department's annual budget) and the extent to which the service is directed toward residential uses, as opposed to commercial or industrial uses (e.g., percentage of police calls to residences). In addition, the fiscal study also evaluated the impact of providing services to persons not residing in the City. For example, if the project were not approved, and project development occurred in the unincorporated area, thos,e residing in the project area would still be expected to use City parks and other services. Thus, the City would incur a cost without receiving a source of revenue (e.g., real property taxes) to offset such cost. Having evaluated such factors, the fiscal study concluded that the proposed annexation and development of residential uses as proposed would provide modest fiscal benefits ---- Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 18 of 20 to the City. The study also concluded that if the project were constructed under County jurisdiction, the City could expect to incur costs in excess of revenues. Staff Advisory Committee The Staff Advisory Committee considered the annexation request and proposal for Vesting Tentative Tract 2265 on August 3, 1999. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Attachment 4. Architectural Advisory Committee The ARC has not reviewed the project. The applicant has not produced elevations for the residences proposed for the site. In the absence of elevations, and given the review for aesthetic issues conducted during the EIR process, review by the ARC would occur when more specific development plans were available. Environmental Assessment When the revised project was filed with the City, staff prepared an initial study that evaluated the environmental impact of the project. The initial study is attached to the Final EIR. The initial study concluded that potentially significant impacts existed in the following areas: traffic, groundwater resources, aesthetics and visual resources; biological resources, public services, and noise. An environmental impact report evaluating these areas was prepared by firma. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a thirty (30) day review period, and filed with the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR on October 5, 1999. The Minutes of that meeting are attached as Attachment 5. The EIR concluded that the environmental impacts Gould, with the exception of traffic, be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, including the mitigation measures identified in the initial study, would become conditions of the project. At the Planning Commission hearing to receive comments on the Final EIR, concerns were raised regarding several issues, including the following: . Mitigation measures concerning groundwater resources were questioned. It was noted that the testing for the Deer Trail well would occur following project approval. The commentors questioned whether the applicant would be held accountable if the testing indicated the well was not productive, adversely impacted nearby wells, or produced water of seriously deficient quality; . Commentors questioned aspects of traffic' and circulation especially as they related to the design of the school site, and as they affect the safety of students arriving at and departing from the school facility. Planning Commission, November 2, 1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 190120 As noted above, the City Council refused to certify the EIR for the original project based primarily on traffic concerns, and disagreement regarding the application of the threshold for significant traffic impacts identified in that EIR. Given the nature and importance of the issue, staff requested policy guidance from the City Council following the June 8, 1999 meeting. The matter was heard by the City , Council on September 28, 1999. There was discussion of the relationship between General Plan Policy 8.1.b, which restricts approval of development when traffic at affected intersections would fall below LOS C, and Policy 8.2.f., which restricts approval of a project when the level of public service or facility provisions fall below the standards maintained by the City. At the conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was approved (3-2; Runels, Tolley): Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to 1) have the staff report, along with the Council's minutes from the meeting, presented to the Traffic Commission and Planning Commission for review, public comment, and recommendations; and that the matter be returned to the Council within 120 days for action, with some new alternatives or restated alternatives; 2) that in the interim period (120 days), Community Development advise all applicants whose projects, contribute to, or cause independently, the level of service on any roadway segment or any intersection to fall below LOS IIC': and said applicant cannot offer tangible mitigation to offset their own project impacts, that their applications be denied; 3) that in the interim period (120 days) traffic impact fees can be accepted as a tangible mitigation measure if they can be applied directly to an approved mitigation project scheduled to commence within two years of the completion of the applicant's project, and an analysis is conclusive that such a mitigation project will offset the impacts of the applicant's project; and 4) that this matter be presented as indicated to the Long Range Planning Committee and the Consultant, with direction to monitor and thoroughly define related thresholds and interpretations in the new Land Use Element of the General Plan. Pursuant to this policy, the City Council, acting with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, would determine whether the proposed project satisfies the standards of the above policy regarding mitigation of specific project traffic impacts. , -~-- ---"---.- -------' Planning Commission, November 2,1999 Staff Report, Village Glen Annexation Page 20 of 20 Attachments Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-1715 on Certification of Final EIR Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-1716 on General Plan Amendment No. 97-004 Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-1718 on Development Code Amendment No. 97-009 (Pre-zoning) Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-1719 on Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. Map 1: Vicinity Map 2. Map 2: Annexation and Pre-zoning Area 3. Map 3: Annexation Properties 4. Staff Advisory Committee Minutes, dated August 3, 1999 5. Planning Commission Minutes, EIR Hearing, October 5, 1999 6. City Council Minutes, Direction Regarding Highway 101/Brisco Road Level of Service Policy, dated September 28,1999 7. "Answers to Common Questions About Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande" 8. San Luis Obispo County Memorandum Re: Annexation, dated August 27,1995 9. Final Environmental Impact Report - Village Glen Annexation Tract 2265 and Elementary School #12 (delivered under separate cover) 10. Table M: Mitigation Monitoring Plan 11. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Village Glen Annexation in Arroyo Grande (delivered under separate cover) S:ICommunity Development Dept. - SharedlDevelopment ReviewlProjectslJames Way with SchoollStaff reportslPC Staff Report - 2,doc RESOLUTION NO. 99-1715 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Village Glen Annexation, including General Plan Amendment 97-004, Development Code Amendment 97-009, Vesting Tentative Tract 2265, and Planned Unit Development 97- 563 (collectively hereafter the "Project") was prepared by firma (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the" CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration in conjunction with consideration of recommendations for approval and adoption of the Project; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 2, 1999 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, incorporating all comments received and the response of the City as of the date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande resolves as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. . - - -----._---~-- . --~ Resolution 99-1715 EIR Certification Page 2 of 2 Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of Arroyo Grande certify that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in the Final EIR. , On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of November, 1999. Laurence Greene, Chairman ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: Kerry McCants, Community Development Director ,-- RESOLUTION NO. 99-1716 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -004, APPLIED FOR BY VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC WHEREAS, the applicant for the Village Glen Annexation has submitted an application to amend the General Plan Map to designate a portion of the project site area, described on Exhibit A to this Resolution, as Rural Residential (RR), allowing a density of one unit per acre, and the remaining 19.1 acres as Public Facility (PF); and WHEREAS, amending the General Plan Map as requested would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and . WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999 the Planning Commission considered a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Annexation, and recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for General Plan Amendment 97-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 1999, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record in this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Annexation Findings 1. The proposed annexation will not impact the amount of water resources available elsewhere within the City; 2. Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic identity as a rural, small town community; the goals and desires of. the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole; and with the community's existing available resources; 3. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan, particularly in regard to protection of agricultural and open ---. .- " _....-._.~--- -_._._.~- "- -.---- Resolution No. 99-1716 General Plan Amendment 97-004 Page 2 of 3 space lands, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the General Plan; 4. Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation; 5. Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards; and 6. The proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenues to adequately pay for the provision of City services. General Plan Amendment 7. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan. 8. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 9. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as identified in the Village Glen Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends to the City Council that it approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and General Plan Map by designating the Village Glen project area as Rural Residential and Public Facility as described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of November, 1999. Laurence Greene, Chairman -- .--- ~~ E)l\-\\6'1' r.. / ... ... '~ / /V,~, . -r '~ / #r;' / c1-\ ~ ;~ % '/ '. . / \\, , ..... \.. '~~ ~ / '., \ I "r~ \.~.~\ ~ ~ ;~\ i . . / "', " '-;) " . . '; \ .>.~ . , , , ~\... \ . !"tJ 1/ 6(}IJ ~\\ / '\ \\ "'. '.. I""". . I /~ , . ~ k Jj !.......) \\ ~ ...\ 01 \\ COUO:' ObisPO \'~ L\J\S , SaO \\ pubf\C \\ . \ .. \ fac\\i't'/ \\ 11\\ r\ 9 ac) \ ' . , \- ~ \\ ... \, . , \\ \ , , \. ,- "~ \V ,!,; ..\ . Rural ",.".) . deotia\ / ~ Rest . ~ \67 ac\ ~~. - . A )' \ .., . ::;, ; I . i ".I:' ~;:.:-~ ~ ~':\ - "\ - " ..,.1 f!) \ ~ ~ - ...,~ . \ \ ~ 3 " 'J'. I · ?'<1' ..;;~. ~ "i;tr... 1,;::-- ~ ~ ..' j, - ". .~-, '. 1 ~ " ". '~. .- ! , ~1ff ~ ~ '1.5 ~ ~ '. ~ '#. /~ ! Ii . ~ ~'GJ ..... if ~ ''''\''~ 'fIi ~\ .~ \ ~ -" r", ~ ...'1 '!:if ~ ,1. "'\\, . ~\\ . ~ ~\. ~ A ~'\:0 >., '09 ~\ \ ~ 1.01" SC ,\" pre- NO & t\oo )la Aooe - - - .- .. ." --------- RESOLUTION NO. 99-1718 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF AROYO GRANDE IN DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDEMENT CASE NO. 97.009, APPLICANT VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map indicates that the area identified in the attached Exhibit A, located north of James Way, is located in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Village Glen Homes LLC, has filed Development Code Amendment 97-009 to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project area as Rural Residential and Public Facility; and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described areas; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and has been considered by the Planning Commission, and will be considered for certification by the City Council; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 97-009 at a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 1999, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 2. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattem. ------ --- ------ --------- ---_.~ RESOLUTION NO. 99-1718 PAGE 2 3. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Development within the Village Glen Annexation area would be required to meet development and design standards that insure orderly development and a unique and aesthetically pleasing design. 4. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential impacts. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOL VED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, California hereby recommends that the City Council of Arroyo Grande approve Development Code Amendment Case No. 97-009, through adoption of the ordinance attached as Exhibit B, thereby pre-zoning the subject property as Rural Residential and Public Facility, preliminary to its annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of November, 1999. Laurence Greene, Chairman ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk _____0_______,.___ ----- '/r\', \." ;:/ \', ;' \. /'~ "" "^, ~, \. "f ',' .., .g .~. '\. " ,',', . '!(/ .4'~'.';~ _ \.' / 'A.... EXHI81T A . " ., (. ~,","'" ',.',.."".... ,~ \. ..' / /~"~ " "." ~ ,.,. ,... ~ -,/ " .' ;.. -<!- " ., '_ / ..'_ ,." ./' h- ' ,... ,:...,/...:,~'" \.\'~./ ,';"') ';" ::.lUll Y . / //~~ ~~ .~" . ~ ^ .. .' . ,,." -. ~. /< . .....'~ ~. ~\\ .71 //~ /...... jt;//. ;; '''' ...."':Y/,,' ~~. / " ~ ~" ' . ."""",,' ',- ./ . . " ~.... ,r a" ;~ " ' 7.>~.' ~ ~ ,~:.., ,: \\ '., " ,." _, /'V\.\. ,_ ''"'-' '. '; ,. "w'/ ,," ./" '"' ;~.,~. J/ ~J \. !;' ./ :;. . ._. " ~ / ':<i" ,,,./ .- -"'!\ :...:::..:; ~\" :,1 , -" ' .' ~' .--=-1 ' " Ih ~~ .......... ------ '"",- '. ',' · ~~,. - . ", ' '.~""'-- .' ,.--- _ ":. CouotY of " , ., ~:,\ Sao Luis ObispO ,;;'~ ~)~~ . ~ _ ill / ~,,"~ I', ,"./' ,jV&:~'/ ,,'" y Y/~ s c'. x't- 'Proposed \:... ./'..... /"" ~ . .,...' "" /.. J,....." ...... ~ . _ ~i< .,.., ...:" · . ., . '" =~ ~~.'i"- ~~ r'<{'" .~r-' . AnneJ(.atlO(\ '\ ) .~'" .., Ie /. . ' .... . -. ~" ,'/ - ,d.';=---'" / ..' ..:> (fIJii;;:.'. h~,~::a..... . S\'te ... \', //" /;."/ " ~ ~ ~. ,.. - ^ .. ' /~ ../ or"' '.' ...,' ,.. ~ " ." .- <<~~/!!;.~ 1\~W:Yj. ~ ~:'" "'.~~, (l,R "" ';, -f // ' ! J;.... \:\~' .~ J1 ", "" . ,,, "" -- ./ <.~. "- I' ..' .../. . "~ ;;.. , ...,.... .: ,- ,'''' - '. ~ . =' ... " . . - - ./ -; , .: J!..s!_-Y'" ,.>"'-:" . '. '.;) .'<< ~~''''' "\. I / ~ "- 2:; ",_ ", ",1);", .,. - ~, :co- roO. ~~:--.. ~-... r '. - .. .. ~ ' . ,,' .,....- ,-" ,: II~' .. . ,.,..,,~, ....~". ' ,i iI' -,,' ., ..,' , .. ",' o". a'..' -.........; ,V".. ."/ , ~: ,...... '\,:-" . :: :..- ','. .lJ.' " ._ ....,' " 04'/' ..- ~ ~ _ ~ ~r'\.'v.. " fli llr",~#/>::' ~ ~., ~" '_"''''' ,-<: "/'1 -#'1.. 1/': :~~/..,'" . :;:f/ ",,"o' ",..~ ~.' '. " ,Ii :g ! : ',' " ::('" "~" 0 ... "'.= \\ ....,-#., · "'~" ". .;. ,'"" . ;.......... J.;"; ..;i!::;r.>: ~_~ \0 ~\ < ~ ~". ,..r ' '# ,." .....-.. .", ..",,-,,'= .j ,_ ~V'/ ~ -' . .' - '- '............ ,.' _ ~ .//; C'- . i .~:::::,.;; _........ " '/ i' ~ ......:. ,.,of... ilr "~' '0. '" -=-/ le< a. " .,-~' :/.' . '" ,~,,'~" , .::> .>-,..... ~ // _....:, .." '. '~V"~ .. ,I ~-.....:.. ':' .::."';7-' .... ...," . ~ // ..' ^ rroVO .' /- ...-... ..~ .-' ,..._~_... 'f" .: ;fL'" ~\" " ~ '.' ." . ,".;"~ ': .. ..",,,,, . .._' ,. __ ..' ..v ~ .. ' . ..... -----..... - ._,...,. 1 .. -' ..' " .. .' ,-'- ~;~:"~~; ..::,'" ! ~ /,,rf Gr"Ooe \\ .., . ~" ~ ) j ,-.'4.",,- :0--- ,.... ,',' ~ ., ..' .. . ......-..:hd~' '.'. T/-i' ~~'~~ ~ ..' .::,.' \\ .. "" .". ' __' ...... v"~' ,._.~ ~ " - ~." ,. '-, -' . . .~" ~. .>.,. ~ ,.;'> .", _, . ~ " -' ..f ". <'" ;, -A'-' :~.:..i. -::'::--!i~" ,,~~..//1i' ;J:,'!:<"';" ~iJ-;;: \\ ~' ~ ~?:,"\.. ~ 0'":'/; .",' ~...c,::/'" . . ~_."" - ..-" - .. - ' . ' ., ' ~ ..' j - ~~~ ," . . .'.-- .~. -' ., ' -~~,,~ =",.- ,,;" ~- -'" ",.' " Jf :-.....: --'" " "'. ."",,", -- ' , ~~. !!..'~ - ~~- \\!. ~;./,,:/:' ,:' ..... ..~_.' ;..,"" ~.. __ ~" ..' = _ ,\\ ..,~ ,... :." _ ?' \', -~ 1/; ~ . .' ,. _ . I~.--:'" ....;,'1>... ~.::...~' . _ ..!.i.' "" ,,, ~t.\~'- ~:(- ,:,.''": _ ' _ ..r ~ """"",; 4, .. ~ ,..,.. ..,....." '" ~ ' ,,,- - .. , ' / .. .. -I' \ ~ .~ ' ".....",.~ ," ~ -~, """ -'. ' ~'.,;;.' ~~ '- .<;...~ =..;" ~.1~'~"~~' i~ - - .; , .. .. """'_~~.~."" ' _ " o.~._A <:o-~~ ~'r ,~: - -.,,-- .... ~ ." ~ .,..... ,,- .... ",,~-" ;::;.--- -' ~"" - ' == -~ - - ,=~,,,.. .. - ~ ...~.".. . - ,-' ,,, __.. ,,_'= 11..:-- ~,'t ~.~ .""~"';.~~~. -. d "'..-.-~" -,,-- ~- ~ " _ .... .,,.., "~~",,,,- _. ; ~7 :,.-.' " .. ~" '" ._ . ..".,......, ~?"', _.\ ,.,,,,. ~ ,::=::;::;";,' .... ~,' " -'I" ,,' "!' ',;r;" .'1. h Yo'! ~ ~~ . · "" I\,.u< 0.- 'I'j 1" =li 'i ...,\~.I" o--=- :-.:;;::,~...--w- ' "'~~ " i. "' . -:----iJ r '!\'~. ~,';..-' ~ _ '---.....,_:;., /.. .'" \,-;It\,~ :?:;\', ~~..~ '-, -~ '1 · . --".....: ~ . .." . ~'- .>I~' .,...~. =:,..' ',\- ,,~ ." ,.' 1 I ""04. ~i!t" ~ . _ """" . .... '.'" ',a==:~ ~,..,;. -" ,'\ \\\, '-~ ?jI"~ 1 ~ ." ~- L ' . . ".' .. -- - ,'" - -. """''' .. . .,' .' . ~~ ,:-.::...". ",.~" '$:;.\ "'.. .;,;-.... "', ' . ~: 1,. . .; "';>. '. ... ~ . . .' . \~ .". ;'," ,," .y> ./ =-,. "._,' . .... ,\,,,,, ~,~~' ....-~,r\\ J.~',~~' .,.... ' .-r. ~ ,. ,_" 0'= . ,.- ~ .. .~' - '.\" ,~~ \.... ~ , ~Ii' .;,~ ( ...,JJ ~" \\ ~'i;."'" .'.' ~ ",..,.. .. ~ ;' ,. t: '"'''' , I ?&:, ."S<.. .. --' ., ".... ,-'''' ~ .,' ., ~ ~ ".... ". -"~ ' " '. . .. " ' ,-.., , ., ? ,.'" .. ,<, I' ... _'.7" ~.... .1L )~..,/;..% ..;to ~,~\\ c? . ... '''~ .,y "~......._~ ~ ..;:; ~~~~~.~" .""'" ~!! "!~ . J'.:V . .%; . '- . ~ '" - ~.\., ;" ,,,,, '\ , 11' ,~,~ /./ ~.---< '...... \~~ .. ~ ~'I> .\....-.~'::..~. -- , ' - ,'= " ~ .. ."_ .,' .' ..' ...-.' -e. -./ · , , Sf" · ,/ ... ;\'-. ,,'. <. '(;; "" ~ ..._. .""'~... " ." ",." -= ",,'~ p .. ". .' ,,~. " .' ,,\- ,.,~",_...' ~ " ... . ... " , :::" ~ :(~_ ':~ .. ~' .. ",J!S::; ",",';><" .' ' ,,-,-.c. ' ... .', ..'" .. .. '..'.' .... .' , ..." ~.", /..," ...~. .,p_.. ." ~ .' , .., ..... . .,.".......:... ' ',;\ - -- ..., ..;~;.:: "..- " - '\' .:~.~.., I' ~ '. _.~. ii' ......~- ' ~ W~: i! \\... ".,. '. ,."'- . . -,'. """"'- ""'- =-- .,," " . " .,,.p .' ." " ~ .' - ..........: . : / .;.'.\ -;, ,%/-' . . ." '~. ~- ,~ ~.~ oIfJ/1 ~. ~ .... ,"~ ' '.' ~..~ ./ ....-s:' j<'- . >'\' -;;,' .,--.. .. '" =-- // .;.' ;:I .... '. . .....,- ~ : '" -" .,,- =- -'" . "" ,. ,'~':) \\J\ap " Vicioity MaP No Sca\e ----~-~- -------------- -~- RESOLUTION NO. 99-1719 A RESOLUTION 'OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION, AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of Arroyo Grande has considered the VHlage Glen Annexation project, including the Final Environmental Impact Report and the staff report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly noticed hearings concerning the project and the Environmental Impact Report, at which .time interested persons were provided an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Final EIR, and has received and considered evidence concerning the need for a school site in the City of Arroyo Grande, as well as the serious difficulty faced by the Lucia Mar School District in locating an appropriate school site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the benefits of locating a school site within the Village Glen project as proposed, as well as the environmental effects of the proposed project as identified in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes that the Final EIR has identified a significant and unavoidable impact for traffic, due to the cumulative effect on the Brisco Road /101 interchange; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the attached draft City Council Resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, making certain findings regarding the environmental impacts of the pr~posed project and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande resolves as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission finds that the factors discussed in Attachment "B" to the attached Draft City Council Resolution identify relevant and appropriate considerations in connection with consideration of the project and its effect on the environment. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds that the benefits of the Village Glen Annexation project, as set forth in Attachment "B" of said Draft Resolution and as can be found in the record of proceedings before the Planning Commission, outweigh the adverse environmental effects of the project, including the impact on traffic identified a~ Impact D2 of the Final EIR. - ----~-----_.."-,----------- _.^--._--~ Resolution 99-1719 Findings Re: Environmental Impacts Page 2 of 2 Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopt the attached resolution making certain findings regarding the environmental effects of the project and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of November, 1999. Laurence Greene, Chair ATTEST: Kathleen Fryer, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: Kerry McCants, Community Development Director -"- "'~ ~ ~ A'T'T ACHMEN'T '\ '\ \\ -- COunt'f' ~...,naI subUfb"" \... ,'I. \\ .\. '\" ,\ GENERA'- P\ftII ~ 97-004 ~MAP -- ---------~----- - -- . ATTACHMENT 2 City Umit Une COunty Zoning: Residential Suburban 'TItle: Existing Land UselZoning Not to Scale North Map \} 4 --~- --, ATTACHMENT 3 ~9: '\ :E .., 0 - '\' . ~ . ~~ - "='. ~~ ~:\.. ~ ~~~ ~ -'?- Z ... "0. ~- i~ -~ ~. ...~ ~ ~'" ij~ ;%%.~. ):...... -';"-'- . -~". i..: ~. ~~. .- - -:> ~I ........../::.......~ ". .~,. ..~ CD en as .... ~1 u I,::., CI) z - - - --- ~ I~~ , . ~ ~~ I ~~1.. 1lltfI-lr'I-tI(1 ~ ....~ " J:/IIfrI '# XXJI ...."t. A Z :;:IIMt ... . . \LI " - ' ~ .. ~.. <( ~ -~ ,..~ ,~ c: .. ~ ....'? ~~ ,1> 0 ---- ~:t >- ... ";.- g a: ~. 'i.o.. a: -- ~~, <( !!l~ ...~ --..:1:- "- to ~ ~- '-X~ 0 o ...... ~.. >- rn ~,.::. ~ 3 ~:.\. ::: u .,. ~ < .~ :J) -~ "- ---- 0 ~ _I ZJYW :no tT'M. .~ .i ~ . , :;) ~ ~ 0 ~. u '\ ~- ~ ?~'\ ., ~ ~. ~ (/) "\.'\ w i! - "- . .... ---- \ t ~ a: i , W ~ ! t c.. ~ 0 w a: ,.::. -,-- .--,,-"'-""--.------ .,. c.. -:. , "\ z ~~- 0 - .... ~ <: 0 >< ~ - < w ':\ .. ~ .. 0 z ~.. ~ w "-.. ~w Z . . ~"\ ~ ... ... w <: - ~"\. 0 ~ c: v ~ .!! 0 i= CI) 1- ----------- -.-------- .- A TT ACHMENT 4 STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Meeting Notes of AUGUST 3, 1999 S1 AFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Community Development Department - Tom Buford and Kelly Heffernon Fire Department - Terry Fibich Chief Building Official - Larry Schmidt Police Department - John Ferdolage Public Works Department - Craig Campbell and Kim Romano Parks and Recreation Department - Dan Hernandez I. Oral Communications - None. II. Projects A. 1. Applicant: Village Glen Homes LLC 2. Representative: Gary Young 3. Case Number: James Way Annexation (Village Glen Annexation), Tract 2265 (General Plan Amendment 97.004, Development Code Amendment 97-006. 4. Proposal: The applicant has redesigned the project and is proposing a total of 40 homes sites and an elementary school site of 19 acres. 5. Location: North and East of James Way adjacent to the northem city limit in unincorporated County lands. The SAC discussed the changes in the Village Glen project. With the addition of the school site there will be issues with regard to: . Water . Fire Sprinklers . Grading . Drainage . Water with relation to the necessary fire flow . The turnaround in the cul-de-sac for fire engines. . The necessity for a sixteen foot paved emergency access road . The removal of any trees (mostly eucalyptus) shall be replaced by the City formula of 1 to 1 or 3 to 1 for Oak trees. . Show trees and any tree removal on plans Craig Campbell stated/asked that: . Where will the intersection from the project to James Way be? An analysis needs to be done to determine the best place. . The access road needs to be 44 feet from curb to curb. . Question of buses - left turn pocket. Will a signal be needed? The Traffic Commission should study this. . How will the pedestrian traffic be handled? . Clarification of this on the plans. . Discussion about the EIR and the detention basin. . How will the increased demand for water be handled? . The Committee, the developer and David Foote discussed the water issues for the project. SAC Meeting Notes September 7, 1999 1999 Page 2 . Discussion about the EIR and the detention basin. . How will the increased demand for water be handled? The Committee, the developer and David Foote discussed the water issues for the project. B. 1. Applicant: Phil and Cristy KolboNRS Marketing 2. Representative: RRM Design Group 3. Case Number: Conditional Use Permit 99-008 4. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a single story, 7,690 square foot office/professional building for a research and development facility on a 1 .34 acre parcel. 5. Location: Camino Mercado Kelly Heffernon, Community Development Department, gave a brief explanation of the project to the Committee. Dan Hernandez, Parks and Recreation stated that the applicant had done a very good job of saving and protecting the ,Oak trees on the property. He questioned some of the parking spaces that were close to the trees and stated that he would like the roots protected. Terry Fibich, Fire Department asked if the building was going to have 'a sprinkler system installed? He stated that it was not a requirement but it would be important to do. If the applicant had two (2) hydrants to service the building it would not need to have a sprinkling system but if there was only one (1) hydrant it would. Mr. Kolbo replied that he would install fire sprinklers because of the open space at the back of the building and the potential fire danger. Police Department - No comments. Larry Schmidt, B"uilding Department, had the following comments and concerns: . The applicant can reduce the need for fire flow by 75% if the building is sprinkled. . The applicable fees will be charged with one exception; there is no water lateral which would result in higher fees if the applicant chooses to have the City install it for him. . The handicapped ramp protrudes out into the loading area of the handicapped parking space. This will have to be moved to that the "ramp" in on the sidewalk. Craig Campbell, Public Works, has the following comments and concerns: 1 Site Plan revisions to include: . All improvements within the public right-of-way, including plan and profile drawings. . Show location of all existing utilities . Clarify raised deck vs. at-grade vs. cantilevered floor. (show cross-section or elevation) 1. The deck needs to have a sturdy railing. 2. There should be a railing or visual barrier at 30 in. edge of parking lot. 3. Mr. Campbell stated that shared driveway access with the neighboring property would 2 COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR A TT ACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 1 B. VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION, TRACT 2265 AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #12; PROJECT LOCATION - UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF JAMES WAY NEAR MESQUITE LANE; APPLICANT - VILLAGE GLEN HOMES, LLC. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director stated that the project included a 19.1 acre elementary school and a thirty-six UNIT residential project. The total acreage is 86.3 acres, which is included in the annexation proposal. This is an opportunity for the public to make comments on the EIR and again, he would encourage everyone to submit written comments to the Community Development Department as well as their verbal comments. Chair Greene again explained to the public that the purpose of tonight's hearing was to take public comment only and that the Planning Commission would not take any action on this item. David Foote. Firma Consultina stated that he was in attendance tonight to listen to public input. His responsibility at the end of the comment period was to take all public comment and respond by incorporating them into the Final EIR. Commissioner Greene asked Mr. Foote if he was going to address the traffic study or would the traffic comments be passed on to the consultant that had prepared the original traffic study? Mr. Foot replied that the comments would be passed on to the traffic engineer that did the traffic study. Chair Greene wanted the public to understand that Mr. Foote was selected by the City of Arroyo Grande, not by the applicant and therefore he is serving as a consultant to the staff on this issue. Christocher Charles. 766 Phillips stated that he was in second grade and that the City needed this new school. He said that he rides on the bus now for over two hours. His little sister needs the school too. He thanked the Commission for his future. - COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 2 Tobie Charles. 766 Phillips stated that there were so many kids that crossed through the Brisco intersection to get to school that he felt it would help somehow with the impact at that intersection. Micalene Moran. 289 James Way stated that she was concerned about the children. When there is a large storm the electricity in this area always goes out. It would not be a good situation for the children to be in. She felt that the parents would be out of touch with their children and vice-versa. Patrick Voealle. 230 Canyon Way stated that he has very upset because he had not been notified about tonight's meeting. He does not have a problem with the school however; his problem is with the lack of information that has been discriminated to the residents of Canyon Way. They will be impacted by the placement of the school in a couple of different ways. His fear is that the traffic pattern on their street will change for the worse. At Ocean View there is a big traffic problem because there is a "key-hole" dead-end street where parents come to drop off and pick up their children. He is afraid that the kids will leave the school, go down the proposed fire access road to the top of Canyon Way and parents will be picking up their children there. Because of this potential traffic issue for them he felt it was iligitment and deceitful that the people on Canyon Way were not notified. He would like to know why this happened? He would also like to know if there had been any traffic impact study done on the potential change? Chair Greene asked Mr. McCants to address what efforts were taken to notify residents, both within and outside the three hundred foot limitation, regarding the project. Mr. McCants stated that a display ad was placed in the Times Press Recorder, as well as the standard noticing procedure of noticing residents within three hundred feet. He explained that there was a problem with the list that was provided to the Department in that some of the parcels were not identified correctly. Karen Lanae. 146 Avenue de Diamonte stated that she would like to support the school, which she felt was absolutely needed. She felt that the Planning Commission needed to look at other cities and see what a Planning Commission is supposed to do. She finds that in this City the developer's word is taken for what is going to happen. Developers are not the kind of people that will "unsell" their project. This project has a school site with only one entrance road and she feels that this is inconceivable to her that COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 3 there would be a school with over 500 kids and only one road. In the other communities, the Planning Commission and the City Council requires the developer, if they want to work in that community, to do what the Planning Commission sees fit. She felt it was the Commission's job to understand the community and to push the developer to do what they and t~e community wants. Chuck Fellows. 202 Canyon Way was concerned and had questions because he had heard that there was going to be a "bump-gate" for access to the school site. He is not against the school and feels that the school is needed. He felt that just about anything tbat would keep traffic away from the Brisco intersection is a good idea. However, the many families that live on Canyon Way are concerned that traffic will increase on their street. He has come to as many meetings as he has known about to talk about the traffic issues. He was surprised that there were no maps on the wall to let them know what was going to happen in this area. Was there going to be a "bump-gate" and what is the present plan for the top of Canyon Way? Chair Greene explained that the reason for tonight's meeting was only to take comment on the Draft EIR. The information that Mr. Fellows was asking about was contained in the Draft EIR. Mr. Fellows stated that if he had known about tonight's meeting he would have known to go read the Draft EIR. Juan Olivarri. 931 Margarita, Grover Beach told the Commission that he was the Principal of Margaret Harloe Elementary School. He sees the impact of having a large, overcrowded school every day. There are three elementary ,schools in Arroyo Grande with Margaret Harloe being the largest with over 700 students. There is a huge need in Arroyo Grande for another school, especially one on the East Side of the freeway. He stated that he was on the committee that looked at multiple sites. The James Way site was the best site they found for a school. He said that he realizes that the Commission looks at the whole picture and all the impacts that can occur. He also realizes that his view is a little parochial in that he only looks at the benefit for the children, but there is a great need for a school on the East Side of the freeway. Ravanna Thomcson. 1964 Johnson Ave., San Luis Obispo stated that she was the Principal at Ocean View Elementary School for five years. She said that she knows what it is like to have to tell families that come into the . COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 4 Community that are very close to the school, that there is no room from them at that school. She wanted the Commission to know how impacted the schools are in the Arroyo Grande area. This school is very necessary and she felt it would help with the impact on the Brisco Road intersection. Georce Heister. 677 Printz Road explained to the Commission that he has nine plus acres adjacent to the project with 360 feet directly abutting the site and he had received no information about the project what so ever. He went to the office in March and requested that his name be added to the list but still did not receive any notice about the project. He stated that he had submitted his written comments to the City but he wanted to emphasize one sector of his comments that he felt was extremely important. Mr. Heister referred to the City's Water System Master Plan adopted on July 13, 1999. This plan provided information on present and future water supplies for the City of Arroyo Grande. It refers to the 1 983 friendly adjudication with area's cities and the farmers. As the Commission knows the farmers were concerned about the salt-water intrusion into the coastal wells. Arroyo Grande was allocated 1,200-acre feet per year from the ground water. The City's other source of groundwater is the Lopez Lake contract and supply which is 2,290 acre feet per year plus 580 acre feet of any available surplus. The City's prior studies indicated that this water supply could support about 17,000 to 18,000 residents. When Rancho Grande is built out, in his opinion, would exhaust the City's existing reserves. The reports' recommendation is that future annexations include a separate source of water supply adequate for the increased demand. It also went on , , to say that this should be within the City's limited water allotment. The report said that the City of Arroyo Grande is approaching, or exceeding, it's limited water resources, now or in the near future. It asks that the City include a Water Master Plan when considering annexation. Tara Webb. 577 Woodland Dr. said that she felt that this annexation would be very beneficial to the City. The City needs another school desperately. She thinks the parking and traffic issues can be dealt with. The traffic studies could be looked at again and some solution could be reached rather than killing the whole projects. The traffic on the Brisco intersection with the parents going back and forth to take their kids to school is a nightmare and if that could be alleviated it would be a blessing. COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 5 William Daniel. 741 Printz Road first apologized for his neighbors that were opposed to the Village Glen project but had to be absent for tonight's meeting. He stated that he too had not received any notice or tardy notice about the project. He said that he, like his neighbors, were not anti-progress. However, they all expect this project to be constructed along the zoning and guidelines that were in place when they purchased their homes and properties and without creating any undue hardship on the surrounding homeowners. Mr. . Daniel said that the changes the developer is" requesting are not in keeping with Section 8 of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. It states in part, "promoting a rural small-town atmosphere and retaining our ties to agriculture while providing the best possible quality of life for all residents." He felt that these changes, if permitted, would adversely effect the surrounding homeowners. The developer has proposed a school site. Yes, we need a school, but not in this area. And not an elementary school that is backed up to existing 2 1/2 acre and larger parcels, with homes in the $650,000 to $1.3 million which is . a community of older homeowners who have already raised their children. Mr. Daniel stated that this site was unsuitable for a school because it would require extensive grading to bring it into conformity with the state standard for schools. There is a difference in elevation of 130 feet from the top of the site to the lower boundary of the site. He would like to see the Council give further consideration to the proposal that is outlined in the third paragraph of Section V.3, Subsection D. as outlined in the current EIR. A portion of this section suggests that parcels of 1.5 to 2.5 acres be placed in this area. These lots would serve as, "a .Iand use transition to larger lot sizes in the ~ounty and the residential estate zone to the northwest." Further in this section it states, "this would be the environmentally superior alternative." On the subject of water, he stated that the Deertrail Well that the developer intends to use lies below the aquifer that serves the residents along Old Oak Park Road, Noyes Road and Printz Road. The EIR states that extracting water from this area should not adversely effect all of these homeowners. He feels that this conclusion in the EIR is flawed. The silty sand and clay that separates these two aquifers will be an effective barrier from keeping COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 6 the higher from draining to the lower aquifer. This would impact the residents along the three roads. He was also concerned that the City may end up using more water from the Santa Maria aquifer and therefore leave itself open to litigation from exceeding their limitation. In conclusion, he is not anti-progress but he would like to see this development done in a responsible manner, one that would not adversely the community as it now exists. Jack Smith. 338 Quail Lane stated that he serves on the Facility Committee that is responsible for finding school sites. The wanted the Commission to know that they looked for over two years to find a site in Arroyo Grande. It seems that there are other priorities such as using Ag land, or wetlands. Now the school district is in .a situation where the schools in the are overcrowded. There are elementary schools where they have to have six lunch periods of only twenty minutes. There are so few bathrooms that the kids have to leave the classroom because they can't use the bathroom at recess or lunch. There will be traffic problems and not perfect systems but we can't wait any longer for a school. There is no playground space because they are filled with portable classrooms. There needs to be a new school in this area. How bad does it have to get for the kids and why should they be the last priority. Shari McCarthv. 222 Garden stated that she has a child at Ocean View. The City desperately needs a new school site. She hopes that the City does not spend a lot of time not taking care of the issues to allow a new school. She stated that she trusts the Facilities Committee for researching out a site. Now it needs to be done. She does have a concern about only one entrance into the school. She does consider this a problem with regards to safety for the children. Tim Brown. 