Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda Packet 2007-05-08
City Council Tony Ferrara Mayor Ed Arnold Mayor Pro Tem Joe Costello Council Member Jim Guthrie Council Member Chuck Fellows Council Member Agenda Steven Adams City Manager Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Kelly Wetmore City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007 ` 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: 3. FLAG SALUTE: 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL/RDA ROB CHILD AND JOHN KING ARROYO GRANDE FIRE DEPARTMENT 4. INVOCATION: 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: PASTOR GEORGE LEPPER PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH 5.a. Mavor's Commendations -Rob Child and John King. Neighborhood Services Coordinators 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: • Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. • A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. • It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed. below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period April 16, 2007 through April 30, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Aoaroval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meeting of April 10, 2007 and the Regular City Council Meeting of April 10, 2007, as submitted. 8.c. Disuatch Console Equipment (AEILTS) Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase replacement dispatch consoles for the Police Department from Sterling Communications for $114,002. 8.d. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chanter 8.08 of the Arrovo Grande Municipal Code Relating to the Use and Sale of Fireworks (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the use and sale of fireworks. AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 3 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Review of the Citv's Traffic Impact Studv Policv (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: The Traffic Commission recommends the Council review the City's current Traffic Impact Study Policy and provide direction to staff. 11.b. Durinsa Winter 2008 and 2009 (STRONG) Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement to enable PG&E to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a Park and Ride Lot for up to 400 cars including shuttle bus and night-lighting for winter 2008 and 2009 use. 11.c. Consideration of Le Point Parkins LotlStructure Feasibility Studv (ADAMS) [COUNCIURDA] Recommended Action: 1) Approve the Le Point Parking Lot/Structure Feasibility Study; 2) Approve Concept A, Alternate 2 as the preferred alternative or Alternate 3 if a land swap can be achieved to acquire areas identified as Al and B1; and 3) Direct staff to determine if Alternate 3 will be feasible and identify options for implementation. 11.d. Consideration of Proaosed Ordinance to Comply with SB 53 (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Introduce an Ordinance to comply with requirements of Senate Bill 53, Chapter 591 of Statutes of 2006, as codified in California Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, by describing that the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency does not have authority to acquire real property by eminent domain and therefore has no program to acquire real property by eminent domain. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. a. None. AGENDA SUMMARY -MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 4 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal. action on matters not published on the agenda. 17. ADJOURNMENT All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovogrande.org City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org. CITY ®~ _ .. or's Commendation Presented to ~1Zo6 Cki[d ~~¢i~f~b®rfi~d ~ ct~~at~ On this 8th day of ~-~lay, zoo? In Recognition of your ~-~Lem6ersFcip in the Platinum Service Club for Service .~l6ove and Beyond the Call of Duty INCORVOR •I ED~YR C * \JUIY f0. 1911 L CITY ~ - OF or's Commendation Presented to ~ohn ~I(,n8 ~hb®rh~i ~~ ~~d~~at~ On this 8th day of ~1~lay, zoo? In Recognition of your .rlem6ership in the Platinum Service CCu6 for Service .old ove and Beyond the Call of Duty 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVIC BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period April 16 through April 30, 2007. FUNDING: There is a $565,281.11 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 130935-131133 $ 132,235.27 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 433,045.84 All payments are within the existing budget. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendation; • Do not approve staffs recommendation; • Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1-April 16, 2007-April 30, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register Attachment 2-April 27, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register ATTACHMENTI apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1 0413012007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date. Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130935 04/1612007 000403 MAINTENANCE 041607 04/16/2007 60 .00 60.00 130950 04/2012007 006084 A-PLUS FIRE PROTECTION 041707 04/17/2007 400 .00 400.00 130951 04/20/2007 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC 103148524 03131/2007 27 .25 27.25 130952 04/20/2007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5245715HD 04/1512007 22 .67 22.67 130953 04/20/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 73X00042 04/10/2007 319. 34 319.34 130954 04/2012007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 37497 03/31/2007 35. 39 35.39 130955 04/20/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6309853 04/06/2007 1,027. 57 T6309865 04106/2007 88. 49 T6284094 04102/2007 88. 32 16300338 03108/2007 30. 08 T6300336 04/03/2007 29. 96 T6309846 03/11/2007 29. 67 T6309848 04/06/2007 19. 27 T6309847 03/11/2007 14. 68 1,328.04 130956 04/20/2007 001055 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER 12734 0411712007 183. 97 12715 04/10/2007 114. 00 12716 04/1012007 38. 00 12727 04/10/2007 38. 00 12718 04/10/2007 9. 50 383.47 130957 04/2012007 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT 2007-242 03/12/2007 53. 54 53.54 130958 04120/2007 000057 R BAKER, INC 07-03-1842 02/28/2007 692. 86 692.86 130959 04120/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 032907 04/20/2007 257. 44 041607 04/16/2007 82. 00 339.44 130960 04/20/2007 006085 JENNIFER BEYER 041607 04/16/2007 142. 50 142.50 130961 04/20/2007 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH MARCH 2007 04/20/2007 245. 00 245.00 130962 04120/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132867 04/16/2007 13. 66 132812 04/10/2007 12. 56 26.22 Page:1 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 2 04/30/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130963 04/20/2007 000123 CA ST BOARD OF 130964 04/20/2007 002776 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 130965 04/20/2007 001149 CAL POLY ENV 130966 04/20/2007 005843 CALIFORNIA 130967 04/20/2007 000143 ARON CANBY WELDING 130968 04/20/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 130969 04/20/2007 002376 CENTRAL COAST BEARING 130970 04/20/2007 000164 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET 130971 04/20/2007 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS 130972 04/20/2007 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 130973 04/20/2007 000174 COASTLINE 130974 04/20/2007 000178 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, 130975 04/20/2007 006086 CONGRESSMAN KEVIN 130976 04/20/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 130977 04/20/2007 005671 DEATHRIAGE & CO. 130978 04/20/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES DG MT 57-425096 04/16/2007 313.97 313.97 0710540 03/30/2007 1,324.01 1,324.01 040407 04/2012007 165.00 165.00 5602993 03/31 /2007 46.40 46.40 6731 04/05/2007 1,120.00 1,120.00 7314-143210 02/22/2007 54.85 7314-143868 02/26/2007 54.23 7314-143208 02/22/2007 53.88 7314-131372 01/04/2007 28.79 7314-149045 03119/2007 7.73 144181 02/27/2007 4.79 7314-144187 02/27/2007 3.72 7314-151531 03128/2007 2.65 7314-151928 03/30/2007 2.10 212.74 11123 03/05/2007 41.61 41.61 18043 03/28/2007 35.91 18047 03128/2007 12.01 47.92 123079092 03/26/2007 43.91 43.91 749206 04/09/2007 1,065.00 1,065.00 4911093 04/03/2007 371.52 371.52 245554 04/10/2007 48.75 48.75 041807 04/18/2007 28.05 28.05 01853 04/04/2007 60.00 60.00 6034 03/30/2007 99.00 99.00 11725917 04102/2007 322.45 11725916 04/02/2007 81.23 11658304 03/23/2007 10.54 414.22 Page: 2 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 3 0413012007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130979 04/20/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 927655 03/31/2007 345.20 927669 03/31/2007 33.40 378.60 130980 04/20/2007 000210 DIESELRO, INC 21618 04/09/2007 473.08 21597 04/04/2007 384.94 21581 04/04/2007 382.85 21608 04/05/2007 311.15 21641 04/11 /2007 131.66 1,683.68 130981 04/20/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 002907 09/12/2007 20.00 20.00 130982 04/20/2007 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 226251 03/06/2007 30.57 271061 03/10/2007 14.34 273807 03/13/2007 1.99 271234 03/10/2007 129 48.19 130983 04/20/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1284337 04/06/2007 329.71 1279289 03/30/2007 171.60 1281800 03/30/2007 114.41 1281753 03/30/2007 93.84 709.56 130984 04/20/2007 005990 FIRMA CONSULTANTS INC 2669 03/19/2007 36,222.90 36,222.90 130985 04120/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 24984 03/20/2007 23.60 23.60 130986 0412012007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 4/10-200 N 04/10/2007 281.70 4/11-1375 04/11/2007 245.06 4/11-350 04/1112007 185.23 4/5-200 E 04/05/2007 87.58 4/9-910 04/09/2007 36.57 4/5-214 04/05/2007 35.55 4/5-208 E 04/05/2007 24.40 4/5-215 04/05/2007 23.80 4/9-1500 04/09/2007 11.42 ' 931.31 130987 04/20/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70457 04/12/2007 294.83 294.83 130988 04/2012007 006060 MICHAEL HUBERT 041007 04/18/2007 40.00 40.00 130989 04120/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 157390 03/03/2007 97.84 97.84 Page: 3 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 4 04130/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130990 04/20/2007 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 198797 04/03/2007 150.73 197901 03/29/2007 85.00 235.73 130991 04120/2007 000413 LAW OFFICES OF JONES & 36604 04/02/2007 555.00 555.00 130992 04120/2007 001793 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES, 006710913 03/26/2007 207.12 207.12 130993 04120/2007 006087 M & S AUTOMOTIVE 9482 03131/2007 459.43 459.43 130994 04/20/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 201560 04/16/2007 222.44 143554 03130/2007 143.54 200275 04/06/2007 75.41 201600 04/16/2007 63.04 200502 04/08/2007 51.87 200378 04/07/2007 40.62 200755 04/10/2007 34.39 125410 04/01 /2007 15.06 201270 04/13/2007 13.98 200064 04/05/2007 1238 125631 04/03/2007 10.76 201228 04/13/2007 7.53 201007 04/1212007 6.45 200091 04/0512007 5.37 125650 04/0312007 4.84 200286 04/06/2007 4.07 200185 04/0512007 3.76 200506 04/08/2007 3.40 143084 03/27/2007 1.92 125719 04/0312007 -16.11 704.72 130995 0412012007 004971 MODERN ROOFING 041707 04/18/2007 42.00 42.00 130996 04120/2007 000439 MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM 2192 03/31/2007 1,450.00 1,450.00 130997 04/20/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS177293 04/06/2007 829.66 FOCS177059 03/2812007 399.87 177480 04/1312007 34.41 FOCS177056 03/27/2007 32.22 1,296.16 Page: 4 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 5 04/3012007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearlVoidDate Invoice 130998 04/20/2007 005650 NAPA AUTO PARTS 92347 130999 0412012007 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 166387 131000 04/20/2007 003254 KITTY NORTON 041707 131001 04120/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 381312939-001 131002 04/20/2007 001886 OFFICEMAX -HSBC 1310D3 04/20/2007 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY 131004 04/20/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 131005 04/20/2007 006089 MATTHEW PALM 131006 0412012007 000497 CITY OF PISMO BEACH 131007 04/2012007 005284 R & B MOBILE EQUIPMENT & 131008 04/20/2007 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 131009 04/20/2007 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 131010 0412012007 000569 SAN LUIS PAINTS 131011 04/2012007 006067 SANTA MARGARITA FIRE 131012 04/20/2007 003160 JOE A SIIVA, JR 131013 04120/2007 001189 SLO COUNTY FIRE DEPT , 379582695-001 379658612-001 381313112-001 379940042-001 06277J0661 06111J0651 08051J0811 07245J0811 00074037 0011793 00073939 9903280 4/11-620838 4/11-781296 1126 041907 1088 30747 6612 G26554 041007 925861 041007 Inv. Date Amount Paid 02/22/2007 03/0512007 04/20/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 03/16/2007 04116/2007 03130/2007 03/07/2007 03/06/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 0310712007 0312312007 03/0112007 03/2612007 04/1112007 04/1112007 03/31 /2007 04/20/2007 04/06/2007 03/28/2007 03/30/2007 03/22/2007 04/1012007 02/28/2007 0411812007 40.22 53.50 77.00 223.72 173.39 39.56 30.72 -39.56 81.69 58.60 37.94 32.16 290.26 67.52 2.66 -3.56 163.26 14.79 25.61 21.55 590.94 177.26 196.80 200.02 1,718.13 37.38 60.00 Check Total 40.22 53.50 77.00 427.83 210.39 356.88 178.05 25.61 21.55 590.94 177.26 196.80 200.02 1,718.13 37.38 60.00 Page: 5 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 6 04/3012007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 131014 04/20/2007 000547 SLOCAPRA 131015 04/20/2007 000548 SLOCO DATA, INC 131016 04/20/2007 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 131017 04/20/2007 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 131018 04/20/2007 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 131019 04/20/2007 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 131020 04/20/2007 000616 STERLING 131021 04/20/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 131022 04/20/2007 002904 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS 131023 04/20/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 131024 04/20/2007 004079 TRI COUNTY OFFICE FURN, 131025 04/20/2007 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC 131026 04/20/2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT. INC 131027 04120/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 131028 04120/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 426.86 85.00 311.78 1,093.88 318.52 362.72 47.96 2,709.91 287.22 1,433.70 92.94 Page: 6 Status ClearNoid Date Invoice 041207 26834 163479 1770859 1760170 1767161 1766469 18226 53906 22685 22736 S1038189.001 51039284 S1037973-001 9271 1018732 1022424 27906-2522 5821 270726 270593 270478 64070978-001 64070978-002 63613438-001 2127827997 2129029922 Inv. Date 04/12/2007 04/11 /2007 04/06/2007 04/01 /2007 04/01 /2007 04/01 /2007 04/01 /2007 04/11/2007 04/06/2007 03/22/2007 04/01/2007 04/03/2007 04/12/2007 04/02/2007 04111 /2007 0411 0 /2 00 7 04/10/2007 04/06/2007 04/09/2007 03/29/2007 03/20/2007 03/26/2007 04110/2007 04/10/2007 03/30/2007 04/04/2007 04/17/2007 Amount Paid Check Total 30.00 30.00 84.73 84.73 139.91 139.91 207.72 106.76 106.76 5.62 85.00 311.78 558.94 534.94 152.79 99.33 66.40 362.72 29.24 18.72 2,709.91 287.22 797.92 318.43 317.35 119.92 -12.99 -13.99 307.61 65.28 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 7 04/30/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv Date Amount Paid Ch k T t I 131029 04/20/2007 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 131030 04/20/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 131031 0412012007 005439 FLOYD V. WELLS INC 131032 04123/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 131033 04/23/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 131034 0412312007 006092 CAL-WEST 131035 0412312007 006091 BILL ECHO 131036 0412312007 006090 JEFF LESTER 131037 0412312007 006095 CHRIS LOPEZ 131038 0412312007 006093 PEDRO RIGS JR 131039 04/23/2007 006094 CATHIE SLUSKI 131040 04/25/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 131041 0412512007 000393 1UCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 131042 04/2512007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 131043 04/25/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL _ 2128810686 04117/2007 45.62 ec o a 418.51 12730 04/06/2007 30.00 30.00 766146 04/10/2007 554.79 765230 03/07/2007 15.00 569.79 PW 2004-07 04/17/2007 18,412.01 18,412.01 V 04/2312007 0.00 0.00 4/8-7762 04/08/2007 2,044.89 4/8-2581 04/08/2007 1,052.24 4/8-2091 04/08/2007 841.35 4/8-0915 04/08/2007 635.64 4/8-9444 04/08/2007 603.47 4/8-2059 03/0712007 418.39 4/8-9436 04/08/2007 204.29 4/8-9163 04/08/2007 115.22 4/8-4272 04108/2007 105.85 4/8-9328 04108/2007 20.41 4/8-2083 04102/2007 5.75 6,047.50 Ref000076224 04/11/2007 81.50 81.50 Ref000076223 04/11/2007 13.58 13.58 Ref000076221 04/17/2007 21.28 21.28 Ref000076239 04/20/2007 25.27 25.27 Ref000076225 04/03/2007 20.30 20.30 Ref000076238 04/20/2007 90.00 90.00 OCEAN VIEW 04/20/2007 15.00 15.00 HARLOE 04/20/2007 15.00 15.00 BRANCH 04/20/2007 15.00 15.00 WINTER 04/20/2007 15.00 15.00 Page: 7 apckHist Check History Listing page: g 04/30/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131044 04/25/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL SPRING 04/20/2007 15.00 15.00 131045 04/25/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL SUMMER 2008 04/20/2007 15.00 15.00 131048 04/2712007 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 2193 04/06/2007 2,642.50 2,642.50 131049 04/27/2007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5252720HD 04115/2007 19.22 19.22 131050 04127/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 74D00035 04117/2007 606.07 606.07 131051 0412712007 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0016614 04/03/2007 1,866.96 0016670 04/13/2007 1,126.43 2,993.39 131052 04127/2007 003745 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, 27535 04/10/2007 24.01 24.01 131053 04/27/2007 005507 AT & T 4/7-0183 0410712007 