125 Allen felt that the school is a great idea. He feels that it is a win-win situation for all those involved. He has a child at Ocean View and he concurs that the school is very impacted. His question to the Planning Commission about the traffic study. The traffic study basically changes the methodology to go from a LOS of B to D. He wondered if by certifying this EIR, were they accepting that level of B for the Brisco intersection? Lori Glockanour, 800 Pearl Drive said that she was the crossing guard at the Grover Heights Elementary. What she wanted to suggest that the parents, who are always in such a hurry to pick up their children, remember that their COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1 0-5-99 7 children are sponges and absorb what their parents pass out to them. If the parents could drive slowly, with caution, they could avoid this. The traffic at her school site lasts no longer than ten to fifteen minutes. If parents allowed themselves more time they could get in and out without a problem. She is also on the PT A district board and this is a big concern to this community. She said that it irritates her that our children should be an asset, but they are put below trees, grass and animals and that people don't care about them. They come to the meeting and bicker about their privacy over the children having an opportunity to have a proper education. She would suggest that everyone should go to their work place and cram three additional people into their office space and see how much work they get done. These are the conditions the children have to deal with on a daily basis and they do it with a lot of pride and joy. This is why she feels it is very important for the Planning Commission to move forward and not put the children at the bottom of the list anymore because they are one of our biggest assets. Otis Paae. 606 Myrtle Street wished to express his thanks to the City Council for the initiative they are taking on the traffic issues. He feels that everything the present Council is doing, under the leadership of Mike Lady, Tony Ferrara, and Jim Dickens, to optimize the best solution for the citizens in terms of, traffic is a totally responsible issue for the citizens to understand. Anita Ikeda. 371 Gularte Road stated that the substantial growth has impacted the schools. We now have schools that are overcrowded and run a risk for our children's health, safety and education, as well as their futures. She would like to recommend the annexation of this property and a new school site to help alleviate the current problem that exists. It is an investment, not only in our community, but in the future of our children. David Shaw. 295 Canyon Way explained to the Planning Commission that he did get a notice and had read the EIR. He is in favor of the school, but what he does not understand, and what is not clear in the EIR is why there has to be annexation in order to get a school. It does not make sense to him. He stated that this creates problems with water and everything else to have more homes in this area. Do we really need the annexation of this property to get a school? Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 8 Commissioner Keen's main concern was with the traffic. He lives near Ocean View Elementary School and therefore sees the traffic problems there on a daily basis. That location has two entrances, this location does not. If this is the only place the Facilities Board could find to put the school that is fine, except it will not work with the traffic layout that has been presented. If this project is approved the City will have exactly the same thing as, Brisco Road. Brisco Road will eventually be fixed. If there is only one way in and out of this location there will be no way it can be fixed. Mr. Keen stated that on page 4.D4 of the Draft EIR it talked about the trips for the elementary school when the enrollment is at 500 children. It says the number of trips will be 510. He wanted to know what determines a trip? Is a trip to the school or two the school and back? The trips could actually be 2,000 at, the corner of James Way and this project. He feels that the majority of the children are driven to school. The intersection at James Way will be greatly impacted not only with the parents, but also the buses and the teachers. He, went on to say that in the Crawford- Multari Report it quotes the Police Chief as saying, "Providing a safe and adequate drop off and pick up area in front of the school, as well as assuring adequate and multiple access and egress were two issues identified by the Police Chief as minimal for police services. " He did not see this quoted in the current EIR. He didn't understand how it could be addressed as a police problem already and not be put in the EIR. Mr. Keen stated that a school at this location would not work unless there is more access in and out. If there was a problem there the street may become so impacted the fire department couldn't even get to the site. Until the project comes up with another way in and out he does not see how this can work and he doesn't believe the EIR addresses that. Further, on page D. 5 of the summary it says that. the school would contribute up to 956 trips over a twenty-four hour period. One of the things he noticed is that a lot of the parents that bring their kids to school are also on their way to work. He questions how this would relieve much of the impact on the Brisco Road underpass. Because, the people on the north side of the freeway still have to go to work,:, They will come back to the freeway to get on their way to work. . COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1 0-5-99 9 Impact D.1 states that location and purpose of the proposed tract access road does not provide safe sight distance for vehicles on James Way when children are crossing James Way. Where the road intersects with James Way is not going to be a safe entrance for this project. He realizes that the Facilities Committee has done their job in selecting this site, but saying that the school has to go in the back of this annexation area and with only one entrance he feels is a big problem. In addition, Mr. Keen was concerned about having 50 parking spaces and a big loop to drop off the children in the same loop where the buses have to go. He does not see how this would work. Lastly, he is concerned about the new layout of the project. The EI R does not say how much open space will be there. The old plan showed 30 acres of open space and he would like the EIR to say how much the open space easement is. One of the reasons he would like to see this is because, in Section 1-11 it talks about the clustering of the properties because of the open space it would allow. If the Open Space disappears with lots then the clustering aspect goes away. Commissioner London stated that he looked at the EIR for this project and compared it to the last EIR, which had two entrances. He wondered if the second entrance was eliminated to allow additional lots? The bottleneck at the school needs to be eliminated. The overall project is good and the school is needed. He believes that the applicant will have to come up with another entrance to the project or some way to mitigate the problem. He felt that the EIR is in line with the one that was approved earlier in the year. As far as the Brisco Road intersection, he does not feel it can be mitigated with this project. If the City wants the school they will have to accept the impacts. Commissioner Costello stated that he has several issues that he feels are critical to this project either with, or without, the school. 1. He is concerned with making sure that the density , if this project goes forward, remains the same. He does not want to see any "stepping" with additional projects. He would like to see that the final document is very strict with any further development on this property. ---------------------------- COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 10-5-99 10 2. In terms of, the traffic, he finds it impossible to believe that the Brisco. intersection is operating at a LOS of C. Something is wrong with the study on the traffic. 3. With regards to the Pismo Clarkia, he has been told that this plant can't be relocated. So either the City decides that it doesn't care about this plant and eradicate it or decide it does care and do something to protect it. 4. There are some real issues with the Police and Fire services. The accessibility issue is one thing but more importantly this EIR brings forward that in the very near future, the City might have to go to a paid Fire Department. It distresses him to find out that there are no provisions in place in the City for impact fees for Police and Fire. 5. It appears that the drainage for the project is all right. However, the City needs to be very careful that any mitigation measures in place for this project are monitored closely. There should be some measure in place so if they aren't doing what they are supposed to there would be some way to go back and make certain the people downstream are protected., 6. He does not feel that mitigating the Brisco interchange will happen with this project. However, he feels that the' City needs to take a closer look at the traffic ramifications of this study. The numbers need to be consistent and we do need to pursue some of the issues Commissioner Keen raised on this. 7. Mr. Costello stated that everything he has read in the EIR about the water issue says that there is no study to conclusively prove what is being said. Time after time in the EIR the referrals to water are not substantial. He had the same issue with the previous EIR. In the EIR it states that they will do a study for two years about the quality of the water coming out of the ground and the flow to see if it is adequate. Is the developer willing to do the tests and wait two years then if the water is not adequate, the project stops. If the project cannot bring in the water from the well being suggested, there needs to be some other mitigation. Mr. Costello asked that these issues be addressed this more completely to , , create a better document for making a final decision on certifying the EIR. Chair Greene stated that he had put his comments in a written document which he would like given to the consultant. He stated that when the COMMENTS ON VILLAGE GLEN EIR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1 0-5-99 11 previous EIR was reviewed some months ago the document included a Resolution with a pre-zoning request. One of his concerns at that time was that the only pre-zoning option that was presented to the Commission which was the zoning for all the 83.6 acres. For the record, he would like the staff to consider alternative zoning proposals for the approximate 1 9 acres, which are not part of the Tract 2265. He respectively requests that when the issue of pre-zoning comes before the Commission that they are presented with alternative zoning options for the parcels which are not part of Tract 2265. This concern was also raised by the City Council when it went before them. ATTACHMENT 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 alternatives and any State resources available through Division of Dam Safety. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion~ _Voice Vote 2LRolI Call Vote An. Lady An.-Ferrara An.-Runels An.-Tolley An.-Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is l1ereby declared to be passed. 10.b. DIRECTION REGARDING HIGHWAY 101/BRISCO ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE POLICY Director of Community Development McCants highlighted the staff report. He stated that Council is requested to provide direction to staff fOr processing project applications that contribute traffic to the 101/Brisco Interchange or other intersections and/or roadways currently projected to operate at a level of service "D" . Council Member Tolley asked if this item was being discussed because of the discussion of the project on James Way. Director McCants replied that was correct. Council discussion and questions included how to define "short-term" for a project's planned improvements; how many roadways in the City have a level of service lower than "C"; how long it will be before improvements are made to the Highway 10i/Brisco Road interchange; and if the $1.5 million in the Transportation Facility Impact Fee account could accomplish any amount of mitigation at the Brisco Interchange without CalTrans. There was further discussion on whether or not General Plan Policy 8.2.f. should be used as a method of implementing General Plan Policy 8.i.b. which requires the payment of traffic impact fees as a mitigation measure to ensure appropriate levels of service are maintained. Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell stated the Project Study Report (PSR) does not address phasing of improvements for the Brisco Interchange and it would be difficult for the City to do the improvements without the approval of CalTrans. He referred to the PSR, which has a timeline of seven years for the project Director McCants stated that based on the 1998 draft Circulation Element update, the intersection at East and West Branch is at a level of service "F",and the intersection at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way is at a level of service "D". Consultant Campbell stated that the current level of service "D" for three roadway segments near the Brisco Road/Hwy 101 underpass were identified in the PSR. 5 -- - ---~ -- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 Mayor Lady opened up the discussion for public comment. Craig Smith, land use consultant and attorney, 1101 S. Broadway in Santa Maria, stated he assists S&S Homes in their land use planning and project development. He said the funds' for infrastructure improvements have to come from some source. He spoke about cumulative impacts, and AB1600 - the development fee statute which allows local agencies to assess fees. He spoke in favor of assessing fees so developers provide their fair share toward improvements. He quoted Section 15130 (a3) of Office and Planning Research Guidelines for the record as follows: "An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designe.d to alleviate the cumulative impact. " He said the City has a traffic mitigation measure fee in place and the funds have to be spent on those improvements that have been designated. Jack Hardy, 250 Estuary Way in Grover Beach, stated that a lot of effort, time, and money has been spent on projects that could be in peril depending on the Council's decision. He gave a brief history of S&S Construction. He spoke about five acres of property on EI Camino Real that is zoned to allow up to 45 units. He explained that S&S is proposing a project with less density at 26 units, and has been working with the City to obtain approval on the project. John Mack, architect for S&S Homes, stated he had been working with City staff to plan environmentally superior homes. He cited the traffic impacts for their project would result in 10 trips per day per unit resulting in 260 trips per day. He stated it was determined with staff that the traffic impact on 'the Brisco/101 intersection would be less than one-quarter of one percent. He requested that S&5 be allowed to move fOlWard with the project and pay the traffic mitigation measure fees of $538 per unit. He displayed an exhibit of the proposed project and passed out information on 35 projects that have been submitted or approved by the City listing anticipated transportation facility fee impact revenues. He urged the Coun~iI to let the current process move fOlWard. Hearing no further comments, the Mayor closed the public discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara commented that the Five Cities Center paid a substantial amount of money into the impact fee fund, and the project is probably most responsible for the condition currently at Brisco with improvements not being complete for five to seven years. He referred to statements in the PSR about the current level of service which is presently well below current City standards. He commented that this situation would further deteriorate with build-out, and it is -an expensive long-term mitigation strategy. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara commented on the Village Glen project. +Ie stated that the original project, according to the City"s General Plan and CEQA rules, would 6 --~-"-,-- - - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 contribute to an overall significant degradation of the level of service at Brisco and Halcyon and the project impact could not be mitigated. He said the project was then resubmitted with reduced density, the addition of an elementary school, and reduced and redirected bus circulation, which are legitimate mitigation measures. Mayor Pro T em Ferrara stated he would support the spirit of Environmental Action No.3, but not the reasoning that defines the future Brisco mitigation action as short term. He also supported that General Plan policy 8.1.b. and 8.2.f. work together. He opposed the rationale that having, the Brisco project on the C,ity's Facility Impact Fee project list makes it a short term project. Council Member Tolley commented that all development in the City would stop if a policy decision is made that no intersection could fall to a . level of service below "C", and would cause the City to lose development impact fees for the purposes of infrastructure improvements. He stated that accepting tnifflc impact fees is tangible mitigation, and discretion needs to be continued on a case by case basis. He stated that policy 8.1.b., on its own, impacts all projects and projects would not be approved; however, if policy8.1.b is tied into policy 8.2.f, it gives the Council discretion to consider projects on a case by case basis, and the ability to collect and apply traffic impact fees to help mitigate' the traffic circulation issues. Council Member Runels stated he was not in favor of changing the current policy for reviewing'development projects. Council Member Dickens stated that when he reviews projects, he refers to the policy guidelines in the General Plan. He said the issue for him was what is a planned improvement in the short term, and he does not believe that.a PSR that is pending is an adequate planned improvement. He commented that if the City continued with proposed development projects and collected fees, the City would still fall short of the funds needed for its priority transportation projects. He suggested that the City has a responsibility to identify what needs to be done and how improvements can be done in a timely fashion~ He concurred with Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara that one to two years is short-term to have completed plans, funding methods identified, and construction timelines in place for infrastructure improvements. He also concurred that policies 8.1.b. and 8.2.f. work together because mitigation fees can be identified and used as a condition for the project. Mayor Lady talked about the quality.of life in Arroyo Grande and whether or not it has been compromised in the City. He talked about traffic impact fees and how they will affect the City. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to 1) have the staff report, along with Counci,l's minutes from this meeting, presented to the Traffic Commission and Planning Commission for review, public comment, and recommendations; and that the matter be returned to the Council within 120 days for action, with some new alternatives or restated alternatives; 2) that in the interim period (120 days), that Community Development advise all applicants, whose projects contribute to, or 7 -- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 cause independently, the level of service on any roadway seg~ent or any intersection to faU below LOS "C", and said applicant cannot offer tangible mitigation to offset their own project impacts, that their applications be denied; 3) that in the interim period (120 days), traffic impact fees can be accepted as a tangible mitigation measure if they can be applied directly to an approved mitigation project scheduled to commence within two years of the completion of the applicant's project, and an analysis is conclusive that such a mitigation project will offset the impacts of the applicant's project; and 4) that ~is matter be presented as indicated to the Long Range Planning Committee and the Consultant, with direction to monitor and thoroughly define related thresholds and interpretations in the new Land Use Element of the General Plan. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote A1&-Lady AyjLFerrara N.cLRunels N.cLTo II ey AyjLDickens There being 3 A YES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 1 O.c. GRAND A VENUE/EAST BRANCH STREET (STATE ROUTE 227) CORRIDOR STUDY Director of Public Works Spagnolo highlighted the staff report. He explained the study analyzet;i the operation of Grand Avenue and East Branch including the movement of vehicles and pedestrians. He reviewed the recommended modifications, which were reviewed by the Traffic Commission and Planning Commission. Council commented that most of the concerns about this corridor have been addressed. Mayor Lady opened the discussion for public comment Ted Gibbs, 1020 Grand Avenue, thanked staff and the Traffic Commission for listening to the concerns of the businesses on Grand Avenue. Hearing no further comments, the Mayor closed the public discussion. Council Member Rune's moved to approve the Grand Avenue/East BraftCh Street (State Route 227) Corridor Study with the modifications as recommended by the Traffic Commission. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion. 8 --- -------- --.-- ANNEXATION ATTACHMENT 7 Answers to Common Questions About Annexation to the City of ArroyGe..nde What is .annexation.? Annexation is a t~rm used to describe the attachment or addition of territory to a city or special district. An annexation results in a change to a political boundary line between a city and a county. Annexation may affect the level and responsibility for certain public services being provided to residents, business owners, and property owners within the affected territory. In California. the annexation of territory to a city or district is governed by the State Government Code. These state laws were established .to encourage orderty community growth and devetopment which is essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state.. These state laws also establish special boards to review and approve all annexation proposals within each of California's 58 counties. These special boards are called '"tocal agency formation commissions'" or LAFCOs. In our county, the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission must review and authorize all annexations. Why would Arroyo Grande agree to a request to annex territory? Essentially, the motive is similar to the basic purpose of these state laws: to encourage and ensure that Arroyo Grande's growth in all areas of our community will be orderty and well-plaMed, thereby enhancing Arroyo Grande's social. fiscal, and economic well-being. What is the benefit in annexing to the City of Arroyo. Grande? The motive or desire to annex to any city or district varies from individual to individual. GeneraUy speaking, when a property owner requests annexation it is motivated by a desire to obtain' city services. In most cases. services cannot be provided unless the property owner is within the city limits. To others a benefit is the ability to vote in local elections, run for local office, and have a greater voice in the local land use decisions about property surrounding their land. Annexation and availability of city utility services may also increase the value of existing-devejoped properties by increasing their future development potential. While some property owners may have no desire to develop their property further, the availability of urban services is still generally a benefit. These services. when and if they are desired, give a property owner greater options on how his or her land may be used in the future. Some owners of existing businesses or residences may also be motivated by the increaed safetY and shortened response time from emergency service personnel induding police and fire fighters available from an adjacent city, versus a rural volunteer fire company or a county law enforcement agency. Many property owners may find their fire insurance rates drop as their property is annexed to a city with an enhanced insurance rating. factor as determined by the Insurance Service Offices (ISO), a national rating company. [Arroyo Grande residents enjoy a Class 5 ISO insurance rating] . Why is my property included in the territory proposed for annexation? Your orooertv is not beina sinaled out for annexation! State Law requires that any annexation proposal be "logical" in its arrangement. In other words. if your property is situated next to other property proposed ----------- for annexation, it may be logical to include your property in that annexation application. Annexation proposals must make sense by allowing for an efficient and cost effective method of providing local government services. State law does not allow for "leap frog" development or the skipping of certain properties in order to respond to individual requests. Instead, it says that proposals should include contiguous lots or properties that create a logical territory of land that provide for an efficient plan of service delivery. What will happen to my property if it is annexed into the City of Arroyo Grande? Most people find little effect on the day-to-day activities occurring on their property following annexation to a city. Essentially, the existing activities and uses taking place on your land when it is annexed stay the same and are allowed to continue until you decide to make a change. You are protected by provisions within the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, which allow you to continue existing uses, even if other properties around yours change and develop. In other ways, annexation will result in important changes in regards to the responsibility of the City to respond to emergency police and fire suppression serVice.calls you may someday have to make. Will I be required to connect to city utilities if my property is annexed? The answer is NO. Annexation to the city does not require forced connection to any city utilities that may be installed in your area. That choice is left to each individual orocertv owner. The use of any existing private water wells and private septic disposal systems continues with no restrictions, subject to compliance with normal health and safety laws. If a private system fails sometime in the future, and city utilities are available, you may be required to connect at that time. Given the cost of instaUing a new well or septic system, this often provides a beneficial option to the property owner. Like all cities in California, the City of Arroyo Grande does have mandatory refuse collection, which may affect your existing garbage collection rate. Won't my taxes increase if my property is annexed? Generally No. There are no special city taxes associated with annexations. In ,the state of California, the 10c~1 property tax is set by the State Constitution at the rate of one percent (1 %) of the assessed valuation of your property [a result of Proposition 131. Your property tax rate is not affected by a ,. change in territory or boundaries" and. by law, cannot be reassessed solely because of annexation. Once your property is in the City, you will be subject to any future bonded indebtedness that the citizens of the community choose to place on themselves. Reassessments, or changes to your property tax, are generally allowed only upon the sale or development of the property. This would apply whether or not the property is in the city. Can I keep my farm animaJs? The answer is YES. If you have a use of land or activity that is leoallv in existence at the time of annexation, it may continue following annexation. This continuation of ail existing uses and activities is allowed regardless of the zoning of your property or properties adjoining yours. However, after the property has been annexed to the City, any non-conforming use that undergoes a substantial change in character or intensity may be required to meet current city laws. If you cease the use of ~e property for the keeping of farm animals for a period of time which exceeds 180 days, and the property is not zoned for agricultural uses. you may loose this right. What does the City gain by annexation 7 The City gains a more cohesive, well-planned community with the ability to provide city services with increased efficiency,to those who desire them. We want to make sure utility service extensions and future improvements take place in a cost-effeCtive and timely manner. Emergency service personnel will be able to respond readily without having to worry about inter-jurisdictional problems or liability, thereby increasing the community's level of security and' safety. What happens once the annexation process starts? In order for LAFCO to consider an annexation request. the Arroyo Grande City Council must first approve the request. Typically, the property will be "prezoned" by the Council before the annexation request is submitted to the County LAFCO. Prezonirig identifies the zoning dis-uia that will be applied to each property, if the territory is ultimately annexed to Arroyo Grande. You will be noticed of all public hearings concerning annexation requests. We encourage you to attend these hearings. SUMMARY This information has been prepared in hopes that it will answer questions you may have regarding "annexation," aRd how you and your property may be affected. Members of City staff would be pleased to answer further questions and provide any information we can concerning. this process. Just give us a call. Yau are encouraged to contact city staff at City Hail to inquire further or receive more information. Please call (8051 473-5420. - - ,- ' .- . ATTACHMENT 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO CouNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILO.lli1G' ALEX HINDS DIRECTOR 8RYCE TINGLE ASSISTANT DIREcrOR ELLEN CARROLL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR BARNEY MCCAY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL NORMA SALISBURY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER TO: PAT.II....Ir.- gQQD~ EXECUTIVE OmCER, LAFCo. FROM: KAMI GRlFFIN,:.8ENIOR PLANNER VIA: ALEX HINDS, DIREcrO~ PLANNING AND BUILDING DATE: AUGUST 27, 1995 SUBJECf: ANNEXATION No. 1 TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - JAMES PROPERTY (LAFCo FIT..E #4-R-95;PLANNtNG FIT..E # G940012F) The following is in response to your request for information regarding this proposal: :,L, ,Factors ~ting:to the proposal: ' a. Topography: '!be 88 acre $ite has rolling topography. b. Natural boundaries and drainage basins: The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is- split into four parts by: Canyon W~y and Wlld. Oak Place.. There is drainage sw3I~ tnat runs through the site from north to ,south in the northeast quadraRtofthesite. c. Population of area and adjacent areas: The site is made up of nine parcels~ seven being developed with single family residences. It is located within the San Luis Bay (Inland) planning area of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the county general plan. The population projections prepared in June, 1995, by the Department of Planning and Building using infonnation. from the California State Department ofrUlance estimate the 1995 population for the foRowing areas to be: IIII~~'~~II\III:II~:I8mI:g::;'.."""."':. :::',;:,::.,::,f,',:,::.,;:;,:.!2.I~:~::,:::11!;,:;::::::::::I:;[t~:'1'::::j: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 15,330 . SAN LUIS BAY PLANNING AREA 47,485 , .., ; COUNtY GoVERNMENT CeNTER . SAN luIS 08Isf0 . CAuroRNIA 93408 . (805) 781-5600 . FAX (80S) 781-1242 OR 5624 ~------~--------'----.- - ~- . ,. LAFCo Referral - August 27, 1995 ~ Page 2 , - - d. Population growth in the area over the past 'decade: The fonowing " table summarizes the growth rates that were. experienced between 1980 , and 1990 by the two areas ("annual ;0. is the annualpopo1ationincrease that occurred yearly between 1980 and'1990): ARROYO GRANDE 10,674 14,215 3~41 3~ SAN LUIS BAY 31;603 43,881 12,218 . ' 4~ Using estimates from the June, 1995 population projections, the xecent growth in 'the ~o areas that has occurred since l~O"is ~marized in the,following ~le: - - -------"1] '^~,.~~~' · ;", < ' ~h ~B'! '.. ...h,t'J~ "h< :, ,~. - """~~..,,j~~ ARROYO GRANDE 14,215 15,330 1,115 > 1$ SAN LUIS. BAY 43,881 . 47,485 3,604 ' >,1$ e. Like!iliood. of significant growth in the area and in adjacent areas during the - next 10 years: The following table summarizes the projected population increases for the two areas' for the next ten years, using :the'latest estimates prepared' by the County Department of Planning and Building:' ARROYO GRANDE 15,330 18,056 2126 1.1$ SAN LUIS BAY 47,485 56,814 9,329 1.9~ f. Present Land Use ~gnation in County Land Use Element: The site is designated Residential Sub~an~Theze axe no Combining ~nns on the site. . g. Existing land use(s) in subject territory: The site has historicaJly been larger lot (2..5 to 20 aCre) homesites. It is made up of nine pan:e1s, seven being developed with single family residences. h. Subject territory's relationship to Planning Lines (URL, USL, Coastal Zone, Etc.): The site !s within the San Luis Bay (Inland) planning area of the Land Use Element of the general plan. The si~ is within the Arroyo Grande Urban Reserve Line (URL) but outside of the Urban Services Line (USL) designated in the county general plan. The URL is cotenninous in this area with the Arroyo Grande City Limits. The site is also within the city's Sphere of Influence hnnnn::aTV LAFCo Referral ' , , AugUst 27, 1995 Page 3 The Land Use Element of the City of AIroyo GI3I1de's general plan includes the site in their Planning Impact Area. (pIA). The PIA indicates the maximum potential growth area. for. the city in the foreseeable future or areas where the development pattern would have ,an immediate impact upon the city. . Being with the city's PIA does not represent a commitment on the part of the city to, annex the areas it contains. The city does not currently have the site designated in their general. plan. The site wi1l"have to go through the city's pre-zoning proCess. i. Planning Area Standards pertaining to tJ,le subject property: There are standards that. apply to the subject property. The standards apply. to an areas within the Arroyo Grande Fringe. The standaIds rean as fonows: 1. Limitation on Use. Uses identified in Table 0,. Part I of the Land Use Element as · A · or .S" uses may be permitted except nursing and personal care; and coxrection3l institutions. 2. Specialized Animal FacJlities. Land' use permit applications' for specialized 311imal facilities hall address and mitigate any identified impacts of erosion and downstream sedimentation that would be caUsed by the establishment of the facilities:.. , 3. New Land Divisions. Prior to' acceptance of any application for land division as cOmplete, the. applicant shall provide fufonriation to demonstrate to the satisfaction. of the Director of Planning and Building; in, consultation. .with, the. D~r of ,Environmental Health and the Environmen~ Coordinator that. (1) adequate groundwater ~urces are available to serve the proposed land .division and (2.) each proposed parcel can accommodate an individual sewage.disposal system. The results of this infonnation shall be incorporated into the design and pioposed density of the land diviSion:. - j. Land Use Designation and existing uses of adjacent parcels: North: scattered residential single family dwellings designated Residential SubUIban. South: scattered resid~tial single family dwellings on larger lot rural land within the Arroyo Grande city limits. ,East: residential single family dwellings within the ~yo. Gxande city" limits.; "- :~.;. -.:....- - West: scattered residential single family dwellings on larger lot rura1land wittlin. the Arroyo Grande city limits. " " k. Subdivision and building activity in the area: Recent.activity consists of the continuing subdiviSion of the unincorporated Arroyo Grande Fringe into parcel sizes consistent with the zoning) and the on-going development of the Rancho Grande, Royal' Oaks and Tally Ho neighborhoods within the city. -- LAFCo Refecrat August 27, 1995 Page 4 1. Mis~ellaneous information concerning the subject property ~r area: RMS Infonnation: The. 1994 Annual Resource Summaiy Report for the ~esource Management System (RMS) o~ the, county Land :u- Element indicates the. status of keyresOUICeS and service eapa.citates' inuninCOIPoIated m2S. For , the greater area, containing the site, the 1994 report identifies recOmmended levels of severity of level m for Arroyo Grande's elementary schools and high schools and level n for middle schools. County general plan policies: The site is within the county-desigoated urban reserve line (URL), for the city of Arroyo Grande. this .is analogous to the sphere of influence because it indicates the area. for additional.tJIb3n. and suburban growth within a 20 year timeframe. 'Framework for Planning, Part r of the LUE, contains public service policies for maintaining a distin~on between rural and , urban development by directing the extension of UIban services to areas within urban and village reserve lines and restricting such services. form being p~ded outside those lines (chapter 4). The purposes of these policies forroaintrlning a clear-distinction between rural and urban deve10pmentare to. enhance the pattern of identifiable communities and to disComage premature intensive development in areas without all needed services being available. ' Related to these policies is a. general goal in ftamework for eneoUI3.ging the phasing of urban development in a.compact manner, first using vacantor underutiIized -infiU- parcels and lands next to existing development. ., 2. a. Planning Department comments and recommendations: - Comments: The applicant is requesting annexation to the City of Arroyo GI3.I1de and the South County Sanitation District.: The application submitted _ for this proposed annexation indicates -that the applicant is initiating the request for the , following reasons: 1. It is within the city's sphere of influence and the county's URL. 2. The ,area is suD'Ounded on three sideS by the city limitS and so any , development of the property will impact directly on city xesidents adjacent to the property. Furthennore, the annexation could be viewed as a filling _ . in of the ~ty boundaries. The city can provide urban level services to the site, some of which are 0- ._ -" 3.' already provided by the city, including water, sewer, police and fire. , 4. The vacant portions of the site sh~d be developed consistent with the city's general plan because access to ~e site is through the city, via James Way and Canyon Way. . 5. Groundwater is available on the property and a recently completed w~ would be made available to the city's system in order to supplement existing well supplies. ~-------'------------------ LAFCo Referral AuguSt 27, 1995 Page; 5 6. Community sewer systems are a preferable sewage disposal method over individual septic tanks. A sewer system is available through the city, however, dev~C)pment in the county would use individual septic systems. 7. If the property were developed within the county, traffic fees would be collected.by the county. If the property were developed within the city, - traffic fees would be collected by the city where the majority of the traffic impacts would occur from development. 8. The area. is within the city's watershed, and drains either to Canyon Way or James Way, both of which are in the city. With proper engin~g, the property could be developed in such. a way that. current peak flows down Canyon Way are retained on-site and all impacts mitigated. 9. The city's Parks and Recreation Element shows a trail extending into the prope.."'ty. Development of the property in the city would allow for~ acquisition of the trail by the city. Annexation of the site 59 that the full range of community services can be provided by the city is coi1sistent. with county general plan po~icies on public services. This is because ,th site is within the Arroyo Grande URL and designated . \ Residential Suburban wliich allows parcel sizes as- smaIl as r acre dependC'nton urban services. Also, the orientation of the site being SUIrounded on three sides ~y the existing city limits would malce it a logical. extension of the city: limits consistent with ~ policies on promoting, in-fill and compact develop~t. - Recouunendation: It is recommended ~ this annexation be approved bec3u'Se it is consistent with adopted county genercU plan policies and' because the city ,is in the best position to. provide the needed level of services for existing and expanded development of the site. b. Date site viewed, report author: The site was viewed on June 7, 1995 and the report prepared by Kami Griffin, Senior Planner. ,- -, '. .- ,- , "' ". --- ---- - ----- ATTACHMENT 9 . Final Environmental Impact Report Village Glen Annexation Tract 2265 and Elementary School # 1 2 (delivered under separate cover) ---------------- --------. 7.... CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Applicant: City of Arroyo Grande Proposal: The Council will consider approving a Drainage Master Plan which provides an evaluation of the City's drainage facilities, recommends drainage policies, and presents a capital improvement program to help mitigate drainage problems in the future. Representative: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works Any person affected or concerned about the proposal may submit written comments to the Director of Public Works before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the proposal at the time of the hearing. Any person interested in the proposal can contact the Public Works Department at 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-5440 during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). A copy of the proposed Plan is available for public inspection at the above address. IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, November 9, 1999, 7:00 p.m. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street ~fJ!t/4UOM- Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Kelly W tm Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk , Publish 1T, October 29,1999 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER A- SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE CITY'S DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the 1999 Drainage Master Plan. FUNDING: The Capital Improvement Program budget includes $40,000 for the preparation of a Drainage Master Plan. Expenditures to date are approximately $36,000. The Drainage Master Plan will be completed under budget. DISCUSSION: The Drainage Master Plan ("Master Plan") has been prepared to provide the City with a review and recommendations regarding the adequacy of its stormwaterdrainage infrastructure. Major components of the Master Plan include the following: 1. A review of the area drainage patterns. 2. A review of the City's major creeks and flood plain management programs. 3. Identification of drainage policy zones. 4. The establishment of drainage basin policies. 5. Identification of drainage problems in the City. 6. Proposed projects to correct City drainage problems. 7. A proposed capital improvement program to implement the recommended projects. The City Council on June 22, 1999 authorized distribution of the draft Drainage Master Plan for public review and comment for a period of 60 days. The draft Master Plan was made available for review at City Hall, distributed to the County Library, the Home Builders . Association of the Central Coast, and the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the public was notified via the City's web site and through an advertised public notice. The public comment period for the Drainage Master Plan ended on September 13,1999. Seven,(7) residents commented on the Master Plan. Staff has reviewed the comments from these individuals and has modified the report where appropriate. The public comments and staff responses are attached to this report. _. --,,------ Specific comments were also received regarding the Newsom Springs drainage problem. In general, concerns expressed were related to the alignment of the proposed drainage facilities. The Master Plan proposes three alignment strategies for improvements to correct the Newsom Springs drainage problem. The recommended action tonight is to approve the Master Plan. Such approval means that all three Newsom Springs options remain viable possibilities. Which of the three options will eventually be constructed is.D.Qi part of the decision before the Council tonight. The decision on which option to pursue is a decision for a subsequent Council meeting. In fact, all the potential drainage projects must be brought before the Council for review and approval prior to any significant outlay of City resources. It is recognized that there is differing opinion on which of the Newsom Springs options should be pursued. That discussion merits citizen input and Council review; however, that discussion is not the issue before the Council at this time. The issue, as previously stated, is consideration of the Master Plan which establishes a.flexible, comprehensive tool for programming capital improvements, prioritizing available funding, and conditioning new development. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Drainage Master Plan. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendations; - Do not approve staff's recommendations; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Comments Regarding the Newsom Springs Project , COMMENTS REGARDING THE NEWSOM SPRINGS PROJECT Comments from Mr. and Mrs Wimbley: ... Bring the (Newsom Springs) water straight from the mountains to the creek and not next to the road, into town, and then to the creek. Comments from Lynn and Mike Titus: The present plan of bringing water from Newsom Springs along Branch Mill Road across Grace Stillwell's property is somewhat goofy. Water prefers to go in a straight line downhill. In a real flood, it will just go across the fields from Newsom Springs to the creek in a straight line anyway. Why not do the job right the first time and drain it straight to the creek?... Comments from Helen and Don Schultz: Don't fool around with mother nature! Bring the water straight from the mountains to the creek... Comments from Mrs. Jeanette Tripoli: Regarding Newsom Springs runoff, the wise thing to do is to bring water from the hillsides directly to Arroyo Grande Creek ... Comments from Pastor Randy Ouimette: ...By allowing the Newsom Springs surface water run off to continue along the ridge and behind Cherry Street, under the freeway, through the high school, through the Runels' farm field, past the Mid State Bank computer processing building, and finally into Los Berros Creek, we are fearful of a flood that would enter and fill our church... By far the better plan is to run the water directly down into the Arroyo Grande (big ditch) Creek from the Newsom Springs creek approximately where it meets Branch Mill Road. This is by far the most direct' route and would effect the fewest homes and businesses. Please consider this route in the Master Plan. Response to comments regarding the Newsom Springs Project: The Drainage Master Plan includes the alignment suggested by the commenters as one of three alternatives. The selection of an alignment will be determined by a separate action of the City Council. Note: The actual full text of the comments are attached for reference. GENERAL COMMENTS Comments from Council Member Runels: Comment 1: Drainage off of Williams property south of the City along 101 to behind the school is a problem. Water passes then gets to Los Berros. Cost is way too high. Response: A discussion of the Williams property has been added to the description of drainage problem number 18 (the School). Comments from Ms. Ferrara: Comment 1 : ...The recommended improvements appear to be based more on anecdotal accounts of problem areas as opposed to engineering analysis... suggest that the engineering analysis be better documented throughout. Response: Most of the drainage problem areas within the City are well known to City maintenance personnel, and their experience was helpful in identifying many of the areas needing attention. Engineering analysis was performed for each of the problem areas identified to define the scope of the problem and a proposed solution. These analyses have been assembled into an appendix to the Drainage Master Plan. Comment 2: My review was somewhat hampered by the lack of an exhibit showing existing drainage problems within the City. That would lend a lot to the longevity to the document. Response: Figure 4 shows the location of all identified drainage problem areas. The figure has been relocated within the document for easier reference. Comment 3: ... no discussion was included regarding channel capacities of the creek system throughout the City... Response: A discussion regarding the creek system has been added to the report in Chapter 3. Comment 4: The recommended improvements focus on conveying flow to the creeks, without mention of whether the impacts of changing flow patterns once it reaches the channel. Response: The effects of directing flow to the creek system is discussed in Chapter 4. Note: The actual full text of the comments are attached for reference. Comment 5: It is my understanding that the operations of Lopez Reservoir directly impacts flood control in the City. Shouldn't that setting be discussed in the Master Plan? Response: A discussion regarding Lopez Reservoir has been added to Chapter 3. Comment 6: The majority of drainage master plans completed in tody's environment contain discussion of permitting and regulations pertaining to flood control, "first flush" containment and quality, Army Corps of Engineer's review etc. Why is the master plan silent on these issues? I found the BMP discussion on Page 3 lacking. Isn't the City's adherence to BMP's in an environmental and water quality sense critical to our sustained eligibility for disaster relief funds? Response: A review of Best Management Practices (BMP) was not included in the original scope of work for the Master Plan. However, staff concurs with the need for such a discussion and has been able to add it to the document in Chapter 7 within the authorized budget. Comment 7: ... In several cases the proposed solution to undersized basins is to adhere to on-site retention. If these are existing problems, will new development alone correct the problem? How much percentage of each watershed is undeveloped and how long may it take to rectify the problem? Response: This comment applies to the Poplar and Soto drainage basins identified as drainage problems site 1 and site 2. A discussion regarding this point has been added for each basin. Comment 8: The site maps in Chapter 5 are great and the cost estimates are quite detailed as shown in Chapter 6. Comments from J. Roger Collins: Comment 1 : ... what considerations were given for post construction Strom Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment. Please see Control #5 of the BMP's for six minimum control measures which are enclosed. (Attachments) Response: A review of Best Management Practices (BMP) was not included in the original scope of work for the master plan. However, staff concurs with the need for such a discussion and has been able to add it to the document in Chapter 7 within the authorized budget. Note: The actual full text of the comments are attached for reference. . ~.2t2/r71 ' RECEIVED , .. CITY OFAR. ROYO GR _ . () , J ff -;t-() ~'+'~;:'9 ~~ "1 '.dO,.' '/~Q;~(j, B. ~J: ~~, '~, · h~, ~. ~~ Q..- '. ~" '~ , ~ ~ ~ /(}()- . ..-~..J ' ..A/VL/ a- \! 0-- I _ ~'-ff (/{/~ , ." -5~~ ~~ j).. ~~M ~ ~~~.M ~ ~~~"'~~ ~/~~ , ~~~~ ~~ 0([} / e. _ (& ~~h 611 ",uiJ: IJt L ~ jJ ltr'\.....- ~~~~ GJf;13m 1t)()n$p~g~~i~~t<~tt1i~~~j::iY~..... ............... .... ............... ............ ..,.."..,..........................................'.....,'",......".,...,.."....,'......'..'...........'....................p.~geTI From: <LynnT AG@aol.com> To: CAGGW5.CityHall(AGcity) Date: Wed, Oct 6,1999 6:11 AM Subject: Kathleen Fryer RE: Master Drainage Plan The present plan of bringing water from Newsom Springs along Branch Mill Road across Grace Stillwell's property to the creek is somewhat goofy. Water prefers to go in a straight line downhill. In a real flood, it will just go across the fields from Newsom Springs to the creek in a straight line anyway. Why not do the job right the first time and drain it straight to the creek? Money spent on the other plan having it turn two 90 degree comers will eventually be wasted. This is an old problem for the city. Let's correct it now in the proper manner. Lynn & Mike Titus 404 Lierly Lane Arroyo Grande, CA (" ------ RECEIVED September 17, 1999 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 99 SEP 20 PH 3: 10 To: The City Council of Arroyo Grande, CA Don't fool around with Mother Nature! Bring the water straight from the mountains to the creek. Special interest groups were allowed, in the past, to divert the natural flow of drainage from Newsome Springs. And your master drainage plan aggravates the already precarious situation. Your plan is perfect to create a flood that will wipe out the residents from East Cherry to Myrtle, and Garden past Nogera Streets. As none of you live in that area, I suggest you visit it, to see what damage you will do if your master plan is implemented, as is. Si~:Y' J~ Helen and Don Schultz 610 Myrtle Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ~L.J): IJtI ~ <.: Oltv\ S - e:~~I~~ ----------.---_._~" 'Y ,\ \"~ j}. '~'\ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ \, 1 ~ ~. \\\ ~ ';;\ ~ ~ '" t~ .. l' f\ ~ ~ ~n '\ '- ~~" ~ ~~~ '{ , , r~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~~1~\\i' ,; .~ 1 't ~ ~ 1,~ 1 ~,~ \ ,{~ t~l ,.... . --,~,"._' - - ~ '1-t ~ . ~_ ~ 'f l' ~ ..( ".' 1: ~ ~ ~', ~\ ~ ~ ~, ~;;. ~ ~ l' ~ i'~ ~ · \\ ,~- 1 ~\ ~ . .~ ' 1 -~ ~ l' t '1 . i ~ ~ '\ ~~ '\ ~ \, ) ~ \:{ " ~o-" f ~ f ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ t \\ ~" '~'l ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~. \ ~~. ~ "\ ~ t ~ ~ Tot".! ~ .~ ~ \: ~ ' . - . I ~ ~ i 1 ~ r -~ . ~ ~ .- ..... ~ 'j ~ ) ~ .~.. , .' -. ~. .'" .' .....'. ; ..:_. J ~ } ~ '} ~ ~ tl~ ~~ ~ 4 i . ~ ~_. . ,,-....-.. ~ t ~ Saint John's Lutheran Church (E.L.C.A.) RECEIVED OCT 18 1999 ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES September 22, 1999 The City of Arroyo Grande, City Clerk 214 East Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 , RE: NEWSOME SPRINGS SURFACE DRAINAGE Dear Mayor and Council Members, At first look you may wonder why the congregation that is way over to the southeast of the city, at the comer of Valley Road and Los Berros Road, would care to write about the Newsome Springs water. What at first looks to be only an eastern city and village concern is actually very concerning to us, as well. By allowing much of the Newsome Springs surface water run off to continue along the ridge and behind the Cherry St" under the fi'eeway, through the high school, through the Runnels' farm field, past the Mid State Ba~ computer processing building, and finally into Los Berros Creek, we are fearful of a flood that would enter and fill our church property. How? Two winters ago with the large rainfall I have photographs of the water actually way over the capacity of the drainage system that poured into the creek and therefore making the creek very close to overflowing. All this began with the Newsome Springs water that is so voluminous when the spring is saturated. By far the better plan is to run the water directly down into the Arroyo Grande (big ditch) Creek ftom the Newsome Springs creek approximately where it meets Branch Mill Road. This is the most direct route and would affect the fewest homes and businesses. Please consider this route in the master drainage plan. Sincerely, ';if/i).O~iO,.v~ ~: /J1; Pastor Randy Ouimette Congregation Council .~ 959 Valley Road Arroyo Grande, California 93420 (805) 489-1259 Randy Ouimette Pastor e.c.: ~Ceu.~f ft lC \g 1 - - . . , Memorandum July 31, 1999 To: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works/City Engineer From: Christine Ferrara C>~ Subject: Drainage Master Plan - Comments on Final Draft Dear Don, I am pleased to see that the City is in the process of updating yet another of its critical public works master plans. It may come as no surprise that I assembled some comments on the final draft drainage master plan. Overall, the drainage master plan gets right to the heart of drainage problems that have been evident in Arroyo Grande for years. The tone of the document leaves me somewhat perplexed, however. The recommended improvements appear to be based more on anecdotal accounts of problem areas as opposed to engineering analysis. For example, Chapter 5 begins with the statement that "problems were identified through field visits with City staff and by performing preliminary hydrology and hydraulic analysis". what did the analysis consist of? The lac;:k of quantified capacities and facility dimensions throughout the document suggests that this is a master plan based on field observations rather than engineering evaluation. I doubt whether this is the case and suggest that the engineering analysis be better documented throughout. My review was hampered somewhat by the lack of an exhibit showing existing drainage problems throughout the City. That would lend a lot to the longevity of the document. Further, I was surprised that no discussion was included regarding channel capacities of the creek system through the City. Do the creek channels have adequate capacity? What criteria was used in their analysis? This is important in light Of remarks made in the Introduction which indicate that there exists "significant aberrations" between observed flow in major channels with those calculated as part of the FIRM mapping. Wow. That strikes right to the core of flood protection in the City. Are observed flows more or less? What is recommended to reconcile this disparity? The recommended improvements focus on conveying flow to the creeks, without mention of whether the impacts of changing flow patterns once it reaches the ' channel. Cu.w lJ --- t"~~114h~ lJ-ti ~ -~-_._--- , Ferrara comments July 31, 1999 It is my understanding that operations of Lopez Reservoir directly impacts flood control in the City. Shouldn't that setting be described in the master plan? The majority of drainage master plans completed in today's environment contain discussion of permitting and regulations pertaining to flood control, "first flush" containment and quality, Army Corps of Engineers' review, etc. Why is the master plan silent on these issues? I found the BMP discussion on page 3 lacking. Isn't the City's adherence to BMP's in an environmental and water quality sense critical to our sustained eligibility for disaster relief funds? Regarding proposed improvements, in several cases the proposed solution to undersized basins is to require new development to adhere to on-site retention. If these are existing problems, will new development alone correct the problem? How much percentage of each watershed is undeveloped and how long may it take to rectify the problem? 10 or 20 years? More? The site maps in Chapter 6 are great and the cost estimates are quite detailed. Attached are my red-line comments for your consideration. ptease let me know if you vvould like to discuss these comments. I can best be reached late afternoons at home, 473-1290. This is a good start, Don, and with a bit of polishing will be a master plan that the City can rely on for years to come. - - September 10, 1999 Mr. Don Spagnolo Director of Public Works City of Arroyo Grande 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject: Comments Relative to Draft Drainage Master Plan for Arroyo Grande Dear Mr. Spagnolo: I am writing with a question relative to the subject documents' ability to comply with the soon to be implemented Phase II Storm Water Regulations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. Specifically, what considerations were given for post-construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment. Please see Control #5 of the BMPs for six minimum control measures which are enclosed. I am available to discuss this further with you and your consultant if requested. Very truly yours, Q~5~ms 2605 Bayside Place Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 481-4513 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SEP 1 3 1999 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. JLW~ SLO; 80S S44 4294; NOV-2-99 W'.-. . ...JJ~,.....vA .. _"""..w,; ,~~,.JJJ ~..~J ~O~IQ4UI~~ -... a ~ . 'Q , . ~. ~ . ~ .. ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ O~.o ~. ~~ t O~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~O~ ~ ~ ~ tJ ~ ;00. - ~ g ~,~ ~ ~ ~ t/'l ~'8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q a 4) t1>. ..~ O-=~ ~ C1) ~rj) ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ .'da ~ fl),O~ ~ ~ cS ... ~.- ~ .~ 1 e ~ .~.~ \ ~ ~ ~ :a Oe 1 ~ o~ ~~ ~ ~~ oQ . ~~ ~ ;=~ UU ~;Q ~ .. ~ M ~ ~ , No".2.99 W'- 805 544 429~'E.O-\lo...OG1E.S . J\..v-IP- $\..0; , ".5 4061a2~r12). \\ 11 '3'3~ 1.1: 1 ~ ~ "a,. ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ ~.'S ~ ~ tJ). .",. ~ rIJ ~~ ':). ~ ~ ~r~ ~ %. ~' '. fI'L. ~. ~ -% ~. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..J, CJ a ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~~ -=~ ~......1 v. ~ ~,~ 0 OJ ..-. · Q rJj t 'p Po ~ -w ~ z ~ 0 ~ ~ .S ~...- '?" ~ · ~....- ~ .-. ~ t ~. rfJ ~ ~ a ~'O ~ ~ Q> =- ~ ''a ~ ~ % 3 .s:s r.IJ. 0 OJ) Q> ~ ~ ..,u ~ t ~;t::. e;. ~ ~ rd '0 ~ O.~ rs ~ ~ P- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . rJ) ..0 \J:) , . 3''10':;' n', 4-99 . NOV- Q<) 444294; . J , 8055 \I, 735443 C . . 4 MSO ., At . WA &. BY: JLvro"~S _. .0 PUB c..., ~;..- e = ~ ~ ~ = we =; ~ ~ .- .;.1 ~ e~~~~~ . ~ ...s;::s ~ "fIj.r ~ Q.~ ~ rI' ~ = = Q '- t e;~et~~~, ~ ~~'."d t.a; . s tf) ~ ~ ~1 "d ~ ..- ~ i :#: c= '- s;i ..- ~ tJ "fIj ~ rn = t.t-t'.;.ICIS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --d Q~.a ~ .g... != ~ o U "fIj Q e '- ~.~ ~ ~. := ~ ~ e L. Q. t.t-t..s= ti5 ~ ... - - ~ - .- Q ... .~ E- ~ ~ t 'tJJ S ~ ~ S'i ~ = t "d Q, ~ e ~ "''' ~ ~ eo> Q. ~ '- cs = '6j) .a. o U Q tf).Q. ~ % CIS ~ .~ u ~ '-';J ~ ~~-e!~ . ~ Q ~ ~ ~ > = ~ 1 eo> e ~ .~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ ;a "d .= t/) 'a ~ '- ~.~ ~". ., 99 ~ 0 ~ u"tf"'''' t-!O\l-2- 80S 544 4294;, ....~V"J,c:.':> ~ ovvJ'''-''' JLW~ SLO;'l~ ~u~(~,~ ~l ~ 1./1.'1'1'1 LL. , ~ . I'd ~ . rI) ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ = ~ .~ ~ 1 ~ ~ a. ~ .~ ' \O~ ~~ ~' ~ -s ~ ~ '"a t/) ~ " o ~ p TJ). ~ ~.:: S ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ rSl ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fJ"j ~ ~..- rSl ~~ zrl) .~;Q o ~ ... ~ ~ e . . filii' ~ t/)...... · uU .~'a -0 ~ ~ ~' ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 'rI) 1-4 ~ ~ o t e 8 .~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ---------------~-- - Sent By: JlWA SlO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-9910:04AM; Page 21/25 t:J';S/U/.l~':I':I U:l~ ~tt::$/lj:.!t"Ll YI"'I...,.nl'~l~ 0 ,.- W' \") = ~ .!I "'d 0 .~ ~ CS i = .... r.n ,t:J. = rJj : = .-0 . r:I:J. = ~. . a) ~ ~ '-__ .. ,.. . = ~ ~ ,..... JIIIII ~ : e.J.-o = ~ ~ '~ ~ "= 0 == 114 =. ,= == = ~ ~, -w.. ,:;.. ~ ~ ~ ~ -tot- = ,~. ~ ~ e=-. ~ .So rJ'J ~ == oS O~.i ~oo S ~ ~ ~ is ~ P .a aJ ~. ~ ~ ~ :g .- ~ z....... ~ ~ e ~ r'-1 ,OJJ 0 J.. < 0= '= ~oo. ~ Q. U Uo .s ~ ~ ~ .s ~ ~ eo "'Q ~ c;.= ~ = = ~., -eo -= .0 00 :=. ~ = 0 .- ..t3 o =- ..... -- OJ) = .,... . ~ ~ "a ~ QJ e ~ "CS ~ QJ ..= 0 0 <_~~~<:J . . . ~ Sent By: JLWA SLO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 10:04AM; 'Page 22/25 ~ ~I U 11 '1'j~ 11 : 1 ~. &4ttl:fl82" 121 ~LI::> I t.u-ru...tJGltS r- >4\X. uo '.~ ~ , rIJ. ~ ' . ~ :a- 0 11)= '; QJ . CI1 ~ == =' ~O ~ ~ ' , ~ = o~ ,. =' ~ := -ell ~ ~ = ~ '-'. ~ aJ z~ ~ e ~ o ~ =' Q.) = UU ~ (J . ....c I = ....... = .. Q.) rIJ. Q.) , , Q < ~ ~ ~ Q.) ;. ~ 0- . .-.... -.,------.-- : JL'IIA SLO; 805 544 4294.; . NO"';-"" ,vW ,,' ." "" ", 1> ....',,,,,, '" . ""","~' f'- ~ ~, .$ . ~ ~ ~ _ .~. ~ 01) ~ _. tI'1 Q (J ...- ' \~ (J ~ ~ ~ r.Jj,. ~ tf) r./') ~ ~ .g , t:: ~ ~_ \ ~ .... ~ ~. ~ .s O. = ~ ~ :=.~ ~ % .i\~ a :a .~ .$.t ':#: f-4a ~ tI'1 ~ Pd ~. ~.S a Q.o QQ..' tI'1 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0'. ~ ~ "d CG .iooo! 00 a . f-4 ~ "aa ~ ~ ~ \ fI1 .;..4 i . Q().6 Q. --a ~ \f-4 "d 0 ~ .~.. ~ .s .& \ g. = ~ "'"' "'"' .~. ~ +- .~ \ ~ ~ .s ~ f-4 ~. o ~ ~\~ ~ ~ ~ 0 % u ~ ~ \ ~ ,i i) .~ oJJ ~o ~ ~'e $-01 . \ "'"' ~ ~.~ ..= ~ ;.c.o ~ 0 ~ =. e c: ~rl1 Pd ~ ..- ~ ~ .0 __;.c.t-'.~ ~ ~ = ~ \~ t/). ~ ~ $-I 0 :a \~ ';) ~ ~ Pc ~ lO ~ ~ ~ Q e. ---- -~_/---- Sent By: JLWA SLO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 10:05AM,Page 24/25 09/11/19'33 11; is 40878ze721 CDSTEO<<:l..OGIES ...~ 16 ~ , t--4 ~ ~ = r~" CIl 0 ~ ~.- 00.. --' ~. . ~.~ ..... ~ ~ ..c -- ~ ...... ~ .. 0 0 = ~ ,'-" '- .... ~, ~ 5 ...... ~ e ~ 1I.l.= = ~ ~ ,Q ,... roor" = ~ ~ =- ~ ~ .,. . rLJ. e ~ a ~ S ~ .. < /:)IJ ~ 'J1". ~ ~ = Q,/ .... ~ ~ ...... ~ Q,/ ~ 0 Q,/' ~O' = ~,... ~ ~~. a ~ 00 := ~ .... \Ij 7"Jj ~ ....... ~ ~ =....... cc ~ 'r.I.) , dJ ~ ,~C'= ~~ =' ,.c: O ~Oe~~ ~ E-I ~. OJJ ~ ~ r.rJ 00 · · . Sent By: JLWA SLOj 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 10:05AMj Page 25/25 . -- -....v....."".L.. '. ---'....~..._-....,_._- , ~ , . . ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ . , 0 ~ QJ U ~' ~ .. r;I:J. .- 00 .j~ = ~ ioo' = = 0 ~ l~ 0 ...-t .. V ;;J = ;....-f '--" ~ = e A A rJj , , . - ~-~- --, - ---,-,--,-----,'- - ,,---,,--~ ATTACHMENT 10 Table M: MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Mitigation A 1: To mitigate impacts on school facilities and enable the school district to fund projects that include environmental mitigation resulting from school construction, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with Lucia Mar Unified School District to provide development impact fees, as determined by the District, and shall submit proof prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Applicant to enter into mitigation/impact fee agreement with Lucia Mar Unified School District. 2) Entity to Take Action: City to verify completion of'agreement. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to building permit issuance. 4) Interested Agencies: Community Development Department, Lucia Mar Unified School District. Mitigation 81: To mitigate downstream flooding, the applicant has included a detention basin at the low end of the site and added storm drain inlets and pipes to route the majority of site runoff through the basin. Th'e basin provides approximately 2.8 acre-feet of storage volume and will outlet into the existing Canyon Way channel upstream of the Canyon Way storm drain inlet and pipe. The detention basin peak discharge for the 100-year storm is approximately 120 cfs, equal to the 10-year undeveloped runoff. Advantages resulting from the Project storm drains and detention basin are: 1 ) Reduces downstream runoff to a pre-development condition, 2) Adds approximately 0.8 acres of ponding for additional groundwater recharge, 3) Reduces downstream runoff along James Way, 4) Provides sediment storage during construction. The disadvantage to the detention basin is that it requires periodic maintenance and cleaning. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Project will require design and installation of a drainage storm drain pipe system and detention basin in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Per the development code, all proposed drainage facilities associated with the Project shall be based on the 100 year storm. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to submit drainage pl,ans to the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department for review and approval. 3) Timing/Duration: Plans to be approved prior to construction. Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 1 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, State Department of Fish and Game, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation 82: To mitigate potential degradation of surface water flows, all storm water releases should be designed to discharge into the Canyon Way channel and Tally Ho Creek in a non-erosive manner, and shall be subject to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The design of the on-site detention basin shall allow for the accumulation and removal of sediment. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Applicant to prepare engineering drainage plans with erosion and siltation measures per City of Arroyo Grande and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. 2), Entity to Take Action: Applicant to submit erosion plans to the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department for review and approval. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to construction, monitor during construction. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mitigation D 1 : To avoid or minimize safety risks to school-age pedestrians crossing James Way, implement one of the following measures: Mitigation Option 1: Install a traffic signal at James Way and the Project access street. This traffic signal would operate full time and would be required to include pedestrian crossing indications, pedestrian actuation, and vehicular actuation for the side street. The location of the traffic signal equipment along with advanced warning signs would provide the necessary visibility required for this type of intersection control. Mitigation Option 2: Install a traffic signal at James Way and Rodeo Drive instead of at the Project access street. Mitigation Option 3: Relocate the Project access street either 150 west or 250 east to gain adequate sight/stopping distance and install all-way STOP signs. Mitigation Option 4: Install all-way STOP signs as proposed and have a crossing guard present in the morning and afternoon. James Way should be posted for 25 MPH when children are present. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: As a condition of Tract approval, require an engineering analysis to determine the most feasible mitigation option providing the appropriate level of safety for pedestrians walking to, school. Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 2 2) Entity to Take Action: City to require School District/Applicant to provide engineering study. 3) Timing/Duration: Final mitigation selected and funded prior to issuance of grading permits. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: LMUSD, State Department of Education. Mitigation E1: Groundwater Withdrawal. Unless the City Council approves other methods of offsetting the Project water demand, the following measures shall be incorporated into the Project in order to further reduce impacts on the groundwater resource: The Deer Trail well should be drilled, constructed, and tested as recommended in the report by the applicant's consultant prior to issuance of a Project grading permit or final Tract Map approval by the City. Production testing of the well should include, as a minimum, a 10-hour step-drawdown test at a minimum of 5 steps, a 24- to 48-hour constant discharge test at a discharge rate close to the well's maximum production capability (such as 150 gpm, for instance, if possible), and a 4- to 8-hour recovery test. Throughout all the pumping tests, monitoring and recording of water levels in the Los Robles del Mar wells and the C.ity's Oak Park well should be conducted. The test results should be evaluated by a professional qualified in the discipline, and compared to the assumptions and conclusions of Cleath (1998b) and this analysis. If the results of the short-term tests described above verify the assumptions and conclusions of this analysis, the Deer Trail well should be pumped at the design project rate (30 to 35 gpm) for a minimum 30-day period. As before, monitoring and recording of water levels in the Los Robles del Mar wells and the City's Oak Park well should be conducted as part of the test. Monitoring of water levels in the Los Robles del Mar wells should be conducted on a monthly basis for two years following Project implementation. Regular monitoring of the City's Oak Park well should continue as part of the City's normal procedures. Quarterly water level measurements should be taken after the initial two-year period. The water levels should be measured during approximately the same weeks each year. The applicant's geologist should perform an annual or biennial review of the water level and water production data. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Project will include drilling, constructing, and testing of the proposed well, and monitoring of water levels in nearby observation wells. A qualified professional should review observation data. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to drill and construct well. Working with City staff, testing should be conducted on the well and observation well data collected. Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 3 ------- 3) Timing/Duration: The well to be drilled and short-term testing conducted as a Tentative Tract Map condition of final approval prior to grading permit issuance or final Tract Map approval by the City. Long-term testing to be continued after Project approval. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, LAFCO. Mitigation E2: Well Interference. Unless the City Council approves other methods of offsetting the Project water demand, the foilowing measures sHall be incorporated into the Project to further reduce impacts on the groundwater resource: Monitoring of water levels in all the Los Robles del Mar wells should be conducted on a monthly basis for two years following Project implementation. Regular monitoring of the City's Oak Park well should continue as part of the City's normal procedures. The applicant's geologist should perform an annual or biennial review of the water level and water production data. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Project will include drilling, constructing, and testing of the proposed well, and monitoring of water levels in nearby observation wells. A qualified professional should review observation data. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to drill and construct well. Working with City staff, testing should be conducted on the well and observation well data collected. 3) Timing/Duration: The well to be drilled and short-term testing conducted prior to final Project approval. Long-term testing to be continued after Project approval. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande. Level of Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the above measures would reduce potential project specific impacts of well interference. Therefore no residual impacts are associated with the development. Mitigation E3: Water Quality The water quality impacts of the Project are considered less than significant, provided the assumptions used in this analysis are reasonably accurate. However, several measures are recommended for implementation into Project design to further reduce impacts on the groundwater resource: The Deer Trail should be drilled, constructed, and production tested as recommended in the report by the applicant's consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit or final Tract Map approval by the City. Near the end of the short-term production testing, a water quality sample should be collected by a qualified laboratory technician, and sampled by a State-certified laboratory. Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 4 -~--~--~-------_._._--- If elevated concentrations of iron and manganese are found in the water, it will be necessary to design a blending scheme, or to design and install a well head treatment system to reduce the iron and manganese concentrations to acceptable levels. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Project will include drilling, constructing, and water quality sampling of the proposed well. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to drill and construct well, and contract for sampling and testing of the produced water at a laboratory approved by the City. 3) Timing/Duration: The well to be drilled, sampled and tested as a Tentative Tract Map Condition of approval prior to issuance of a grading permit or final Tract Map approval. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, State Department of Health Services, LAFCO . Level of Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the above measures would reduce potential .project specific impacts of water quality. Therefore, no residual impacts are associated with the development. Mitigation F1: To reduce visual impacts of proposed grading on the school site and to conform with City p~licy for landform grading, the school grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following mitigation techniques. . to the extent feasible, use landform grading on cut slopes around the wooded knoll to be retained in the northwest corner of the site, with varying slope ratios and curves. . create varying slope ratios below 2: 1 to the extent feasible on fill slopes. . revegetate the cut and fill slopes with plants native. or characteristic to the -environs. . provide tree planting on the slopes and/or in 'the campus core that substantially screens or softens the visual appearance on the school viewed from the north and northeast Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: District to prepare revised grading plan and landscape plan to incorporate landform grading and screen planting. 2) Entity to Take Action: District to submit plan to Community Development Department for approval. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to issuance of grading plan. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: Community Development Department, Public Works Department. . Mitigatio~ Monitoring Plan - Page 5 ~-----------, -^.~-,- Mitigation G 1 : To mitigate potential impacts to Pismo Clarkia a spring survey was conducted in 1999, which showed no Pismo Clarkia. Since the Initial Study upon which the CDFG based its request for a second study incorrectly identified the survey as' occurring in 1998, it appears the 1999 survey satisfies the CDFG request. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Applicant prepared 1999 spring survey for Pismo Clarkia-:- 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant. 3) Timing/Duration: Prior to grading permit issuance. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: Community Development, Department of Fish and Game. level of Impact After Implementation of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the survey adequately confirmed presence/absence of Pismo Clarkia. Mitigation G2: To mitigate removal of significant native and non-native vegetation that affords watershed protection and potential wildlife habitat, the south-facing fill slope on the school site shall be revegetated with native trees, shrubs and grasses up to 30 feet from the top of the slope. Final grading plans shall contain tree protection plan to retain eucalyptus trees outside of graded areas. (The top 30 feet should be low fuel, irrigated planting for fire safety.) Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: School District shall prepare revegetation plan for south-facing fill slope. 2) Entity to Take Action: School District. 3) Timing/Duration: Implement prior to occupancy. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande Community Development and Fire Departments. Mitigation 1-1 - Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Project) The following measures are recommended to reduce PM,o emissions related to Project construction activities: . Water all areas where ongoing construction activity has exposed more than 500 square feet of bare soil at least twice daily; . Spray all dirt stockpile areas with water as needed to suppress fugitive dust emissions; Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 6 -------~- . Implement permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and landscape plans as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; . Stabilize all disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD; . Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, et cetera, as soon as possible after grading. Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding and soil binders are used; . Enforce a speed limit of 15 mph for unpaved surfaces at the construction site; and . Sweep paved streets adjacent to the construction site at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: The previously-described measures shall be incorporated into a mitigation plan for" construction-generated particulates that is to be promulgated to on-site constriction crews. 2) Entity to Take Action: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to implement this plan. 3) Timing/Duration: The mitigation plan shall be in force throughout all construction phases. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, SLOAPCD. Mitigation 1-2 - Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Project) To minimize the Project's operational impacts on air quality: . Assure that all residential heating needs are adequately provided by means other than wood burning appliances. . If fireplaces are to be provided in more than 10 percent of the Project's residential units, equip those fireplaces with Phase 2 catalytic inserts to reduce air pollutant emissions. In addition, incorporate the following into the Project to the maximum extent feasible: Residences: . Link cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel; . Increased street tree planting . Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools; . Use solar water heaters; . Use built-in energy efficient appliances; Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 7 ---------,-_.------~ . Use double-paned windows; . Use energy efficient interior lighting; . Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; . 'Use sodium streetlights. School: . Increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; . Orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; . Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles; . Use sodium parking lot lights; . Use energy efficient interior lighting. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Incorporate the above measures into Project infrastructure plans and residence design. 2) Entity to Take Action: Project Applicant, through appropriate representatives (e.g., architect). 3) Timing/Duration: Implement before construction begins. 4) Interested Agencies/Department: City of Arroyo Grande, SLOAPCD. Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 8 -----------~- A TT ACHMENT 11 Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Village Glen Annexation in Arroyo Grande (delivered under separate cover) - --- ---------------~-~ ._---~ MINUTES DRAFT EXHIBIT 2 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.1 II. E. VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION, AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #12 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-004, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97-009); LOCATION _ UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, ADJACENT TO AND NORTH, OF JAMES WAY NEAR MESQUITE LANE; APPLICANT - VILLAGE GLEN HOMES, LLC Joe Prutch, Contract, Planner explained that the project was approximately 86 acres north of James Way. The site is surrounded on three sides by the City and is within the City's Sphere of Influence. Mr. Prutch explained that the actions before the Planning Commission are: Approval of Resolution 99-1715 recommending that the City Council certify the completion of. and make findings as to the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Village Glen Project; Resolution 99-171 6 recommending that the City Council amend the zoning map of the city of Arroyo Grande in Development Code Amendment No. 97- 009; Resolution 99-1718 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and the General Plan Map, General Plan Amendment 97..004; and Resolution 99-1719 recommending that the City Council make certain findings regarding the environmental impacts of the Village Glen Annexation, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations He explained that the TentativeTract Map was not before the Planning Commission for approval at this time, however, because the Environmental Impact Report was written for the Tract Map he gave a brief description of Tentative Tract Map 2265. There is a 19.1- acre school site, 40 residential sites with 36 of the sites clustered along James Way and 4 custom large lots. The 4 custom lots will have a condition placed on them, which will not allow them to be developed in the future. The 4 custom sites will have access only from Canyon Way. The 36 clustered residential sites and the school site will have access from James Way. There will be an emergency access from Canyon Way to the school site. A retention basin will be on lot number 38. Finally, he stated that the main issues are traffic, water and pre-zoning of non-tract areas as well as others identified in the EIA. According to the EIR, all issues can be mitigated to a "less than significant impact" except for the issue of traffic. The Final EIR determined a significant and unavoidable impact for traffic. CEQA requires that City Council must make certain findings and adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve a project with a significant impact. For a Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA requires that the decision makers balance the economic, social or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts. If the benefits outweigh the impacts the effects may be acceptable. The main benefit is the school site, which may take trips away from the Brisco Road!101 interchange. Commissioner Costello stated that from the beginning of the project he has had many questions on the impact of the water drawing down on the current well. The EIR talks about taking, and continuing to take data and measure the wells for a period of two years. He does not see anything that talks about the consequences if that data is negative. What might the consequences of this be? --.------------~ -~------_.~-- MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.2 Craig Campbell stated mitigation that calls for the monitoring of the Oak Park well, as part of the City's normal procedures, means that they want to insure that the City is going to verify compliance with water quality standards. The idea that the production testing and water quality testing contained in mitigation E.1 would verify the adequacy of the supply prior to product implementation, that is the mitigation that is being counted on to verify that the City is getting what it needs. Commissioner London stated that he was confused by some of the wording in the resolution dealing with annexation findings it states that "the proposed annexation will not impact the water resources elsewhere within the City". The staff report, page 11, states that "although the new well is expected to provide the City with the quantity of water at least equal to the project demands, the new well will not necessarily improve the City's water capabilities". This sounds inconsistent to him. Mr. Campbell stated that what is being said is that the well may actually produce more than the project demand and would increase water supply to the City. However, the lower limit may be that it would not increase the water supply. Commissioner Keen stated that he is concerned with the water issue also and that after the well turns out to not produce that the City is stuck with coming up with the water for the project especially now that the school is involved. Chair Greene asked staff to explain the City Council's action on September 28, 1999 pertaining to the General Plan policies and traffic and how it relates to this project and if it has any impact on the decision making process before the Commission ,at this meeting. Kerry McCants, Community Development Director, stated that the City Council's action established the City's position with respect to the LOS and the impact of a project on that LOS. In this particular case the EIR has indicated that there is a significant impact. The Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the significance of the school is the overriding consideration issue that will allow the project to be approved and be in compliance with CEOA if the Commission chooses to make that recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission can make the findings for the overriding considerations it will allow the project to go forward. Commissioner London asked, if the school decided to go forward with the project in the County, would the City have any responsibility to supply water to the school? Mr. McCants replied that the City would have no obligation to supply water. Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. He asked if there were any children in the audience that wanted to speak first as the time was getting rather late. Chris Reiniker stated that he is the vice-president at Ocean View School and he believed that the Planning Commission should approve the new school, as Ocean View School is very crowded. There are too many students in the classrooms, they have had to add an extra table in the lunch room which makes it hard to move around and it is very noisy, and MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.3 they have to wait at recess to get equipment. Some thing has to be done and he urged the Planning Commission to approve the new school. David Foote. Firma Consulting, stated that the EIR is a revision to a previous EIR done on the project. He wanted to briefly point out some of the differences in the two documents: . The previous project had 64 residences; this one has 40 with the addition of an elementary school. . The amount of water needed for the project is less in the new EIR. . The new project will create more landform disturbance. . The new project will create more noise. . This project will redistribute traffic in such a way that there will be less impact that the previous project on the Brisco/101 interchange. However, it will add more traffic to Rodeo Drive. Mr. Foote explained that these changes' have been documented in the new report. The water mitigation is the same as in the previous report. Tim Cleath the hydrogeologist is present to answer any questions related to the aquifer, the characteristics of it, and the potential for both water production and well interference. The aquifer is noted to have a potential of 250-acre feet of recharge, with existing demand is about 150-acre feet. He believes this project's demand on the remainder of the two numbers is 27-acre feet per year so there is no significant impact identified for overdraft. The nature of interference with other wells is documented in the EIR. As he understands it, the equations that are used to estimate well interference, are conservative. Mr. Foote explained that the EIR also summarizes some of the issues that were raised in public comment on page 11-2 and also includes some of the revised mitigation measures on table S. The revised mitigation measures related to some biological issues and also visual issues. With regard to project access, the school district's architect is in attendance to discuss those, however the revised site plans due appear to address most of those issues satisfying the concerns of the Police Chief, and providing an alternative way out of the project East on James Way. Lastly, the issue of cumulative traffic impacts, which was a concern of the City Council the last time the EIR came before them, the consultant felt there were alternative ways of looking at this issue has been discussed in the EIR. The Commission discussed the issues of water, the proximity of the school to the neighboring homes, the additional grading and who is responsible for the retention basin with Mr. Foote. Chair Greene had several questions with regards to the traffic impact on Rodeo Drive. Most particularly that at the present time Rodeo Drive carries approximately 1 ,480 ADT southbound and 1,270 ADT northbound. Further in the EIR it states that "local streets carry an average of 1,200 ADT at a high rate of service". What does a "high rate of service" mean? Also, the EIR states that approximately 350 additional trips a day will be produced by the project, so the total would be around 1 ,800 ADT? .-_.-----~ M_~__ MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.4 Mr. Foot deferred the question to the Traffic Consultant to be answered at a later time in the meeting. Chair Greene referred to the responses and comments section of the EIR where it states that the volume of traffic on Rodeo Drive has been a source of concern and objectionable to residents for many years and that "this is a quality of life issue that should be considered by the decision makers". Chair Greene asked what the consultant meant by this statement? Mr. Foote explained that there are some areas where a consultant deals with environmental impacts that necessarily move from the realm of something that is quantifiable and based on an objective standard that the consultants use to determine a threshold of impact. Some cities establish "quality of life" criteria for roadway evaluation, although he is not aware of anything explicit in this City. Therefore, it is not unusual to arrive at this sort of a question between the engineering calculation of an issue and the perception of a resident. So, when the consultant talks about "quality of life" it is something that has to be weighed by the decision-makers. Tim Cleath. Hydrogeologist for the project spoke to the Commission. He stated that he had been working with the applicant to identify a water source that would be dependable for this project. The initial studies of the well on site showed that this well would not be sufficient for the project. He has identified an aquifer, that was originally discovered in the 1950's for a project that was never built, which is a 200 foot thick, marine sand deposit, that is very clean and uniform, that is uplifted and formed into a bowl. It essentially goes from the end of Erhardt over to Corbett Canyon and ends not far from where the City's Oak Park well is and comes back up by Ormonde Road. This is a large aquifer that goes down very deep within the middle of the bowl so that no other wells tap it in the deepest zones. In looking for a particular site where we could find it at a deep enough depth so it would provide a reliable source of water, the Deer Trail site was chosen and a well was dug. There have been a couple of test wells, the Oak Park well and a couple across the street, that have produced over 150 gallons per minute. A well has not been completed but he believes that there is a very reliable source of water that is deeper than other wells in the area providing the reservoir storage to take it through the drought years and allow it to be recharged on an average that is adequate to supply the demands that would be placed on it. On the question of adequacy of water, he stated that it is his opinion that this well should produce over 150 gallons per minute. The project proposed would require less than 35- acre feet of water so this would mean that this well would have the capacity to produce in excess of what this project would require. With regards to the adequacy of recharge, based on his understanding of the extensiveness of this aquifer, it is his opinion that there is adequate recharge to provide for existing uses and for the proposed project. MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.5 On other points to be made, he stated that this is not a shallow well. This well is in deep groundwater. It is not a riparian source; it is what is called percolating groundwater. The water can be used in the same area for whatever purposes. Commissioner Costello asked if there was going to be a 2-year test, what was being tested? Also, what would be the negative consequences if the other well levels were dropping? Mr. Cleath answered that the main purposes for the test was to see how it effected other wells in the area as well as how the well itself was producing. As part of the proposed mitigation the EIR consultant was recommending that they do an extended test and that they measure regional water levels to see how they change. It is not his opinion that it will drop to a level that will cause any significant problems. This is a 200-foot thick zone that goes very deep. There are wells in the vicinity that produce without any effect what so ever because the wells are only 400 feet deep. This well would have to be approximately 900 feet deep. The well that may be most effected would be the City's Oak Park well. So he has looked at it to see, if this effects the Oak Park well, will it be offset by the amount of water that this well could produce? It is his feeling that the effects would be offset and the new well would be a more reliable water supply. The City has tested the water quality and there are some manganese and iron problems that are treatable but the water is quite good. Commissioner Parker asked who would be responsible for the cost of treating the water? Mr. Campbell replied that the applicant would pay for the treatment facilities and the City has also discussed a way to condition the project to pay for the increased output. Commissioner London asked if this well should impact the other wells in the area, is there any legal recourse that the people effected could take against the City? Mr. Campbell stated that this question would have to be answered by the City Attorney. Commissioner Keen asked if Mr. Cleath knew how many wells were drawing off of the aquifer at this time? Mr. Cleath replied that there are some on the edge, where the sand aquifer comes up, that you find some wells. There are some wells at the end of Paseo Del Mar. But overall there is a very limited number of wells using this aquifer. Chair Greene stated that if he understood this correctly, there is an aquifer above the one he is referring and there is some level separating them? Mr. Cleath replied that that was true and there were clay zones separating the two. In fact, it is interesting that on Oak Park Road there were wells drilled that went down 250 feet, and did not find any water. Chair Greene asked how certain Mr. Cleath was that there was no transferability between the upper aquifer and the lower one? , ----------------.--- MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.6 Mr. Cleath replied that the only places he believes there is a connection is strictly in the area of the alluvium overlying where the sand zones outcrop. Otherwise, there are several hundred feet of clay that separate this zone from the overlying aquifer. Steve Orosz, Traffic Engineer with Penfield and Smith, spoke and answered several different questions from the Commissions. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Orosz why the LOS that he came up with at Brisco/101 interchange is so much different that what has been stated before? Mr. Orosz gave a brief history of what he had done on a previous analysis before and had come up with the poorer LOS. What has happened in the last year and a half since the last analysis is: . In the traffic engineer profession the methodology of how they handle signalized intersections has been updated. The current procedure is out that is used in the profession that is being used in the PSR for Brisco/101 and EI Campo interchanges. He used the new methodology for the updated Brisco/101 traffic study. In the previous analysis that had the poor level of service they were working with stop signs that were there. This was prior to the signals going in and prior to the widening of Branch Street. The new analysis had all the physical improvements in. They actually documented traffic flows during the peak summer months, which was consistent with the data Cal Trans has been using with the PSR's for Brisco/101. They documented all the facts. They documented the signalization; the current traffic flows and compared them with the analysis of the PSR being done by Cal Trans'. The traffic volumes that were documented for the PSR was done in February. They forecast what the volumes would increase during the summer months and use that to do their analysis in their PSR. We took our counts in the summer months and did the actual numbers and they were very close. This ended up being a good check. . The project traffic has changed from the previous Village Glen project with just the residential trips. Now they have both school and residential. The school trips because of the district boundaries for the school, the school trips are no longer going under the Brisco interchange. We have estimated approximately 500 daily trips are going to be removed from the interchange from this. Also, the cumulative list of projects that had been being carried along during the years needed to be updated. Many projects on the list were at the proposed level and not what was actually approved. For example, there was a project that was proposed at 31 units was actually approved at 19 units. The current analysis used the actual project numbers. So, the cumulative traffic was reduced by about 30%. So when you have less traffic actual volumes, you have a better idea of what is going on there. . There is also a difference in the analysis in the PSR versus what was done in the traffic analysis for the EIR. The methodology has some detailed factors that can be used as a default. ----- MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.7 This is the reason that they are talking about a potential overriding consideration and a significant impact. The methodology has some detailed factors that can be used a default, which is a general factor, or you can use what is actually on the ground. Since they had done all the updates on the cumulative project list and looked at all the specific details of the intersections, they had used what was on the ground. This created the difference in the values and a different result. Following this conclusion, staff was in a position where they had one consultant saying one thing and one saying something else. At the time this EIR went to print there was no direction which result to use so David Foote decided to use the worst case scenario and proceed on. Subsequently to this documents circulation, they had received a call from Craig Campbell's office indicating that the factors available for the existing condition should be used, not the tYpical average default. However, from the traffic analysis they feel their numbers are fairly valid. The Commission questioned Mr. Orosz about the use of summer time for the study and stated that it seemed to be contrary to what really going on at that intersection without any of the schools in session. Mr. Orosz explained that they look at the P.M. peak hours, between 4 p.m. and '6 p.m., on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Schools peak hours are at3 p.m. The traditional commuter peak hours that occur throughout the year, along with any tourist traffic is what causes the summer to be higher at the freeway interchanges. This is what Cal Trans has documented over the years. In the window of time that they analyze traffic impacts for EIRs there is more traffic in the P.M. hours. Chair Greene questioned, that because the school traffic may make the Level of Service at the Brisco/101 interchange below standard in the morning hours, the traffic study looks at the LOS in the P.M. peak hours for the purpose of the traffic study for the EIR. He also stated that the EIR stated that there would be 500 less trips a day at the Brisco/101 interchange because the school would reduce the number driving to the other side of the freeway. He asked how many trips would be added by the new project and, with the reduction because of the school, what would the total number trips actually be? Mr. Orosz replied that because of the elementary school traffic being oriented to the north of the freeway, 95% of that traffic would not be going through the Brisco/101 interchange. If all of the traffic from the project went to the interchange it would total about 446 ADT. However, 100% of the project will not go through the interchange. It appears that only 50% of the project traffic will be using the Brisco interchange so there is actually a benefit of 200 to 250 ADT. Chair Green stated that the school then would actually be a benefit to the interchange? Mr. Orosz replied that that was true. Chair Greene asked about the traffic on Rodeo Drive. Since the traffic study that was being used was done in December 1997 for a different EIR, what were the traffic conditions today? ---------~--- ---~---_._------,--- -------------- MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.8 Mr. Orosz replied that they felt the traffic volume had grown 5% to 10% at the most. The ADT at this time would be approximately 1600. With the additional 300 ADT from the project there would be 1900 ADT. With regards to Chair Greene's earlier question about the Level of Service and what was adequate and what was a high Level of Service he referred to IV. D-6 of the EIR which talks about the local streets carry about 1250 ADT at a high Level of Service which is generally a LOS of A. The national standards that provide guidance on LOS and daily traffic, which was used in the evaluation of Rodeo, indicates that 5000 ADT is a LOS of C. Garv Youna. 2815 Mesa Alta Lane, applicant spoke briefly to the Commission. He said that members of the Lucia Mar School District were in attendance to speak to the Commission concerning the project. Nancv DePue. Superintendent of Lucia Mar School District, spoke to the Commission stated that there has not been a new elementary school in this area since 1962. The school district desperately needs a new school. The schools are now housing students in relocatables but the infrastructure is not satisfactory. Ms. DePue showed an overhead of the current school enrollment and explained that the schools in the area have a capacity of 2,660 students and there are now 4,250 students at the schools. The only way they can do this is because of all the portable classrooms on the grounds. However, this is why the infrastructure is so impacted. For instance, Margaret Harloe Elementary cafeteria, restrooms, playground and library was built to hold approximately 450 students and there are 700 students there now. Over 35% of the classrooms in the district are in relocatables. The parking at the older schools is not adequate because they were built at a time when parents were not driving their children to school as much. The field and play areas are not adequate because relocatables have had to be installed in these areas. Again, the infrastructure, cafeterias, libraries, restrooms are not adequate. Margaret Harloe Elementary is especially impacted. The district is very excited about having the new school. When they discovered they were eligible for money they went looking at every available plot of land in the area. The school district did not want condem someone's land but wanted a willing seller. They are very appreciative of Gary Young working with them and them will do everything they can to be good neighbors. Chair Green asked if the construction from the new school would have a positive impact on all the schools in the area that were listed on the overhead Ms. Depue was showing? Ms. DePue answered that it would except for Branch Mill School. The school district was hoping that with this new school, all the schools would be at around 550 students, which just barely accommodates everyone. Furthermore, Margaret Harloe School, which is the most impacted with 700 students, has students from the canyons that have to ride a bus an hour and a half to get to school. These students could go to the new school and greatly decrease their bus time. MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.9 When asked about the decrease in the busses going through the Brisco interchange she stated that she did not believe that there would be too many buses going to the school. Chair Greene stated that according to this there would be a wide range of benefits to students, facility, staff and the people who use some of the streets. Ms. Depue answered that that was correct. Ravmond Deutch. Architect for the Lucia Mar School District, spoke to the Commission discussed the criteria the school district is required to follow in identifying a school site. He also explained some of the changes that have been made to the school plan since the last Commission meeting including: . Location of the buildings and parking areas on the site. . There will be 4 classroom buildings with 6 classrooms each. Two classroom buildings will be built initially as permanent classrooms; one wili be 'built with relocatable classrooms; one will be for future relocatableclassrooms or permanent classrooms. . There are now 2 parking areas: one for busses and one, which will serve as a drop off area for parents to drop off their children safely. . A revised landscape plan that will utilize mostly native trees such as Oaks. Trees will be planted at the building sites to help mitigate the visual impact of the roof area and help with the look of the school. Commissioner Parker left the meeting at this time. Tom Murrav. Lucia Mar Facility Advisory Committee, gave a history of the exhaustive hunt the school district went through looking for a school site. He congratulated Mr. Young for stepping up and offering this site for a school. He stated that' from his point of view, it was not a matter of feeling like it is a quality of life matter, he thinks that the EIR shows in real numbers that this gives the Commission the basis to find overriding considerations for approval of this project. He stated that the school district is a part of the fabric of the community and if the project is approved the community will be better off. Tobv Charles spoke in favor of the school project. Ron Dodae. Rodeo Drive had the following concerns: . Growth does not come without impacts . This project will increase traffic on Rodeo . He worries about his kids playing and riding their bikes with the increased traffic. . He wanted to encourage the Commission to ask that the money collected in park and traffic fees be spent on Rancho Grande Park and traffic mitigation on Rodeo Drive. Tomi Kobnon. Ocean View PT A.L spoke in favor of the project and said if they let this site go there may not be another one to take it place. If everyone works together everything can be worked out. Kathleen Wendel. had the following concerns: . Water . Land use _.._~-------- MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.1 0 . Noise . Excessive grading . Couldn't the school look for alternative sites? . Was the open space in the project really going to have 33 acres? C.Z. Brown. 350 Old Ranch Road, had the following concerns: . One-acre parcels per gross acre with custom homes and cluster homes and where would these homes actually be? . When all the parcels are built out will there actually be 40 homes? . Water . Why not do the testing first and then issue the permits for building? . Why not locate the school nearer to James Way? . Traffic . Traffic and Park in lieu fees should go to Rancho Grande Park and Rodeo Drive . Ross Konaable. 255 Rodeo spoke against the project with the following: . Traffic . The location of the school on the site . There could actually be 40 homes. . Traffic . Final EIR does not mitigate issues enough Rich Haaler. 417 Stagecoach Road spoke in favor of the project with the following: . It will save 4 trips a day taking his daughter to school. . There is a willing landowner, which is a hard thing to find. . There is a solution for the poor school situation. . There is a demonstrated need. . The school can be used for emergency services and this will distribute this need throughout the community, as there is not an emergency site on this side of town at this time. . It will reduce trips through Brisco/101 underpass. Colleen Martin. 855 Olive spoke in favor of the project stating the following: . Has been involved with schools and sees the need for additional space. . The infrastructure is too impacted . Will help with traffic at Brisco underpass Fred Wendel stated that there are real issues that the Commission needs to focus on. He said that everyone feels, because of the school site, they have to approve it to "grab the moment" and get the school site. He does not feel this is the best way to plan. If he has to accept the impacts, which he will have to do if the project is approved, he would like the Commission to tell him that this is the best thing that can be done for the City, not for convenience or the developer. Chuck Fellows. Canyon Way, submitted a petition signed by himself and 16 others on Canyon Way supporting the project as currently proposed but without an extension of Canyon Way. ----------~- -~------ MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.11 GiGi Soto explained to the Commission about all the sites the Facility Advisory Committee had looked at before finding this site and discussed this with the Commission. Garv Youna, developer, discussed the different areas that will not be developed but are a part of the annexation properties explaining that the County requested a "block" annexation. All these properties are agreeable to the RR zoning. The Commission and Mr. Young discussed different issues of the project including zoning, traffic, landscaping, grading, the compatibility of the school in a residential area and water. Commission London questioned certain language in the resolution which stated that "the proposed annexation will generate sufficient revenue to adequately to pay for the provision of City services". Yet, in another place it states that there will be a loss of $57,000 because the school will not pay for itself. Tom Buford, Contract Planner, explained that fiscal impact analysis has been inserted in the General Plan to protect against annexing property into the City where the City ends up unable to pay for the services that it has to supply as a result of the annexation. However, there are occasions that the City needs to bring in facilities that are elements of the community that are critical, essential elements that by themselves do not produce revenue, such as schools, churches or parks. After a brief discussion the Planning Commission considered the four resolutions before them. John Keen moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1715 , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TtiAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE VILLAGE GLEN PROJECT Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote .An.. Commissioner Costello .An.. Commissioner Keen Ave Commissioner London Absent Vice-Chair Parker .An.. Chair Greene MINUTES DRAFT ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.12 Commission London moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1716 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-004, APPLIED FOR BY VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC Commissioner Costello seconded. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote .AYJL Commissioner Costello .An.. Commissioner Keen .An Commissioner London Absent Vice-Chair Parker .An.. Chair Greene Commissioner Costello moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1718 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE IN DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 97-009, APPLICANT VILLAGE GLEN HOMES LLC Including exhibits A and B. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: The Commission discussed Resolution 99-1799 stating the following: . There will be some negative impacts. . The school district has done all it could to find another location for a school. . Not withstanding all of the impacts the people will feel, as a result of this project, the City needs a school. . If the school district cannot find a site soon, the funding that is available to them will be lost. . The children will have to deal with the negative impacts of not having a new school site. . It is of critical importance to the ongoing progress of the City to build this school. . The children have to come first. - MINUTES ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PAGE NO.13 Commissioner London moved to adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 99-1719 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE VILLAGE GLEN ANNEXATION, AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS including Exhibit 1 and with Attachments A and B. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote .An.. Commissioner Costello .An.. Commissioner Keen .An Commissioner London Absent Vice-Chair Parker .An.. Chair Greene The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 16, 1999. ------------~----------- EXHIBIT 3 From: "Tobie Charles" <tobiecharles@mindspring.com> RICE'VEO CITY Of' RROYO GRANDE To: CAGGW5.CityHall(agcity) Date: Wed, Nov 3, 1999 11 :16 AM 99 NOV - 3 PH 3f 31 Subject: Kelly Wetmore Dear Council Members, I understand the planning commission approved the plan for the new school at the James Way site. I am thrilled with their decision, and hope the City Council will also approve this plan. I live in Arroyo Grande and own apartments here, too. This school is a much-needed addition to our area. When making this decision please consider the future of the children. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, James Cote' EXHIBIT 4 REREIVED From: "Tobie Charles" <tobiecharles@mindspring,com> CITY OF A ROVO GRANDE To: CAGGW5.CityHall(agcity) 99 NOV - 3 PH 3: 31 Date: Wed, Nov 3, 1999 11 :28 AM Subject: Kelly Wetmore Council Members, Please approve the plan for the new school at James Way. At this time my chUd attends Harloe, which is over-crowded, and a ten-mile round trip twice daHy. I believe if the new school were approved. many parents from the canyon areas would use the bus service rather than drive their children due to the shorter bus rides. I am a homeowner, and I voted for the school bond hoping for improvements in our schools. This is our chance to plan for children's future. Lana Charles EXHIBIT 5 <.JW.idcoilstCare Jne. 677 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 805-925-2521 Fax 805-925-8721 clUesteI@pol.net http://WNW.thegrid.netlmidcoastcare George Hiester, M.D. Medir.al Director. 10/31/99 , Arroyo Grande City Council Community Development Department 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: Village Glen EIR recorded 9-10-99 Sirs: I have reviewed your response to my comments on this project dated 10-3-99. I have requested the original document referred to in the the Master Water Plan concerning the 1983 "Friendly Ejudication" between the Cities and the farmers concerning limiting extraction of water from the ground formations. The Master Water Plan describes that Well #9 draws from the Pismo formation. Allegedly, this is a separate formation not included in the "Friendly Ejudication". However, I can neither confirm or deny this statement without access to the 1983 document. I have asked for this 1983 document for the last 6 weeks. Your Department seems very helpful, but unable to locate this document. Without this document, it is my opinion that the EIR on this project should be placed on hold till the document is found and reviewed. I would like to be notified when the 1983 document is available for review. V~ ---------------~-~ ,- -~---~--~---- Sent By: JlWA ILOi 805 544 4294 i Nov-2-99 2:09PM; Pig. 1 To: AO P\II WORKS At: 4735443 ThIa....rnent, .lIur_ to 1ft........ 5.. -Mtallv .111. tu 14-, __ed to Ik. ......... on November 2. '998 from ... PuIIIc ___ D., n L '!IV'. TO: SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY \lATER ASSOCIATION FROM: AD HOC TECHNICAL ADVISORY SUBCOMf'lITTEE SUBJECT: GROUNDWATER ENTITLEMENT OF THE ARROYO GRANDE GROUNOWATER BASIN DATE: JANUARY: 24. 1983 This report will bring together info~tion from several sources related to the Arroyo Grande Pla1n-T~i-Cities Mesa Groundwater Basin .- info~t1on such as, the safe yield of the gro~ndwater basin, the historic and projected needs of the agricultural community, and the historic peak pumping of all of the urban users. . From this information ia recommended urban preliminary Plannin, entitlement will be presented. These r,ecommended entitlements consider the in 0~t1on outlined 4bove but also the needs of the early 1990's of the four urban agencies. (The '. . C1ty of Arroyo Grande~ the City of Grover City, the CUy of Pismo Beach, and the Geeano Community ~rvices District) . ;";" , . The subcomMittee has assumed that for pre1imlnary p\anning purposes the safe .' yield of the Arroyo Grcande Groundwater Basin is 9,500 acre feet per year. Please see the attach~d Table II of the June 1979 Groundwater in the Arroyo Grande Area prepared ~y the State of California Devartment of water ~e$ources. -, niis tab1e shows the c;ategories of if}.flow and cud ow. Please note that the table has been amende4 to reflect the contractual subsurface recharge and/or . 5urf4ce water entit1ement of the Lopez project in the amount of 4,200 acre feet. . Aha present.!d in Table II unde-r categories of outflow ..is the Ipp1ted irrigation -, - d..nd (as~umed as a risaxilUll-5.300 acre feet). Leroy E. McChesney of the, Fum Bureau has indicated that demand will continue to be relatively constant. Considering a safe yi~ld of 9,500 acre feet, the maxi.um of a 5,300 acre foot deaa-nd for agricul ture, and a 200 acre foot subsurface outflow to the Ocean, it 1'5 assumed then that an estimated 4,000 acre feet is avai1ab1e '0,1" urban uses. , Please find attached . Table 5 ent1tled -Groundwater Extractions by Urbln Entities of the Arroy~ Gr-ande Basin". TMs table 15 fml the Grover -Cit~ FaciUtl Resource Report prepared in 1918 by Camp Dressor and MC'- (COM. From that ta ile the fol1o'dng chart of peak pre-lopez pumping can be shawn for each agency. . " PRE-LOPEl PEAK PUMPIH~ .. ~ ~cre Feet . Percent Arroyo Gran~e 1968 1,202 39 Grover City 1966 875 29 Pismo Beach 1966 549 18 .. , . Oceano 1968 421 --1! , . Total 3,047 1001 . ''l ,. Based upon the info~tion in the above chart and the assumption that there are . .(. 4.000 acre feet avaitab1e for urban use, it can be seen that al1 agencies may receive aj e~ttt1ement equal to or gre~ter~han E!ach agency.~ use p.r.'10r to..thL- opez pro ec . ... POtrt-it' Fax Note 7671 0$11 ~ F'ram Co_ ' I"tIoIie f Fax' faX' -'---, --~----~---- ---- --.-------_.------- ~---"_._----- - - Sent By: JLWA SLOj 805 544 4294j Nov-2-99 2:09PMj Page 2 . . . , . i ! : . The first stab at e~tabli$hing a preliminary entitle~nt for the four urban users was based upo~ an extension of peak pumping percentages as fol1ows~ , , Acre Feet Percent i ArrDYo Gr~nde 1,560 39 Grover Ci ~ 1.160 29 Pismo Beach 720 18 Oceano ! 560--1! : Total 4;000 lOOS ,j 4 ' As the subcommittee di~cussed the above concept of establishing the urban users entitlements several! proble~ surfaced. Problems such as some communities being assigned an entitl~nt which would meet their needs well into the 21st Centu~ while some COGIIIJniti~s"would .be essentially out of water today (both groundwater and Lopez). The su~ommittee also fully realizes that for a voluntary groundwater manag~t plan to wo~k it will need unanimous support of all of the agencies. ! Through this discuss~on it was agreed to look at the water needs of the early 1990's for each Bge~y while at the ',ame time insuring that no agency received less than they were pumping prior to' Lopez. The representatives of each 'agency indicated what the1~ 1990-95 needs would be and the following" chart was developed: j " . . .. ~ . Ip90-95 U!tBAA ~OUNOWATER ENTITLEMENr NEEDS ,.' : Acre Feet Percent i Arroyo Grahde 1,202 30 Grover Cftt ' 1,198 30 Pismo Beat 700 18 Oceano : 900 22 -. ! ............. - ; ; . i Total, 4,000 l00S i . . ; As can be seen no ag~ncy will receive less than their pre-Lopez ptak pu.ping and aho b.sed{upon the 'nfonaat1on supplied to the subcomittee each agency will have a SUfficien~unt of water to .et the projected demands of 1990-95 dependi ng ~pon 9 ; rates. . . Being able to Closelt estimate when each agency will require 'additional or supplemental water s urces. whether its conservation, Feather River/State Water Project or Naci.;ent~ lake Water Project, ;s a much needed planntng tool as it will obviously take ~ommunity wide cooperat10n for those projects. . ! The subcomgittee is :: the opinion that the above chart represents a possible di~tsion of the esti ted 4.000 acre fee~ of groundwater in the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin. The subcOmmittee further is of the opinion that with the adoption of the 1ist.d recommandations, the agencies could avoid a -race to the pump house- situat1o. which may lead to a court imposed groundwater basin adjudication. ; ; i ! 