193.32 4/8-9867 04/0812007 77.85 4/8-9816 04/08/2007 77.46 4/7-7480 04/07/2007 67.23 4/7-3959 04/07/2007 33.13 417-3953 04/07/2007 33.13 4/7-3956 04/07/2007 33.13 515.25 131054 04/27/2007 005615 ATST/MCI T6309855 04/0612007 1,626.76 1,626.76 131055 04/27/2007 001055 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER 12710 03/30/2007 589.82 589.82 131056 04/27/2007 003074 MATTHEW BENDER & 47049626 04/16/2007 38.69 38.69 131057 04127/2007 006097 LEA BLAIR 042007 04/20/2007 30.00 30.00 131058 0412712007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132902 04/17/2007 102.35 102.35 131059 04/2712007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA) 5679 04/0912007 1,101.54 1,101.54 131060 0412712007 000110 CA ST DEPT OF 6768 04117/2007 3,748.88 3,748.88 131061 0412712007 003053 CID CABRIALES 4102/4393 04/20/2007 94.38 94.38 131062 04/27/2007 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-143186 02/22/2007 111.60 7314-143414 02/23/2007 72.11 7314-142034 02/18/2007 8.78 192.49 Page:8 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 9 04/30/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131063 04/27/2007 003168 CELLULAR ONE 01500 04/24/2007 143.12 143.12 131064 04/27/2007 006039 CHEVRON & TEXACO CARD 7898072884704 04/06/2007 443.65 443.65 131065 04127/2007 000164 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET 57715 04/05/2007 41.77 41.77 131066 04/27/2007 002868 MICHELLE COTA 040207 04/26/2007 44.24 44.24 131067 04/27/2007 000192 CROCKER'S LOCKERS(DBA) 041707 04117/2007 200.00 200.00 131068 0412712007 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO INC 333829 04/11/2007 332.19 332.19 131069 04127/2007 006098 JENNIFER DANCE 042007 04/20/2007 30.00 30.00 131070 04127/2007 001854 JIM DECECCO 041907 04/19/2007 60.00 60.00 131071 04/27/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP V00002150 04/11/2007 165.71 165.71 131072 04/27/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 929085 04/1612007 267.69 929088 04/16/2007 13.41 281.10 131073 04/27/2007 000210 DIESELRO,INC 21641 04/01/2007 603.49 603.49 131074 04/27/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1281795 04111/2007 121.45 121.45 131075 04127/2007 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 041907 04/2612007 88.00 88.00 131076 04/27/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 041907 04/26/2007 120.00 120.00 131077 04/27/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 041907 04/19/2007 112.00 112.00 131078 04127/2007 006099 LAURA GARDNER 042007 04/25/2007 115.00 115.00 131079 04127/2007 001252 GARVEY EQUIPMENT 142757 04/06/2007 215.23 215.23 131080 04/27/2007 004142 STAN GAXIOLA 041907 04/19/2007 240.00 240.00 131081 04127/2007 001718 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC 0015964-0029640 03/19/2007 1,195.43 1,195.43 131082 0412712007 000292 HACH COMPANY 5103260 04/10/2007 230.33 230.33 131083 04/27/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 96851 02/08/2007 296.83 296.83 131084 0412712007 002405 CHUCK HARE 041907 04119/2007 60.00 60.00 Page: 9 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 10 04/3012007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131085 04/27/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 041907 04/26/2007 24.00 24 .00 131086 04/27/2007 005254 ICOP DIGITAL INC 2020 04/10/2007 4,332.34 4,332 .34 131087 04/27/2007 0028201NDOFF, INC 938370 03/27/2007 6.33 6 .33 131088 04127/2007 000330 INFORMATION TECH DEPT 4839 03131/2007 236.32 236 .32 131089 04/27/2007 000340 INTOXIMETERS, INC 217010 03/29/2007 126.48 126 .48 131090 04/27/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 033107 03/31/2007 15.72 15 .72 131091 04/27/2007 003949 KERN'S PAPER 20620 04104/2007 212.81 20735 04/06/2007 101.34 314 .15 131092 04/2712007 000367 KEYLOCK SECURITY 77833 04/23/2007 20.73 20. 73 131093 0412712007 004845 JOHN CARSON 041607 04/16/2007 120.00 120. 00 131094 04/2712007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 041907 04/2612007 192.00 192. 00 131095 04127/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 041907 04126/2007 220.00 220. 00 131096 0412712007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070686 04/03/2007 2,351.13 070684 04/03/2007 454.73 2,805. 86 131097 04127/2007 000402 MAIL BOXES ETC 9019345 04/13/2007 35.55 09019298 04/1012007 28.00 9019344 04/13/2007 823 71. 78 131098 04/27/2007 006100 ERIN MARIN 042007 04/20/2007 60.00 60. 00 131099 04/2712007 006101 ELSA MEJIA 042007 04/20/2007 60.00 60. 00 131100 04/2712007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL 041907 04/26/2007 240.00 240. 00 131101 04/2712007 000423 MID-STATE CONCRETE 25022 04/0912007 465.48 465. 48 131102 04/2712007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 901959 04/19/2007 138.91 200128 04105/2007 89.56 201882 04/18/2007 72.15 200658 04/09/2007 58.12 201611 04116/2007 53.17 Page: 10 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 11 04/30/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 131103 04/27/2007 005987 NORMAN 8 VASOUEZ 131104 04/27/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 131105 04/27/2007 000492 PETTY CASH 131106 04/27/2007 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 131107 04/27/2007 000503 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS, 131108 04/27/2007 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 131109 04/27/2007 006102 VIANEY ROCHA 131110 04127/2007 004833 STEVE ROMO 131111 04/27/2007 006021 BLAKE ROSKELLY 131112 04/2712007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 131113 04/2712007 006022 LEAH RUIZ 131114 04/2712007 006103 VERONICA RUIZ 131115 04/2712007 000803 SAN LUIS MAILING SERVICE Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 201832 04/18/2007 49.50 200140 04/05/2007 41.20 202162 04120/2007 36.61 201840 04/18/2007 26.36 200232 04/06/2007 21.53 200143 04/05/2007 21.51 200938 04111 /2007 14.00 125629 .04/03/2007 13.94 201265 04/13/2007 9.64 125681 04/0312007 6.45 900891 04/11/2007 5.37 900746 04/10/2007 5.15 900565 04/09/2007 3.76 144247 04/04/2007 3.56 670.49 03282007 03/2812007 1,300.00 1,300.00 380748734 03/30/2007 118.99 382499801001 04106/2007 79.93 38167188001 04/06/2007 14.47 213.39 PETTY CASH 04/26/2007 218.74 218.74 7147128-AP07 04/13/2007 165.00 165.00 123795 04/06/2007 195.03 195.03 30823 04/09/2007 81.35 81.35 042007 04/2012007 30.00 30.00 041907 04/19/2007 220.00 220.00 041907 04/19/2007 300.00 300.00 041907 04126/2007 272.00 272.00 041907 04/26/2007 64.00 64.00 042007 04/2012007 30.00 30.00 31468 03/01 /2007 1,208.80 1,208.80 Page: 11 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12 04130/2007 12:16PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date, Invoice Inv. Date Amount Pald Check Total 131116 04127/2007 004659 SAN LUIS TRUCK 131117 04/27/2007 006067 SANTA MARGARITA FIRE 131118 04/27/2007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 131119 04/27/2007 000579 JOYCE SARUWATARI 131120 04/2712007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 131121 04/27/2007 006096 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF- 131122 04/27/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 131123 04/27/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 131124 04/27/2007 000616 STERLING 131125 04/27/2007 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 131126 04/27/2007 006106 IRENE TRIES 131127 04/27/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 131128 04/27/2007 006104 MICAELA VALDEZ 131129 04/27/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 131130 04/27/2007 006105 AMY WEMPLE 131131 04/2712007 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 131132 04/2712007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 131133 04/2712007 000704 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS 183 checks in this report 98894 04/13/2007 352 .65 352 .65 042407 04/24/2007 2,066 .97 2,066 .97 041907 04/26/2007 48 .00 48 .00 042307 04/23/2007 30 .69 30 .69 041907 04/26/2007 120 .00 120 .00 FEB 2007 04/26/2007 155 .00 MARCH 2007 04/26/2007 31 .00 186 .00 041907 04/26/2007 72 .00 72 .00 041907 04/26/2007 160. 00 160 .00 22798 04/14/2007 182. 33 182. 33 1080 03/31 /2007 339. 52 339. 52 042407 04/24/2007 32. 00 32. 00 1018723 04/09/2007 700. 80 700. 80 042007 04/20/2007 30. 00 30. 00 2128700478 04/07/2007 493. 98 2127880580 04/04/2007 124. 15 618. 13 042007 04/20/2007 30. 00 30. 00 813332912 03/2012007 205. 38 205. 38 041907 04/26/2007 96. 00 96. 00 T5858 04/13/2007 725. 00 725. 00 boa Total: 132,235.27 Total Checks: 132,235.27 Page: 12 ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 4/8!07 - 4/19!07 04!27!07 FUND 010 387,494. 51 5101 Salaries Full time 207,372. 01 FUND 220 18,451. 71 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 19,377. 38 FUND 284 707. 71 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 11,056. 34 FUND 285 707. 76 5105 Salaries OverTime 11,674. 11 FUND 612 6,577. 11 5107 Salaries Standby 369. 00 FUND 640 19,107. 04 5108 Holiday Pay 9,449. 13 433,045. 84 5109 Sick Pay 6,340. 77 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 10,770. 73 5114 Comp Pay 5,782. 48 5115 Annual Leave Pay 5,142. 38 5121 PERS Retirement 75,657 .46 5122 Social Security 20,635 .17 5123 PARS Retirement 368 .51 5126 State Disability Ins. 638 .37 5127 Deferred Compensation 725 .00 5131 Health Insurance 39,638 .63 5132 Dentallnsurance 4,412 .10 5133 Vision Insurance 1,029 .06 5134 Life Insurance 594 .32 5135 Long Term Disability 895 .49 5143 Uniform Allowance 5144 Car Allowance 600 .00 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 242 .40 5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay 75 .00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200 .00 433, 045 .84 8.b. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS; 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member Jim Guthrie, Council Member Chuck Fellows, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): one (1) potential case. 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Chuck Fellows, Jim Guthrie, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director of Community Development Rob Strong, Assistant Planner Jim Bergman and Associate Planner Teresa McClish. 3. FLAG SALUTE Joe Brittingham, representing the Arroyo Grande Rotary Club, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Retired Pastor Richard Scharn delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.b. Honorary Proclamation -Clark Center 5`h Anniversary. Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation recognizing the 5"' Anniversary of the Clark Center for the Performing Arts and honoring the South County Performing Arts Foundation, the South County Performing Arts Association, and the Lucia Mar Unified School District for their joint contribution to the performing arts in South San Luis Obispo County. Bernie Kautz, representing the Clark Center for Performing Arts, accepted the Proclamation. S.a. Special Presentation -Arroyo Grande In Bloom. Bob Lund gave a presentation on Arroyo Grande In Bloom, a program promoted by the America In Bloom (AIB) organization that encourages beautification efforts, personal and community involvement and educational programs through a nationwide competition between cities. He reviewed the benefits of the AIB program, the judging categories, and the goals for Arroyo Grande In Bloom. Jim Bergman then presented an overview of beautification projects within the City to date and announced that the AIB judges will be coming to Arroyo Grande on May 7`" and 8'h. He concluded by acknowledging and thanking the various businesses and organizations that have supported the program. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council Member Costello moved, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS None. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item to do so at this time. Maggie Summers, representing Destination Imagination (DI), referred to Item 8.g., thanked the City for its support and introduced two students from the program. Katie Joy and Claire Summers, DI program participants, gave an overview of the Destination Imagination program as the world's largest problem solving competition and explained that the program includes challenges ranging from theatrical, with a small mechanical element, to mechanical with a small amount of theatrics. They spoke about their experience at the State finals and their hopes for raising funds to compete in the Global finals. They concluded by performing a short demonstration with several members of the team. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Fellows requested that Item 8.f. be pulled for discussion. Action: Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Guthrie seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.i., with the exception of Item 8.f., with the recommended courses of action. City Attorney Carmel read the Ordinance titles in Items 8.h. and 8.i. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Guthrie, Fellows, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period March 16, 2007 through March 31, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Cost Allocation Plan. Action: Adopted the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Cost Allocation Plan. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of City Investment Policy. Action: Approved the City of Arroyo Grande Investment Policy and Resolution No. 4005 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE DEPOSIT OF CITY FUNDS IN VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS." 8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of March 27, 2007, as submitted. 8.e. Consideration to Award Bid for Purchase of Building and Life Safety Division 4x4 Utility Passenger Hybrid Vehicle and Approve Funding Increase. Action: Authorized award of bid to purchase a 2008 4x4 utility passenger hybrid vehicle for the Building & Life Safety Division from Mullahey Ford in the amount of $28,063.41; and appropriate an additional $7,063.41 to be added to the already budgeted $21,000. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Page 3 8.g. Consideration of Funding Request from Destination Imagination. Action: Approve a $500 contribution to the Destination Imagination Global Competition teams. 8.h. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 10.08.060(b) of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 586 as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 10.08.060.6. OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE." 8.i. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Amending Section 2.28.050D of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Allow the Senior Advisory Commission, by Resolution, to Adopt Rules and Regulations to Govern Meetings. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 587 as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050.D. OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE MEETINGS OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMISSION." 8.f. Consideration of Amendments to Standards for West Branch Street Special Event Banners. Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution Approving Standards for Special Event Banners for Community Based Events." Council Member Fellows expressed concerns with eliminating the requirement for aten-day interval between displaying banners since banners could be displayed on a permanent basis with no gap between special events. He also expressed concern with changing the restriction on the amount of time banners may be displayed before an event and suggested that the 30 day requirement be changed to 20 days. Brief discussion ensued regarding the frequency of special events, whether the Architectural Review Committee had reviewed the proposed changes, and staff time involved with hanging the banners. Action: Council Member Fellows moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS FOR COMMUNITY BASED EVENTS", with the modification that banners may be displayed for no more than 20 days prior to an event and 7 days afterward. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Guthrie, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM 10.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Case No. 06-009; Revised Project Description for Vesting Tentative Tract Map/PUD Case No. 01-001 to Subdivide a 26.6 Acre Property into Seventeen (17) Lots and One Permanently Preserved Open Space Lot Located at James Way and La Canada. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, Aprii 10, 2007 Page 4 Associate Planner Theresa McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council provide preliminary comments on a revised project description for the project; and approve a contract amendment for the preparation of an addendum to the Revised Final Subsequent Environment Impact Report (RFSEIR) by Rincon Consultants. Dennis Law, representing Castlerock Development, explained that the applicant's goals were to present a revised project design concept for Tract 1998 based on findings made by the City Council in Resolution 3892; and to obtain constructive and productive feedback from the Council, staff, and the public. He displayed a vicinity map that highlighted the project area; gave a brief review of the project history; reviewed the original project objective and design and subsequent modifications to the original project design; and presented the current revised project concept for 17 residential units. He listed the benefits of the redesigned project including a reduction in the impact to riparian habitat, avoidance of impacts to Pismo clarkia, expansion of the wildlife corridor; and a reduction in woodland impact. Jason Tyra, representing Castlerock Development, reviewed the current project design; gave an overview of the site topography by section; displayed the RFSEIR Habitat Map which depicted the various habitat types located on the site; explained the habitat ranking analysis; described the proposed lot sizes, design and configuration; described proposed roads and emergency access points; reviewed the preliminary grading design and proposed drainage plan, and reviewed the site constraints map, He concluded by reviewing the benefits of the proposed redesign, which he stated strives to achieve a balance between the RFSEIR mitigations, the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, and the project objectives. Council Members asked questions of the applicant concerning the avoidance of steep slopes; the type of retaining walls proposed; filtering of run-off water from the development; whether the proposed RFSEIR Addendum should be noticed and circulated for public review; clarifications regarding the location and width of the emergency access road and its intended use as a pedestrian trail; how the project's drainage plan would address slope erosion and sediment control; whether the Oak tree on lot 2 could be retained; and clarification regarding property owned by the applicant on Noyes Road as it relates to transfer of density and alternatives identified in the project RFSEIR. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Robert Brownson, Asilo, referred to the history of the proposed project and acknowledged the revised project design and the mitigation of negative environmental impacts, including the avoidance of the Pismo clarkia plant species. However, he expressed serious concerns with remaining negative impacts to the Oak woodlands with the removal of sixty Oak trees, which he said results in a CEQA Class I significant and unavoidable impact to biological resources. He stated wildlife habitat would be negatively impacted by the loss of the tree canopy, as well as by the introduction of noise, light, and pedestrians. He suggested that the applicant consider removing lots 13 and 14 from the plan to preserve the Oak woodland and enhance the wildlife. He noted that lots 15, 16, & 17 also abut the Oak woodland; and noted that runoff from impervious surfaces would cause erosion along the creek banks and sedimentation in Meadow Creek. He stated that the proposal violates the required 50-foot setback in some riparian areas; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Page 5 supported the removal of the eucalyptus grove and the planting of improved riparian habitat; and expressed concerns about the erosive soil and steep hillsides. He stated that although he was impressed by the applicant's progress, the remaining impacts need to be eliminated or corrected before the proposal could move forward. Vic Bealer, Easy Street, expressed concern regarding the number of Oak trees proposed to be removed; stated it was the wrong density as compared to the adjacent properties; expressed concern about who would be responsible for maintaining the area between the back of the lots and the eastern property line; stated that lots 8 - 13 were inappropriate as they are too high for the surrounding area and will impact views; stated that the proposed emergency access road is unacceptable; and requested that the land be kept pristine in perpetuity. He further stated that some of the lots are too steep for any grading or development. Anna Unkovich, Asilo, commented that at one time the developer tried to trade the property for the park property at the top of James Way; commented on the importance of preserving trees; and requested that the developer work with some environmental group to protect this property in perpetuity. She also requested that the RFSEIR Addendum be released for public review and comment. She noted the long history of the project and requested the Council make a decision in the best interest of the community to protect the area. Joel Couser, Asilo, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He expressed concerns about human/visual impacts, noting that the project does not fit the area and the elevations of the lots would require steep retaining walls to terrace up the hill. Doug Tait, Asilo, noted his conflict of interest as a member of the Planning Commission; however, he was speaking to the Council only as a citizen. He stated the RFSEIR dated February 2004 had a habitat definition plan that differs from the preliminary tree plan regarding the extent of Pismo clarkia and requested this be further reviewed. He referred to the constraints map and noted jurisdictional drainage constraints that traverse the site from east to west in the northern portion of the property. He said that portions of lots 3 - 17 and the fire access road impact these jurisdictional drainages. He referred to mitigation measure B-2A of the Draft Supplemental EIR that recommended a span bridge instead of a culvert as a preferred structure for preserving Meadow Creek as a wildlife corridor. With regard to Oak tree removal and impacts, he stated this project changes the habitat and diversity of the Oak woodland. He asked the Council to revisit impacts to Oaks and transplantation as mitigation. He stated that the proposal does not avoid slopes greater than 20%; opposed the use of a Homeowners Association to monitor long-term protection of the environment; inquired whether the fire emergency access road/trail would be used only as a pedestrian trail and whether equestrians would be allowed; expressed concerns about impacts to Pismo clarkia habitat; and asked that the 2007 RFSEIR Addendum be circulated for public review and comment. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - Had positive reaction to initial review of revised project which seems to avoid a lot of the sensitive areas that need protection; - When detailed project comes forward, will be looking closely at steep slopes -what type of retaining walls will be used, what they look like, and how visible they are; - Likes that the project avoids the lower area where the Pismo clarkia habitat is located; - Does not want to see mature Oak trees removed; must carefully review which ones are targeted for removal; acknowledged difficulty in transplanting Oak trees; Minutes: City Counci/ Meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Page 6 - Need to honor 50-foot creek setback for riparian area; - Concerned about impacts to wildlife corridor; - Does not want to rely on a Homeowners Association for monitoring enforcement; - Requested clarification be provided regarding Pismo clarkia maps; - Will evaluate this project based on its merits and the environmental considerations for this site; does not see any direct connection between trading impacts on one area for impacts on another area; - Proposed project is an improvement. Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments: - Had positive reaction to initial review of revised project; primary environmental impacts (Pismo clarkia and riparian) are greatly improved from previous proposal; - Concerned about requiring enforcement by a Homeowners Association; need a third party with expertise to maintain and improve the riparian area; - Concerned about slopes and terraced retaining walls; - Concerned about drainage plan; need to be very specific in future in order to evaluate project appropriately; - Not clear whether proposal includes two-story buildings; if so, need to see good elevations; - Need to reconcile multiple Pismo clarkia maps and reports; - Less concerned about removal of trees; represents about 2°/u of the trees on the entire site; - Need to clarify whether the proposed fire emergency access road has been reviewed and approved by the City; Concerned about the cumulative reduction in the wildlife corridor; need to determine impacts to wildlife movement; - Has major concerns about drainage and slope; will review carefully when detailed project comes forward. Council Member Fellows provided the following comments: - Has made numerous visits to the site and done homework; - Impressed with reduction in number of homes; although he acknowledged there were still many site constraints; - Concerned with differences in Pismo clarkia maps; needs to be checked into; - Appreciates that the road has been narrowed in some places to avoid trees; - Supports emergency access road; - Concerned with top two cul-de-sac lots as they are too steep; too much grading; and removal of two large Oak trees; , - Lot 2 is in the riparian area buffer; Lot 1 Oaks; consider retaining the three trunk Oak tree (#2433); - Cutting down or removing Oak trees should be avoided as much as possible; has issue with lots 11, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 6 as far as trees that should be avoided; specifically, Lots 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have Oaks on or near the property line and could be easily avoided; tree #9734 is at the edge of the emergency access road and could be avoided; tree #9719 is on the edge of Blossom Valley Road. - Supports removal of eucalyptus trees to protect and avoid destruction of the Oak woodland and to eliminate a fire hazard; - The well on the property should be given to the City for irrigation purposes; Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, April 70, 2007 - Replace barbed wire fence requested by neighboring resident (located above Oak tree #9479); Need to use a bridge instead of a culvert; - The Homeowners Association must hire a consultant for monitoring. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments: - Encouraged with revised plan; issues are not insurmountable; - Concerned with Lot 1 as it relates to the number of mature trees on the lot and suggested removing Lot 1 from the plan; - Drainage issues are significant; need to capture runoff from the project -will need more than a siltation filter; - Does not see link between this development and the Noyes Road property; - Agrees that a bridge is far better than a culvert to minimize impact to the creek; - Supports circulation of the RFSEIR Addendum for public review and comment; - Slopes and retaining walls can be done effectively; referred to Lots 12 & 13 and how walls would appear from a distance; landscape buffers could be used; - Suggested some kind of visual buffer between Lots 3 through 11 and the estate lots on Easy Street; - Supports development in this area; project has been moved away from Pismo clarkia and the wetlands; - Does not like to see Oak trees removed and supports saving as many as possible, particularly along the edge of the site; however, there is a minimal impact and it is offset by the avoidance of the Pismo clarkia; - Wants to see the riparian and wetland enhancement plan brought back; - Would like to see the on-site well reactivated and given to the City to help mitigate the impact to the City's water system. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Emphasized importance of concerns relating to the slope ratio; need to minimize the project impact to the natural contour of the hills; concerned about the size and intrusiveness of a retaining wall network; - Realignment of the emergency road access lessens impact to wetlands and habitat and avoids impact to Pismo clarkia; - Supports option for a bridge instead of a culvert; - Concerned about drainage; referred to City's restrictive policy regarding development in and around creek systems; bio-filters need to be installed; noted that steep slope development creates rapid run-off and erosion; Need clarification regarding Pismo clarkia impacts; Supports circulation of RFSEIR Addendum for public review and comment; - Use of Homeowners Association for monitoring and enforcement is not plausible; need to find better way; - Need to minimize Oak tree impacts; - Agrees there is no nexus between this project and any future Noyes Road project. Mayor Ferrara invited the applicant to ask questions based on the Council's comments Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Page 8 Dennis Law expressed appreciation for the specific comments, which could be used to address the Council's concerns. He explained that they focused on presenting a conceptual design and less on specifics of the environmental, as the Addendum would address those issues. He supported public review of the Addendum; explained that the enhancement concept for the riparian area is to use the enhancement plan that is in the current Addendum as a starting place; explained that the exclusion of the eucalyptus trees is a part of that plan; stated that the prior plan had specific mechanisms to address siltation and pollutants from street run-off and that the goal is to incorporate the same kind of design concepts in a drainage plan that addresses concerns expressed by the Council. Jason Tyra responded to issues raised concerning the slopes and indicated they would return with better depictions; noted that the emergency access road had been discussed at length with former Chief Fibich; noted that building heights and conceptual elevations are based on the RFSEIR requirements (50% of the roof shall not exceed 16 feet in height); and confirmed that a secondary evaluation of the entire property had occurred as it relates to Pismo clarkia. Council Member Guthrie clarified concerns relating to slopes and grading and requested the applicant look at alternatives to avoid the types of retaining walls used in a neighboring development and finding a solution that would fit into the natural environment as close as possible. Dennis Law clarified that the applicant does not see a nexus to the Noyes Road property, and is presenting the proposed project on its own merits. Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback with regard to the proposed project. City Attorney Carmel noted that a minor amendment was needed to the Addendum contract in response to circulating the Addendum for public review. He said the scope of work needs to include the consultant's response to public comments in an amount not to exceed $4,000. Action: Council Member Costello moved to approve a contract amendment for the preparation of Addendum No. 2 to the previously certified Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report by Rincon Consultants, as amended to include a component for response to public comments. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2007 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. Page 9 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Arnold referred to the City's fireworks booth application and expressed concerns about certain requirements in the City's existing Ordinance regulating the permit process. He requested, and the Council concurred, to direct staff to review the Ordinance and bring forth modifications to the Council for consideration at a future meeting. Mayor Ferrara requested the City Manager coordinate with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach to schedule a joint meeting of the City Councils in June or July to receive an informational presentation from Nick Alter regarding Green Build. Council Member Fellows referred to previous comments made by Cade Newman regarding the need for striping on James Way from Hidden Oak Road to Tally Ho and asked if staff had followed up on the matter. City Manager Adams responded that staff is considering striping along James Way in response to Council's request to look at traffic calming measures. Council Member Fellows requested that staff send a copy of the report on regulations of pet store sales of dogs and cats to Linda Shepherd. He also requested that staff respond to her concerns regarding drainage. Council Member Fellows suggested that staff investigate a public comment regarding the prohibition of a right turn on red light at the westbound EI Camino and Brisco intersection. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold noted that curb cuts are being done on James Way near the fitness club and assumed that water and sewer lines are being installed before repaving is done. City Manager Adams responded he would follow up on the matter. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS City Manager Adams confirmed that the Budget Workshop has been scheduled for May 29~h 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Steve Ross, Garden Street, commented on the removal of the stop sign on James Way at Hidden Oak Road. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk (Approved at CC Mtg ) 8.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TONY AEILTS, CHIEF OF POLICE BY: CRAIG HENDRICKS, POLICE COMMANDER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to purchase replacement dispatch consoles for the Police Department from Sterling Communications for $114,002. FUNDING: There is no General Fund impact. This expenditure involves the balance (approximately $60,000) of the $100,000 received by the City under the COPS Program in FY 2005-06 and a portion of the $100,000 received from that same program in FY 2006-07. These funds have been designated by the City Council for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's base station radio communications system. DISCUSSION: The current radio communications system was purchased in FY 1986-87 and is approaching 19 years in age. Our communications maintenance contractor has notified the City that the manufacturer will no longer support elements of the current system with replacement components. The acquisition of the new system was proposed to be in 2 phases, including replacement of the unsupported equipment (console and base transmitter) during FY 2006-07 with planning to replace repeaters and supporting equipment in a subsequent year. This request addresses the remainder of the first planned phase of system replacement. The department has been experiencing operational problems with the dispatch console equipment. This equipment is located in the dispatch center and controls the transmitters, receivers, fire paging system, and related equipment in the Police Facility, such as alarms, door locks, and audio monitors. The balance of the funds from FY 2005-06 and a portion of those from FY 2006-07 are needed to complete the replacement of the equipment from the first phase of the project. This portion of the project addresses the last of the currently unsupported radio equipment. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 On March 15, 2007, staff mailed a Request for Proposal to each of four radio communications equipment manufacturers or vendors deemed to be capable of responding to the request and who were previously contacted and had expressed interest in the project. The request required proposals to be received by 5:00 p.m. on April 20, 2007. All four firms responded with written proposals after sending one or more representatives to the required site visit. All four proposals were received by 5:00 p.m. on April 19, 2007. Over the past few months, staff visited and interviewed personnel at dispatch centers utilizing equipment proposed by three of the four vendors and have seen the fourth vendor's equipment demonstrated at a trade show. Staff has determined that the software and components proposed by all four vendors meet our needs and are adaptable to the operation of our dispatch center. Specifically, the request for proposals outlines the project as including the provision and installation of a PC-based radio control console system, which consists of two personal computers situated in the dispatch center connected via network cables to an equipment rack in the communications equipment room. This equipment is then connected to the existing radio system and related facility equipment. In essence, the computer-operated system replaces the out-dated technology of pushbuttons, switches, knobs, and pilot lights currently in use. Built-in redundancy includes the use of two independent computers that operate four different multi-channel transmitters, each of which is capable of operating on any of the seven main law enforcement frequencies currently in use in the South County. The proposed system provides for similar redundancies with the existing fire radio system. The request was for an installation complete in all respects, including coordination with the existing equipment, training of department personnel, and a proposal for extended service and warranty. Staff has determined that the proposal received from Sterling Communications to provide Motorola MCC5500 equipment is overall the most responsive to each of the requirements indicated in the request. This proposal is comprehensive in several areas, including a detailed and realistic work plan and schedule, extended warranty coverage options, listing and cost breakdown of major components, and descriptive literature. The equipment proposed is manufactured by the same firm. that manufactured the current radio system, including transmitters, repeater, receivers, fire paging system, and the mobile and portable radios. Therefore, it is fully compatible with all of the existing equipment and forward compatible with equipment anticipated to be needed in future phases of the communication system enhancement and replacement project, specifically digital transmitters, interoperability, and digital encryption. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 3 The proposed equipment is compatible with all existing analog equipment operating on frequencies currently utilized by San Luis Obispo county and municipal law enforcement agencies. It can be anticipated within the next several years that a gradual transition to at least one primary digital channel per agency will occur. This has already occurred at Santa Maria PD and is likely being considered for San Luis Obispo PD. The existing analog frequencies in Santa Maria are still being utilized as auxiliary channels, which provide the capability of communications with allied agencies not having digital equipment. The proposed equipment is compatible with this eventual transition as it is likely that Arroyo Grande will need to rely on auxiliary channels in support of law enforcement operations. Compatibility of the systems also provides that it will be able to accommodate a future potential recommendation for dispatch consolidation with neighboring jurisdictions. Sterling Communications is the contractor currently maintaining and servicing the radio communications equipment at the Police Department and the principal of Sterling Communications installed the current system nearly 20 years ago and had been continuously involved in its repair and maintenance for that period of time. This familiarity results in Sterling being uniquely situated with a balance of institutional system knowledge and industry experience. Sterling is a factory authorized vendor and service station for the manufacturer of both radio and dispatch console equipment currently in use at the Arroyo Grande Police Department, as well as at the Lompoc, Santa Maria, Grover Beach, and Paso Robles Police Departments. Their proposal assures a single source of responsibility for the installation and maintenance of the system in the future. Other proposals require the City to coordinate and compensate an outside vendor to assist with connection and coordination of the signals to and from the radio transmitters and receivers and the related auxiliary equipment via a point of demarcation. This concept has the potential to complicate the project due to the inevitable confusion over responsibility for operational problems, both in the original installation and in future maintenance, resulting in the potential for unbudgeted costs to the City and the loss of system functionality and staff time for coordination. Recently, Sterling Communications successfully completed the installation of a Motorola radio and console project over ten times larger than covered by this proposal at the Santa Maria Police Department. In addition, Sterling previously installed and continues to provide service and support for a Motorola MCC5500 system at the Lompoc Police Department and just this month completed the installation of a Motorola MCC5500 system at the Fort Hunter-Liggett Police Department. Sterling's facility is based within 25 miles of the Arroyo Grande Police Department, provides a normal emergency response time within 30 minutes, and is capable of responding up to four service technicians within 2 hours. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 4 In FY 2005-06, the Police Chief recommended utilizing the COPS allocation over the next five (5) to six (6) years for the replacement and enhancement of the Police Department's base station radio communications system. After a public hearing, the Council approved the Police Chief's recommendation. This recommendation and approval was repeated in 2006 for the FY 2006-07 COPS allocation. State law requires that COPS funds must be spent or encumbered within a two year period or returned to the State Controller's Office (based on the State fiscal year). There is approximately $60,000 left over in the COPS fund from FY 2005-06 that must be encumbered by June 30, 2007. These funds were allocated during FY 2005-06 to the communications system replacement fund and staff has planned to encumber them during FY 2006-07 for the first phase of the communication system replacement and enhancement program. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: -Approve staffs recommendation; - Reject proposals and direct staff to solicit additional proposals; - Reject proposals and provide further direction to staff; or - Do not approve staff's recommendation. Attachments: 1. Request for Proposal 2. Quotation Summary 3. Proposal from Sterling Communications ATTACHMENT #1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH CONSOLE EQUIPMENT I. PROPOSAL INTENT It is the intent of the City of Arroyo Grande to secure proposals to replace existing public safety dispatch console equipment that has reached the end of its useable life. II. BACKGROUND The City of Arroyo Grande is afull-service city, which currently comprises 5.45 square miles and serves 16,582 residents. It is located on the Central Coast of California midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The City provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection; the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and other infrastructure; and recreational activities and cultural events. The Police Department staffs and maintains a Public Safety Access Point (PSAP) responsible for receiving emergency calls and dispatching police, fire, and EMS services. III. SCOPE OF WORK The City seeks to secure proposals from established firms, qualified and experienced in the design, application, installation and maintenahce of public safety radio console equipment to replace the existing Centracom II console and control point, which is developing performance deficiencies and is no longer supported by the manufacturer. The contracted firm will replace the existing console and any related equipment and wiring as necessary, with a digital, PC-based console system, featuring a graphical interface, which will be fully compatible in all respects with the existing Motorola analog multi-radio, multi-channel system; the existing auxiliary equipment and systems, including door and gate control, detention area panic alarms, station audio monitors, and fire paging system; and be compatible with currently available Motorola digital radio equipment including digital encryption. The contracted firm shall review all existing equipment and conditions at the installation site and the repeater site as necessary to identify the full cost of the installation, equipment and services necessary to provide a complete and operable system, including coordination with vendors maintaining related and affected equipment, costs for temporary relocation of equipment and necessary systems or services, appropriate provisions for training of City personnel, and the furnishing of at least two copies of operator and service manuals. IV. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT Firms desiring to respond shall make their proposals with sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation. Each proposal shall include as a minimum the following information in this format: A. Introduction Present an introduction to the proposal describing the firm's understanding of the desired work. Include a detailed description of the methods by which the consultant intends to perform the work set forth in the Scope of Services. B. Equipment Proposed Provide a detailed description of the specific equipment proposed to be furnished, including manufacturer's literature describing and depicting features, specifications, and capabilities, and the location of the nearest PSAP when the proposed equipment may be seen in operation. C. Qualifications Include a description of the firm's background, experience with similar projects, and the qualifications of key personnel proposed to work on the project. V. D. Work Plan Provide a tentative schedule by phase, key task, and proposed compensation for completing the work. Specifically, detail the plan and process by which the existing console will be taken out of service and the new console will be brought online, including any requirements for displacement and temporary relocation of equipment, services or personnel during the transition. E. Costs Submit a detailed cost proposal, which includes a performance and cost schedule for all services and equipment necessary to complete this project. The proposal should specify the major components, the cost breakdown by major component or phase, and the expected time of completion for each component based on the scope of services outlined in the proposal. The proposal should include, a total proposed, "not to exceed" cost of the project, including a fee and rate schedule describing charges and hourly rates for services not included in the proposal. Cost will not be the sole deciding factor in making the selection. F. Warranty Service and Support Submit a proposal that details the product warranty including replacement of equipment, parts, and service and the period of coverage, as well as any options for extended service, support and product warranty plans that are applicable or available. The proposal shall include the base location from which service personnel are dispatched to both emergency and routine service requests and the usual response time, including during business hours and after hours and holidays, as well as identifying the location where a complete inventory of replacement and repair parts are stocked and shipped. G. References List former clients for whom similar or comparable services have been performed. Include the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the appropriate contact person. SELECTION PROCESS A review committee will make recommendation to the City Council for award of the contract. An oral interview by the panel may be requested. Proposals will be evaluated based upon the following criteria: A. Relative experience and qualifications B. Technical merits of the proposal C. Ability of proposed work plan to meet the needs of the City D. Warranty, support, service, and availability of extended plans E. Overall cost VI. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE A. Site Visit By appointment B. Proposals Due .April 20, 2007 at 5:00 PM C. Select Contractor .April 27, 2007 D. City Council Consideration . May 8, 2007 E. Effective Date of Contrail May 11, 2007 VII. SUBMITTAL A. Submit a total of 4 copies to: Craig Hendricks, Commander Arroyo Grande Police Department 200 N. Halcyon Rd. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 B. Show the following information on the outside of the package: • Firm's name and address • Public Safety Dispatch Console Equipment Proposal C. The proposal must be received at the above address by the closing date and time. Firms mailing or shipping their proposals must allow sufficient delivery time to ensure timely receipt of their proposals by the time specified. Late proposals will not be accepted. D. Closing Date: All proposals must be received by Friday. Aril 20. 2007 at 5:00 PM. E. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for any or no reason. F. For more information, please contact Craig Hendricks at 805-473-5123 or Nan Pennock at 805-473-5106. VIII. LIABILITY INSURANCE Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Contractor wi// maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth be%w. Contractor will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth here, Contractor agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Contractor acknowledges that the insurance coverage and po/ity /imits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds auai/ab/e to City in excess of the limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is app/icable to a given loss, will be available to City. Contractor shall provide the fol%wing types and amounts of insurance: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial General Liability" policy from CG 00 Ol or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. B. Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 Ol including symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Contractor owns no vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy described above. If Contractor or Contractor's employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Contractor shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. C. Workers Compensation on astate-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease. D. Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary), if used to meet limit requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be provided on a "pay on behalf" basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of Contractor, subcontractors or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. E. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designated to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Contractor and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement. F. Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a minimum financial size VII. G. General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Contractor. Contractor and City agree to the following with respell to insurance provided by Contractor: 1. Contractor agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds, City, its officials employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Contractor also agrees to require all Contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise. 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Contractor, or Contractor's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Contractor agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Contractors and subcontractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 4 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any Contractor or subcontractor. 6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Contractor shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Contractor's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution. of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Contractor or deducted from sums due Contractor, at City option. 8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any cancellation of coverage. Contractor agrees to require its insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will "endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate. 9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that. all insurance coverage required to be provided by Contractor or any subcontractors, is intended to apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self insurance available to City. 10. Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 11. Contractor agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it will not allow any Contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Contractor's existing coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the Contractor, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. 12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Contractor ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additidnal cost to the Contractor, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increase benefit to City. 13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this.Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 14. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirements in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 15. Contractor will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. 16. Contractor shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Contractor's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration of the coverages. 17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Contractor under this agreement. Contractor expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents. 18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all- inclusive. 19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. 20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Section. 21. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that rio contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these 6 requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 22. Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Contractor arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. page 1 of 2 Attachment #2 )Ar-~ BY: Cmdr. Hendricks PREPARED OPOSALS ® VJRVTTEN PR E~pHONE ~ VERBAI~T VEN~:__- ADDRESS- QUANTITY 1TEM# DESCRIPTION with 1 (2) pC-based Public Safety Dispatch Consoles existing rad'w and comPalible vnth graphical interface, other existing systems 5 Stems VendOf Coord'mation with existing Y training. etc)_ Labor ('nstallahon. ~ 2 years extended) arronty l1 Year factory Extended W - Sales Tax l7 ~75°J°) TOTAL QUOTATION CASH DISCOUNT TERMS F.O.B. ECEIPT OF ORDER DELIVERY TIME FROM R CITY OF ARROYO GRANMMARY QUOTATION EVALUATION 5U 1 ~`~ ~ NAME SUPPLIER'S Stedin9 C°mmunications p 0. Box 1320 o Grande, CA 93421 Arroy ~ UNIT 70TAL UNIT PRICE PR1GE "~~ NAME SUPPLIER'S ommunications Modular C 13309 Saticoy St. CA 91605 N. Hollywood• UNIT TOTAL PRICE ~ S NAME SUPPLIER' AT&7 2655 E~°'`-~ pakndale, CA 93550 TOTAL UNIT PrxICE $7y,g51.25 $i07,385~56 50,202.00 lot additional additional 14,167.12 included 15 41 f 20 lot 35~ 5 years t4 012 64 26 000.00 .00 ,_ ~ot- 1,800.00 1 yr only gOp 00 years J 1 2 Included ' 2,100 00 Included included 8,322.38 1 $101,431.01 Tax included 1 $136.719.14 $114,002.00 None Net 30 Arroyo Grande None Arroyo Grande 3-0 months prroYo Grande 90-120 days 8,13 weeks Policy #'. C-p01 X002 Page 2 of 2 ~ATC-~ r Hendricks PREPARED BY: Cmd~ N PROPOSALS ® WRITCE NE QUOTATIONS VERBAUTELEPHO ~ ^ ~ SUPPLIERS N Hi_pesen Communications VENDOR= 17181 Jasmine S~- ADDRESS: 92395 Victarville, CA ~ __ TOTAL ~ ' UNIT QUANTITY DESCRIPTION with ITEM # ~ Dispat~ Consoles (2) PC-based public Safety With exfsfmg radio and 1 compatible graphical interla~~ 5 other existing sYslem s stems vendor Goordlnatronwithexistin9 y training, etc)" Labor (instaflaCwn' ears extended) Warranty (1 Year factory * 2 Y Extended --- 1 J 1 2 $74,047.75 lot additional lot 8,326.00 IOt 20,009.52 _...~ 10.004 76 -- UNIT TOTAL pRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT_ PRICE additional 5~ 109,121.97 Estimated Sa{es tax (7.7a ~a1....-. LQUOTATION .._--- TOTA pISCOUNT TERMS CASN F.0"B~ RECEtP7 OF ORDER pELIVERY TIME FROM RpYO GRANp~ CITY O~ AR MARY ~~pT10N gUM SUPPLIER'S NAME ,aVGYASION OVA pEPARTPAENT: Police SUPPLIER'S NAME AME ~"`~- labor Net 30 Days in9 additional Origin Shipp g weeks, AR_ O,r,~..••~ policy #'" C'001I002 ,:~ - STERLING COMMUNICATIONS 2232 S. Depot #G, Santa Maria, CA 93455 Public Safety Dispatch Console Equipment Proposal Introduction The existing Centracom II console currently controls analog radio equipment and an obsolete intercom system and jail panic alarms that are integrated into the console. The manufacturer of the intercom system is no longer in business and the intercom system cannot be integrated into any new console so it will have to be upgraded along with the console to retain the existing functionality. Motorola is currently offering two consoles that are available to Arroyo Grande Police Departrnent. Both consoles would be able to integrated with the existing and future radio equipment. The Motorola Centracom Elite is an upgrade to the existing Centracom II console. It is the same console installed at Paso Robles Police D.epartrnent, Grover Beach Police Departrnent and Santa Maria Police Departrnent. It would provide ease of cross training and compatibility with local dispatch centers. It offers a 24" wide footswitch. However, it is scheduled to be discontinued in the near future, after which support will only be provided by the manufacturer for another 7 years. The other Motorola console available is the MCCS500. It is currently in place at Lompoc PD, Ft. Hunter Liggett PD and is going to be installed at Santa Barbara Police Department. The MCCSS00 console does not offer a 24" footswitch. We are going to outline a proposal for both rnnsoles to provide the city with a choice. Should the city go to a combined dispatch center, the MCC5000 positions could be integrated to the same radio equipment as the Gold Elite positions, in essence creating a dispatch center with different console computers, but the same radio equipment. With both the proposed consoles, the existing push-button style console would be replaced with a computer, a monitor, keyboard and mouse. The mechanical buttons on the existing console would become "virtual buttons" on a computer screen. ~uigment Proposed Option 1: MCCSS00 dispatch mnsole -see Attachment A -closest PSAP Lompoc Police Departrnent Option 2: Gold Elite dispatch console -see Attachment B -closest PSAP Grover Beach Police Department (Product Literature no longer available). This attachment contains spares marked in red. The spares are optional. Each console rnmes with a standard one year manufacturers warranty ihcluding parts and labor. Extended 2 year with advanced replacement is offered standard on the MCCSS00 and via service contract on the Gold Elite. Intercom equipment is incorporated in both Attachment A and Attachment B Qualifications Sterling Communications has been in the 2-way radio business on the Central Coast since 1992. We have installed and maintained Motorola consoles for Paso Robles Police Department, Grover Beach Police Departrnent, Santa Maria Police Department and Lompoc Police Departrnent. We are an authorized Motorola Service Station. In addition, we service and maintain various types and vintages of radio equipment. Alex Weidner has been in the 2-way radio business for the past 27 years, first with different Motorola dealers on the Central Coast, then since 1992 with Sterling Communications. He has received Motorola training and certifications on different Motorola infrastructure and Motorola consoles. During his tenure he did install the existing console and related backroom equipment at Arroyo Grande Police Department, giving him a unique understanding of the system requirements at Arroyo Grande Police Department. Sterling Communications has three additional service technicians on staff. Each of them is equipped with a communications service monitor and other equipment needed to troubleshoot and repair radio systems. Sterling Communications is familiar with the existing radio equipment at the Arroyo Grande Police Department and fully understands its inter-operation with the existing console. Work Plan May 12-15 -ordering of equipment Before July 20"' -receipt of equipment to Sterling for staging 25% of contract due at receipt of equipment for staging July 23 to August 3rd -programming of equipment and staging of equipment at Sterling to verify operation. August 6th to 200' -put in rear room console equipment and run cabling between front dispatch and rear room equipment ' August 20th to 27"' -take down panic alarms in jail, but leave door and gate intercom via manual switch in dispatch. Install new intercom equipment. Put up at least one new dispatch position in the dispatch center on a temporary basis while the old positions are still operational. 25% of contrail due at delivery of equipment to Arroyo Grande Police Departrnent August 27°i to Sept T^ -put equipment in place and punch down conneilions between new console and radio equipment. Estimate two days operation on portables with limited access to other functions during switchover. Bring one fully functioning console position on line. Integrate the new intercom system fully into this new position. Provide training session to dispatchers assigned during that time to this position. During this time the Fire Dept pagers may be impaired and a telephone call to the Fire Station may be necessary. Take down the old console and intercom system and remove the old console equipment. Bring up the second position in its permanent location. Once it is fully functional, take down the first operator position and put it in its permanent place. 25% of contract due Provide training of dispatchers. Estimate a 2 hours training session up to 3 training sessions at customer convenience. Final adjustments, cable tie downs and clean up. Remainder of contrail due. This timing may have to be adjusted based on actual delivery from manufailurer and we will try to expedite. This plan provides minimum interruptions in the existing dispatch center and minimizes any moving of equipment. One dispatch position should remain fully operational at all times making it unnecessary to move any existing emergency equipment. COStS Submit a detailed cost proposal, which includes a performance and cost schedule for all services and equipment necessary to complete this projeil. The proposal' should specify the major components, the cost breakdown by major component or phase, and the expected time of completion for each component based on the swpe of services outlined in the proposal. The proposal should include, a total proposed, "not to exceed" cost of the project, including a fee and rate schedule describing charges and hourly rates for services not included in the proposal. Cost will not be the sole deciding failor in making the seleilion. OPTION 1 MCC5500 console equipment see Attachment A Console equipment: $86,202.00 2 year advanced replacement: $ 1,800.00 . Total MCC5500 console: $88,002.00 OPTION 2 Gold Elite console equipment see Attachment,B Console equipment: $88,108.00 2 year advanced replacement: $ 2,900.00 Total Gold Elite without spares: $91,008.00 Spares $ 6,304.00** optional Total Gold Elite with spares. $97,312.00 Intercom equipment $ 7,500.00 Labor for intercom equipment $ 4,000.00 Labor for console equipment* $26,000.00 *Includes install of new and removal of old, as well as training. Service Rates are $96/hr Warranty Service and Support OPTIONl: MCC5500 dispatch console: The MCC5500 console wmes standard with one year warranty for both parts and labor. An additional extended warranty is available for two years covering advanced replacement of parts. Parts are stocked at Motorola in Illinois and will be shipped overnight. The included service is during business hours. 24 hours service is available for the console equipment on a troubleshooting basis at 300/month. Service personnel are available via an escalation procedure within San Luis Obispo County. The closest service response is 30 minutes, the longest is 1.25 hours. During business hours, the base location for dispatch is Santa Maria, after hours, the dispatch location is from various points within San Luis Obispo County. The answering service is the one point of contact for dispatch on a call out and they will go through the on call rotation to get a service technician on site. Response on a call with dispatch impairment of more than 50% is two hours. Response on a call with dispatch impairment of less than 50% is one business day. These response times are "worse case scenario". The console is capable of accepting multiple channel radios and redundancy on radio channels is built into the system. The console is designed to "hot swap" boards and radio boards can be moved to ensure operation of main radio channels. OPTION2: Gold Elite Dispatch consdle The Gold Elite console comes standard with one year warranty for both parts and labor. Advanced Replacement of parts is available from Motorola for $1,450 a year.per position, $2,900.00. Parks are stocked at Motorola in Illinois and will be shipped overnight. The included service is during business hours. 24 hours service is available for the console equipment on a troubleshooting basis at 300/month. Service personnel are available via an escalation procedure within San Luis Obispo County. The closest service response is 30 minutes, the longest is 1.25 hours. During business hours, the base location for dispatch is Santa Maria, after hours, the dispatch location is from various points within San Luis Obispo County. The answering service is the one point of contact for dispatch on a call out and they will go through the on call rotation to get a service technician on site. Response on'a call with dispatch impairment of more than 50% is two hours. Response on a call with dispatch impairment of less than 50% is one business day. These response times are "worse case scenario". The wnsole is capable of accepting multiple channel radios and redundancy on radio channels is built into the system. The intercom system carries a standard one year warranty. References Santa Maria Police Department 222 E. Cook Street Santa Mazia, CA 93454.. Ken Schnell 805-928-0951 X236 Grover Beach Police Department 71] Rockaway Grover Beach, CA 93483 D. Polit 805-473-4575 Paso Robles Police Departrnent 900 Pazk Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Lisa Solomon 805-237-6464 Lompoc Police Department P. O. Box 8001 Lompoc, CA 93438 Nahcy Faust 805-875-8157 Ft. Hunter Liggett Police Department P. O. Box 893 Jolon, CA 93928 Jason Foslien 831-386-2608 80~^ MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE AND SALE OF FIREWORKS DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the use and sale of fireworks. FUNDING: There is no funding impact to the City from this Ordinance. DISCUSSION: At the April 24, 2007 meeting, the City Council introduced the attached Ordinance amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the use and sale of fireworks. At the April 10, 2007 meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold requested and the Council directed staff to develop recommendations to modify the sale of fireworks permitting process in order to address complaints that have been received. Currently, the City allows the sale of safe and sane fireworks from July 1ST through July 4~' and a fireworks stand permit (Permit) is required. A maximum of six permits are allowed based on a standard of one permit per 3000 residents or fraction thereof. If more than six applications are received, a drawing is held to determine the six permitees. Since the drawing is random, some organizations receive permits more frequently than others and limited available sites may be committed to organizations that do not ultimately receive a permit. Required submittal of a financial statement by October 315 has periodically caused organizations to be penalized for the lack of follow-up from a volunteer that may or may not still be involved with the organization. In addition, a requirement that the primary meeting place of the organization be within the City has caused some Arroyo Grande organizations to be ineligible if they meet outside the City due to a lack of suitable meeting locations. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE AND SALE OF FIREWORKS MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 Under the Ordinance, the drawing is replaced with a rotational system for issuance of permits, organizations failing to submit their financial report on time will not be disqualified until the next application due date, and organizations will now be eligible as long as the primary meeting place of either the governing board or general membership is within the City. If approved, it is staffs intent to begin implementation of the changes during this year's process. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to the use and sale of fireworks; - Direct staff to amend the Ordinance to maintain the process of utilizing a drawing to select the applicants, but modify the financial statement requirements in order to address complaints received regarding that specific issue; - Make other amendments and reintroduce the Ordinance; - Do not approve staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRAN AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE AND SALE OF FIREWORKS DE WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 regulates the sale and use of "safe and sane" fireworks and establishes a process for issuance of necessary permits; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to re-codify Chapter 8.08 and modify the firework stand permit issuance process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande. as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals and finds are true, correct, and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety as follows: Chapter 8.08 FIREWORKS 8.08.010. Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. Storage, use, retail sales and handling of fireworks shall be in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations and this section. 8.08.020. Amendment to Fire Code. Uniform Fire Code Article 78 is amended to add the following provisions regarding the sale and use of Fireworks, Class C ("Safe and Sane"). 