1 j ... ? - ; '- --~- --- ------~-_.-,~ .------ -- ------- --------------~ - -------------------- Sent By: JLWA SLO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 2:09PMi . Page 3 . . RECO~V~ENDATIOMS: 1. The subcOIm1ittee would recoOlllend that the f0110\.,i09 table of preliminary planning entitlements of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater be taken back to each menmer age~cy and the Farm Bure~u for conceptual approval. : THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS User Appli.d irrigation 5.300 acre feet Subsurface floW to ocean 200 acre feet ' , Urban :Use Ci ty of Arroyo Grande 1,202 acre feet City of Grover City 1.198 acre feet C1tj of P1smo Beach 700 acre feet Oceano Community Services . District 900 acre feet . 'Tota 1 . 9.500 acre" feet 2. The subcommittee's se~ond recomoendation is that with the support of each agency the subcOmmittee be direc~ed to prepare the appropriate documents for a Groundwat~r Management Plan based upon the prel iminary planning entitlements in iRecommendation '1. '. . 3. The sub~itte_ rec~nds th.t the required steps toward the developcent of a. supp1emen~1 water 'source be tn1ti-ated so that supplemental water is available by 1995-2000. 4.. That the plan d.veloped under recooaendat10n 12 inc1ude a' requ1recent for periodic reeval'uation of projected demands. supply and qua11ty of water resources within the South County. .,' StNIARY: The GIIII1ben of the subco.1ttee are of the opinion that the planning and management of th.. Groundwater Basin is purely of local Q)ftcem. The members of the subc~ttee ~re a1so of the opinion that the ~nagement 'of the groundwater can be accomp11shed through cooperative efforts of the affected agencies themselves. ' ~,' . . . . . , - 3 - i3t:HIl tly; .JlWA SLOj 805 544 4294j NOV-2-99 2: 1 OPM j Page 4/9 ----. - .- ; . .. - a . , - TABLE II . 13 $UHI1^,~Y ESTIMATED INFLOW ANO OUTFLOW TO , TIfE GftOUIIO WAiTER OAS1N m THE ARI\OYO GRA"DE STUDY AREA Auo.,. Grande Plain - T,i.Clties HC:$a H ' . 1 C::at~&O'1 or intlvw ~'JbJc hcc.to,"dte$ ACle.feat ; Oe~p pe'~ottl,iOQ of prec:ipita-tion 2.96 2.400 Subsurfac::o seepage! 0.89 720 4.200~ InlUtr'tiOft in Arrovo Grande! Creelt 2047 to 3.70 '- . -~............ ..ow ~ .......v D Irrigation .nd urban water rekurn . 2.11 2.200 . Toe,r 9'.'03 to 10.26 1,,320 to ;':20 C;J,tcEor, ..f outnow .9.t '00- B . AppUe~ irrigation 6.54 5.300 '. Urbaa iupply 0.74 ...; 09 S Subsurface outflow to ocean: 0;.25 200 . . : - -- .. tot31 7.53 6.100 ' . . . . . .~ ". =. .. . . . . ~ ~ .:: H ipoMO::!len. . . " .. -. CatelO." ., f.flow C ut.ic h.ct~,.aeu(ts . "Acre.'.., '0 .. ~. : -4 07' , Oe.p percol.JUon of .,m:ipltatiOft ". ~ 3.300 . ':'.. . . .:: " " SubsUt(lce aeCJMIve · : . -, 0.62 500 'rrigation 1Ind urban weter nltt....... - 1.23 . 1.000 D . - - to'" -. 5.92 4._ - .. . CAteEoty of oudlow I . . Applied irrigalion 2.47 2..000 UrIM.. supplV . : 0.37 300 . . -, Ind_try 4llOolbaG water " 0.80 6SO 'u Subsurr.ce outflow " ~.07 3.300 . , . - - . TG~I " 7." : 1.250 . n $anta Mara. Valle7 (s. L. o. Cn"ty) .' . : . C.ueC0f7 .r inNo.. C.d.ic lI.cto.cln:s Acre-feet " fi " Oaep porcGlatiOft of prOCip.',ation 9.81 8.000 . Sua.urf:ace seepage 24.05 19.500 11 .10 '.000 " . ~ Iniuetlon relurn . ' Total 45.02 . 38.500 - ... . . . Cat_c.', ., .utfl.w . ., "P Applied itrioati~ 35.77 29.000 . OutffoW tQ 0I:08n 9.87 8.000 - . ~ Total . 45.64 37.000 . . . . . II * t\ef:ccta cont.rACtual subaurf:ace r:Qcb.~Qc and/or .u~l~e water entUlelllent fro. Lope~ ~ - . .' La ... . . ~nt By; JLWA SLOj 805 544 4294j Nov-2-99 2; 1 urN!, - . . . . Jo. QI-Q . - _44"- Id~- MO\MNct U')_N""'- NM O)cnN ...... M ,~ _ &no - q U"I . ::CUI a.n\QI,Oa.nroo. Cl\q-~N- MO ","11 ,... 0\ \0 1.0 \.0 N roo. 0 0'11 cO. ,..,..n......coM ~'-P_.....CO _0 ..nQ3..n ",,1ot1.-qU"l LO- _~U _---N NNNNN NM NNN N oIJ.....< . ~x: OLU t- . :r- '..... 10 <1' \.fI ..... q ~ "'=" ___ U">, ~ 1.0 an - .... ..... -. 0'- O::~ O\ON-M ..0 ---- r-'---'- --- - _NCJ\<:S"M U) CZ' ~, .... .' 0 .', ~ . o. w; s.,.) . .fa ~: . QI ~i~ c2't"tMM..... MNCO.....O co.....~C; ~ c:or--COc:n 8 l't- _~M : I tNLOcnNCO M ,0 0) \l') 0\ erO.... o_\DO\~ \l') ""'I" ('\of s..' . _,-_NN M...,.t")MC"') C"')<q"MoCI' M q---~ <"IMM QI':U ...,,< ' , 1:1: : .. - . . ~\'; . o~ CIO-r-rcrO ,... en en CO CO . \OCC oo..n ..,.M_e-I,O ~co eI) .&:: --~ NNNNN ----- -- (\.IN- -- N - 4ft W. U - "'0 - iU . '- . to- GJ Q -, CO s..' U I- .... : . Q.I :z: 0 ~~ ca: w e M~M-r\O <O!It"NI.OO,.... ~O'I _0."'" _...,__0 0" ~ :. CO....."'N" ~a)NOO\ '-O-r OcnCh ..... ..... Me") t")NO ~ - So. : . C")M~.;r<*" <r...,.\l')Lh~ -r..n u')oq-M ~ N% g". ~~ ~ = . - "" = ~ I:> " " >- c:g . CO U) ~ , . . en ~'B . . ' . - ..... f; ~. -.I \oU).........co (:) 0 0 CJ\ at- tro .....~~ o:)vON- M\O ~ - 0:: ~ O'~. ~NNNN CW)r1Mc-.rN NNN N- q"1IO ~N ~ ~ .~ ~. . . '. t:- ~ .. .... . 0 - . >- u t< ~. So. , 's.. ~ '. - . . ui ~ GJ x~ CO ~ 0 0\ 0" ...t' a.n . 0:- <. > ~~ ~""N8Lt) M.....\l') M_O'-O~ an.....'" G s.. t c:r _ CO ...... ,I,OO"INO\N ~~ cn,O lot') V) CO ..... ... _ 0 ..... w' .s.. MCT~\l')-.o r-- ...... <0 ..... CO . ~ CO r:-....,.....,.... _C'? N N t"). ~ C) QI~ ~ ; . ~ ~: - . , % " ~ :::> ~ _",(Oj~ <D ~~ . 0.:1 ~O,....coc:n en \Q,"'" en en t")NN~N _NO aI ~.g .C'?<="MMM M ~.M M M ~..MMJ C'~ "'0 . 'C; . Q li; . . J- .. ~ .. ~ )(.... ILJ~ Q&nIoO..n~ o.8a)O :::~~i::! ",NM\O"'" coan&n 0 . , ONt.nOP) ..... ~, -.0 _ r')C\ ..... .- ,..- l- S. oi I,O~~""'O\ O'oO\OQ- __0\ 0 _N So. 4JU --- -- ,- - < ~<: . . od " :a:: ,-;;. 0; '^ \00..... M, U')t,D.....COtJ' O,-NMC' I.O\Q.....~O\ O_NM<S" f-_' U")~tl'JU')U') '-0'-0\00\0\0 ~ ~ \D' \Q 0 ",....,.............. .....,....,.... ~~' . . I . . . , I . '. I ~ I . I . . , , I . . . ctt .; ... en oCI' 0\ co >--' \I) 1.0 U) U) ,.... ...... ; en 0'1 0'1 0- 0\ ,....' - - - -- - -' . - <I . . . , - .. . . , ",.,. ., -~-~~---~" -- 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 2:10PM; Page 6/9 Sent By: JLWA SLOj APPENDIX I RESOLUTION NO. l!!i A RISQLOTtOH OF 'l'HB CITY COUNCIL 011' THB CI'1'Y OF UaoYO GRANDI, COtJ1rllY OF. SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPl'DG A1(D DIRBCTIMG THI FILING AND tMPLBMlN'l'ATION OP 'l'HB CIIJ,IY O~ ARROYO GJWfDB WATER HAHACIMIN'r PLAN ,'" WBIRBAS, thia,calitornia Leqblatur. enacte" Useably Bill 797 , , dUrLng the lt83.1~84 Reqular Se..1on ot the California Leqi.lature (WaUl' Code 8ect~on 101510 .t. s=.), known u 'the Urban Water: Kana9DPt Plarm1n.9 Act, which Mn at.. that every urban aupplier ot va1:U' prov1cUI\C) vater tor aunioipal purpos.. to 1IOre than 3,000 oua~ra 01" aupplvinq .ore than :1,000 acre teet or water annually, prepare an Urban Water Hana9eunt Plan, the pdaary objective of whiCh is to plan tor the conservation and ettic1en~ use ot water; and IftIIREAS AS 79'zoeq\a1re. that .ai4 Plan be adopted. by Decallber 31, 1985, afUr ~1ic review and. heariJ\9, anc! fibd with the california ,~ent. ot Mater aaso\tX'c.. wi thin thirty d.ays Of ac!opt.10nl anc! . WBIR.BAS, the ci~y ot AnOyo Grande did prepare and file said Plan with the Cal1fomia Depu1:.aent of Water Resources after acSopt:1on in December, 19851 and NIOtUAS, 1.8 197 require. . that u.te! Plan be periodically ,..eviwad at least onese every tive yeai'll, and that the urban water auppUer shan ~ any aaend1ten~. or cbanqe. to 1~. plan which are 1ndJ.caU4 by t.b. rWiew I and . ' 1IIIBItJM, the City 18 an \1r})an supplier of water provldinq vater to IIOre than 4,100 oust:oMrs, an4 haa therefor. prapuec:! and advetiaed. tor pubUo review a draft Vl'ban Water Jlanaqe..ant Plan Up4a~, in ooapu.~ with the nqu1re.anu ot AI 7t7, and a proper11 no~iOed.. pqJ:)Uc hear1nq requcUftCJ aaid D1-art Plan Update v.. bel by tha C1t1 cO\Q\cil on D~eaber 11, 1990, and a Plnal Plan , or4~. . HOW, TlDlUPOU t BB III USOLWD by the City Council ot the City or Arroyo Czoande aa follcnta: , 1. 1'he Urban water: Kana9..ent. Plan Update 11 heratly adopted and ordered tiled with the City Clerk: 2. '!he city llanaqer 18 hereby authorbad and directed to tila the Plan Up4ate vith the California Departaent of Water Resources wlth1n 30 days after th18 date,' 1n accordanca with AS 791; 3. '1'be city Hanageris hereJ)y authorbed and. c11rectad to blplemant the proqr... a. 4e"Ued. in the adopted Urban Water Manaquent Plan ~te, inclwSJ.nq 4evelopaent of recoBendationa to the City CouMil r89U'4i~ n..aaary prOCedure.,ntI.., aM regulations to oarry out. etfac~ va and equitable water con..rvation proqrams: 4. The a~tachecS CUri:'ent Year 8uc2qat haa bean previoualy approved and. authorized for i.pi.entation. 01'1 1IO'tion of COiUIIcll MembeJ;' Snith , seconded by councll Maber Caug'all , and on the tollowlnq roll call vote, to wit: AYBS: Council MentIers Smith, Dougall, Olsen, M:)otS and Mayor Millis 1f01S: None ABSBJI'f I None I' , . --- Sent By: JLWA SLO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 2:11PM; Page 7/9 . , USOLUTIOJf HO. m!. ,AGB a ' l '1'h. foZ'~ob'9 auolutton w.. paned and adopted th1. 11th clay of December, 1990. ~. ,. ~ ~, .' A'l"1'EST: APPROVID AS TO roDl '11nM~t& 11. .~.J ~ ~; .- HAHCY A. ~VIS, CITY CLBRJt . I, A'ft(IUD I, NN<<:Y A.D\VIS, City Clerk of the City of Arrr1jO Grame, COUnty of san Lui. Cbbpo, State. of Califomia, c10 henby certify UDI3K ;IDIlt.y , of perjury that thII fongoinl) ae.olution No. 2434, 18 . tn., full UIJ c:oxreGt cqfJ o~ said AeIoluUa\ paned and ~ at . ~ -':in; of &aid counc11 en the 11th day of ~, 1990. , WI'l'NBSS ~ hand aM the seal of the City of An;Qyo (k'ande aULM4 this 18th }~y of ~J:, 1990. ~ . ~a gz . -., .... . '.;lJ'-(<tL J '''1:ITY . . , ..,: .: , . Sent By: JLWA SLO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 2:11PM; page 8/9 ' ,.. . . (! !tI '. .... . . .. erTY COUNCIt. FEBRUARY 22, '1983 IUmOYO GP.I\NOE. C1\LJ:PORNI/\ PJ\GEI '1'WO 'I. nqqtlest/ReOc'lClllllen~Qr.lon hy CI\r.1 WarrflR II Co.. cn,y'" 1'.nRur.l\n~ ReprCRontllt.'\,vn. for Denial of Cla1lll riled b)' Judy 1I.lIn Heyer.. Incident: of 12/27/82. RICOMME~D COONCIL DENY, suctI C~lM. 6. Notification of 'ublic Ueari"9 to be Held Much 9, '1983, at 8:00 P.H., ne. Rel!Cl\ing Ca.. Noi 83-168. Ordinance AIIen&aent to. Cha~. Designated URea. Zoninq ancS Land u.. hsiCJnat10n Back t.o Or1911\&1 UiCJnway service Dl.trie~. l..ot 2. Tract 604. O.~ Parle Acre.. Reuben It1l'1dl:.. n~ APPROVAL OF SUCH DATI FOR SPoID PUBLIC tlE1IRING. R. Request foJ' counc;:ll Approval of .rC9re.. payment No.. 1,0 Re. blJ'rove_nu tit. Ioto Sporte Coq>l.x to Cantractor Karl..klnq - CrUll, Inc.. in IIMounte of' $535.50 And $8.6S~.~ by Puke Direct.or. MCOMMI!Nt) ~CXL A.PI\OVZ AND DtRtr.C'1' Pl\YH!N'f. . rUU'ORT/RSCCIfI4BMM'fIoM BY PUBLIC ~'DIRBCTOR RB,~lL'S APPROVAL or LICBNSI I'OR INS'1'ALIA'J'ION 01' 1QCI\L'8 AMrBNIfI\ 'I.'ONIR ON CZ'1'Y-oWNBD paotJERfY AT , . RESBRVOIR SIft 11 LOC:I\TBD OF!' VJ!:IMCM AVMI. . Public: woiJe,. Director Katp .t.at.~ that. St'.lIff has proposed a l,llWn!!Ilt docUlMlnt tor ~app\'tW"l by Council for the 'ltIbj~ct radio tower. rot.,ftt. _jo~ CN1Ct1n! bayoitd publio a.fetoy would be that' the installation would not interrupt: dOftllll\lnicati.on syst.... wbiob preaently operate witb1n the City 111111 t,.. Th~ City Attorney haa advised that the licen.. prot.ect. the C1 ty in the event: .uch a condit1on WOUld be II "rob],e., Oft IIIOtion of Council Member Vandeveer, eeeonded by Council Henber Gallagher. 1 t: was ulI/lnilllOUdy voted to :approve the licen.. t.o KJtAL r.,din. ~. . CURJUDft UPOa'f OR SOUI:B CQUM'rY Wl\TER N*lCIA'I'ION' a MCDI'1' MU'nNC . Public Work. Direotor hip .qtlained the report aubllJ.ttec1 b)' t.he ^...odatJ.Oft ~nd. groundwater entitl_nt of the Arroyo Grande Groundwat.er Baein. Council Mellber H~an .t:II1*I that the. City .hould not (Jive up any ent1tl.....nt~ 1\11 count:il Mllben CGIIIMInded the ......r. of, the nRsoclation Who COMpiled the report. Council Member Vandeveer .tated thnt the COIInty should be ;included in the report. COIInCU ~r HUll. questioned the f.l'inq' areas of tJ1o.. enUti." inc1ltded ill the repoJ:'t. Mayor IlIIlth Itated the report: is . at:ep fotward in adjudication al'lC! adcJec! that. she is concerned abollt ~ fringe ar.... After dbcu..ion. Council MMber GlIllagMI:' MOVed to CIOPceptually approve t.he reeonaendation (or groundwater entitl...nt and to fo~.r4 a copy to the County. '1'h. RIOtion was ..conded by Council Member "111is and a roll call vote was taken I , 1\YU, Council ~r. Gallagher. Mil11.. Mayor Smith MOBS. Council Mnlb&rit Vandeveer and lIogan n.8SDI'l'I NoM . ,lamU.riq D rector Hay. reported that the appl1eant has requeatecS r.etlon1ng of approxi_t'ely 1.26 acre!!! locatec!l along the Pacific Co.st Rnllroed right of way: fran Nt83, Residential ^'irdcultura!, to po. Planned '. ,~AYelopment. '1'h1I pr~o..!i c!evelopnent i. to OOl\8t1:'Uct 10 11ngl. f..11y reeidential unit. in .. planned develop1118nt.. The Pbnning C..-i..ion held' ft public hearing on the *Attar on Sept...ber.2l. 1982 for d.te~inAtion ot .nvi~ntal .fftaCt. .. At that --tin9 tb. co.i..lon .continued the hearin9 to allow the applican~ to prepare .pacific info~tion reqarding .ewerage, _liter. strHt.., dr'i~., and soU.. This wa. don. to allow the applicant to re8POfl.d to specific! envlronMntal concern. and dlow hi. to pNpare mitigation .easur... ;'1'he COIIIIIis.!.on WAS pre..nted with tbb Infonaaticn at their __t1119 of Jenuary 18. 1983 and the C~.eion voted to deny the ruoni"9 witi\out,...kin9 an et'Ivirol\ll\er\ta1 detet:lll1nation. ---~- ----~ -.-- IY: JLWA SLO; 805 544 4294; Nov-2-99 "." .", ~ ' . , \ \ \ I, ,\ , \ c' \\ j , ! \ i, ., ...".---'1 '. " . . I ~ _ \ . ; elt...' 0 ~ · ,,~4~ \ ~-~-' -- =- , ..-....... . . \ \ LEGENO ." ~ ~ AL\.UI/lUIl ~~- p\SMO fORMA-noM i .. OlINE SANDS 'HA~-~ ~ - ~A MQII'HA11:II :! .:::m OLOE" ()UIIS. sANDS ~ ~ BEAiIfIG ... _' .... e!l ~ AIID a _ pj>.SO 1I06I-E$ f<)RIIAfIO" · ~c~ . \ . ; fOftlAA1\O" t + sYNClJME. . _ _ S"fUO" AIlE;" 9IJUI'OA"~ ~" _: _ _ INfEIIlti-O fp.UI.. T -:: _ .... . -. ,...,... ~...,.... - ... ..... -'''' ~\ flq\lfe 4 - GEO\.OGY IA"P t~\ ........... ".... ............. · ------ ------- .. " I . EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED November 2, 1999 NOV 0 2 fOI.~ Mr. Keny McCants, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. City of Arroyo Grande, CA RE Proposed Village Glen Annexatio~ Tract 2265 Dear Mr. McCants: Unfortunately I am unable to attend the scheduled Planning Commission hearing regarding the proposed annexation to be held this evening, November 2nd, this due to a prior commitment. The proposed annexation in its present fonn has what I consider to be some serious flaws, and of which I have grave concerns. No 1. I have some serious concerns about the extractioa of water from an aquifer that lies below the aquifer that serves many of the residents in the ~ Noyes and Oak: Park road areas. Would it be possible to have the developer post a bond that would cover any additional expenses that might be incuqed by the existing residents should the Cleath report prove to be in error and in fact disrupt the water availability to these existing residents. This would put my mind at ease regarding the water availability in the future. No 2. There still appears to be a major flaw regarding stonn water run-off from the project. The developers current plans are to allow this run-off to drain in the general direction of the Canyon Way area. With the newly planned construction there will be less vacant land available for water absorption which will lead to an increase of run-off water to this area, thus creating a virtual swamp. I believe a catch basin for the proper retention of this run-off should be given very serious consideration. ,. No 3. The other major problem that the development poses is the location for the elementary school. It is my understanding that the School district requires a 10 acre flat and level parcel for an elementary school. Has any thought been given to the 10 acre parcel in another area that is currently earmarked as a site for a new park. This would make more sense to me, being more centrally located, with easy access not only for the parents but the school buses as well. In the event that it is still deemed to be in the communities best interests to have the school built in the Village Glen Annexation rather than elsewhere I have two suggestions for your consideration. The first being the relocation to an area along James Way that would encompass a site from Lots 2 through 10 and Lots 21 through 29. The second suggestion would to utilize an area of Lots 1 through 5 and a portion of Lots 33 through 36. --~ ---~----- . ~ Either of these proposed sites would offer the advantage of having easy access to the school from James Way~ and thus would not be buried within the development as the current site dictates. Both of these sites would contain the required 10 acres while at the same time freeing up the 19.2 acres that are being set aside for the school. With this in mind the 19.2 acres then could then be built out with homes as it should be. This 19.2 acre parcel contains some of the prime view lots within the project and should contain homes. not a school. The argument has been presented that the two alternate sites as mentioned above are too steep and rocky to be built out as a school. This argument has no validity. The terrain is no less rocky than the 19.2 acre site and the elevations are comparable. At either of the two sites as mentioned above as well as the 19.2 site it would require a lot of cutting and filling of the parcel in order to obtain a 10 acre flat and level parcel. Another big advantage to the relocating of the school to an alternate site would be the retention of the existing Eucalyptus grove. which serves not only as a wintering over location for our Monarch butterflies but also as a refuge for the wildlife in this area. The development in it's present form would destroy this valuable asset to our community. In conclusion I feel approval for the project should be denied until such time as the developer submits an alternate proposal which addresses the above problems. William & Alice Daniel 741 Printz Road Arroyo Grande. CA 93420 ph 473-0822 EXHIBIT 7 We, the undersigned residents of Canyon Way, approve of the Village Glen Development as currently proposed: 40 homes, elementary school, emergency vehicle road with crash gate( s) connecting Canyon Way with the Village Glen site but without a full-width extension of Canyon Way. Such an extension would result in the further destruction of the Canyon Way Creek wildlife environment while endangering our children and pets due to the use of Canyon Way as a high-speed shortcut to Tally Ho Road and Highway 227. Printed Name Address Date f\~\.+\.~.~{~:J~... ~2[ .S:~:X~~. ~.~X 1. ~.~.I.::J:1.... ~()~.U&~~+ ~~3.(~i~~.~ .\~.~~.~:.~1 . :.. .. ..~. ~tr.l(.f.:-V~~ ?:-71..(I!.~yd~''!!.i .~~l.i7.J.f.1 A. ~..... -:S~ L/!!r.-1;'Yo" ~ YJ!..g,.,,! .J~.. ~"Y 1. q/!?/'!.f.... . ..~~ ~~ ~.~.t ~"'""'-\ .U::7. .c........(j'wu, . ~9. \.o.L'.1:'t. ... 'fd. 2h.~~ \ ~ Y:\~.. Jh.l~m ))fll- (If.''. {)q.r;.:y.H'J./P.tf .f.~:: t1.~ '1.1 .----, '7 ~ ~:.!..6..~!:" !:.'?c:.~~.07 !Pf.'!/:.: $c1a./.~;//!Ic..S ~Q 9.0.&1. y.(J. ,v.bAj...I.a. :[W 'J a.rJf!.f!-kt./":t U JIft. .(;~.. ~ ~f? .-:( 7.-::?1.. (f ,~./~t..?~..... J.. ~~ .0.,:,y.~::: ~~ I. cy('y21 . -;:r~.~~~~.~~ ?!?~..~~~ !rzj!.7.Bj . III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III.......... ................................................ ....................................... ... III III III III III III" III.... III.. III III. III .. .. .. III III .. .. .. III .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. III .. III .. .. .. .. .. .. .. III .. .. .. .. .. .. ~. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .'.. ._ ~ .. .- .. .. .. .. ...... III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We, the undersigned residents of Canyon Way, approve of the Village Glen Development as currently proposed: 40 homes, elementary school, emergency vehicle road with crash gate(s) connecting Canyon Way with the Village Glen site but without a full-width extension of Canyon Way. Such an extension would result in the further destruction of the Canyon Way Creek wildlife environment while endangering our children and pets due to the use of Canyon Way as a high-speed shortcut to Tally Ho Road and Highway 227. Printed Name Address Date ~.ft1:~.[ 2-0 2.. Vf>./ ~ w 11"1' /0 -/7-7'9 .......... ... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........~...r-~ ~~ '!!.12(!... E~ ~~S . ~~ .~.. ~-:,:.r-::: ~/J1 y... :.~ ::.(.? .-. r T , /- 1'.\ ).' ~ . d "1 + ' /) l : ! ." . '-fe-t.Lt( '_:", t "/ t i (', :. .J/idJ-; .{~ .~\".... r:::. Jf {)<))~... ;~.{f? .~.d!f:'t'l.l.../l /,4.'1. ..I/:!. :.17 . . . . . . . . " . ... . .. ....... '... __e. . " ~' - fill / ,.-' ' , , ' / . . ~ ' I.~" X '. "/"-- ...... I '" \. - ,"". -- , /.., i tit. '... ffi......l~".-' -,;t!: C:J..:...:: -v' ~:: . ~ .~~' C'!4-. . !: ~ !-. . ~ . . . .. ,~,:-..:: f(. . ~ . ./. :'>~ v~: ~ ';,1. ... ,~'-/".I _tJ.,_ -t'o I / ~ ...... ... ...... .... ........... . . . . . . . . . . e'. . . . I ~ ~ ~!?..(0:.y~~Zty (~.... ..... ...... ~J!)~.@}~~ 1/-2.~CZ1 . . . . . . .". . . . . . . . .~..y~ \Yj)!k.VO~G .?:-:~~~J~~~5g . ... ... ............ ........... ......... ......... ...... ..................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........ ..... ... ........ ......... ........ ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............... . ........ ....... ...... ........ ......... .... ..... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............... ............................ .. .......... ......... ......... ...................... .. ............... ......... ...... .... ........... ............. ...... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............... .. ...... ........ .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . ... ............... . ............... ...... ........ .. ........ .... .......... .................... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ...................... ..... ... . ........ ........ ....... ..................... .. ............... .. ... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........... ...... ....... ..................... .. ............... ----- ---~------ ,. ".' ~... . ~. _'.; ,"f -.:' .' . ~ , .- ""j .... '.\ .. -: -.... ~ . .. '. ~ COMMENTS FROM EXHIBIT 8 NANCI PARKER Water: My concerns with water resources are addressed and mitigated in this document ~.. b~ ~ rl~ "\..~ L L^ ~, C:>~~ Traffic: l-.agr~ ':Jit~ presented in this document, the traffic problems are not mitigatable, and in some cases may even be i~rOVed due to the placement of the school on the east side of the freeway. WI the addition of a much needed school sight, I would recommend the city council adopt a 'I I resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. . Mitigations for any traffic concerns existing in th$ city are neither approved nor are they funded at this time, and therefor cannot be used :r.~ to the J.. poor levels of service already present in the city~ . . .j-,-~erY'\..6~ . ' _ ~ c; pA..ocJ<..c..t- , . .Aesthetics and visual resources: School sight set back is within the limits, but the visual and aesthetics from the surrounding homes to the North and the West are impaired. I see that grading (OY ~L10 will help as well as carefully placed trees. I think enough vegetation must be ~&...o,vl ~ planted to decrease noise filtration to these existing sights. Grading is liberal, which may cause a problem with flooding. The amount of rl9..o_d--A ,~ wo-..\.uv grading proposed is also not consistent with our general plan. The CEQA document proposes to "re-vegetate the cut and fiU slopes with plants native or -1' d.ur\vv ~I" characteristic to the environs." And "to the extent feasible, use landform grading . on cut slopes arC?und the wooded knoll to be retained in the northwest comer of l' M\ ~ the site, with varying slope ratios and curves." 'thi. iSleeef, hut I would Uke to see more slope to the cuts so it does not appear to be a walt but rather a steep slope. What is the degree of the slope? . \;.. h . U- 01...>> } /\\ \j-\J:)ucJ... 0~J ,- (1"- -\0 '~ $1<\ f'0 N €... Page 9 of 20 in the staff report lists the evidence sufficii!nt to adopt a statement .>ro.e:;:~!:) of Overriding Considerations. #5 of this list states "the presence of a viabfe and \ J - ~iA.-1 ' ~rf'\ SJIUI 0 \ - ------_._....~- .-- f effective public school system is essential to the social and well-being of the , community, and among other things, contributes to a healthy real estate market." I see nowhere in our general plan that may support this statement. Having a Healthy real estate market is subjective at best. Fiscallmpad Analysis: "Using the assumed sales price of $452,000 per unit, the equivalent aMual income was estimated from this figure based on what is assumed necessary to purchase such a home based on 35 % of the sale price. % of th!! resulting taxable sales from money spent by a family with this particular, income would stay in Arroyo Grande. This figure was used to calculate the income derived per new household for each unit. What is not taken into consideration is the fact that many if not most of those purchasing these homes will be retired. This assumption does not take into consideration the fad that most of the purchase price of these homes witl not be mortgaged, leaving a much smaller mortgage and much less spending power than one might estimate. The average taken in the previous paragraph taking the average spending per household seems more reasonable. .. J: ~\ v.M\ f'05' \.""'[ +1""",\-- +t:: . . \ a ~ 1-o~,JL, O~\,~~..,,~/;~ Dv-o~c.,~ w,.~ - J . \ G -\-u ~ ,-\ ~ ~ ovr- '- O"c"'t'" ~ '" '7' · -a-' . ~ ~ ,\<;.,\ ~ ~ S.~()\ .l\!S~~c.(\~ "'~ ? \-I r', ~~ ~o ~_\l ~ ~\\ !fJ~Vf-oG. ~ .. \ . _ . \ \::-. ~,^-', ~ ev\\. G v ~ '+~ v-J"'\ \\ \ ~ 2s -to ().l"'l>- . "r ~ 4- u ~ ""- 'v\ · " j',\ i, 7.c. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HE;REBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City, Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the following item: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEWER AND WATER RATES AND CHARGES. Applicant: City of Arroyo Grande Proposal: The City Council will conduct the second reading of an Ordinance which amends the Municipal Code to provide for modifications of water and sewer rates and charges by resolution of the Council. If the proposed Ordinance is adopted, the Council will consider adoption of a Resolution increasing certain water and sewer rates and charges. Representative: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works Any person affected or concerned about the proposal may submit written comments to the Director of Public Works before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the proposal at the time of the hearing. Any person interested in the proposal can contact the Public Works Department at 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-5440 during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). A copy of the proposed Ordinance and Resolution is available for public inspection at the above address. IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, November 9,1999,7:00 p.m. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street ~1db4w>>- Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Kelly tm Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk Publish 1T, November 9, 1999 -~~--~ MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: SEWER AND WA TERRA TES AND CHARGES DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that at the close of the public hearing the City Council: A. adopt an Ordinance amending Chapters 6 and 7 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code; and, B. adopt the attached Resolution establishing new water and sewer rates and charges. FUNDING: The Capital Improvement Program budget included $22,367 for the preparation of a water and sewer rate study. Expenditures to date are approximately $22,480. Approval of a new water rate structure and sewer rate increase will impact residents. For FY 1999-00, a typical single family residential water bill will increase by $1.80 per billing cycle (bimonthly or $0.90 per month). A similar sewer bill will increase by $2.22 in the same two month period. DISCUSSION: On October 26, 1999, the City Council introduced the first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapters 6 and 7 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code and continued the public hearing to November 9, 1999 to consider the adoption of the Ordinance and to consider a resolution establishing new water and sewer rates and charges. The water and sewer service charges currently being imposed are identified in Section 6- 7.01 and Section 6-6.1001 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, respectively. Establishing rates and charges by ordinance is costly, time consuming and cumbersome and is generally considered an outdated means of operation. The Municip~1 Code should establish the overall framework for the program/policy while implementation measures (such as rate structures) are established by resolution. The attached Ordinance amends the applicable sections of the Municipal Code to allow the Council to modify water and sewer rates and service charges by resolution. The attached Ordinanc~ regarding water rates also amends section 6-7.01 to allow the Council to modify the Lopez Contract Charges by resolution at a future date. , -.--....-.-..-.--..-.. ____0_ At the October 26, 1999 meeting, the City Council approved the Water and Sewer Rate Study dated August 1999 ("Study") which proposes new water and sewer service rate structures, water impact fees, and a proposed fire protection charge for Fiscal Years 1999- 00 through 2003-04. However, it is recommended that the Council only approve a rate increase for Fiscal Years 1999-00 and FY 2000-01 at this time. Future increases recommended by the Study will be reviewed at the appropriate time to determine if they are warranted. Also listed in the Resolution are the current Lopez Contract Charges. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendations; - Do not approve staffs recommendations; - Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendations; or - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: - Ordinance - Resolution - October 26, 1999 Staff Report jep:232.5805\City.CounciI.11,9,99.wpd - ------- ORDINANCE NO. C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTIONS 6-6.1001, 6-7.01, 6-7.02, AND 6- 7.03 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SEWER AND WATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Section 6-6.1001 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 6-6.1001. City Charges. All customers, upon connection to a public sewer line, shall be required to pay a sewer service charge for those pipelines and appurtenances constructed, maintained, and operated by the City primarily for the collection of sewage and the conveyance thereof to the sewer plant owned and operated by the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. The City Council shall, by resolution, establish the rates which will be charged for sewer service. SECTION 2: Section 6-7.01 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6-7.01. Rates and Charges. (a) Basic Monthly Charges. Whenever water is supplied and meters are used or installed, as provided in this chapter, a basic monthly charge shall be made to each customer. The City Council shall, by resolution, establish the rates which will be charged for water service. (b) Proration for Portions of Months. When a water bill is rendered for any period of time less than the regular period for water furnished, the regular minimum monthly charge. shall be prorated, based upon actual consumption. Such consumption shall be charged at minimum rates; but consumption at a rate in excess of the regular period allowance shall be billed at the excess rates. (c) Lopez Contract Charges. In addition to the monthly water charges set forth in this chapter, each City water customer shall be charged an additional sum each month, to be designated "Lopez Contract Charges." The Lopez Contract Charges shall be established by resolution of the City Council. (d) Lopez Contract Charges: Billings. Billing for such Lopez Contract Charges shall be prepared and deposited in the mail on or about the first day of each month that the bills provided for are sent, pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-7.07 of this chapter. --~ ORDINANCE NO. C.S. PAGE 2 SECTION 3: Section 6-7.02 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6-7.02 Adoption of Rules and Change of Rates. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance of the Water Department and for furnishing water to customers and may,. by resolution, modify the rates, charges, and penalties established and imposed in this chapter. SECTION 4: Section 6.7.03 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6-7.03 Applications for Service: Deposits. No person shall be entitled to have a water connection until the owner of the premises to be served shall make an application for such connection on a form provided by the Financial Services Department. Wherever meter service is given, the Finan~ial Services Director,at his/her discretion based upon creditworthiness of the applicant, may require a reasonable deposit to guarantee the payment of the water bills. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase 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, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unlawful. $ECTION 6: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, it shall be published once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this day of 1999. -..~-- ORDINANCE NO. C.S. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: EnLxb-L. ~~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER . APPROVED AS TO FORM: RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SEWER AND WATER RATES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted Ordinance No. _ C.S. which provides for the City Council to establish City sewer and water rates and services charges by resolution; and, . WHEREAS, the City has conducted a study which estimated future revenues under existing sewer and water service charges to determine if they are adequate to meet the projected revenue requirements to cover anticipated expenses; and, WHEREAS, sewer and water service rates and charges are designed to meet the objectives desired by the City Council which consist of basic health and sanitation needs, operating and maintaining a safe and reliable water system, simplified rate structures that are easy to understand and administer, consideration of industry practices, and recovery of the cost of service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the sewer and water rates and service charges set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall become effective on the effective date of Ordinance No. C.S. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1999. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: ..,,,,, KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: T2DlLu L. ~"-)' ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY jep:232,5805\water,sewer,fee,reso,wpd -----------~----------- Exhibit "A" ' SEWER RATES AND SERVICE CHARGES: Fiscal Year 99LQQ 00LQ1 [a] [b] Monthly Customer Charge [c] Customer Class All Customers $1.75 $1.85 Volume Charge - $ per hundred cubic feet [d] Customer Class Single Family [e] $0.21 $0.22 Multi-Family [e] 0.31 0.33 Business 0.35 0.37 Church 0.35 0.37 School 0.35 0.37 Hospital 0.35 0.37 Motel 0.35 0.37 Convalescent Homes 0.35 0.37 Other 0.35 0.37 [a] Rates effective with December 1999 bills. [b] Rates effective June 2000. [c] Monthly charge per account, dwelling unit, or mobile home space. [d] , Charged based on metered water volume. [e] Single family class returns 50 percent of metered water to the sewer system, multifamily class returns 75 percent, and all other classes return 85 percent. Because sewer volume rates are proposed to e charged based on metered water use, volume rates are lower for the single family and multifamily class because the cost of service is calculated on sewer volume, but recovered on metered water volume. LOPEZ CONTRACT CHARGES: Schedule I - Water Services on Individual Meters Charges Size of Meter Inside City Outside City 5/8 to 3/4 inch $ 9.55 $ 1'2.45 1-inch 13.70 16.65 1 1/4-inch to 1 1/2-inch 17.80 20.75 2 inch 22.00 24.95 3-inch 26.10 29.05 4-inch 30.30 33.20 6-inch 38.65 41.50 Schedule" - Unmetered or Multiple Uses on One Meter Charges Inside City Outside City (1 ) Single-Family $ 9.55 $12.45 Each additional single-family dwelling on the same meter 9.55 12.45 (2) Mobile home parks and travel trailer parks One space 9.55 12.45 Each additional space on the same meter 9.55 12.45 (3) Multiple-dwellings, one unit 9.55 12.45 Each additional unit on the same meter 9.55 12.45 (4) Motels and Hotels, one unit 9.55 12.45 Each additional unit on the same meter 9.55 12.45 (5) Hospitals, convalescent homes and convalescent hospitals, per bed on the same meter 2.55 3.25 (6) Businesses not otherwise provided for in this section: Businesses on separate meter 9.55 12.45 Multiple-business on one meter Each separate water service,such as restrooms, kitchens, etc. 9.55 12.45 ------ WATER RATES AND SERVICE CHARGES: Minimum Monthly Charge - $ I month [a] Meter Size Inside City Outside City Inches $/month $/month 5/8 $ 3.90 $ 7.80 3/4 3.90 7.80 1 4.55 8.35 1% 5.45 8.60 2 7.90 10.90 3 25.90 37.40 4 32.60 40.40 6 48.20 . 53.55 Volume Charge - $ per hundred cubic feet Customer Class Inside City Outside City $/Ccf $/Ccf Single Family $0.90 $1.12 Multi-Family $0.90 $1.12 Business $0.90 $1.12 Church $0.90 $1.12 School $0.90 $1.12 Hospital $0.90 $1.12 Irrigation $0.90 $1.12 Motel $0.90 $1.12 Convalescent Homes $0.90 $1.12 Other $0.90 $1.12 Hydrant $7.30 $7.30 Fire Protection Charge Private Fire Line Fire Line Size Charge Inches $/Month 2 $ 1.85 3 5.50 4 10.95 6 31.40 . 8 63.85 10 109.40 [a] Rates charged on a per constructed unit basis or trail park space. Calculated by dividing meter reading, billing, and collecting costs for fiscal year by number of projected bills. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSICITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: A. ,approve the Water and Sewer Rate Study dated August 1999; B. introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Chapter 6 and 7 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code, and, C. continue the public hearing to November 9, 1999 to consider the adoption of the aforementioned Ordinance and a Resolution establishing new water and sewer rates. FUNDING: The Capital Improvement Program budget included $22,367 for the completion of a water and sewer rate study. Expenditures to date are approximately $22,300. Approval of a new water rate structure and sewer rate increase will impact residents. For FY 1999-00, a' typical single family residential water bill will increase by $1.80 every billing cycle (bi-monthly or $0.90 per month). A similar sewer bill will increase by $2.22 in the same two month period. DISCUSSION: , This Water and Sewer Rate Study ("Study") has been prepared to determin~ if the existing water and sewer service charges are adequate to meet the anticipated expenses of the City. Projections were developed for a five-year period and included Fiscal Years 1999/00 through 2003/04. The goals of the study were to: . analyze the City's current rate structure; . develop a plan for financing capital improvement projects proposed by the City; . prepare a cost of service analysis for both water and sewer; . propose equitable rate structures by customer classifications; and . design rates based on cost of service which will generate adequate revenues to support anticipated expenditures. -- -----....-.-..