8.08.030. Sale. No person shall sell or offer for sale any fireworks within the city except in a temporary stand or structure used specifically for the display and sale of fireworks operated and maintained by a recognized charitable, civic or patriotic group or organization with the permit of the Director of Building and Fire. 8.08.040. Permits: Applications. All applicants for a permit to sell fireworks shall: A. Submit a written eligibility application to sell fireworks on a form provided by the City. B. Applications for eligibility shall be accepted by the Department of Building and Fire between March 1ST and April 15t" and shall state the name of the applicant, the ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 name of the organization, its address, the president or head of the organization, and a complete account of the proposed disposition of all gross receipts of fireworks to be sold at the proposed stand. Failure of such account to show that at least fifty percent of the net profits from the sale of fireworks will be expended for the benefit of the City or its residents shall cause such application to be denied. C. No organization may receive more than one permit to sell fireworks sale during any one calendar year. One permit may be issued to two or more qualifying applicants as a joint venture. D. The maximum number of permits shall be based on one (1) permit per each 3,000 residents of the City or fraction thereof, based on the official City census. Should the number of applications exceed the number of available permits, an initial drawing shall be conducted by the City Clerk and all applicants shall be placed on an eligibility list in the order drawn. Permits shall be issued to applicants in the order of the list and the eligibility list shall be maintained by the Department of Building and Fire on an ongoing basis and made available to the public. In any year succeeding the initial drawing, permits shall be issued to applicants in order of the list beginning with the first applicant after the last applicant issued a permit the prior year. Applicants filing an application that are not on the existing list will be placed at the end of the list at the time the application is filed. E. On an annual basis, eligible applicants shall be those on the list equal to the number of available permits beginning at the start of the list and working downward. If an applicant withdraws their application, the next succeeding applicant on the list shall be deemed eligible. Eligible applicants shall file a fireworks stand permit application with the Department of Building and Fire between March 1St and April 15th of the year for which the permit is requested and shall state the name of the applicant, the name of the organization, its address, president or head of the organization, the location of the proposed stand, the names of the persons who will actually staff the stand on behalf of the applicant and a complete account of the proposed disposition of all gross receipts of fireworks to be sold at the proposed stand for that year. F. Each applicant must include a "Letter of Agreement" signed by the property owner or their authorized agent permitting the organization to erect a fireworks stand on the owner's property. Failure to do so shall cause such application to be denied. G. Applicants that are issued a permit are required to file with the City a "Fireworks Stand Financial Statement" form, which is due by October 31St of the calendar year in which the permit is issued. On this form each applicant must certify that at least fifty percent of the prior year's net profits from the sale of fireworks were expended for the benefit of the City and its residents. Failure to so certify prior to submitting a fireworks stand permit application shall cause such renewal application to be denied. H. If any applications from eligible applicants are either denied or not received by April 15th, the next applicant(s) on the list shall be deemed eligible. The City shall ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 attempt to provide notice to the applicant; however, it shall be the absolute duty of the applicant to stay apprised of its position on the list. Such eligible applicants shall file an application for a permit with the Department of Building and Fire no later than May 15~h I. Each applicant organization must have its principal general membership and/or governing board meeting place within the corporate limits of the City of Arroyo Grande and must have been established within the City fora minimum of two years continuously preceding the filing of the application for permit and must have a bona fide membership of at least fifteen (15) members. J. Insurance: The City Council shall, by resolution, establish appropriate insurance requirements and conditions related to the sale of fireworks. K. No permit shall be issued unless the applicant organization represents to the City that all aspects of the sale of fireworks, including the application for all necessary permits, will be conducted by a member of the applicant organization. All application fees shall be paid by the applicant organization. Such fees shall not be paid by any other affiliated organization, including a seller, distributor, or vendor of fireworks. Applicants will neither hire nor use independent contractors or other persons who are not members of the organization in connection with any aspect of the sale of fireworks. Only members of the applicant organization shall staff the fireworks stand, except spouses, parents and children or members who are eighteen years of age or older, may also staff such stand, subject to the provisions of this paragraph. All members of the organization must have a valid identification, which verifies that such person is a valid member of the organization, on their person or inside the fireworks stand. Organizational membership records for fireworks stand workers should also be retained in the stand for reference. L. Permit Fees and Conditions. The City Council shall, by resolution, establish appropriate fees and conditions related to the sale of fireworks. 8.08.050. Meeting. There shall be a meeting the first Monday of June at 7:30 p.m. of every year. This meeting is mandatory for the representatives of the permittee organizations. Safety practices, legal issues and explanation of the laws, rules and regulations will be discussed. At this meeting, the applications, certificates of insurance and letters of permission will be submitted and the permits issued. Wholesale distributors, or their bona fide agents, shall also be present at this meeting. 8.08.060. Fireworks Stands: Construction and Placement. A. Retail sales of fireworks shall be made only from temporary fireworks stands. Sale of fireworks from any other building or structure is prohibited. Temporary stands will be subject to the following provisions: B. No fireworks stands shall be located within 50 feet of any other building, within 100 feet of a gasoline or other type of flammable fuel pump or storage area, within 500 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 feet of another fireworks stand or less than 1/8 of a mile from the City's boundary with another jurisdiction. C. All fireworks stands shall be erected or constructed on commercial or industrial- zoned property. No fireworks stands will be constructed or erected on residential property. D. Fireworks stands need not comply with the Building Code of the City. Stands requiring electrical service shall be required to obtain an electrical permit from the Building and Life Safety Division. Stands shall be constructed or erected in a manner that will reasonably ensure the safety of attendants and patrons. The stands shall be subject to inspection by representatives of the Department of Building and Fire at any time. E. Each stand shall have a minimum of two marked exits or as otherwise directed by the Director of Building and Fire. F. Each stand shall have a minimum of 2 fire extinguishers of a type designated by the Director of Building and Fire. 8.08.070. Sales. Fireworks stands shall comply with the following requirements related to sales: A. Fireworks shall not be sold prior to 9 a.m. on the first day of July and such sales shall cease at 9 p.m. on July 4th. Sales during this time period will be limited to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day. Any permittee failing to observe these hours designated for sale may have their permit revoked or be ineligible for a permit in subsequent years. B. Sales to individuals under the age of 18 is prohibited. The permittee shall require that each person who purchases fireworks produce identification proving that such person is 18 years of age or older. C. Each person who purchases fireworks must be provided with handouts that contain information related to where "Safe and Sane Fireworks" can legally be discharged and the associated hazards: The contents of this document will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building and Fire. 8.08.080. Fireworks Stands. General Requirements. A. Each stand shall provide temporary sanitary facilities or obtain permission to use either private or public facilities during the hours of operation. Proof of sanitation facilities shall be documented in written form. B. All weeds, trash, and debris shall be cleared for a distance of at least twenty-five (25) feet surrounding the fireworks stand. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 5 C. Doors of the stand shall not be locked on the outside of the door while anyone is inside the stand. The door may' be latched in such a manner that will not cause any undue delay to anyone exiting in an emergency. D. An aisle or passageway in the fireworks stand will be kept clear and unobstructed so as not to impede anyone leaving the stand in an emergency. E. The use of electrical or fuel operated heaters in the fireworks stand is prohibited. F. The temporary fireworks stand will be dismantled and removed from its location not later than the Sunday of the weekend following the 5th of July of each year. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to remove the stand. If the removal of the stand is not accomplished by this deadline, the City of Arroyo Grande may remove and store it at permittees' cost and expense until it is redeemed by the payment of appropriate fees and interest thereon. In addition, the permittee failing to meet this deadline will be ineligible for a permit the following year. G. Each stand shall have adequate temporary parking acceptable to the Director of the Department of Building and Fire. 8.08.090. Delivery. A. The wholesale distributors will make all deliveries and end of sale season pick- ups. Excess storage of fireworks will not be permitted. B. All fireworks shall be removed from sales stand by 9 a.m. July 5th. 8.08.100. Public Discharge. Discharge of "Safe and Sane Fireworks" shall be in legally permitted locations on the 4th of July from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. No person under eighteen (18) years of age may possess or discharge "Safe and Sane Fireworks" except when under the direct supervision of a person twenty-one (21) years of age or older. 8.08.110. Violations. Persons violating any provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any violations of these provisions shall constitute a separate offense for each and every day during which such violation is committed or continued. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 6 section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. On motion by Councilmember and by the following roll call vote, to wit: seconded by Council Member AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2007. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 7 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 11.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CITY'S TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY POLICY DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The Traffic Commission recommends the City Council provide direction to staff to modify the City's Traffic Impact Study Policy to raise the trip threshold, vary limits based on location, and establish an in lieu fee for small projects. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact at this time. DISCUSSION: On January 9, 2007, the City Council directed staff to review the City's current Traffic Impact Study Policy regarding the threshold for requiring a traffic study, financial impact on small projects and the potential use of funds spent on impact studies. The City originally adopted the Traffic Impact Study on February 22, 2000. Modifications to the policy were approved on March 12, 2002. The policy requires the preparation of a traffic impact study whenever one of the following criteria are met: 1. Generation of 20 or more peak hour trips, 2. Safe access concerns, 3. Levels of Service (LOS) on area streets are classified as "D", "E" or "F" For comparative purposes, staff contacted the incorporated communities in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties (see Attachment No. 2). The following is a brief summary: San Luis Obispo County Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach do not have a formal policy and traffic studies are required at the discretion of staff. San Luis Obispo has a formal policy very similar to the City, the main difference being the Criteria No. 1 requirement for 100 peak hour trips. Santa Barbara County The cities of Lompoc and Santa Maria require traffic impact studies at the discretion of staff. Responses from the remaining communities have not been received. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY POLICY MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 Monterey County There have been no response comments from the cities in this County. Ventura County Ventura's policy is the same as the City's, with the exception of 100 peak hour trips for Criteria No. 1. The following issues have been identified with the existing policy: • Thresholds for a traffic study may be too low. • Significant new information may not be obtained from the studies. Funds expended on new studies may better be spent on mitigation measures. • Financial hardship on small projects. Traffic Impact Studies typically range from $10,000 - $12,000 for small projects, which can be a substantial cost to a smaller project. • Traffic Impact Studies may not be necessary at locations where impacts are already known. As a result, the following options were reviewed by the Traffic Commission on April 16, 2007: • Increase the trip generation threshold city wide; Vary the trip generation threshold depending on project location. For example, a project fronting East Grand Avenue could have a threshold of 75 peak hour trips without triggering a study due to East Grand Avenue's capacity. Whereas a project fronting a lower capacity street may remain at the 20 peak hour trip .requirement; • Staff may perform the project trip generation in-house. This information would be utilized to scope the traffic study. The intersections identified for analysis would be those that the project may significantly impact. The study would then focus on the improvements necessary to correct the deficiencies, the cost to implement the improvements, and the projects proportional share of the improvements. In general, the Traffic Commission provided the following comments: • The City should look at raising the threshold for a traffic impact study policy depending on the project location. Limits may be raised to fit the need for improvements at various locations; • Require an in-lieu fee for smaller projects; • The City should retain a threshold, but raise the threshold to forty trips instead of twenty. S'.\Public Works\Engineering\Traffic Impact Study Revisions\Slaff Report -Traffic Impact Study Policy Revisions.doc CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY POLICY MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 3 It is recommended that the Council consider the recommendations above and comments from the Traffic Commission to establish potential revisions to the Traffic Impact Study Policy. Any Council recommendations will be incorporated into a revised policy and brought back for Council approval. ALTERNATIVES: • Increase the trip generation threshold city wide; • .Vary the trip generation threshold depending on project location. For example, a project fronting East Grand Avenue could have a threshold of 75 peak hour trips without triggering a study due to East Grand Avenue's capacity. Whereas a project fronting a lower capacity street may remain at the 20 peak hour trip requirement; • Establish an in-lieu fee; • Staff may perform the project trip generation and distribution in-house utilizing the current traffic model. This information would be utilized to scope the traffic study. The intersections analyzed would be those that the project may significantly impact. The study would then focus on the improvements necessary to correct the deficiencies, the cost to implement the improvements, and the projects proportional share of the improvements;. • Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. City of Arroyo Grande Traffic Impact Study Policy 2. Jurisdiction Matrix 3. Projects Requiring Traffic Study Spread sheet S:\PUblic Works\Engineering\Traffic Impact Study Revisions\Staff Report -Traffic Impact Study Policy Revisions.doc ATTACHMENT1 CITY ®F ARROYO ~IZAN~E PUBLIC W®RKS I)EPARTI~~ENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY POLICY 2~ Adopted Feb~•uaty~, 2000 Revised Match I2, 2002 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY POLICY Responsibilities for Traffic Studies Trafic studies may be required by the City in order to adequately assess impacts of a development proposal on the existing and/or planned street system. These impacts would typically be addressed in the "Traffic Circulation" section of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If a full EIR is not required, a focused EIR, or an expanded initial study addressing traffic impacts only, may be required. The decision to require an EIR will be made cooperatively by the City's Public Works and Community Development Departments. A complete and thorough study will be required for a development proposal when the projected trip generation during any peak hour is equal to or greater than 20 trips or the thresholds provided in Table 1. The City may recommend an EIR or focused EIR on traffic for projects with a peak hour trip generation of less than 20 trips because of safe access concerns, public opposition to the project, or when existing levels of service on area streets are at "D," "E," or "F." This study will be the responsibility of the applicant. All traffic studies must be prepared by a registered professional Traffic or Civil Engineer with adequate experience in Transportation Engineering. The Engineer must be from the City's approved list of Traffic Consultants. If required, the applicant must contract with the City for payment, and the City will contract with the Traffic Consultant selected by the applicant from the City's approved list of consultants. Upon submittal of a draft traffic study, the Public Works Department will review study data sources, methods, and findings. Written comments will be provided. The developer and the private engineer will then have an opportunity to incorporate necessary revisions prior to submitting a final report. Final reports must be completed and submitted within 14 days after staff comments on the draft are returned to the consultant, or as otherwise dictated by contract. If this requirement is not complied with, applications will be deemed incomplete and returned to the developer. The City Engineer will determine whether applicants will be required to either amend previously submitted traffic studies, or complete ne~v studies, should the following situations occur: a. The land use intensity is increased, or b. The land use is changed, resulting in a trip generation increase and the existing level of service at area intersections are at LOS D, E, or F. 1 All previous EIR's traffic studies relating to the development that are more than three years old vdill have to be updated. The City Engineer and Community Development Directorvdill determine ~n~hen a supplemental or subsequent E!R is required. If access points are not determined at the time the traffic study is prepared, an amended traffic study may be required when access points are determined. Transportation consultants preparing traffic studies are required to hold a meeting to discuss projects with the City staff prior to starting the study. At a minimum, topics for possible discussion at this meeting will include trip generation, directional distribution of traffic, trip assignment, definition of the study area, intersections requiring critical lane analysis, data collection and analysis, and methods of projecting cumulative traffic demands at buildout conditions. This meeting is intended to provide a firm base of cooperation and communication among the City, the owner or developer, and the project's consultants in order to forecast future traffic characteristics that realistically define traffic movement associated with the proposed development. Specific requirements will vary depending on the site location. Any traffic model input should be coordinated at this stage. No traffic study will be accepted unless the EIR Work Scope, provided in Exhibit 1, as filled out by the City prior to the consultant preparing the traffic study, and is adhered to by the consultant unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. As a general rule, any intersection located within two miles of the proposed project will be automatically included in the EIR Scope of Work. Intersections beyond this distance may be required based on the travel characteristics of each project. Traffic counts may be provided by the City to the traffic consultant if available. Otherwise, the consultant will have to obtain their own traffic count data. Traffic Study Format In order to provide consistency and facilitate staff review of traffic studies, the following format must be followed as outlihed below. A summary outline is provided in Attachment 7. Introduction The introduction portion of the report must contain the following: a. Land Use. Site and Studv Area Boundaries A brief description of the size of the parcel, general terrain features, and location within the City must be included in this section. In addition, the roadways that afford access to the site, and are included in the study area, must also be identified. 2 The enact limits of the study area should be based on the potential impact of the proposed project on the City's street net4~dork, and an understanding of existing traffic conditions surrounding the site. In all instances, however, the study area limits must be mutually agreed upon by the consultant and the City Engineer, and justified in the report. These limits will usually result from initial discussions with the City. A vicinity map vrhich illustrates the site and study area boundaries, in relation to the surrounding transportation system, must be included. b. c. d Existinq and Proposed Site Uses The existing and proposed uses of the site must be identified in terms of the various zoning categories of the City. In addition, the specific use for which the request is being made must be identified, if possible, since a number of uses may be permitted under existing zoning ordinance. This information will include the square footage of each use or number and size of units proposed and, if applicable, the hours of operation of the use. The intent of the traffic study is to evaluate worst case traffic impacts proposed by zoning. If several different uses are permitted by the zoning, the land use with the greatest overall traffic impact must be assumed for the study. Existinq and Proposed Uses in Vicinity of Site and Site Access A complete description of all unbuiit but approved developments within the study area and their approved future uses must be provided. If approved uses are not available, a City approved estimate of the probable future uses, based on zoning designations, will be provided. The latter is especially important where large tracts of undeveloped land are in the vicinity of the site, and within the prescribed study area. The most current list of unbuiit but approved developments must be obtained from the Community Development Department. One hundred percent (100%) occupancy must be assumed for all developments in the cumulative analysis. A site plan must be included in the report, showing the proposed points of access. If necessary, a separate large-scale blueprint of the site plan may accompany the report. Existing.and Proposed Roadways and Intersections Within the study area, the applicant must describe and provide volumes for existing roadways and intersections including geometric and traffic signal control, as well as improvements that have been funded by government agencies or other developments. This list would include the nature of the improvement 3 project: its extent, implementation schedule, and the agency or funding source responsible. An official list of projects must be obtained from the City. This would include the nature of the improvement project, its extent, implementation schedule, and the agency or funding source responsible. A map must be provided showing the location of such facilities or projects. Project Trip Generation and Design Hour Volumes A summary table listing each type of land use, corresponding size, the average trip generation rates used (total daily traffic and AM/PM peak hours of the street), and the resultant total trips generated must be provided for the project site and all unbuilt but approved projects, projects in process and projects with preapplications within the study area. The current list of projects to be included in the cumulative analysis must be obtained from the Community Development Department. - Peak hour is defined as the period occurring during any weekday in a one-hour period between 6:00 to 6:30 p.m., or as determined by the City. The City Engineer shall approve the peak hour to be analyzed prior to any data collection efforts. The calculation of design hour and daily traffic volumes used to determine study area impacts must be based on the maximum area allowed under existing zoning (or proposed zoning if the property is to be rezoned) and the following trip generation data sources: a. The trip generation rates provided in the San Diego Association of Governments Trip Generation manual. b. Traffic volume counts shall not be more than three years old for an acceptable number of similar existing uses if no published rates are available. Counts of this nature rnust be acceptable to the City Engineer. c. Additional sources from other jurisdictions, such as Caltrans, if approved by the City Engineer. d. For mixed-use developments, if SANDAL .rates are used to estimate average . daily traffic, the peak hour of the street may be estimated by using 10% of total average daily traffic. Use of any other factor must be validated by 24 hour traffic counts collected at 15 minute intervals. e. Existing intersection and average daily volumes as collected for the study or provided by the City. Use of percentage rates to account for passerby traffic may be considered, upon approval of the City Engineer. 4 Any internal trip reductions and modal split assumptions v/ill require analytical support to demcnstrate how the figures vrere derived and vdill require approval by the City Engineer. Trip Distribution The estimates of percentage distribution of trips from the proposed development to destinations both within and outside the City must be clearly stated in the report. The distribution estimates shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to completion of the report. Market studies, employee address lists, driveway counts at adjacent uses, or other information concerning origin of trip attractions to the proposed development, may be used to check trip distribution projections. A map showing the percentage of site traffic on each street, based on average daily volumes, must be provided as part of the traffic study graphic material. Trip Assignment The directions of approach and departure of site generated traffic, via the area's street system, must be presented in the report. The technical analysis steps, basic methods, and assumptions used in this work must be clearly stated and approved by the City Engineer. The assumed trip distribution and assignment must represent the most logically traveled route for drivers accessing the proposed development. These routes can be determined by observation of travel patterns to and from existing land uses in the study area. Existing and Protected Traffic Volumes Graphics must be provided in the report that show the following traffic impacts for private access points, intersections and streets specified in the Traffic Study Requirements form. a. Peak hour site traffic (in and out) including turn movements. b. Peak hour traffic totals including site generated traffic (in and out). These volumes must include through and turning movement volumes for current conditions and a separate set of numbers, which include all projects, specified in the cumulative analysis. c. Any other peak hour which is determined by the City to be critical to site traffic and the street system in the study area should be included in the graphics and show the same information provided for the peak hours; for example, 5 recreational, seasonal, and school related traffic may generate dirierent peak hour trips. d. Actual counts of existing total daily traffic for the stroet system in the study area at the time the study is prepared. e. Projected total daily traffic for the street system in the study area, based on traffic from the proposed development and counts of existing daily traffic obtained in item "d." The component of the existing daily traffic, attributable to existing uses, must be identified, as well as the increase in total daily traffic from proposed uses in the project. f. Projected total daily traffic for the street system in the study area, based on traffic from the proposed development, counts of existing daily traffic obtained in item "d"above, and traffic projections based on all projects specified in the cumulative analysis. Where necessary, volume projections for background traffic growth will be provided by the City, or alternatively, a method for determining the volume will be recommended. All total daily traffic counts must be actual machine counts and not based on factored peak hour sampling. Latest available machine counts from Caltrans, may be acceptable, if not more than one year old as approved by the City Engineer. All new average daily traffic counts shall be collected a minimum of 72 hours in 15 minute intervals. Vehicle classification counts may be required. The City Engineer shall approve traffic count locations and data analysis methodology prior to obtaining new counts. All raw traffic count data shall be provided to the City Engineer in a Technical Appendix separate from the Traffic Study. Capacity Analysis All impacted public street intersections and private property access points to streets adjacent to the proposed development, as specified in the EIR Scope of Work Form, and within the limits of the previously defined study area, will be included in the analysis. The average peak hour and any other peak period specified by the City, will be tested to determine which peak hours need to be analyzed. Capacity calculations should also include an analysis for cumulative impacts. The capacity analysis methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual shall be used for all roadway facilities. At four-way stop sign intersections, estimates of delay per vehicle a.nd queue lengths on critical approaches must be provided. 6 Levels of Service Level of service "C" will be the Peak Hour design objective for all movements, including cumulative traffic at build-out of the study area. Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS 'D' at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS 'C' (LOS 'E' or `F' unacceptable =significant adverse impact unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time. The traffic study must recommend feasible mitigation measures to bring the intersection Level of Service within acceptable standards, except where mitigation measures have already been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program and funded as part of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. At such locations, the potential for interim measures to improve the Level of Service shall be analyzed. Interim improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer and funded by the development. The following interpretations of "Level of Service" have been provided: Level of Service A: A condition of free unobstructed flow, no delays and all signal phases sufficient in duration to clear all approaching vehicles. Level of Service B: Conditions of stable flow, very little delay, a few phases are unable to clear all approaching vehicles. Level of Service C: Conditions of stable flow, delays are low to moderate, full use of peak direction signal phase(s) is experienced. Level of Service D: Conditions approaching unsuitable flow, delays are moderate to heavy, significant signal time deficiencies are experienced for short durations during the peak traffic period. Level of Service E: Conditions of unstable flow, delays are significant, signal phase timing is generally insufficient, and congestion exists for extended durations throughout the peak period. Level of Service F: Conditions at forced flow, travel speeds are (ow and volumes are well above capacity. This condition is often caused when vehicles released by an upstream signal are unable to proceed because of backups from a downstream signal. 7 =or existing and future conditions, Levels of Ser/ice must be calculated by the method outlined in Section 3 of this Technical Appendix. Where available, existing Levels of Ser/ice will be certified and supplied by the City. All L evels of Service must be provided v/ith corresponding volume to capacity ratios. The capacity of an intersection is defined as Level of Service E for the purpose of calculating ViC ratios. Drawings of Lane Configurations assumed in Levels of Service Calculations should be included in the report, as required by the City. Traffic Signals The need for new traffic signals will be based on. warrants contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and any additional warrants established by the National or California Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It must be noted that meeting the technical warrants does not necessarily justify the need for a signal. Over-all system operations and traffic delay must be considered as well. In determining the location of a new signal, traffic progression is of paramount importance. Whenever there is a conflict, State Standards will take precedence. Pedestrian movements must be considered in the evaluation, and adequate pedestrian clearance provided in the signal cycle split assumptions. To provide flexibility for existing conditions and ensure optimum two-way signal progression, an approved traffic engineering analysis must be made to properly locate all proposed accesses that may require signalization. The section of roadway to be analyzed for signal progression will be determined by the City Engineer and will include all existing and possible future signalized intersections. The progression pattern calculations must use a cycle consistent with current signal timing policies of the City. Cycle split assumptions must relate to volume assumptions in the capacity analysis of individual intersections, and where computerized progression analysis techniques are used, they must be of the type which utilize turning movement volume data and pedestrian clearance times in the development of time/space diagrams. The green time allocated to the cross street will be considered no less than the time which is required for a pedestrian to clear the main street according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Standards. Those intersections that reduce the optimum bandwidth, if a traffic signal were installed, may be required to remain unsignalized and have turn movements limited by access design or median islands. 