---- -------- The Study p-roposes new water and sewer service rate structures, water impact fees, and a proposed fire protection charge. The Study proposes a conservative rate structure that allows the City to recover its cost of service and meet its obligations in Fiscal Years 1999/00 through 2003/04. The water and sewer service charges currently being imposed are identified in Section 6- 7.01 and Section 6-6.1001 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, respectively. Establishing rates and charges by ordinance is costly, time consuming and cumbersome and is generally considered an outdated means of operation. The Municipal Code should establish the overall framework for the program/policy while implementation measures (such as rate structures) are established by resolution. The attached Ordinance amends the applicable sections of the Municipal Code to allow the Council to modify water and sewer service charges by resolution. The attached Ordinance regarding water rates also amends Section 6-7.01 to allow the Council to modify the Lopez Contract Charges by resolution at a future date. Water The current rate structure includes both a fixed charge for operations (according to meter size) and a minimum fixed charge for water regardless of actual use. The proposed rate structure retains a fixed cost element (also based on meter size); however, water costs will be based on actual consumption. Thus, the Study recommends a change to the water rate structure but not a rate increase. The proposed rate structure was developed to provide the same revenue as the current rate structure. Projected revenue under the proposed rates is sufficient to m~et all obligations in each fiscal year of the Study period, if the City approves a financing plan for major capital projects. Projects with a cost over $1 ,000,000 (e.g., Reservoir No.1 Replacement Project) would be considered for debt financing and projects costing under $1,000,000 would be paid for through water rates. If the Council chooses not to finance major capital projects, the projects will need to be funded through water rates. This approach (not financing capital projects) will result in a three percent rate increase for each of the next five years. Under this scenario, a typical single family residential water, bill will increase by an additional $1.46 each billing cycle based on the proposed rate structure ($1.46 + $1.80 = $3.26 total). A typical bi-monthly water bill comparing the current and proposed rates is presented in Table W-9. The proposed water rates, shown in Table W-10, are the third lowest when compared to eleven (11) other water purveyors in the County. Water distribution charges were also evaluated as part of the Study. The current charge was established to recover the cost, or a portion of the cost, of the City's investment in distribution facilities constructed to serve future customers. These charges are commonly known as impact fees and offer a means to reduce, but not eliminate, the impact of growth related capital financing costs. The proposed charge is based on capital projects identified in the City's' Water Master Plan that are attributable to new development. The proposed charge is based on the size of water meter (Table W-13) and is the secon.d lowest compared to seven (7) other agencies within the County (Table W-14). A monthly fixed charge for private fire connections is also proposed in the schedule of water rates. This charge is proposed to recover the cost of providing fire fighting capacity in the water system to serve those customers with priyate fire pipelines. Thirty four (34) customers with private fire protection facilities are receiving an additional benefit that is now being recovered through the City's general water service rates. The benefits received include improved fire control, decreased injury and property damage, and lower insurance costs. Implementation of the private fire protection charge impacts commercial customers only and represents less than 1 percent of the customer base. A survey conducted by the consultant of local cities within the County of San Luis Obispo showed that Atascadero Mutual Water Company and Nipomo Community Services District have implemented private fire protection charges. If private fire protection rates are not implemented,the water volume rate proposed would need to be increased by $0.001 per hundred cubic feet to recover the cost to serve private fire protection facilities. If implemented, this charge will generate $12,400 in revenue previously collected through the general water service rates. Sewer Projected sewer service charge revenue under the existing rates adopted on October 22, 1992 is comprised of monthly flat service rates which are insufficient to meet future obligations. The proposed sewer rate consists of a minimum customer charge and volume charge~ This rate schedule more accurately reflects the cost of providing sewer service. A typical bi-monthly sewer bill comparing the current and proposed rates is presented in Table S-9. The proposed sewer rates, shown in Table 5-10, are the second lowest as compared to ten (10) other sewer agencies within the County. The following is a schedule of the sewer revenue increases proposed: Annualized Actual Fiscal Revenue Months Revenue Year Effective Date Increase Effective Increase 1999/00 Dec. 1, 1999 9.0 percent 6 4.5 percent 2000/01 June 1, 2000 6.0 percent 12 6.0 percent 2001/02 June 1, 2001 4.0 percent 12 4.0 percent 2002/03 June 1, 2002 3.0 percent 12 3.0 percent 2003/04 June 1, 2003 2.0 percent 12 2.0 percent Public Comment At its meeting on September 14, 1999, the City Council authorized distribution of the draft Water and Sewer Rate Study. The draft Study was made available for review at City Hall and distributed to the South County Library, the Home Builders Association of the Central Coast, and the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the public was notified via the City's web site. The public comment period for the Water and Sewer Rate Study ended on October 17,1999. Staff received comments from one resident. The Consultant reviewed the comments and has provided responses as shown in the attached letter dated October 15, 1999. ~- -----------------_.--~_._-- The Water -and Sewer Rate Study is meant to be a flexible document and should be periodically reviewed and updated as the City changes and new information becomes available. Staff recommends a review of water and sewer rates every two years. Therefore, should the Council adopt a resolution on November 9th approving an increase in sewer rates (and water rates depending on Council's direction for funding major capital projects), the rate increase will be for FY 1990-00 and FY 2000-01 only. Future increases recommended by the Study will be reviewed at the appropriate time to determine if they are warranted. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendations; - Do not approve staff's recommendations; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: - Ordinance - Table W-9 - Water Utility - Typical Bi-monthly Bills - Table W-10 - Comparison of Single Family Residential Water Service Rates - Table W-13 -Water Utility Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees - Table W-14 - Comparison of Proposed Water Impact Fee with Other Communities - Table S-9 - Sewer Utility - Typical Bi-monthly Bills - Table S-10 - Comparison of Single Family Residential Sewer Service Rates - Letter addressing citizen's comments jep:232.5805\wewerrate1 02199version, wpd ---------------,-_." -.--' - TABLE W.9 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WATER UTILITY TYPICAL BI-MONTHL Y BILLS EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,1999 Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Usag,e Raw Ra1e.s Difference ~ Ra1e.s Ra1es OitlerellCe cet Cet Sj['l.gje Family Residential - 3/4 Inch Meter Business - 1 Inch Meter 0 $14,80 $7.80 ($7.00) 0 $23,30 59,10 ($14,20) 5 14,80 12,30 (2.50) 24 23,30 30,70 7,40 10 14,80 16,80 2,00 30 30,80 36,10 5,30 16 14,80 22.20 7,40 [a) 48 53,30 52,30 (1,00) 20 19,80 25,80 6,00 50 55.80 54.10 (1,70) 30 32,30 34,80 2,50 100 118,30 99,10 (19,20) [a) 32 34.80 36.60 ,1.80 200 243,30 189,10 (54,20) 50 57.30 52,80 (4,50) 250 305,80 234,10 (71,70) 55 63,55 57.30 (6.25) School - 2 Inch Meter 63 73,55 64.50 (9,05) 100 119.80 97.80 (22,00) 0 58,60 15,80 (42,80) 120 144,80 115,80 (29.00) 300 358,60 285,80 (72,80) 150 182,30 142,80 (39,50) [a) 365 439.85 344,30 (95,55) 400 483,60 375,80 (107,80) Multi Family Residential 2 Units -1 Inch Meter Multi Family Residential 4 Units - 1 !nd:LMeler 0 31,40 18.20 (13,20) 0 47,60 36,40 (11,20) 10 31,40 27.20 (4.20) 10 47,60 45,40 (2,20) 16 31,40 32.60 1.20 20 47,60 54,40 6,80 24 31.40 39,80 8,40 30 47,60 63,40 15,80 30 38,90 45,20 6,30 40 47,60 72,40 24,80 [a] 32 41,40 47,00 5,60 50 60.10 81.40 21,30 40 51,40 54,20 2,80 [a] 64 77,60 94,00 16,40 45 57,65 58.70 1,05 70 85,10 99,40 14,30 50 63,90 63,20 (0,70) 75 91,35 103,90 12,55 75 95,15 85,70 (9,45) 100 122,60 126,40 3,80 100 126,40 108,20 (18,20) 150 185,10 171,40 (13,70) 150 $188,90 $153,20 ($35,70) 200 $247,60 $21640 ($31,20) [a] Average consumption for bi-monthly period. 31 - ----~,~-------,-- - TABLE W-10 COMPARISON OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE RATES FOR SELECTED CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITIES FOR RATES IN EFFECT JULY 1999 Bi-monthly Billing Meter Customer Volume CharQe Bill at Community Period Size CharQe ' Block CharQe 32 Cet Atascadero Water provided by Alasc:adero Mutual Water Co, Arroyo Grande Bi-monthly 5/8 - 3/4 .. $7.80 All $0.90 $36,60 (proposed rates) 1 .. $9,10 Grover Beach Monthly All $6,75 All $1,33 $56,06 Lompoc Monthly 5/8 - 3/4 .. $13,66 All $1,63 $7948 1 .. $23,20 Morro Bay Monthly All $1643 o - 4 Cct $0,00 Over 4 Cct [a] $182 12 Nipomo CSD Bi-monthly All $17,50 o - 40 Cct $0,80 $30,30 (Town Rate) Over 40 Cct $1,15 Oceano CSD Bi-monthly All $23,94 o - 6 Cct $0,00 7 - 25 Cct $2,25 $8244 Over 25 Cct $2,95 Paso Robles Bi-monthly All $15,60 o - 20 Cct $0,00 Over 20 Cet $0,77 $24,84 Plsmo Beach Bi-monthly 5/8 - 3/4 .. $19.08 o - 15 Cct $1,01 1 ," $37,95 Over 15 Cct $1,28 $4084 San LUIs Obispo Monthly All $2,51 o - 5 Cct $0,00 Over 5 Cct $3,15 $90,07 [a] Based on a graduated schedule by each unit of water, 33 -,....- - I Table W-13 I i City. of Arroyo Grande Water UtiUty I Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees I I Fiscal Year 2000 I ! Meter Size Existing Impact Fee Proposed Impact Fee I ! 5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $300 $630 i $822 \ $1.050 I 1 inch 1 'l2 inch $1,292 $2,100 I 2 inch $1,896 $3,360 3 inch $4,260 $6,300 4 inch $7,110 $10,500 I 6 inch $14,700 $21.010 I Comparison of Impact Fees to Other Communities Table W -14 below presents a, comparison of the proposed AIToyo. Grande water impact fees with those of other communities in San Luis Obispo County. The comparison shows that the proposed water impact fees for AIToyo Grande are within the range of impact fees charged by other communities. Table W-14 Comparison of Proposed Water Impact Fee with Other Communities Community Water Impact Fee AIToyo Grande $630 Cambria CSD $3,300 Grover Beach $612 Morro Bay $364 Nipomo CSD $3,180 Paso Robles $817 Pismo Beach $8,165 San Luis Obispo $6,500 38 -- -------~--,------,,------_.- - - TABLE 5-9 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SewER UTlUTY TYPICAL BI-MONTHL Y BILLS, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,1999 " Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Us.age Ba1e.s Ba1e.s Difference [a] Uuge Ba1e.s ~ ~ cet Cet Single Family Residential- 3/4 Inch Meter Business - 1 Inch Meter 0 $8,00 $3,50 ($4,50) 0 $8.00 $3,50 ($4.50) 5 8,00 4,55 (3.45) 24 8,00 11.90 3,90 10 8,00 5.60' (2,40) 30 8,00 14.00 6,00 16 8,00 6.86 (1,14) (b) 48 8,00 20.30 12,30 20 8,00 7,70 (0,30) 50 8,00 21,00 13,00 30 8,00 9,80 1,80 100 8.00 38.50 30,50 [b) 32 8,00 10.22 2,22 200 8.00 73.50 65,50 50 8,00 14,00 6,00 250 8.00 91,00 83,00 ( 55 8,00 15,05 7.05 Non-boarding School. 200 students 64 8,00 16.94 8,94 100 8,00 24.50 16,50 0 16,00 3,50 (12.50) 120 8,00 28,70 20,70 300 16,00 108,50 92,50 150 8,00 35,00 27.00 [b) 365 16,00 131,25 115,25 400 16,00 143,50 127,50 Multi Family Residential 2 Units - 1 Inch Meter Multi Family Residential 4 Units - 1 Inch Meter 0 16,00 7,00 (9,00) 0 32,00 14,00 (18,00) 10 16,00 10,10 (5,90) 10 32,00 17,10 (14,90) 16 16.00 11.96 (4,04) 20 32,00 20,20 (11,80) . 24 16,00 14,44 (1,56) 30 32,00 23,30 (8,70) 30 16,00 16,30 0,30 40 32.00 26,40 (5,60) (b] 32 16,00 16,92 0,92 50 32,00 29,50 (2,50) 40 16,00 19,40 3,40 (b) 64 32.00 33,84 1,84 45 16,00 20,95 4,95 70 32,00 35,70 370 50 16,00 22,50 6,50 75 32,00 37,25 5,25 75 16,00 30,25 14,25 100 32,00 45,00 13,00 100 16,00 38,00 22,00 150 32,00 60,50 28,50 150 $16,00 $53,50 $37,50 200 $32.00 $76,00 $44,00 (a] Difference varies because the existing rate structure is a flat charge whereas the proposed rate structure is based on volume, The volume rate structure more acurately recovers cost from customers that contribute sewage volume to the sewer treatment plant. (b] Average consumption for bi-monthly period, 57 ~--------_._-------------- -~~------ - ------ ~--------------- - TABLE S-10 COMPARISON OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SEWER SERVICE RATES FOR SELECTED CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITIES FOR RATES IN EFFECT JULY 1999 BI-monthly Billing Meter Customer Volume Charae Bill at Community Period Size Charae Block Charae 32 Ccf Atascadero Monthly All $20,18 $40 36 Arroyo Grande Bi-monthly All $3,50 All $0,21 $10,22 (proposed rates) Grover Beach Monthly All $16,42 $32,84 Lompoc Monthly All $16,26 $32 52 Morro Bay Monthly All $11.48 0- 10 Ccf $000 Over 10 Ccf $140 $53 76 Nipomo CSD Bi-monthly All $36,00 $36 00 (Town Rate) Oceano CSD Bi-monthly All $9,25 $9,25 Paso Robles BI-monthly All $2410 $24 10 Plsmo Beach Bi-fnonthly All $21,19 $21 19 San LUIs Obispo Monthly All $22,88 $45 76 59 Tuckfield & Associates 721 Amigos Way, Suite 8, Newport Beach, California 92660 Phone (949) 760-9454 Fax (949) 760-9547 October 15, 1999 Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 208 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93421 Dear Mr. Spagnolo: I have reviewed the comments received by the City from Ms. Christine Ferrara on the draft Water and Sewer Rate Study report. I have prepared some discussion regarding each item that was presented in her letter to assist the City in answering questions. The discussion is provided below in the fonnat presented by Ms. Ferrara. 1. The water rate analysis is based on consumption "remaining at constant level" (page 10). Tuckfield's scope says they would evaluate our water rates based on water conservation impacts (Task 5.3). Where is that analysis? Is a constant consumption , rate in sync with the city's water conservation goals? A conservation rate structure was developed and discussed with the City. Through these discussions, it was concluded to select a unifonn volume rate schedule, whi~h is the structure presented in the report. The unifonn volume rate structure is considered a conservation structure by the state of California in its Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) signed by many cities within the state. In addition to conservation, one of Arroyo Grande's goals ofthe rate study was to develop rates that are easy to administer and understand. The unifonn volume rate accomplishes this goal as well. 2. Shouldn't the City consider a tiered rate structure in which larger users pay more for water used? Many California communities have adopted tiered, structures as a means promoting water conservation. Tuckfield's Task 5.2 mentions this evaluation. Did I miss it? On a related note, shouldn't the City consider levying a pumping surcharge to residents in the higher pressure zones? (page 27). Tuckfield's scope (Task 4) mentions "relative responsibility of each customer class for each of the functional cost elements". How about higher rates for users with higher fire flow requirements? Tuckfi~ld's Task 4.3 notes this as a class distinction. As mentioned in 1. above, a tiered water conservation rate structure was discussed with the City where residential users that consume higher volumes of water pay a higher price for that water. -------""----.---.-.--- Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. October 15, 1999 - Page 2 Pumping surcharges for residents in higher pressure zones have been used on occasion but have been removed later because of public resistance. The city of Mesa, AZ is an example ofthis situation. City staff had indicated that a rate structure that was easy to administer and understand was a goal of the study. Additionally, City staffiIldicatesthat impact fees were initially set higher for customers within the higher pressure zones. Costs related to fire protection and fire flow requirements are allocated to customer classes based on cost responsibility. Review of the fire protection service for Arroyo Grande revealed that the City was not charging for private fire protection service. A monthly rate for customers that receive this benefit has been proposed which will raise their monthly bills. 3. I see that the capital improvement plan is based on the recent water master plan. Good. What about other capital cost such as a vehicle replacement, computer upgrades, office and maintenance yard improvements, new generators, coating/painting tanks, pumps station upgrades, other component replacement? Should the city maintain a CIPlEquipment Replacement Fund to avoid the need for bond financing in years to come? I'm not sure we are looking at all revenue needs in establishing water rates. "Other capital costs" have been designated in the rate study as routine capital expenditures. Water system routine capital is discussed on page 21 and is shown on line 8 of Tables W-5 and W-5A. Funding for these capital items are paid for thfough revenue and reserves of the Water Fund. A Wat~r Fund balance is planned for and is maintained at a minimum of 45 days of operation and maintenance expense, shown on line 14 of Table W -5 and W -5A. Routine capital costs are not generally bond financed because of the short lives ofthese types of assets, 4. The service main charge of $6 per front foot seems rea~y low (page 15). What is it based on? Another consultant is currently reviewing these charges. 5. TableW-3 prompted a question that remains through the balance of the document. Where are developer constructed improvements recognized? This issue hit home with Table W-ll. House was the "percent of project to serve new growth" arrived at? The Water Master Plan indicates a different distribution. There remains confusion about the Rancho Grande-Oro zone combination. If you install the piping to combine the zones, then the booster station upgrade and additional storage are unnecessary. Both sets of improvements still to appear in the master plan and in the financial analysis. Developer constructed improvements are not recognized in the study because they are not paid for by the City. Only projects that are paid for by the City are included in the study. -----~----_._.__.----_. , Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. October 15, 1999 Page 3 The percentage of the Water System Master Plan projects intended to serve growth was determined with assistance from the City's consulting engineer. Recent discussions with' the consulting engineer indicate that the percentages used in the rate study are still valid. Further discussions with City staff and the City's consulting engineer determine that the Rancho Grande-Oro zone combination will still require the booster station upgrade and additional storage. 6. Regarding the recommended revenue bond issue (page 17), are the costs to obtain voter approval included in the financial analysis? Will the City qualify for revenue bonds on top of our pending Lopez'Lake bond issuance? Costs of issuance for the revenue bonds are shown on Table W-3A, line 10. This line item is intended to include all costs of issuance including financial advisor, underwriter's discount, printing of official statement and bonds, bond counsel and certificate, and <?ther related costs. The costs of issuance have been estimated at 3 percent of the bond issue amount. Actual expenses may be more or less. Upon contracting a financial advisor for the bond issue, a more exact cost will be obtained. The City will qualify for revenue bond issuance for the projects based up01.1 an additional bonds test, which would usually be stated in prior revenue bond covenants. Generally, the water system can take on additional bonded debt as long as net revenues of the water system divided by totalfuture debt service is greater than 125 percent. The coverage shown on line 17 of Table W-5 and W- 5A greatly exceeds this percentage. Issuance of additional bonds for the Lopez Dam retrofit may not be relevant because the San Luis Obispo Flood Control District would likely issue those bonds. The debt associated with these bonds would be allocated to Arroyo Grande and paid for through the Lopez charges to customers. 7. Regarding the operations and maintenance costs listed in Table W-4, several of the projected categories looked quite low. Are sampling and testing requirements (line 1) expected to become more stringent? The other categories are largest of all. What is included in other? $5,000 per year for maintenance of reservoir.s seems low (line 13). Aren't any ofthe tanks scheduled to be recoated? Shouldn't we be putting money away now to anticipate a recoating? Wellsllines/pumps maintenance at $40,000 per year looks low (line 14). Couldn't one pump failure burn half the budget? How old are the wells? Line items for maintenance costs include material costs only and are shown in Table W-4 as developed in the City's budget. Salary and benefit costs are included with the category "Other". Repairs greater than $7,500 are submitted to City Council for approval. Recoating of tanks is considered a capital expenditure and would be included in the water system CIP if required. 8. I really didn't follow the flow offunds statements (Tables W-5 and W-6). Did you? . ~._--------~--~---- Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. October 15, 1999 Page 4 Page 22 provides an explanation of Tables W-5 and W-5A. Page 50 provides an explanation of Table 8-5. 9. I didn't follow the discussion on private fire connections on page 27. Aren't private lines a benefit to the City since we don't have to maintain or place them? The issue on private fire protection is that capacity was developed in the water system to provide fire flow that can only be used for these connections. Therefore, a rate has been proposed to recover the cost of providing the operation, maintenance, and capital costs from these customers. The total cost of providing private fire service is small. 10. Table W-8 got my attention. This could be interpreted that convalescent homes, for example, pay more to give multi family a break. I'd eliminate this table altogether unless absolutely necessary. The cost recovery shown on Table W-8 is considered good. To achieve 100 percent cost recovery for each class, a separate rate would be developed for each class. Upon development of individual rates by class, the rates varied by $0.01 per Ccf for most classes and no more than $0.02 per Ccffor others. Because these rates were so close, it was determined to have one rate for all classes. 11. In the discussion of Water Impact Fees, please mention the dev.eloper should be required to construct off site improvements in lieu of paying generic impact fees. The City requires developers to pay all water impact fees. The impact fees are not designed to recover the small distribution system costs (mains that are 8" and smaller, valves, services,and hydrants). Developers pay for off-site improvements in addition to impact fees. The impact fees are small in comparison to other city water impact fees. 12. I really take exception to the method applied in Table W-12. Please define "Existing Plant". If this is to include the entire water system, then replacement cost should be used, not only a $2.2 million depreciated cost. This looks like logic applied to sharing costs of a treatment facility, not an entire distribution system. How can we assign a capacity to existing and future customers? Where is Tuckfield trying to go with this table? Must be more logical way to get there. The definition of "Existing Plant" includes wells, pumps, reservoirs, and transmission mains of the water ,system, however excludes distribution facilities. Distribution facilities include 8" mains and smaller, valves, meters, services and hydrants as stated in footnote [a] on Table W-12. These assets are excluded because their costs are not necessarily utilized by city-wide new customer growth. Replacement cost of the water system is not used because asset records are not adequate enough to trend the existing water system original cost to a replacement cost value. To do so would require an inventory of the water system and application of a date of installation of each asset type. - --^'-----... ....._.~._-- ..--' . Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. October 15, 1999 - Page 5 As stated in footnote [h] on Table W-12, a water demand is assigned to customer classes that was developed in the Water System Master Plan. The water system, including existing and future assets, will have a certain capacity available to meet the projected water, demand of the customers. Each customer that connects to the water system will utilize capacity of the water system based on their water demand. Since the Water System Master Plan developed future water demand in terms of gallons per day (gpd), the water impact fee was calculated in terms of gpd for a single family residential customer with a 5/8" meter. The methodology utilized to calculate the impact fee follows American Water Works Association references modified to utilize water demand to establish the fee for a single family residential customer. 13. Table 8-2 indicates that no projects are planned for the sewer system after 2000. Is this true? Where are references to our sewer system master plan? How old is it? No sewer projects are planned beyond 2000. 14. In the proposed rate structure, where is sewage strength recognized? Tuckfield's . scope (Task 4.3) says this will be taken the consideration. What about customer classes for hospitals, restaurants, and users with private lift stations? Sewage strength is recognized through the development of units of service (volume, BOD, SS, number of customers) for each customer class. Annual costs of operation, maintenance, and capital are assigned to customer classes based on the estimated units of service. Rates are then developed to recover those assigned costs from the customer classes. The City provides sewage collection service only. Treatment is provided by the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. Because the City provides only the collection service, costs are recovered on a volume and customer basis. 15. I was surprised to see a flat rate structure recommended. I believe that most central coast communities based sewer rates on a percentage of water plus sewage strength. A volume charge rate structure has been recommended. Please refer to page 54 of the Water and Sewer Rate Study Report. 16. Regarding Tuckfield & Associates scope of services, I did not see much of an analysis of the City's current policies and practices for funding its operations, capital improvements, and debt service requirements. Are their recommendations regarding current policies? It has been recommended that City policy be adopted in two areas. The first is to establish a working capital reserve amount in the Water Fund and Sewer Fund of a minimum level of 45 days of operating and maintenance expense. Second it is recommended that the projects with costs in excess of $1 ,000,000 be debt financed and projects costing less than $1,000,000 should be paid for through water rate revenue. 17. Where is "guidance as to the appropriate method for updating such rates over time"? ~~- ---------- ------ . . Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. October 15, 1999 - Page 6 The item referred to was stated under the scope of work heading "Evaluation of System Capacity Charges" intended for updating capacity fees (impact fees) over time. A method for updating these fees over time is presented on page 36 ofthe Water and Sewer Rate Study report. 18. Where is evaluation of converting from bimonthly to monthly billing period ? The evaluation of converting from bi-monthly billing to monthly billing was not an item intended to be addressed by the City. No analysis was conducted or reported for this item. I hope that this discussion provides answers to the questions received on' the Water and Sewer Rate Study Report. If! can answer any other questions, please call me at (949) 760-9454. Very Truly Yours, TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES G. Clayton Tuckfield Project Manager 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES tj' SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16 - October 31, 1999. FUNDING: There is a $497,926.49 fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A - Cash Disbursement Listing ATTACHMENT B - October 22,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT C - October 22,1999 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks ATTACHMENT D - October 29,1999 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT E:.... October 29,1999 Accounts Payable Pre-paid Check ~n CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GENERAL FUND (010) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS City Government (Fund 010) PaIk Development Fee Fund (Fund 213) 4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee 4002 - City aerk Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222) 4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fund 4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225) 4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System 4120 - Financial Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230) 4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax 4130 - Community Development Police Grant Fund (Fund 271) 4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant 4140 - Management Information System 4203 ~ Federal COPS Hiring Grant 4145 - Non Departmental 4204 - Federal Local Law Enforcement Public Safety (Fund 010) 4201 - Police ENTERPRISE FUNDS 4211 - Fire Sewer Fund (Fund 612) 4212 - Building & Safety 4610 - Sewer Maintenance 4213 - Government Buildings Water Fund (Fund 640) Public Works (Fund 010) 4710 - Water Administration 4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4711 - Water Production 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4712 - Water Distribution 4304 - Street Lighting Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4305 - Automotive Shop 4750 - Lopez Administration Parks & Recreation (Fund 010) , 4420 - Parks CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 4421 - Recreation 5501-5599 - Park Projects 4422 - General Recreation 5601-5699 - Streets Projects 4423 - Pre-School Program 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects 4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer /StreetProjects 4425 - Children in Motion 5901-5999 - Water Projects 4430 - Sota Sport Complex 4460 - Parkway Maintenance Dept. Index fDr Council.xIa . ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS 7M de PeWJd 01 ()~ 16 7~ ()~ 31, 1999 November 9, 1999 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period October 16 to October 31, 1999. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. October 22, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks #92733-92833 B 138,241.49 Payroll Checks and Payroll Benefit Checks C 230,564.86 368,806.35 October 29, 1999 Accounts Payable Cks #92854-92939 D 307,348.87 Less Payroll transfer included in Attachment C (178,288.73) Accounts Payable Pre-paid Check E 60.00 129,120.14 Two Week Total $ 497.926.49 ATTACHMENT B VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHE~K VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92733 10/22/99 035412 4 WAY FLOORS RECARPET UPSTAIRS-CC 010,4213.5604 1,896.00 1,896.00 92734 10/22/99 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. DATA LINE-473-0379 010.4140,5303 214.07 214.07 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-REARDON/HEFFERNON 010,4130.5315 90,00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-ROMANO 010.4301. 5315 45,00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-K,SMITH 220,4303.5315 45.00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-BICKEL 010,4213.5315 45.00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-WETMORE 010.4002,5315 45,00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-DONALDSON/HOSS 010,4425.5315 270,00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-SHEELEY 284,4103.5315 45,00 92735 10/22/99 000898 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONS DRUG SCREEN-NEFF 010,4421. 5315 45,00 630,00 92736 10/22/99 101454 ADLESON,HESS & KELLY PROF , LEGAL SVCS-LITIGATION 010,0000,2011 4,220.11 92736 10/22/99 101454 ADLESON,HESS & KELLY PROF. LEGAL SVCS-LITIGATION 010,0000.2011 4,393.69 92736 10/22/99 101454 ADLESON,HESS & KELLY PROF. LEGAL SVCS-LITIGATION 010,0000.2011 61,49 92736 10/22/99 101454 ADLESON,HESS & KELLY PROF , LEGAL SVCS-LITIGATION 010,0000,2011 1,176,32 92736 10/22/99 101454 ADLESON,HESS & KELLY PROF , LEGAL SVCS-LITIGATION 010.0000,2011 8.337,66 92736 10/22/99 101454 ADLESON,HESS & KELLY PROF. LEGAL SVCS-LITIGATION 010.0000,2011 469.67 18,658,94 92737 10/22/99 100584 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA COR OXY/ACET,GASES 010,4305.5303 45,02 92737 10/22/99 100584 AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA COR OXY/ACET.GASES 640.4712,5610 45,01 90.03 92738 10/22/99 040092 ALLAN HANCOCK COLLEGE REGIS-HAMILTON CRIME SCENE 010.4201.5501 190,00 190,00 92739 10/22/99 003042 AMERICAN EQUIPMENT SVCS DUMP BIN 010.4213,5303 1,250,00 1,250.00 92740 10/22/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP SURVEY VEST/GLOVES/CROAKIES 010,4420,5255 163,45 92740 10/22/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP UVEX COMO MIRROR LENS 010,4420.5255 144,79 308.24 92741 10/22/99 004134 AMERICAN WATER WORKS AS AWWA DUES-TAYLOR #139281 640,4710,5503 45,00 45,00 92742 10/22/99 004680 STEVE ANDREWS REIMB.TUITION/BOOKS-ANDREWS 010,420i.5502 77,12 77 ,12 92743 10/22/99 100902 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER 15#C02 FILL/SVC-FIRE EXTING, 010,4211,5303 25.00 25,00 . 92744 10/22/99 101447 B & H COMMUNICATIONS,IN CREEKWALK WALK-PHASE 1A 350,5607.7001 20,208,60 20,208,60 92745 10/22/99 101453 BASSCO SPORTING GOODS VOLLEYBALLS 010.4424.5251 25,17 25.17 92746 10/22/99 010628 BENS COMPUTER OUTLET 15 FT. CAT 5 UTP CABLE 010,4140.5602 8,85 92746 10/22/99 010628 BENS COMPUTER OUTLET 8 PORT 10BASE-T HUB 010.4140,5602 95,45 104.30 92747 10/22/99 021684 C.COAST MEDICAL SUPPLY OXYGEN FILL H 010.4211.5206 24.00 24,00 92748 10/22/99 018876 CA,ST,DEPT.TRANSPORTATI SIGNAL MAINT/POWER 010,4304.5303 466.86 92748 10/22/99 018876 CA,ST,DEPT,TRANSPORTATI SIGNAL MAINT/POWER 010.4304.5402 322.59 789,45 92749 10/22/99 014508 CALIF. APPLIED TECHNOLOG INSPECT/CALIBRATE RADARS 010,4201,5603 363,21 363.21 92750' 10/22/99 016146 CALIF.HWY PRODUCTS & SI PAINT 220,4303.5613 214.15 214.15 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92751 10/22/99 016302 CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY CMC CREWS-SEPT 220,4303.5303 3,871,53 3,871,53 92752 10/22/99 100842 CENTRAL & PACIFIC COAST OXYGEN H FILL 010,4211,5206 24,00 24,00 92753 10/22/99 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY EXTEND , MOP HEADS 010.4213.5604 34,11 34,11 92754 10/22/99 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010,4420,5601 33,17 33,17 92755 10/22/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPL,PRESSURE TRANSDUCER 612,4610.5610 270.00 270,00 92756 10/22/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010,4212,5201 15,00 92756 10/22/99 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4001.5201 15,00 30,00 92757 10/22/99 100789 CINDY DEAN REF,PARK DEPOSIT-DEAN 010.0000,4354 25.00 25,00 92758 10/22/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO SNACK SUPPLIES-AM/PM 010,4425,5259 200,00 200,00 92759 10/22/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. REPL,TURN SIGNAL 640,4712.5601 241,74 241,74 92760 10/22/99 100288 EINSTEIN'S COMPUTER OUT HP LASERJET PRINTER 010,4140,6101 1,518,00 1,518.00 92761 10/22/99 101451 FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER PRE-EMPLOY PHYSICAL-SHEELEY 284.4103,5315 133,00 133,00 92762 10/22/99 101254 MARK FARIAS REIMB,MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4211.5501 48,44 48.44 92763 10/22/99 033072 FARM SUPPLY CO. FEBCO REPR,KIT 010,4420,5605 18,23 18,23 92764 10/22/99 034352 FIRST NAT'L BANK CENT.C LEASE PURCHASE HONEYWELL 010,4145,5803 23,732,26 23,732,26 92765 10/22/99 100881 FIVE CITIES DUPLICATE REF.C/B DEPOSIT-5 CITIES DUP 010,0000,2206 250,00 92765 10/22/99 100881 FIVE CITIES DUPLICATE EXTRA CLEANING-5 CITIES DUP 010,4213,5105 8,40- 241. 60 92766 10/22/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DOOR STOP 010,4213,5604 53,09 92766 10/22/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP. KEYS 010,4305,5255 10,46 92766 10/22/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP, KEYS 010,4305,5255 12,07 75,62 92767 10/22/99 036114 FULTON FIRE ENGR, INC. REVIEW FIRE PLANS-LUCKY'S 010,4212.5303 150,00 150.00 92768 10/22/99 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE REPL,LIFT GATE 010,4420,5601 442,66 442,66 92769 10/22/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS LUG NUTS 010,4305,5255 14,11 92769 10/22/99 038376 GRAND AUTO PARTS BULBS 010,4305.5255 4,18 18,29 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4301. 5201 37.79 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 90.14 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 483,59 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 214,48 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 130,50 . 92771 10/22/99, 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4420,5201 5,09 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 16,67 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 26.28 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130.5201 5,79- 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120,5201 13.38 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 10,70 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4101.5201 36,00 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 84.34 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 32.16- 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 6,42 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4301,5201 11,97 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 44,88 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 612,4610.5201 2,07 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 160,85 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 50.36 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 209,97 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 ,94- 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 2,89 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4301. 5201 8,45 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4301. 5201 26.22 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFtCE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 167.31- 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 160.82 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130,5201 387,62 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 7,49 92771 10/22/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4101.5201 5.36 2,028,13 92772 10/22/99 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SEWER-CORP YARD 612,0000.4751 81.16 81.16 92773 10/22/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-AUTO 010.4305,5403 19.04 92773 10/22/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-F. CHIEF 010,4211,5403 38,55 92773 10/22/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-STREETS SUPER 220,4303.5403 42.79 100,38 92774 10/22/99 039992 DONNA HAMILTON CRIME SCENE INVEST-HAMILTON 010,4201.5501 100,00 100,00 92775 10/22/99 040014 HAMON OVERHEAD DOOR COM SVC DOORS/DRAWBAR 010,4211. 5604 1,528,72 1,528,72 92776 10/22/99 039584 HPC/EAGLE ENERGY WELL PUMP OIL 640,4711.5603 118,13 118.13 92777 10/22/99 044050 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS,I COPIER MAINT 010.4301,5602 539,87 539,87 92778 10/22/99 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES DP ON LINE TRANSACTIONS-9/99 010.4201. 5606 172,57 172,57 92779 10/22/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY EWS MEETING SUPPLIES 010,4001.5504 13,16 92779 10/22/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY KITCHEN SUPPLIES 010,4211,5255 19,98 92779 10/22/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY MEETING SUPPLIES-VILLAGE GRN 010.4001. 5504 8.33 92779 10/22/99 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY CREEK CLEANING SUPPLIES 220.4303,5613 36,72 78.19 92780 10/22/99 047350 JUSTICE TRANING INSTITU REGIS-D,SANCHEZ SGT,GROUP LEAD 010,4201. 5501 243,00 243,00 92781 10/22/99 101448 RON LIVINGSTON REF,L/SCAPE BOND-580 DOS CERRO 010,0000,2210 1,200,00 1,200,00 92782 10/22/99 053390 M&MLOCK&KEY REKEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 010.4213,5604 92,19 92,19 92783 10/22/99 101391 MAINO CONSTRUCTION CO PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL-2ND PAY 350.5606,7001 35,234,35 35,234.35 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92784 10/22/99 054482 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND 10 ATTEND-MSA MEETING 220.4303,5501 140. 00 140,00 92785 10/22/99 101252 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS L/DIST PHONE-5400 010.4145,5403 38.32 92785 10/22/99 101252 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS L/DIST PHONE-5400 010,4145.5403 103,21 141. 53 92786 10/22/99 056238 JOHN MERSHON BASIC RECORDS-MERSHON 010.4201. 5501 6.23,90 623,90 92787 10/22/99 ' 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE LUBE/OIL/SAFETY INSPECT 010,4301. 5601 45.41 45.41 92788 10/22/99 056784 MIDSTATE ELECTRONICS RESISTOR PACKAGES/TUBING 010,4211.5603 41. 66 41. 66 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE KRAZY GLUE/LIGHT BULBS/FILTER 010,4430,5605 17.95 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLT CUTTERS/PIPE WRENCH 010.4430,5273 40,99 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC,SUPPLYS 010,4213,5604 5,31 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT/PAINTING SUPPLIES 010,4213,5604 13,73 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 010.4212,5255 4,77 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PVC CAPS 010,4420.5605 3.54 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NOZZLES/NIPPLES/ELBOWS 010,4420,5605 48,37 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUSHINGS/PVC TEES/COUPLINGS 010,4420,5605 12.16 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BATTERIES/SUPER GLUE 010.4211,5603 22,37 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CLEANING SUPPLIES 010,4213.5604 11,45 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLAGGING TAPE 220,4303.5613 4,05 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLAGGING TAPE 220.4303.5613 44.59 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PVC CEMENT, ELBOW, TEE 010.4420,5605 14,11 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLANGE COVER/TEFLON TAPE 010,4213.5604 5,95 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUST/POLLEN MASKS 640,4712,5255 6,42 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ANTI-SIEZE HARDWARE 220.4303,5255 6,42 92789 10/22/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TROWEL 640,4712.5273 4,28 266,46 92790 10/22/99 100634 MIRACLE RECREATION EQPT PLAY EQUIPMENT 350.5506,7001 3,819,67 3,819,67 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010,4213,5604 96,00 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010,4213,5143 23,75 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213,5604 28.00 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220,4303.5143 137.50 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220.4303,5255 42,00 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 640.4712,5143 85,10 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 612.4610.5143 32.50 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010,4420.5143 99.00 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010,4305,5143 119,75 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 18,86 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010,4102.5255 7,30 92791 10/22/99 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 64.82 754,58 92792 10/22/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE 579 HALCYON-TREES 010.4420.5605 225,00 92792 10/22/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE PRUNE GRAND-ALDER TO HALCYON 010,4420.5303 566,92 92792 10/22/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE PRUNE GRAND AVE SOUTH TREES 010,4420,5303 600.00 92792 10/22/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE PRUNE GRAND AVE 495-516 TREES 010,4420.5303 587,25 92792 10/22/99 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE PRUNE GRAND AVE 618-718 TREES 010,4420,5303 589,50 2,568,67 92793 10/22/99 061814 NOBLE SAW,INC, AIR FILTERS 220,4303,5603 66.86 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92793 10/22/99 061814 NOBLE SAW, INC, RIDER PLATES/SPRING/SPOOL/HEAD 220,4303,5603 342,34 92793 10/22/99 061814 NOBLE SAW, INC, SAW BLADES/BUSHING 640,4712,5610 100,02 92793 10/22/99 061814 NOBLE SAW, INC. FUEL TANK 010.4420,5603 136.74 645.96 92794 10/22/99 101275 JAMES O'DONNELL CO, 16 HRS, PATCH 7 REPAIR HEATER 010.4213,5604 560.00 92794 10/22/99 101275 JAMES O'DONNELL CO, MATERIAL FOR PATCH & REPAIRS 010,4213.5604 56,00 92794 10/22/99 101275 JAMES O'DONNELL CO. 50% DUE FOR RAIL INSTALLATION 010,4213 ,5604 1,025.00 1,641,00 92795 10/22/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL RADIO 451-0183 010,4145,5403 183.63 92795 10/22/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3953 010.4211.5403 31. 46 92795 10/22/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3956 220,4303.5403 31. 46 92795 10/22/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3959 640,4710.5403 31.46 92795 10/22/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 841-3960 010,4211,5403 31.46 92795 10/22/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PAY PHONE-489-9816 010.4145,5403 41. 66 351.13 92796 10/22/99 064258 PAGING NETWORK OF LA PAGING SVCS-9/99 010,4421.5602 78,65 92796 10/22/99 064258 PAGING NETWORK OF LA PAGING SVCS-9/99 010,4145,5403 25,80 104,45 92797 10/22/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS TYPESETTING/GRAPHICS 010.4102,5306 38.61 92797 10/22/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPIES-WATER SYS.MASTER 350,5904.7701 48,40 92797 10/22/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPIES-WATER SYS.RESOURCES 010,4301.5201 158,06 92797 10/22/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COPIES-CREEKSIDE PATH 010,4301. 5201 18.79 263,86 92798 10/22/99 067782 DENNIS PORTE PUPPY PLAY SCHOOL CLASSES 010,4424,5351 507,50 507,50 92799 10/22/99 069420 R & T SPECIALTY,INC, DARE RIBBONS/SUPPORTER SIGN 010,4201. 5504 74,92 74,92 92800 10/22/99 100928 SAGE PUBLICATIONS,INC. SUBCRIPT-CRIMINAL JOURNAL 010.4201,5503 94,00 94,00 92801 10/22/99 073320 SAN JOAQUIN SUPPLY CO. BOWL CLEANER 010,4213.5604 46,76 92801 10/22/99 073320 SAN JOAQUIN SUPPLY CO, CR:CLEANING SUPPLIES 010,4213,5604 24.22- 22,54 92802 10/22/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY,NE CLASS ADS-AM/PM 010,4421,5504 334,50 334,50 92803 10/22/99 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS FIELD MARKING PAINT 010,4430,5255 134.65 92803 10/22/99 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS FIELD MARKING PAINT 010.4430,5255 89.77 224,42 92804 10/22/99 073164 DAVID SANCHEZ SGT,AS GROUP LEADER-SANCHEZ 010,4201.5501 327,00 327,00 92805 10/22/99 076440 SANTA CRUZ ASSOC, LTD , 991 GUN TIMERS 010.4201. 5601 43.30 43,30 92806 10/22/99 076848 LENNY DE LOS SANTOS TENNIS CLASSES-DE LOS SANTOS 010.4424.5351 142,80 142.80 92807 10/22/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB, GASOLINE/DIESEL FUEL 010,4211. 5608 112, 94 112, 94 92'808 10/22/99 078234 SECURED STORAGE STORAGE CHARGES 010.4002,5303 24,00 24.00 92809 10/22/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC WATER METERS 640,4712,5207 665,42 665.42 92810 10/22/99 101449 SIGNS OF SUCCESS 3 GRAFFITI GUARD ON SSC SIGNS 010.4420,5605 114.00 114,00 -~- ---.--------- VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92811 10/22/99 101452 CENEN S, SISON KEY DEPOSIT REFUND-R-15 SISON 010.0000,4354 50.00 50,00 92812 10/22/99 101039 SLO CNTY FIRE DEPARTMEN TEX/MATERIALS FEE-TRAINING 010,4211,5501 40,00 40.00 92813 10/22/99 100124 SLO CNTY OFFICE OF EDUC LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING 010.4201. 5315 12.00 12.00 92814 10/22/99 073660 SLOCO DATA, INC, MAILING SVCS-CITY NEWSLETTER 010.4002,5201 90.00 90,00 92815 10/22/99 101450 SLOCOMOTION PRINTING-DARE SHIRTS 010.4201.5504 260.00 260,00 92816 10/22/99 080500 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBL REGIS-MERSHON BASIC RECORDS 010.4201. 5501 77.50 77 ,50 92817 10/22/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY RED STICK ON LETTERS 010,4420,5601 2,34 2,34 92818 10/22/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010,4145,5401 34.88 92818 10/22/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010,4145,5401 14,30 92818 10/22/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010,4145.5401 98.29 92818 10/22/99 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145,5401 42,93 190.40 92819 10/22/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5201 92,50 92819 10/22/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4201. 5201 199,46 92819 10/22/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4201,5201 88,70 92819 10/22/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5201 29,43- 92819 10/22/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4421. 5201 24.83 92819 10/22/99 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4421.5201 35,44 411. 50 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS REPR,RADIO 010.4211.5603 240,00 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS REPL,KEYBOARD SWITCH 010.4140.5607 57.00 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS MAXTRAC 100 LOWBAND RADIO 010,4301. 5601 519,09 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS LOW VOLTAGE CHARGE PLUG 010.4201,5601 34,00 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS BELKIN SWITCH 010,4201. 5603 95.45 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS CORNER STROBE 010,4301. 5601 290,91 92820 10/22/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS NICAD BATTERY 010,4305,5601 10,73 1,247.18 92821 10/22/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010.4305,5601 15.00 92821 10/22/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010,4301. 5601 82.50 92821 10/22/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010,4201,5601 183.95 92821 10/22/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 640.4712,5601 45,00 92821 10/22/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 220,4303,5601 62,00 92821 10/22/99 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010,4421. 5601 8,50 396,95 92822 10/22/99 101446 SANDY THOMAS REF. PUPPY PLAY SCHOOL-THOMAS 010,0000,4605 55,00 55,00 92823 10/22/99 086034 TRI-CITY DISPOSAL SERVI DISPOSAL SERVICES 010,4213.5303 380,21 92823 10/22/99 086034 TRI-CITY DISPOSAL SERVI DISPOSAL SERVICES 010,4213,5303 145,96 526,17 92824 10/22/99 086346 TROESH READY MIX PLASTER SAND 010,4420,5605 386,87 386.87 92825 10/22/99 101009 UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY TOWELS/LINERS 010,4213,5604 382,59 382,59, 92826 10/22/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK, INC, HUNTER ROTOR SPRINKLERS 010.4430.5605 72,84 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92826 10/22/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC, HUNTER ROTOR SPRINKLERS 010,4430,5605 132.92 205,76 92827 10/22/99 087672 UNITED RENTALS GRINDER BRUSHES 220,4303,5255 73.21 73.21 92828 10/22/99 088826 PEGGY VALKO ART CLASSES 010,4424,5351 529.60 529,60 92829 10/22/99 101443 NANCY VICARIO REF,C/B DEPSOIT-VlCARIO 010,0000.2206 250,00 92829 10/22/99 101443 NANCY VICARIO BLDG,SUPER-VlCARIO 010,0000,4355 121. 50- 92829 10/22/99 101443 NANCY VICARIO EXTRA CLEANING/REPR,STOVE 010,4213,5105 29,44- 99,06 92830 10/22/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/SAFETY INSP 010,4305,5601 20.94 92830 10/22/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/SAFETY INSPECTION 010,4301.5601 271,27 292,21 92831 10/22/99 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CA CODE UPDATES 010.4003,5503 84,73 84.73 92832 10/22/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO COPY PAPER 010.4102,5255 197,07 92832 10/22/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO COPY PAPER 010,4102.5255 394,14 591,21 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO BOOKS-TRAFFIC & ENGINEERING 010.4301. 5201 6.23 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO PHOTO PROCESSING 010.4130,5201 20,90 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO BUDGET POSTAGE 010.4120,5201 40,30 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4301.5201 21. 55 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO TC MEETING MILEAGE REIMB, 010,4301.5608 5,89 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO FILM-CODE ENFORCEMENT 010,4130.5201 37,48 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4421. 5501 25.00 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO MEETING SUPPLIES 010,4120,5501 23.72 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO MEETING SUPPLIES 010,4421.5501 4,75 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO PHOTO PROCESSING/CASE 010,4130,5201 27,54 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO ASCE LUNCH MEETING 010.4301. 5501 14,00 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO GOLD COAST CITY MEETING 010.4002,5501 40.00 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO SUPPLIES 010.4001,5201 2,99 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO PHOTO PROCESSING-CODE ENFORCE 010,4130.5201 22,22 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO TC MEETING MILEAGE REIMB 010,4301,5608 5,89 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5201 5.49 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO MICRO CASSETTE TAPES 010,4130,5201 8.55 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4120,5201 6.00 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO MEETING SUPPLIES 010,4301. 5501 37,55 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 2,46 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO PHOTO PROCESSING-CODE ENFORCE 010.4130,5201 10.45 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO KITCHEN SUPPLIES 010,4101.5201 25.38 92833 10/22/99 093542 JACKIE YACONO PHONE CORDS 010,4101.5201 9,63 403.97 TOTAL CHECKS 138,241,49 -----~---- VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8 10/20/99 08:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 70,536.61 220 STREETS FUND 5,160,62 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 1,459,93 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 59,311. 02 612 SEWER FUND 385,73 640 WATER FUND 1,387,58 TOTAL 138,241.49 -------~------,- ATTACHMENT C CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 10/01/99 TO 10/14/99 1 0/22/99 FUND 010 204,220.80 Salaries Full time 133,046,31 FUND 220 10,296,30 Salaries Part-Time 20,912,80 FUND 284 2,491,74 Salaries Over-Time 7,560,29 FUND 612 3,653,59 Holiday Pay 540,70 FUND 640 9,932.43 . Sick Pay 3,367,17 230,594,86 Annual Leave Pay - Vacation Buy Back - Vacation Pay 4,721.41 Comp Pay 5,896.43 Annual Leave Pay 967,93 PERS Retirement 14,132,32 Social Security 12,323.83 PARS Retirement 250.37 State Disability Ins. 215.41 Health Insurance 20,623,46 Dental Insurance 3,251,66 Vision Insurance 641,07 Life Insurance 534,11 Long Term Disability 822,95 Uniform Allowance Car Allowance 500,00 Council Expense - Employee Assistance 156.64 Motor Pay 100,00 Total: 230,564,86 -------~~-~--_. ATTACHMENT D VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 10/26/99 16:39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 170 10/21/99 005616 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE G,A,REIMB 10/14/99 PR 011,0000,1015 169,785,89 169,785.89 171 10/22/99 002340 JOHN ALLEN W/SHOP-J.ALLEN 010.4201.5501 50,00 50,00 172 10/22/99 100603 WILLIAM FULLER EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION-FULLER 010,4001. 5504 25.00 25,00 173 10/22/99. 005616 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE G,A,REIMB,ADJ FIT-10/14/99 P/R 011.0000.1015 8,502,84 8,502.84 92854 10/29/99 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXY/ACET BOTTLES 010.4305,5303 14,00 14.00 92855 10/29/99 000780 ACCURATE FLO & MOTION HYDRO FITTINGS 640,4712,5603 388,86 388,86 92856 10/29/99 068127 AG PRINT N COPY 12 SET COLORED COPIES-CREEK 010.4301. 5201 61. 00 92856 10/29/99 068127 AG PRINT N COPY COLORED COPIES-GRAND AVE 350,5603,7701 29,00 90,00 92857 10/29/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP IVY BLOCK LOTION 220,4303,5255 137.58 92857 10/29/99 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP AMEREX BRACKET 010,4420,5603 29.23 166,81 92858 10/29/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS DELGADO SVCS-10/15 220.4303.5303 608,00 92858 10/29/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS BARRY SVCS-10/15 640.4710.5303 304,90 92858 10/29/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS BARRY SVCS-10/15 612.4610.5303 203,27 92858 10/29/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS DELGADOSVCS-10/8 220,4303,5303 608,00 92858 10/29/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS BARRY SVCS-10/8 640,4710.5303 281. 45 92858 10/29/99 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS BARRY SVCS-10/8 612,4610.5303 187,63 2,193,25 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER DINNER 010.421"1.5501 15.70 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LODGING 010.4211,5501 42,00 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER PROF,PUBLlCATION/BNI PUBLlCATE 010.4301,5503 461.01 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER AARVIN TONER STORE 010,4301. 5602 82,00 92859 ;1.0/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GASOLINE 640,4712,5501 29.00 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MEALS 640,4712,5501 21. 54 92859 10/29/99 OD9008 BANKCARD CENTER 22 SONY BACKUP TAPES-SERVER 010,4140.5602 470,79 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER POSTAGE-VILLAGE GLEN EIR 010.0000.2352 33.75 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER PANEL LUNCH 010.4421,5255 41. 83 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER FLOWERS-STORTON 010.4421.5255 25.20 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER SLO LITIGATION/MEDIATION ROOM 010,0000,2011 562.64 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MICROWAVE 010,4101.5201 122.09 92859 10/29/99 009008 BANKCARD CENTER H,P,LASER PRINTER 284,4103.6101 1,591.94 3,499.49 92860 10/29/99 009750 BRENDA BARROW HALLOWEEN SUPPLIES 010.4424,5252 500,00 500.00 92861 10/29/99 101453 BASSCO SPORTING GOODS PLATE EXTENSIONS/FLIP A SCORE 010,4424,5257 78,69 78,69 92862 10/29/99 010374 BEAR CAT MFG. INC. REPL,APPLlCATOR HOSES 220,4303,5603 577,55 577 . 55 92863 10/29/99 011426 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS COPIES 010,4301.5201 5.11 5,11 92864 10/29/99 012168 BOXX EXPRESS SHIPPING 010,4201. 5201 66,90 66,90 92865 10/29/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER WIRE GRINDING WHEEL 220,4303.5255 32.97 92865 10/29/99 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER LAGS/STP 220,4303.5613 83.24 116,21 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 10/26/99 16:39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92866 10/29/99 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-OCT 1-15 225,4553.5507 1,644,25 1,644,25 92867 10/29/99 017202 CA, ST ,BOARD OF EQUALI ZA DIESEL FUEL TAX 1Q-99/00 010.0000,1202 269.64 269.64 92868 10/29/99 018330 CA.ST,DEPT,OF JUSTICE SEPT, FINGERPRINTS 010,4201.5324 200.00 200,00 92869 10/29/99 016146 CALIF,HWY PRODUCTS & SI PAINT/GLASS BEADS 220,4303,5613 632.24 92869 10/29/99 016146 CALIF,HWY PRODUCTS & SI GLASS BEADS 220.4303,5613 474.10 1,106.34 92870 10/29/99 019812 ARON CANBY WELDING SIDEWALK DRAIN PLATE/FRAME 220,4303.5613 437,32 437,32 92871 10/29/99 023010 RICHARD CHECANSKY REIMB.BOOKS 010,4201.5502 141. 31 141. 31 92872 10/29/99 077376 SUSAN SAXE- CLIFFORD PSYCHOLOGICAL EVAL-MooRE 010,4201,5315 325.00 325,00 92873 10/29/99 023946 CLINICAL LAB.OF SAN BER WATER SAMPLES 640,4710.5310 389,00 389,00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10,00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303,5307 10,00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220,4303,5307 10.00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303,5307 10.00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220,4303,5307 10.00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220,4303.5307 10,00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220,4303.5307 10,00 92874 10/29/99 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220,4303.5307 '10,00 80.00 92875 10/29/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPL,REMOTE TERMINAL UNIT 612,4610,5610 225,00 92875 10/29/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPR/TROUBLE SHOOT-SCADA SYS 640,4711.5603 135.00 92875 10/29/99 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS REPL,TRANSDUCER 612,4610.5610 1, 024 . 06 1,384.06 92876 10/29/99 026130 CRAWFORD MULTARI CLARK PROF.SVCS-9/99 010.0000,2352 3,500.00 3,500.00 92877 10/29/99 026208 CREDIT BUREAU REPORTS, CREDIT CHECK-MOORE 010.4201,5315 7.00 92877 10/29/99 026208 CREDIT BUREAU REPORTS, CREDIT CHECK-NEFF 010,4421. 5315 7,00 92877 10/29/99 026208 CREDIT BUREAU REPORTS, CREDIT CHECK-SHEELEY 284,4103.5315 7,00 21. 00 92878 10/29/99 027924 D,A,R.E,AMERICA DARE RULER/BOOKMARK 010.4201,5504 35,77 35,77 92879 10/29/99 101460 DON DECHANCE REF,SEWER INSTL-DECHANCE 010,0000.4762 1,220,00 92819 10/29/99 101460 DON DECHANCE REF,SEWER INSTL-DECHANCE 010,0000.4762 135,00 1,355,00 92880 10/29/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO REIMB.AM/PM SUPPLIES-DEL VAGLI 010.4425,5255 82,90 92880 10/29/99 100896 LISA DEL VAGLIO REIMB.MILEAGE-DEL VAGLIO 010.4421,5501 97.03 179,93 92881 10/29/99 029484 DIESELRO INC. COUPLING COVER 220.4303.5603 115,90 115,90 92882 10/29/99 029562 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY AM/PM CRAFT SUPPLIES 010,4425.5255 17,11 17,11 92883 10/29/99 031044 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTAN MONTEGO STREET COMPACTION TEST 350.5622,7401 130.00 130.00 92884 10/29/99 100147 ENVICOM CORP. PROF.SVCS-AG GENERAL PLAN 010.4130.5303 1,615,59 1,615.59 -------- VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 10/26/99 16:39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92885 10/29/99 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN VALVE EXERCISE COUNTER 640,4712.5603 139,43 92885 10/29/99 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN GATE VALVE/COUPLINGS 640,4712,5610 412.11 551,54 92886 10/29/99 033702 TERENCE FIBICH FUEL/DINNER 010.4211.5501 42,74 42.74 92887 10/29/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 55043 010,4002,5301 78,00 92887 10/29/99 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 55046 010,4002,5301 106,50 184,50 92888 10/29/99 101457 RAYE FLEMING REF,PARK DEPOSIT-FLEMING 010.0000,4354 25.00 25,00 92889 10/29/99 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP . KEYS 010,4201,5601 5.41 5,41 92890 10/29/99 036786 GAR BAR LIMITED DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT-9/99 010,0000,2220 2,958.00 2,958,00 92891 10/29/99 037284 GINA'S ITALIAN RESTAURA MAYORS MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4001.5504 77 ,22 77 ,22 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 20,36 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 321,71 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4201. 5201 52,46 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4201. 5201 10,70 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 8,26 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 9.52 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 56.35 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 26.28- 92892 10/2'9/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 40,71- 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101. 5201 34.28 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103.5201 132,46 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103,5201 18.23 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 116.74 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 010,4130,5201 15,42 92892 10/29/99 038454 GRAND OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 284,4103,5201 40,22 769.72 92893 10/29/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PKS DIR 010.4421.5602 38.92 92893 10/29/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CM 010,4145.5403 18.55 92893 10/29/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PW,DIR 010.4301,5403 29.92 92893 10/29/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATER SUPER 612,4610.5403 31,38 92893 10/29/99 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATER SUPER 640,4710.5403 31. 38 150.15 92894 10/29/99 100583 NANCY HAGLUND LUNCH/DINNER-HAGLUND 010.4211.5501 23.88 23,88 92895 10/29/99 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220,4303,5613 181. 64 92895 10/29/99 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 243,39 92895 10/29/99 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 120,19 92895 10/29/99 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220,4303.5613 120.49 92895 10/29/99 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 78,83 744.54 92896 10/29/99 042354 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE BEVERAGE HOLDER 010.4201,5601 52,67 52,67 92897 10/29/99 044304 IMPULSE MFG, REPR,SIDEWALK PLATES 220.4303,5613 394,34 394,34 92898 10/29/99 045708 INTOXIMETERS, INC. ALCO-SENSOR MOUTHPIECES 010,4201. 5255 100.40 100.40 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 10/26/99 16:39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92899 10/29/99 101459 CHARLES KLEIN REF,PARK DEPOSIT-KLEIN 010.0000.4354 50.00 50,00 92900 10/29/99 101456 BOB LORD REF.PARK DEPOSIT-LORD 010,0000,4354 25.00 25.00 92901 10/29/99 101252 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHONE 473-2194/473-5101 010.4145.5403 77 ,00 77.00 92902 10/29/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE ALIGN 010,4301.5601 29.95 92902 10/29/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE REPL.BATTERY 220.4303.5601 286,97 92902 10/29/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE ROTORS/GREASE SEALS/ALIGN 010.4201. 5601 298,99 92902 10/29/99 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE REPL,HOOD CABLE 220,4303.5601 49,61 665.52 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CLEANING SUPPLIES 010,4420.5605 40.09 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TILE MORTER 220,4303.5613 9.43 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TILE MORTER 220.4303.5613 9,43 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLOAT 220.4303.5273 7.71 92903 10/29/99 057096 MlNER'S"ACE HARDWARE CONCRETE PATCH 220,4303,5613 4.71 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BALL VALVE/CONNECTORS 010,4420,5605 24.83 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDW~E CR:FLEX COUPLER/ELBOW 010,4420.5605 3.97- 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE LlMEAWAY 640.4712.5255 4,17 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CONCRETE PATCH 640.4712,5604 4.71 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FLOOR SCRAPER/CORK ROLL 220.4303,5255 115.36 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUILDING MATERIALS 640,4712,5604 21. 61 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CHISEL SETS 220.4303.5273 19,39 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE REDI MIX/ELBOW/MISC,SUPPLIES 010,4420.5605 16,55 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRILL BITS 220.4303.5273 17,35 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COUPLER/CONNECTOR/PLUMBING 010,4420,5605 1.27 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE C2 BATTERY 640,4712.5255 19,24 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DRYWALL SCREWS/MISC,HARDWARE 640,4712.5604 8,10 92903 10/29/99 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 640.4712.5610 2,67 322,65 92904 10/29/99 101126 MORRO GROUP,INC, RESV,#l OAK TREE ANALYSIS 350.5903,7501 1,237.50 1,237,50 92905 10/29/99 058072 CITY OF MORROR BAY MIS TECH SVCS-6-12/10/15 010.4140.5303 4,126.92 92905 10/29/99 058072 CITY OF MORROR BAY MIS TECH SVCS,BENEFITS 010,4140.5303 1,221.98 5,348,90 92906 10/29/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD WHEEL NUT 010.4201. 5601 32,82 92906 10/29/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD WHEEL ASSEMBLY 010.4201,5601 75,40 92906 10/29/99 058578 MULLAHEY FORD LUBE/OIL/FILTER/TRANS , FLUID 010,4201.5601 209,17 317.39 92907 10/29/99 062322 ONE HOUR PHOTO PLUS COLOR PRINTS-CODE ENFORCE 010.4130.5201 9.00 9.00 92908 10/29/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 27,37 92908 10/29/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2174 010,4201. 5403 36,32 92908 10/29/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 473-5400 010.4145.5403 1,478,95 92908 10/29/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE-271-6566 010.4145.5403 47,70 92908 10/29/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 271-7480 010.4201.5403 63.86 92908 10/29/99 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-9867 010,4201. 5403 43,21 1,697,41 92909 10/29/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010,4304.5402 130,72 92909 10/29/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 10/99 ELECT-TR.1769 L/SCAPE 217.4460.5355 7,29 92909 10/29/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 143.52 ---------- VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 10/26/99 16:39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK , NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92909 10/29/99 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010,4304.5402 150.21 431.74 92910 10/29/99 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE DOOR SIGN 284.4103,5201 12,87 12.87 92911 10/29/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COLOR COPIES 010,4102,5306 209.31 92911 10/29/99 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS BINDERY-WATER MASTER PLAN 350.5904,7701 16.89 226.20 92912 10/29/99 068000 PRESSURE VESSEL SERVICE SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 640,4712.5274 287,48 287,48 92913 10/29/99 101458 ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORP 3 SETS OF TESTSTIK KITS 010.4201.5255 530.88 530,88 92914 10/29/99 101461 RUSSCO 2 DESKS 010,4130.5201 927.86 927.86 92915 10/29/99 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS ADS-CLERK TYPIST-PW 010.4301. 5201 249.34 249,34 92916 10/29/99 101455 TRACY SCHWEFLER REF,PARK DEPOSIT-SCHWEFLER 010,0000.4354 25,00 25,00 92917 10/29/99 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB, GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 1,051.27 1,051.27 92918 10/29/99 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC TR WATER METERS 640,4712,5207 879.66 879,66 92919 10/29/99 075348 SLO CNTY SHERIFF BOOKING FEES-7/1-9/30 010.4201.5323 8,325,00 8,325,00 92920 10/29/99 073670 SLO COUNCIL OF GOVERNME SHARE OF CENSUS COUNT 010,4145,5319 11,58.9.00 11,589,00 92921 10/29/99 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP BRAKE ADJ. TOOLS 010,4305.5603 60,49 60.49 92922 10/29/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY MARKER LAMP 010,4201,5601 12,78 92922 10/29/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY OVAL SEAL 010,4201. 5601 29,93 92922 10/29/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY GAGE 220,4303.5603 50,70 92922 10/29/99 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY GAGE 220.4303,5603 50.70 144 . 11 92923 10/29/99 081938 SRECO FLEXIBLE SEWER CLEANING HOSE 612,4610.6201 1,532,71 92923 10/29/99 081938 SRECO FLEXIBLE CR:FREIGHT ON SEWER HOSES 612,4610.6201 40,00- 1,492,71 92924 10/29/99 082134 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGN SIGNS 220.4303,5613 449,99 449.99 92925 10/29/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS 11 PORTABLE RADIOS 271,4202.6201 6,995,92 92925 10/29/99 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS INSTL,ANTENNA 010.4201,5601 102.00 7,097,92 92926 10/29/99 100321 STOP STICK,LTD, STOP STICK RK 010,4201.5255 378,50 378,50 92927 10/29/99 083382 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIER STAPLES 010,4130.5602 12,01 12.01 92928 10/29/99 084278 TEE'S PLUS DARE T-SHIRTS 010.4201. 5504 154,40 92928 10/29/99 084278 TEE'S PLUS DARE CREW SHIRTS/CLOCKS/CARDS 010,4201. 5504 370,00 524,40 92929 10/29/99 086346 TROESH READY MIX SLURRY 220,4303.5613 274,68 274.68 92930 10/29/99 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. DRINKING FOUNTAIN PARTS 010.4420.5605 20.24 20.24 ---------.----- -. VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 10/26/99 16 :39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 92931 10/29/99 087580 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION CR:VALVES 640.4712,5610 6.44- 92931 10/29/99 087580 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION BRASS VALVES 640,4712.5610 1,192,83 1,186.39 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. UG STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT 350,5401,7301 173.69 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE CORRIDOR STUDY 350.5603,7301 500,15 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. OPTICOM DEVICES 350,5604,7301 105.25 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, BIKEWAY PROJECT ONE 350,5606,7301 2,304.67 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, CREEKSIDE PATH 350,5607,7301 426.40 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, OAK PARK BLVD WIDENING 350.5609,7301 4,119,03 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, BRISCO/l0l INTERCHANGE ALTS 350,5615.7301 19,55 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. EL CAMPO,Z101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350,5616.7301 83,85 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER 350,5617,7301 523,75 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALKS 350,5622,7301 1,519.63 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, PARKING LOT BEHIND CITY HALL 350,5623.7301 192,68 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, ROUTE 227 RELINGUISHMENT 350,5628.7701 16,25 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN/FINANCE 350.5752,7701 194,25 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998 (DR-1203) 350.5755,7301 65,00 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, DISASTER SVCS 1998 (DR-1203) 350,5755,7501 217 . 68 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, SEWER AND WATER RATE STUDY 350,5805,7301 166.70 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, GRAND AVE, ELM TO HALCYON 350,5806,7301 19,465.31 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, GRAND AVE, ELM TO HALCYON 350,5806.7401 197.75 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, RESERVOIR #1 DESIGN 350,5903.7501 4,989,45 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. WATER MASTER PLAN 350,5904.7701 48.75 92933 10/29/99 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC, GENERAL CONSULTING SVCS-9/99 010,4301. 5303 17,560.34 52,890,13 92934 10/29/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE 4 TIRES 220.4303.5603 515,00 92934 10/29/99 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES/BALANCED 010.4201.5601 60,33 92934 10/29/99 09'0480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/TIRES 010,4301.5601 271,66 846.99 92935 10/29/99 101337 WEST COAST POWER SPORTS GASKET/FILTER/SPARK PLUG 010,4201.5601 321,55 321. 55 92936 10/29/99 091104 WESTBURNE/AIR COLD,INC- PVC FITTINGS 640.4712.5610 12,07 92936 10/29/99 091104 WESTBURNE/AIR COLD,INC- PVC FITTING 640.4712.5610 16.38- 92936 10/29/99 091104 WESTBURNE/AIR COLD,INC- FULL CIRCLE REP,CLAMP 640,4712,5610 129,79 125.48 92937 10/29/99 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/TEXT 010,4102,5255 496 ,68 496.68 92938 10/29/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT-AUG 99 010,4304.5303 708.75 92938 10/29/99 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT-9/99 010,4304,5303 755,75 1,464.50 92939 10/29/99 093794 SHARON YOUNG PROF.SVCS-9/99 010.4201.5303 187,50 187,50 TOTAL CHECKS 307,348.87 -------- ---------- VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 10/26/99 16:39 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 67,091,00 011 PAYROLL CLEARING FUND 178,288.73 217 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 7.29 220 STREETS FUND 6,786,81 225 TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,644,25 271 STATE COPS BLOCK GRANT FUND 6,995.92 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 1,955,46 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 36,743,18 612 SEWER FUND 3,164,05 640 WATER FUND 4,672,18 TOTAL 307,348,87 --------._--~- ------ ATTACHMENT E VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 11/01/99 11:02 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 17 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 174 10/28/99 .100795 CPRS DISTRICT VIII CPRS CONF-HERNANDEZ/PERRIN 010.4421,5501 60,00 60.00 TOTAL CHECKS 60.00 9.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES '5ffI! SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 Attached please find a report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of October 31, 1999, as required by Government Code Section 53646 (b). CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT /14 DI ()~ 31, 1999 November 9, 1999 This report presents the City's invesbnents as of October 31, 1999. It includes all invesbnents managed by the City, the invesbnent institution, type of invesbnent, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of October 31, 1999, the invesbnent portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's invesbnent policy. . Current Investments:' The City is currently investing all short-term excess cash in the Local Agency Invesbnent Fund (LAIF) administered by the State Treasurer. This is a very high quality invesbnent in terms of safety, liquidity, and yield. The City ,may readily transfer the LAIF funds to the City's checking account when funds are needed. At this time, the City does not hold any other invesbnents. The following is a comparison of invesbnents based on book values as of October 31, 1999 compared with the prior month and the prior year. Date: October 1999 September 1999 October 1998 Amount: $8,150,000 8,150,000 6,960,000 Interest Rate: 5.27% 5.23% 5.58% I.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: l YNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: CASH FLOW ANAL YSIS/APPROVAL OF INTERFUND ADVANCE FROM THE SewER FACILITY FUND DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . Accept the September 1999 cash report, . Approve the interfund advance of $455,042 from the Sewer Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of September 30, 1999. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. ~----------- -- ~~---~---- -- ---------------- -~ A TT ACHMENT A CITY OF ARROVO GRANDE CASH BALANCE /INTERFUND ADVANCE REPORT At September 30, 1999 Balance at Recommended Revised Fund 9/30/1999 Advances Balance 010 General Fund 447,865 447,865 213 Park Development 133,728 133,728 217 Landscape Maintenance 19,728 19,728 220 Street (Gas Tax) Fund 150,492 150,492 222 Traffic Signalization 429,641 429,641 223 Traffic Circulation 358,926 358,926 224 Transportation Facility Impact 1,541,150 1,541,150 225 Transportation 13,407 13,407 226 Water Neutralization Impact 2,188 2,188 230 Construction Tax 235,963 235,963 231 Drainage Facility 11,054 11,054 271 State COPS Block Grant Fund 38,301 38,301 274 Federal Universal Hiring Grant (2,900) 2,900 0 276 97-98 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 89 89 277 98-99 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 5,372 5,372 284 Redevelopment Agency (65,477) 65,477 0 285 Redevelopment Set Aside 2,651 2,651 350 Capital Projects (386,665) 386,665 0 466 Canyon Way Bond Fund 11,317 11,317 612 Sewer Fund 14,181 14,181 634 Sewer Facility 898,008 (455,042) 442,966 640 Water Fund 2,069,710 2,069,710 641 Lopez 1,190,723 1,190,723 642 Water Facility 1,135,331 1,135,331 751 Downtown Parking 48,953 48,953 760 Sanitation District Fund 199,966 199,966 761 Rubbish Collection Fund 4,901 4,901 Total City Wide Cash 8,508,603 0 8,508,603 THE ABOVE LISTING ARE THE CASH BALANCES SHOWN IN THE GENERAL LEDGER OF THE CITY OF ARROVO GRANDE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30 1999 ---- ----------------------------------~ t.d. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6:45 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, Council Members Runels, Tolley, Dickens, City Manager Hunt, Financial Services Director Snodgrass, and City Attorney Carmel were present. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 2. CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Lady announced that the Council was going to meet in closed session to discuss the following matter: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Agency Negotiator: Lynda K Snodgrass, Financial Services Director Employee Organizations: Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) - Local 620, Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association (AGPOA), Unrepresented Employees (Management) 3. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: There was no reportable action from the closed session. 4. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 P.M. to the regular City Council meeting of October 26,1999. MICHAEL A. LADY, Mayor ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City Clerk MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6:45 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, Council Members Runels, Tolley, Dickens, City Manager Hunt, Financial Services Director Snodgrass, and City Attorney Carmel were present. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 2. CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Lady announced that the Council was going to meet in closed session to discuss the following matter: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Agency Negotiator: Lynda K Snodgrass, Financial Services Director Employee Organizations: Service Employees' International Union (SEIU)- Local 620, Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association (AGPOA), Unrepresented Employees (Management) 3. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: There was no reportable action from the closed session. 4. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 P.M. to the regular City Council meeting of October 26,1999. MICHAEL A. LADY, Mayor ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City Clerk . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CAL'- TO ORDER Honorable Mayor Lady called the regular City Council meeting of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: X Council Member Runels X Council Member Tolley X Council Member Dickens X Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara X Mayor Lady STAFF PRESENT ~City Manager ~City Attorney X Director of Administrative Services ~Chief of Police Director of Building and Fire Director of Community Development X Director of Economic Development X Director of Public Works Director of Parks and Recreation X Director of Financial Services 3. FLAG SALUTE Phil Johanknecht from the Arroyo Grande Masonic Lodge #274 led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. INVOCATION Mayor Lady delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION AWARD - BILL FULLER Mayor Lady presented Public Works employee Bill Fuller with a Certificate of Commendation and cash award in recognition of his suggestion for an improvement in health and safety or working conditions, and an improvement in methods and procedures that result in increased efficiency. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 6. AGENDA REVIEW None. 6.A. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY Council Member Runels moved, Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordin'ances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. PUBLIC HEARING 7.a. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AME;NDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF TITLE 6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEWER AND WATER RATES AND CHARGES Director of Public Works Spagnolo highlighted the staff report. He explained that the Water and Sewer Rate Study was submitted for public review, and comments received were reviewed by staff and the Consultant. He stated that the Water and Sewer Rate Study was prepared to assess the existing water and sewer rate structure and the projected revenue requirements. He said the Study included recommendations for adequately meeting operational and capital project expenses. Clayton Tucker, Tucker & Associates, presented an overview on the current water system, water system future requirements, costs of major capital improvement projects required, and a proposed water system financial plan and rate structure. He explained that the City Council had recently approved a Water Master Plan, which identified capital improvement projects that were necessary in order to maintain a safe and reliable water system for the City as well as ne~essary replacements and upgrades. He explained that a private fire protection charge was proposed to recover some of the operation, maintenance, and capital costs that have been incurred by the City to provide capacity in the water system to serve customers with private fire pipelines. It was also recommended that any capital project exceeding $1,000,000 be considered for debt financing, and any capital project under $1,000,000 be paid for through water rates. Additionally, Mr. Tucker gave an overview of the current sewer system, future requirements of the sewer system, and explained that sewer rate increases are proposed for the next two fiscal years to recover operation and maintenance costs of the sewer system. He said that the proposed rate structure is to be changed from an existing fl'at monthly charge to a charge that is based on a minimum customer charge and water volume. Further, he explained that the Study recommends maintaining a mh,imum balance in the water and sewer fund of 45 days 9f operation and maintenance expense. Council Member Dickens asked for clarification that there would be no water rate increases if revenue bonds were issued to fund major capital improvement projects; and whether a full study would be required every two years. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 Consultant Tucker responded that was true for major capital projects over $1,000,000. He explained that the review of rates every two years would include looking at incurred costs versus projected costs, and would be considered as a rate review study. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked for clarification that in order to maintain current rates, it would be necessary to dip into reserves. Consultant Tucker responded that the water fund and water facility fund has existing reserves on hand, and to meet the expenditures required of the capital improvement program those funds would be used to pay for capital improvement program expenditures. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara expressed concern about depleting reserves where the City could not cover a contingency or an emergency. Consultant Tucker responded that the water fund produces about $500,000 annually above expenses so additional funds are available in combination with the reserves. City Manager Hunt explained that through the budget process, the City budgets sufficient reserves for contingency and emergency purposes. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked if the sewer rate increase was based on operation and maintenance or projected projects. Consultant Tucker responded that the sewer rates were based on projected operation and maintenance. Council Member Runels asked if the sewer charge that goes to the Sanitation District was included. Director Spagnolo responded that this fee was a separate charge and was collected with the issuance of a building permit. After being assured that the public hearing had been duly published and all legal requirements met, Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing. Mike Titus, 404 Lierly, referred to the Lopez Dam Remediation Project and asked how it, had been factored in to the rate study. City Manager Hunt responded that costs for the Lopez project had not been factored in, and explained that the remediation project was a separate issue. He further explained that the rate structure being discussed was for the costs to operate and maintain the City's water and. sewer system. He said the Lopez Dam charge is a separate line item on the water bill and is not linked to the City's water and sewer rates. 3 ~----~----- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 CZ Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road, referenced the $116,000 in the current bond and wondered what the City's fair share would be with respect to the retrofit project if there was another bond issued. He stated that he understood it was a separate item; however, it would increase the monthly billing. He said there was a reference of $2 million for a reservoir and asked if this was for one reservoir or for aU reservoirs within the City. Director Spagnolo responded that $2 million was estimated for the Reservoir No. 1 project, which would be a total replacement of the reservoir. Mr. Brown asked for an explanation on the proposed private fire connection charges. Director Spagnolo explained it was a separate fixed charge for private fire connections serving only commercial customers with private fire pipelines. , Hearing no further comments, Mayor Lady closed the. public hearing. Council comments and questions included clarification that' the private fire connections are for buildings in the City that have fire sprinklers; the fact that the rates have not been increased since 1992; and consensus that operation and maintenance is crucial to keep the systems up and operating. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to approve the Water and Sewer Rate Study dated August 1999; introduced by title for first reading an Ordinance amending Chapter 6 and 7 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code; and continue the public hearing to November 9, 1999 to consider the adoption of the Ordinance and a Resolution establishing new water and sewer rates. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRoU Call Vote AxLLady AxLFerrara AxLRunels AxLTolley AxLDickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, spoke about the General Plan Update. He referred to the applicants who have not heard about the status of their requests. He distributed a copy of the colored map prepared by Nanci Parker to the City Council for reference. He discussed the concept of property rights and citizen rights. He explained that some people had a great reluctance to address the City 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 Council and he encouraged the Council to listen to those who addressed the Council tonight. Alton Jones, 1189 Flora Road, stated he had spoken to the City Council in the past to express some grievances. Mr. Jones described several incidents that had taken place on his property after he had addressed the Council. He spoke about his application to rezone ten acres of agriculture property to single family residential. He said the property was not large enough or viable for farming, and the property should be split to build homes. He said the zoning issues have been a problem for his family and that individuals should have property rights. Evelyn Stava, 1167 Flora Road, distributed a letter to the City Council regarding the General Plan Update and requests for rezoning of properties located at 1167 and 1212 Flora Road from Agriculture to Residential. She stated that the parcels were too small to farm, and not agriculturally viable. She encouraged the Council to take action to protect the rights of property owners, take action on her family's rezoning requests, and provide them with a status as soon as possible. Van Vandeveer, 756 Myrtle Street, agreed with Mr. Page's comments. He stated that he would like an answer to his request to rezone two acres from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential. James Lawler, 700, 710, 750 S. Traffic Way, spoke about trying to rezone his property since the 1970's. He said the current zoning is not a fair and equitable use of the property. He stated that the process was very slow. Bruce Vanderveen, 1273 Branch Mill Road, commented that agriculture land was great; however, there are parcels in the City that are zoned agricultural and he owns one of them. He said he built a house one year ago and he could not drill a well because he was within the City limits. He said he wanted to put in a septic tank and could not because the sewer was too close to the property. He wanted to know why it was zoned agricultural if it could not be used for agricultural, and that the zoning should be changed so it makes sense. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, thanked the Council for listening to the public comments. Grace Stilwell, 734 Myrtle Street, said she has inquired about her rezoning requests and stated she would like some commitment of what is planned. Council Member Tolley informed the Council and the audience that a tentative date of November 17, 1999 had been scheduled for the next Long Range Planning Committee meeting. He said the Consultant would be presenting a draft Land Use Element and map. He encouraged the applicants with outstanding requests to attend the meeting. 5 ---------------~---- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara requested the City Manager look into the situations Mr. Jones described while speaking under Citizens' Input, Comments, and Suggestions. 9. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Tolley moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.h., with the recommended courses of action. a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Approved. b. Minutes of City Council Meeting of September 28, 1999. Approved. c. Rejection of Claim Against City - B. Cole. Rejected Claim. d. Approval of Tow Service Bid. Approved. e. Approval of Employment Agreement. Approved. f. Montego Street Sidewalks, Project No. 90-98-7, Progress Payment No.2, Contract Change Order No.3, and Notice of Completion. Approved. g. Grand Avenue, Elm Street to Halcyon Road, Project No. 60-70-90-98-6, Progress Payment No.3. Approved. h. Paseo Street - Acceptance of Easements. Resolutions No. 3401 and 3402 Adopted. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote ML-Lady ML-Ferrara ML-Runels ML-Tolley ML-Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. SCENIC CREEKSIDE WALK THROUGH THE HISTORIC VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE - PHASE II PROJECT SCOPE Director of Public Works Spagnolo highlighted the staff report. He reviewed Phase I of the project. He stated that staff recommended the City Council: A. Provide direction to staff as to the prioritization of the options for Phase II of the Scenic Creekside Walk Through the Historic Village of Arroyo Grande; B. Allocate $62,500 for the City's $97,136 unallocated Urban State Highway Account (USHA) funds for use as the required local match; and C. Direct' staff to forward the prioritized options to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments for concurrence. Mayor Lady opened up the discussion for public comment. 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 John Clark, 224 McKinley, reported that Mr. Spagnolo had met with the Village Improvement Association and explained the options in depth. He referred to a letter sent by the Association that listed its preferred prioritization of the options for the project. He stated that the Historical Society and the Village Improvement Association had chosen Option #2 as its number one choice, and urged the Council to choose Option #2 as well. Mr. Clark said he hoped that the project would be completed by next summer. Council Member Dickens complimented staff on getting public input for the creekside projects. He stated he had attended the presentation to the I Downtown Parking Advisory Board. He said he was in favor of Option #2. Council questions and discussion included how to combine the various Options for funding; priority recommendations from the Historical Society, Village Improvement Association, and Downtown Parking Advisory Board; clarification on Option #5 which would include funds to construct a path down to a proposed amphitheater to be built at a later date; and clarification on the proposal for Option #1 which would require $197,000 to finish Phase I of the project. John Clark described a similar amphitheater located in Ojai that was used concurrently with various festivals. Hearing no further comments, the Mayor closed the public discussion. Council Member Tolley moved to approve staff recommendations, including the prioritization of options for Phase II as recommended by the Village Improvement Association. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion. _Voice Vote X-,RoII Call Vote An. Lady AD..Ferrara AD..Runels AD..Tolley AD..Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO SLOCOG STEERING COMMITTEE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX PROGRAM City Manager Hunt highlighted the staff report. 7 ----- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 Council Member Tolley explained that the reason for developing a steering committee at this time was to be prepared and ready with a list of prioritized projects if the proposed legislation passes. He explained further that the Committee would assist in the process of conducting a public opinion survey on improvements to the transportation system. Council questions and discussion included the legislative approval process of the proposed bills and how the measure would need to be approved by a majority of voters statewide and a majority of the voters in San Luis Obispo County; and the reasons for forming a separate steering committee versus an ad-hoc committee of the existing Board Members. Council Member Runels moved to appoint Council Member Tolley to the SLOCOG Steering Committee and to appoint Council Member Dickens as the alternate member. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion. _Voice Vote )LRolI Call Vote An Lady Ap..Ferrara Ap..Runels AP-Tolley Ap..Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11.b. APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND ALTERNATE(S) TO THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EOC) BOARD Director of Economic Development Sheeley highlighted the staff report. She explained that the EOC was requesting the participation of an Arroyo Grande Council Member for an upcoming three-year term on its Board. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to appoint Council Member Dickens to the Economic Opportunity Commission Board, and himself as the Alternate. Council Member Tolley seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote An Lady Ap..Ferrara Ap..Runels Ap..Tolley Ap..Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. MAYOR MICHAEL LADY (1) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District' (SSLOCSD). Discussed problem with biodegradables and having to adjust and increase chemical additives to meet Water Pollution Control Board standards. (2) Other. Reported on the Mayors Meeting held October 22nd. Discussed request from League of California Cities to appoint Channel Counties Division representatives to any of the eight Policy Committees. b. MAYOR PRO TEM TONY M. FERRARA (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report. (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). No report. (3) 'Air Pollution Control District (APCD). No report. (4) Economic Development Task Force. Met on October 19th. Looking for neutral facilitator for next step of strategic process so that Economic Development Director and Mayor Pro Tem may more effectively participate in discussions. (5) Other. c. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS (1) Zone 3 Advisory Board. 1) Board unanimously agreed to recommend putting 50% of $26 million debt on the ballot for the Lopez Dam Remediation Project, 2) City Manager responded by letter to concerns expressed by a citizen regarding the Village Centre project. Gave brief update on status of the Village Centre project; and 3) Gave an update on letter by OCSD Director Rick Searcy relating to tie-in of Lopez Recreation fees into the remediation project. . (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report. (3) Other. d. COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY (1) Long-Range Planning Committee. Copies of a letter from the Consultant were distributed to the City Council. Tentative date for next meeting is November 17,1999. (2) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (3) San Luis Obispo Council of GovernmentslSan Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A). Met on October 6th. Discussed Local Option Sales Tax issue. Also discussed and considered various projects for funding. 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 d. COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY (continued): (4) Other. 1) Reported on the Annual League of California Cities Conference; and 2) Reported that two Pismo Beach Police Officers were seriously injured in an off-duty vehicle accident, and requested that flowers be sent on behalf of the City. e. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). Met on October 6th. 1) Discussed Senior Taxi Program. Recommendations were heard and the Agreement was reviewed. The Board concurred to make no changes to the program. There will be no restrictions within the service area. It was agreed that participants should be encouraged to use the transportation; 2) Discussed Trolley issue. Board discussed raising the fare to fifty cents as fare box returns are less than expected. Council Member Dickens passed out a copy of the SCAT staff report relating to the trolley system and concerns expressed by the City of Grover Beach. SCAT Annual Report indicates a 10% increase in combined ridership over prior year due to the Trolley. Board voted to table the issue until December so that staff could prepare an analysisloptionslstrategies on the future of the trolley. (2) Economi~ Development CommitteelChamber of Commerce. No report; this Committee has been dormant for a period of time. (3) Community Recreation Center Subcommittee. No report. (4) Other. 13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara spoke about his attendance at the Annual League of California Cities Conference. He distributed a handout entitled "Putting a Youth Master Plan to Work" which was presented by the City of Ojai. He also reported that he attended a Royal Oaks Community Meeting at which traffic issues were discussed. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked the City Manager to provide an update on the removal of a roll-out container next to Marshall's at the Five Cities Center; inquired if the City was experiencing problems with its computer server as he was experiencing busy signals while trying to connect to the system; and inquired when the Police Department would be connected to the City's network. 14. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS City Manager Hunt reported that the City Engineer intends to accept the Final map for Tract 2333, owned by Richard De Blauw. The subject tract is located at 1138 and 1148 Fair Oaks Avenue. This is a split of two separate parcels totaling approximately one acre in size into eight parcels varying between 4,049 square feet and 5,443 square feet in size. 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 There was no appeal by the Council. The City Engineer will approve the Final Map within ten days following the date of this meeting. 15. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Runels moved, Council Member Tolley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting. Time: 9:35 p.m. MICHAELA LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: . KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK 11 --------------- 9.e. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES~ SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY. S. SANDERSON DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council reject the attached Claim for Damages against the City filed by Scott Sanderson, 1170 Linda Drive, Arroyo Grande. FUNDING: None. DISCUSSION: The City's insurance adjusters have reviewed the claim of Mr. Sanderson and recommend it be rejected. ----- -~ c: - A-~ 4f:<<j$''-{ ~ WCLr(~. City of Arroyo Grande ' Poltce- d-1cl- I ~ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY - '1 It.. q File with: RESERVE FOR FIL~G STAMP CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Claim No. ..:1B 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ("") ,\;0 --t -< INSTRUCTIONS en 0 1. Claims for death, injury to person or personal property must be filed f'T1 -w'J " 1>~ not later than six months after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) - 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year ~ ;:u (") ~J'TI after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 0- 3. Read entire claim form before filing. > -<< :JI: oJ'TI 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident. 0 5., This claim form must be signed on Page 2 at bottom. \;0 C) ... ~ 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. .&- :> SIGN EACH SHEET. C Z 0 rrt Date of Birth of Claimant 7- 2'il" &""~ occupation of Claimant :;:;::.~ IYnvrV-- Home Telephone Number 5'... (ld7 -7JJ'7 Business Telephone Number S~rne: ~S- -8fj1 -7'JJ I Give address and telephone number to Claimant's Social which you desire notices or communica- Security Number' tions to be sent regarding this claim: / !1/t)/J1'1 rI~ "rA....Je CII.931flO When ~d D~GE or INJ~Y occur? ,Names of. Date ... /0 - 9 Time ;OtJ PI"-\. involved If claim is for Equitable . Indemnity, give date claimant served with that complaint: ' 1J~,q -I-+I'e, Date: fC) S-o /l/~,P.D. Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe ful y, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet. Where appropriate, give street names and address and measurements from landmarks: J/1 keu.,.f of my hevse ,41 I)?d LI/ldl9 [Jy-. Describe in detail how the DAMAGE or INJURY occurred. #, e ct,,,;i ed "fI 1'7 kock Ie. ,J.. 1'1- . Art I;' C/M1~ J,ck<< I 'J." t~ , .-.-, Why do you claim the City is resp nsible? A j) ~ Nt,.. r 'I " :z;, dot',,! S-o o~ce,.. lJelQ-II/-e serA-Ie '€ /'J /9rJ<€ C n:rrn'€ ,4Irc./e~;1 er ht5USIn-J 0/1 ..fi't? S Id~ 0 f ,Lh e .f-rt/c,q.. Describe in detail each INJURY or DAMAGE ~ch /1J"fJ / Ir 3' I/JC/' (IS ~I?j , /J /he/~ 1.5 A pry-e XSh/9-fJ€ 5crt<tI(;~ In/~e h()(fS/~ t' SEE PAGE 2 (OV~R) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim, is computed as follows: Damage incurred to date (exact): Estimated prospective damages Damage to property...... $ 5':3 b, 7.~ as far as known: Future expenses for medical Expenses for medical and hospital care.....$ and hospital care....... $ Future loss of Jt;r.Io 147 Loss of earnings....... .$IIJ(:tIJ(~I.St&. earnings..............$ UN WN 7"J,lIS 7/J't1€:, s~ial d~ges f~ ~ O:7M~ other prospective special . i\OJ/l....~ /lVA?'. .J:~...$' damages...............$ General damages.........$ Prospective general Total damages incurred damages. . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . $ to date............... $ SW'. :1.S Total estimate prospective damages.............$ Total amount claimed as of date~ presentation of this claim........$ ~,2Jr' Was damage and/or injury investigated by pOlice? /VO Pt#JCE. C6Mt1')/flNO"612 ()NA-VA~.q m.~ If so, what city: Were paramedics or ambulance called? ~ If so, name City or ambulance If injured, state date, time, name and address of doctor of your first visit WITNESSES to DAMAGE or INJURY: List all persons and addresses of persons known to have information: Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone DOCTORS and HOSPITALS: Hospital Address Phone Doctor, Address Phone Doctor Address Phone READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corn~rs. If city Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of city Vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle when you first saw city vehicle; location of c;:ity Vehicle at time of acoident by "A- 1" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation; attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. I L SIDEWALK cunB PAAKWAY SIDEW^LK I r-. of Claimant or person Typed Name: Date: behalf giving ip to claimant: S c..o -1+ ..s:..q t'\ d e rs 0 IV 7- /L/-'r7 NOTE: CLA HS MUST BE FILED WITH CITY' CLERK (Gov. Code Sec. 915a). Presentation of a false claim is ,a felony (Pen. Code Sec. 72). ~_._----------"---.... ___m__ RECEIVED _ ~4I- CITY OF ARROYO GRANO::. 99 OCT 21 PM I: 05 Next Report Due: November 24, 1999 STATUS REPORT #2 October 25, 1999 City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ATTN: Robert Hunt, City Manager RE: Our Principal: City of Arroyo Grande Date of Loss: September 10, 1999 Clajmant: Scottsanaeri<>~' . Our File No.: A9689- T Dear Mr. Hunt: PREVIEW: The claimant alleges that an Arroyo Grande Police Department Officer damaged his vehicle when the officer ticketed the vehicle. REP~:V:REOUEST: I believe that this is a claim that should now be rejected. If you concur, please send a standard rejection letter to: Scott Sanderson 1170 Linda Drive Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Please send a copy of this letter to the undersigned for the completion of my file. POLICE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION: Thank you for providing me with a copy of Officer Beattie's memo with regards to this matter. He indicates that he did not feel nor hear the equipment on his beh touching the claimant's vehicle. Furthermore, he did not note any damage to the vehicle after stepping to the ground. CARL WARREN & CO. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT. CLAIMS ADJUSTERS P.O. Box 1052 · San Luis Obispo. CA 93406-1052 Phone: (805) 544-7963 · Fax: (805) 544-1068 . . - City of Arroyo Grande Robert Hunt October 25, 1999 Page Two (A9689- T) CLAIMANT CONTACT: I wrote to the claimant and requested that he provide me with a copy of the repair bid with regards to the claimed damages to his vehicle. Additionally I asked him to advise me whether or not there were any witnesses. I'v:e received no reply from the claimant. CLAIM STATUS: Claim Status Reserves LPD-Scott Sanderson Open Loss $600.00 Expense $1,000.00 COMMENT: I shall now place my file on diary to November 24, 1999 awaiting receipt of a copy of the Standard Rejection Letter. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & Co. ~~ Pat Tumbarello, AlC, CPCU ~ity~o/ '., " P.O. Box 551 ~.~. ,214 EMt..... Street , . -' ,- . - - . ' . ArTo1O GrMIie, C~t3421 , . - - - - . -. .'.~ - - '-. . -.' . ,.,.p.e: (.lm.54~4.' '~;-"ADMlNlSTRATIVE SERVICES FAx;(1t5)4~"'" , , ... ~. .. ;~~:~UrO~ .. f" -', November ,1 0, 1999 ' Scott Sanderson 1170 Linda Drive ;,'Arroyo~raride CA93420 . Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented totheCitY. Cquncil()f'theCity .. of Arroyo Grande on Septeniber16, 1999 was rejected on NovembEn9,:f999.; , . - . -. - . - - . - - . , .', " - ~ . , ,',-. " .- . ".-'c .. ,Subject to certain ,exceptions, you have only six (6)'nionths frqril the , date this ' ,notice was personEllly delivered or deposited' in the United'Statesm~il to file' a , , Court Action in a ~uni~ipal or a Superior Court of theState:of Califomi?on this claim (See Government Code Section 945.6). ' '~..' " . ' 'You may ,seek the advice of an attorney of your choice: inccinneclion.with this ,matter. If you desire to consult an ~ttorney, you shoul~, dO'so'irnmect!stely. Kelly Wetmore Director of Administrative Services c: City Manager City Attorney Chief of Police .' ,"- . Carl Warren & Co. " .. .. ------".. 9.f. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH CALPERS HEALTH FOR MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE DATE: NOVEMBER 9,1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the following resolutions approving participation in the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act: 1, Elected City Officials participating in PERS, 2. Elected City Officials not participating in PERS, 3. Management Employees, 4. Arroyo Grande Police Officer Association Employees, 5, S.E.I.U. Employees, and 6, Unrepresented Employees, FUNDING: It is estimated that a $5,600 saving would result in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 based on an implementation date of March 2000, A $20,800 saving is projected for Fiscal Year 2000-2001, DISCUSSION: For some time City employees have been expressing dissatisfaction with the current health insurance plan, Health Net, purchased through a local insurance agency. Both the Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association (AGPOA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have asked that the City investigate alternate health insurance coverage. In addition, the rates for Health Net have been steadily increasing (7.4%-1998: 6.3%-1999: 11 %-2000). Because of these issues, alternate health insurance programs are being recommended, Staff has investigated and recommends that the City change from a local health insurance broker to CalPERS Health. CalPERS is the Statewide agency that is primarily known for its retirement programs. However, CalPERS also administers a health insurance program that pools public agencies' buying power to purchase health insurance at lower rates, The CalPERS Health Program offers a total of seven (7) Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) and Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) in this area, including Health Net, the City's current health insurance provider, --, - CONTRACT WITH CALPERS FOR MEDICAL & HOSPITAL INSURANCE November 9, 1999 Page 2 The following summary highlights both the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a part of the CalPERS Health coverage program. 1. The program must be offered to all bargaining groups, i.e. AGPOA, SEIU, Management, part-time employees, and elected officials. 2. Part-time employees working twenty hours or more must be included in the plan. 3, Employees retiring from City employment are eligible to receive health insurance coverage from the City, 4, The contribution rate can differ between employee groups. For example, the City could make a $100 monthly contribution for each AGPOA employee, while contributing $20 for each part time employee. 5. All CalPERS health insurance plans must be offered to the employees. In this area there are five (5) HMO's and two (2) Preferred Provider Plans. It is recommended that the City use the current health plan, Health Net, as the standard for employee cost and coverage. However, the proposed Health Net policy will have enhancements not currently offered, such as durable equipment coverage, chiropractic care, prescription drugs by mail at a lower co-pay, and hearing aid coverage. Staff also recommends using the Health Net Insurance premium cost as the benchmark for City health insurance contributions, Under the current Memoranda of Understanding with AGPOA and SEIU, the City will cover the cost of medical premiums. Should insurance premiums increase during the term of the current MOU's, the City would assume the increased cost based on the following CalPERS Health Net premium (benchmark). CoveraQe CalPERS Benchmark Single Coverage $180.64 Two Party Coverage 361.27 Family Coverage 469.67 To acquaint the unions with CalPERS Health, a meeting was arranged between a representative of the CalPERS Health Program, representatives of the AGPOA, and representatives of SEIU. The expanded health plan was explained, the cost, and the time line for a change defined as March 2000, Both unions were asked to determine if the proposed change would require a modification to their respective current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The AGPOA and SEIU provided letters (copies attached) stating that the proposed change does not affect the language of the current MOU's and provides additional benefits to their members, There are health insurance plans offered through CalPERS that have greater benefits, at greater costs. Employees selecting one of the more expensive plans would be responsible for the difference between the plan they select and the City's maximum contribution within each category (for this year, the benchmark figures above). ---------- CONTRACT WITH CALPERS FOR MEDICAL & HOSPITAL INSURANCE November 9, 1999 Page 3 To formally join CalPERS Health Plan, resolutions for each bargaining group must be adopted, After adoption of the enabling resolutions, CalPERS will hold a Health Fair to help the employees select a health plan suited to their needs. Enrollment forms for each employee will be required to complete the transition to CalPERS Health. It is anticipated that the process will be complete by March 2000. Alternatives: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: - Approve staff recommendations; - Deny staff recommendations; - Modify staff recommendations and approve; - Provide direction to staff, Attachments: - Arroyo Grande Police Officers Association Letter - Service employees International Union Letter - ____________n__ --------- RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS' GROUP AND ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS AT DIFFERENT AMOUNTS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22850.3 provides that a contracting agency may elect upon proper application to participate under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with respect to a recognized employee organization only; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22857 provides that a contracting agency may fix the amount of the employer's contribution for employees and the employer's contribution for annuitants at different amounts provided that the monthly contribution for annuitants shall be annually increased by an amount not less than 5 percent of the monthly contribution for employees, until such time as the amounts are equal; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22754 (g) defines any Special District as a contracting agency, and WHEREAS, A Special District is hereby defined as a non-profit, self-governed public agency within the State of California, and comprised solely of public employees performing a governmental rather than proprietary function, and WHEREAS, The City of Arroyo Grande, hereinafter referred to as Special District is an entity meeting the above definition; and WHEREAS, The Special District desires to obtain for the members of the Elected Officials' Group, who are active and retired employees of the agency, the benefit of the Act and to accept the liabilities and obligations of a employer under the Act and Regulations; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53208,5 (b) prohibits any elective member of a legislative body whose service first commences on and after January 1, 1995, from receiving health and welfare benefits greater than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53201 (c) (2) prohibits a local agency that did not provide benefits to former elective members of a legislative body before January 1, 1994, from providing benefits after January 1, 1994, unless the members participate on a self-pay basis; and RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53201 (c) (1) provides that a legislative body that provided benefits to former elected members shall not provide benefits to a any person first elected to a term of office that begins on or after January 1, 1995, unless the member participate on a self-pay basis or was fully bested prior to January 1, 1995; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Special District does hereby elect to be subject to the provisions of the Act; and 2. That the employer's contribution for each employee shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his enrollment, including the enrollment of his family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of the Health Net Basic/Supplemental Rate per month; and 3. That the employer's contribution for each annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the cost of his enrollment, including the enrollment of his family members, 'in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of one dollar ($1) per month; and 4. That the employer's contribution for each annuitant shall be increased annually by five (5%) percent of the monthly contribution for employees, until such time as the contributions are equal; And that the contributions for employees and annuitants shall be in addition to those amounts contributed by the Public Agency for administrative fees and to the Contingency Reserve Fund; and 5. That the executive body appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint and direct, the Deputy City Clerk to file with the Board of Administration of the . Public Employees' Retirement System a verified copy of this Resolution, and to perform on behalf of said Public Agency all functions required of it under the Act and Regulations of the Board of Administration; and 6. That coverage under the Act be effective on March 1, 2000. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ~ ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,1999, RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~~L. ~~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY -_._----~_._--- ~~~-,---, ,,------- RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS' GROUP AND ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS AT DIFFERENT AMOUNTS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22850.3 provides that a contracting agency may elect upon proper application to participate under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with respect to a recognized employee organization only; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22857 provides that a contracting agency may fix the amount of the employer's contribution for employees and the employer's contribution for annuitants at different amounts provided that the monthly contribution for annuitants shall be annually increased by an amount not less than 5 percent of the monthly contribution for employees, until such time as the amounts are equal; and WHEREAS, The City of Arroyo Grande, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency is a local agency contracting with the Public Employees' Retirement System; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53208,5 (b) prohibits any elective member of a legislative body whose service first commences on and after January 1, 1995, from receiving health and welfare benefits greater than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53201(c) (2) prohibits a local agency that did not provide benefits to former elective members of a legislative body before January 1, 1994, from providing benefits after January 1, 1994, unless the members participate on a self-pay basis; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53201(c) (1) provides that a legislative body that provided benefits to former elected members shall not provide benefits to a any person first elected to a term of office that begins on or after January 1, 1995, unless the member participate on a self-pay basis or was fully bested prior to January 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, The Public Agency desires to obtain for the Elected Officials' Group, who are employees and annuitants of the agency, the benefit of the Act and to accept the liabilities and obligations of an employer under the Act and Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby elect to be subject to the provisions of the Act; and 2. That the employer's contribution for each employee shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his enrollment, including the enrollment of his family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of the Health Net BasicJSupplemental Rate per month; and 3. That the employer's contribution for each annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the cost of his enrollment, including the enrollment of his family members, in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of one dollar ($1) per month; and 4. That the employer's contribution for each annuitant shall be increased annually by five (5%) percent of the monthly contribution for employees, until such time as the contributions are equal; and that the contributions for employees and annuitants shall be in addition to those amounts contributed by the Public Agency for administrative fees ar.d to the Contingency Reserve Fund; and 5. That the executive body appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint and direct, the Deputy City Clerk to file with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System a verified copy of this Resolution, and to perform on behalf of said Public Agency all functions required of it under the Act and Regulations of the Board of Administration; and 6. That coverage under the Act be effective on March 1, 2000. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,1999, ---~ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~bL.~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MANAGEMENT GROUP AND ESTABLISHING tHE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS AT DIFFERENT AMOUNTS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22850.3 provides that a contracting agency may elect upon proper application to participate under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act with respect to a recognized employ