8 Traffic Accidents Traffic accident data for ar'rected street corridors may be required for the study. The study period will normally be three years. Such locutions will be specified by the City Engineer and data provided by the City. Where this is necessary, estimates of increased or decreased accident potential must be evaluated for the development, particularly if the proposed development might impact existing traffic safety problems in the study area. Safety mitigation measures must be included. Recommendations In the event that an analysis indicates unsatisfactory Levels of Service on study area streets or a significant impact by a development, a description of proposed improvements that return intersections to Level of Service "C" must be included, except at locations where the City has already identified in the City's CIP and funded by the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. At such location, the potential for interim measures to improve Levels of Service shall be analyzed. Interim improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer and funded by the development. These proposals include projects by the City or Caltrans for which funds have been appropriated and obligated. The assumptions regarding all future street land configurations in an analysis will require approval by the City. In general, the recommendation section should include: a. Proposed Recommended Improvements This section must describe the location, nature, and extent of proposed improvements to assure sufficient roadway capacity. A plan drawing of each improvement should be provided showing the length, width, and other pertinent geometric features of the proposed improvements. Plan drawings are only necessary for major improvements that would result in significant changes in circulation patterns, or where it is necessary to determine mitigation feasibility, as determined by the City. b. LOS Analysis at Critical Point A table must be provided clearly showing Levels of Service at critical intersections for the following scenarios: 1. Existing conditions. 2. Existing plus project trari•ic without mitigation. 9 3. Existing plus project trc`ic •Nith mitigation by funded project (engineering measures). 4. Existing plus project pb~s cumulative ±raffic without mitigation. 5. Existing plus project plus cumulative traffic mitigated by funded projects (engineering measures). Traffic Demand Management measures cannot be used for project specific or cumulative mitigation measures. A list can be obtained from the City of funded and unfunded projects. New mitigation measures not on this list will be considered unfunded unless a funding source is identified in the text of the study. No Levels of Service can be shown that include unfunded projects as part of the mitigation measures. Tables should show mitigation with funded engineering projects. TDM mitigation measures should be presented separately. Footnotes may be included, or narrative discussion which described unfunded recommendations. c. Funded Projects Projects that are assumed to be funded must be only those that are on the City's Official list of funded projects which is available from the Public Works Department. Funded projects will include only those that are in the City's CIP and projected to be constructed within five years of the date of the traffic study. The report must include a table showing all projects funded by the City's Capital Improvement Program that are to be used as mitigation measures. d. Traffic Volume Proportions Percentages based on the traffic impact analysis may be required to determine the proportion of traffic using various public improvements (both existing and proposed) from several developments within the study area. This apportionment will not apply to Traffic Mitigation Fees but to the construction of improvements adjacent to the project, which may be shared by other new developments. e. Significant Impact at Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections A project has significant traffic impacts when: The addition of project traffic to a signalized intersection exceeds the thresholds provided in the following Table. 10 TABLE 1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA I GUIGELINES BASED ON PROJECTED TRIPS GENERATED FP,OM PP,OJECT PROJECT PEAK LEVEL OF PER LANE PEAK HOUR TOTAL PROJECT PEAK HOURS TRIPS SERVICE TRIPS ADDED TO HOUR TRIP ENTERING A (LOS) CRITICAL MOVEMENTS GENERATION CRITICAL INTERSECTION C >45 150-540 90-180 D >15 50-180 30-60 E > 10 30-120 20-40 F >5 15-60 10-20 2. The Project's access to a major street requires an access that would create an unsafe situation or a new traffic signal, and/or major revisions to an existing traffic signal. 3. The Project adds traffic to a street with design features (e.g., narrow width, roadside ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, and inadequate pavement structure) that may cause potential safety problems with the addition of project traffic. 4. The addition of project plus cumulative traffic to a signalized intersection increases the delay by 2 or more levels of service if the intersection is currently operating at LOS A or B, or contributes traffic to an intersection operating below LOS C and meets thresholds defined in Table 1. If the above thresholds are exceeded, the Developer will be required to construct improvements or implement other methods to reduce the level of impact to insignificance except where mitigation measures have already been identified in the City's CIP and funded as part of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. The thresholds of significance identified above assume full contribution to the Traffic Mitigation Fee Fund. The addition of project, or project plus cumulative, traffic to an unsignalized intersection increases the level of service to an unacceptable level (less than LOS C). Level of Service shall be determined by the Highway Capacity Manual. Revisions tc Traffic Study Revisions to the traffic study must be provided, as reouired by the City. The City will determine whether revisions are necessary. The need for revisions will be based on the 11 completeness of the traffic study, the accuracy of the data, the thoroughness of the impact evaluation, the compatibility or the study with the proposed access and de~delopment plan, and other considerations. Executive Summary The Executive Summary of the repori must be a clear, concise description of the study findings. It is anticipated that the report's final chapter will serve as an executive summary at the front of the Final full report. It must include a general description of all data, project scope and purpose, findings, conclusions, mitigation measures, and recommendations. Mitigation Measures shall be identified by bullet line items other prominent pagination. Technical publications, calculations, documentation, data reporting, and detail design must not be included in this section. The Executive Summary should be no longer than one page, complete in itself, and not dependent on supplementary data included by reference. Technical Reouirements of Final Report The Final Report must also meet the following requirements: a. Computerized Analysis All computerized analysis output sheets and supporting raw count data, both ADT and turning movement, and intersection delay data must be submitted with draft reports for review.. All assumptions used in the calculations must be referenced to the appropriate table, chart or page in the approved publication (e.g., V/C ratios, operating speeds, etc.). Calculations must be comprehensive and presented in a clear manner. b. Graphics All maps and graphics involving improvements must be drawn to scale with roadway geometrics appropriately dimensioned (e.g., street width, lane widths, etc.). Intersection geometrics must include bus stops, parking areas, pedestrian crossings, driveway locations, etc. c. Pass-bv Factors Pass-by factors are to be used to reduce the estimated additional total daily traffic to street(s) serving a proposed development. They are not to be applied directly to reduce trip generation and turning movement volumes at driveways serving the proposed development. 12 e. Ra~s~ Count Data All raw traffic count data (including average daily volume and peak hcur turning movement) and analysis work sheets must be provided in the Appendices of the report. Computer printouts may be used as part of the report. Deliverables Three copies of the staff review draft technical report and the draft Executive Summary must be submitted for City review to the City Engineer. At least eight copies of the proposed final technical report, including the final Executive Summary, must be submitted. Reports must be bound on the left-hand edge, 8-1/2" x 11"format, printed on one side. Maps may be no larger than an 11 x 17" foldout. After the City Engineer approves the proposed final report, the consultant shall submit eight copies of the final Traffic Study. 13 EXHIBIT 1 TYPICAL TRAFFIC STUDY CONTENTS 1. TITLE PAGE (Project Name, Number, Date, Name and Address of Company, Licensed engineer, Stamp and Expiration) 2. EXECUTIVE SUMPJIARY (No mor=than two pages) 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. LISTING OF FIGURES 5. LISTING OF TABLES 6. INTRODUCTION a. Land Use, Site and Study Area Boundaries (Provide map) b. Existing and Proposed Site Uses c. Existing and Proposed Uses in Vicinity of Site (Provide map) d. ExistinglProposed Roadways and Intersections. (Provide map} 7. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES.{Provide table) 8. TRIP DISTRIBUTION (Provide figure) 9. TRIP ASSIGNMENT (Provide figure) 10. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (Provide figure for each item) a. Existing P.M. Peak hour site traffic (including tuming movements) b. Projected P.M. Peak hour site traffic including Existing and Project (including tuming movements) c. P.M. Peak hour total traffic including site existing, project and cumulative traffic d. Any other Peak hour necessary for complete analysis e. Total daily existing trafnc for street system in study area f. Total daily existing-traffic for street system in study area plus project traffic g. Total daily existing traffc for street system in study area plus project trasc and cumulative traffic from build-ou± of approved projects 1 11. CAPACITY ANALYSIS (Provide Analysis Sheets ir. Appendices) 12. TRAFFIC SIGNALS (Provide analysis Sheets in Appendices) 13. TRAFrIC ACCIDENTS (OPTIGNAL) (Provide Collision Diagrams and Accident Rate) 14. PA,°.KING ANALYSIS 15. P.ECOMMENDATIONS a. Proposed Recommended Improvements b. Volume/Capacity Analysis at Critical Points c. Traffic Volume Proportions d. Funded Projects e. Significant Impact NOTE: Information required on figures may be combined provided that the information is clearly legible. 16. APPENDICES References Level Of Service Calculation Sheets Trip Generation Sources Count Sheets Definitions Intersection Lane Configuration Drawings Signal Warrant, Timing, Progression Calculations Data for Delay, Passer-by and Origin-Destination Studies Parking Study Analysis and TM2&263.doc Peak Hour ' Jurisdiction Requirements Other Criteria Comments Contact Person A.M. P.M. 1. Safe access concerns, Arroyo Grande 20 20 2. Public opposition to the project or, 3. Levels of service on area streets are "D" "E" or "F". ~ __ Atascadero _ ~ _ _ No Traffic Impact Study Policy - ,Warren Frace - - - Requirement is at staffs discretion. Morro Bay _ No Traffic Impact Study Policy Michael Prater Requirement is at staffs discretion. Paso Robles No Traffic Impact Study Policy -~ 'John Falkenstien Requirement is at staffs discretion. Pismo Beach No Traffic Impact Study Policy - :Carolyn Johnson Requirement is at staffs discretion. San Luis Obispo 100 100 - Same as current City policy --- - ,Website - ---- Carmel - - ---- - - - Del Rey Oaks ---- - -- - _ _ _ Gonzales I Greenfield - _ - - - -- - King City ~ ~ -- _ Marina - - - -- - ----- - - ----- --- - - _ __ Monterey - ~- -- - -- -- - -- -- - - Pacific_Grove _ ___ __ _ _ Salinas Sand City Seaside __ - _-_ ---- - -- ----- -- - -- - Soledad _Buellton __ ; _-_____ No formal policy __ ,Angela Perez Carpinteria ~ - _ ___ --- - -- __- __ _ Guadalupe - --- Lompoc ! At staff's discretion Cherridah Weigel Santa Barbara -~ D n 2 3 m z N Jurisdiction Peak Hour Requirements Other Criteria Comments Contact Person A.M. ~ P.M.-~ ----- -- -- Santa Maria No Traffic Impact Study Policy - Requirement is at staffs discretion. Roger Olds Solvang ~ ~ Camarillo _ _ ~ _ __ _ _ _ __ Fillmore ~ _ ~ _ __ Moorpark ~ __ _ Ojai _ _ Oxnard ~ - ~ - Port Hueneme _ ~ _ ~ - - Santa Paula ~ _ ~ Requires traffic study when required by CEQA Veronica Ortiz-De Anda Simi Valley _ ~ ~ Thousand Oaks ~ _ ___ __ ~ __ Ventura 100 100 Same as current Cit olic ~ _ _ Website ~~ TRAFFIC STUDY PR~~ECTS REQ20~03N 2007 OF NUBMERTIAL ' RESIDEN LOCATION UNITS c PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT T1TLE SANT A LUCIA BANK GUP 03-0p1~ti ~- g CUP p4-00 CUP 05-007 GUP 06-0p1 TRACT 2310 H MpTON INN GOU SE COAT HIU.U CREDIT UNIC APpLEBEE~ F ARROLc ESTA 1530 E• GRAND AVENUE - NCH ST 1400 W • BRA ~- ND AVENUE 1375 E. GRA BRANCH ST 1574W~ 1136 E. GRAND AVENUE TRp,CT 2589 ~.~ WOpDLAND pAVENUED .RACY 2669 WALNUT FAIR OAK TRACT 2792 GROVE ROAD ANID E. GRAND LINDA VENUE 010 LADERA PLAN A PRE 04- ....,KC tmPact Study Revis~onsYTra~~d Study Proles LisLdoc 64 1015 K~~..OOT Rt SQUARE F 11,000 4,375 . 9 OPPOSIT pN TO PROJECT TRIGGERED 8 SQUARE FOO DIAL OF COMMER _~ FOOT BANKWITH 1,100 SQUARTELLERS AND 5,625 3 pRNE SQUARE nE $UILD~N< 30 ~0 1'L ~F1G STUDY ADDITIOREQU RED OF FUTURE WILL BE .cnlGAl- OFF1C~ 30 000 g1 I 3 Z w 11.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR 5-ACRE CITY PROPERTY AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD FOR TWO-YEAR TEMPORARY PARK AND RIDE LOT DURING WINTER 2008 AND 2009 DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement to enable PG&E to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a Park and Ride Lot for up to 400 cars including shuttle bus and night-lighting for winter 2008 and 2009 use. FUNDING: The City would receive $112,000 upon signing of the lease agreement to fund the estimated cost of grading, drainage, basic "all weather" surfacing, lane delineation, lighting and signage improvements and monthly rent of $5,000 per month for 10 months, providing $25,000 in 2008-09 General Fund income. DISCUSSION: In early March, 2007 the City received a proposal from PG&E for use of the five-acre vacant City owned property at the northeast corner of West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road fora "park and ride lot" during winter 2008 and 2009. The purpose of the lot is to bus the workers to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant involved in the upcoming project. The proposal would require a Conditional Use Permit for 24/7 contractor/employee parking lot for approximately 400 vehicles and shuttle bus use during December 2007 through April 2008 and December 2008 through April 2009, a total of 10 months. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit process would provide for notification of the neighborhood and public comment prior to final approval 'rf City Council supports the concept. By controlling shift schedules, the peak turnover periods for the park and ride would largely avoid normal peak hour traffic, with day shift changes in Arroyo Grande being between 3:30 and 5:00 a.m. arrivals, and 6:00 to 7:00 a.m. departures. Night shift change activity in Arroyo Grande would involve 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. arrivals and the 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. departures, thus contributing to a limited degree to weekday and weekend PM peak congestion. It should be recognized, however, that the park and ride/shuttle facility is a congestion mitigation proposal to eliminate these 400 plus vehicle trips four times a day by CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR 5-ACRE CITY PROPERTY AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD FOR TWO-YEAR TEMPORARY PARK AND RIDE LOT DURING WINTER 2008 AND 2009 MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 South County contractors and employees continuing beyond Arroyo Grande to Diablo Canyon. It is our understanding that similar facilities are being proposed in North Coast, North County and/or San Luis Obispo locations. The lease proposal from PG&E would require the City to complete site grading and drainage and provide an "all weather' surface material suitable for a low turnover, temporary winter parking lot as well as parking lane delineation, lighting, and entry-exit signage improvements. City Community Development and Public Works Department staff prepared a preliminary park and ride design for approximately 3.5-acres composing the relatively flat portions of the total 5.0-acre vacant site of the future Recreation Center. The upper 1.5 acres nearest the Royal Oaks Estates single-family residential homes contain several mature eucalyptus trees and slopes too steep for parking. Unless terraced, it would result in an inefficient configuration and be too close to residences for this temporary use. Therefore, the park and ride lot is 400 feet or more from the nearest house and considerably lower than the elevation of Mercedes Drive and the Old Ranch Road residential subdivision. Attachment 1 is an aerial photo of the subject area and Attachment 2 is the preliminary park and ride lot design, which accommodates 400 vehicles using four double loaded two- way aisles. The design provides a 20-foot street setback along West Branch Street and Old Ranch Road, a 30-foot access aisle on the southeast and northwest perimeter, and a drainage detention and separate shuttle bus driveway with adjoining ADA parking at the northwest corner of the lot. The lot would be re-graded, prior to a base material or gravel surfacing, to the approximate finish grade proposed for the future recreation center building and parking areas (150' elevation). The drainage basin would include bio-filter and straw waddles to prevent pollutants and siltation from entering the existing storm drain drop inlet at this corner. The final parking delineation plan would be refined by Community Development and Public Works, but a preliminary, conservative cost estimate for construction was obtained from Souza Construction, as outlined in Attachment 3, totaling $102,000. Additionally, PG&E has agreed to allocate $2,500 for lane delineation and $7,500 for night lighting, both of which would be City's responsibility prior to December 1, 2007. The basic terms of the proposed lease are outlined in the updated proposal letter from Tom Swem, dated April 26, 2007, Attachment 4. City staff conferred with architect Fred Sweeney, Jr. and Mr. J Johnson, representatives for the proposed Recreation Center, to clarify site grading and interim use proposals. The temporary improvement would benefit the future recreation center project by providing rough site preparation grading to the appropriate elevation and import of base material or gravel suitable for subgrade of the future parking and foundation areas. It may also provide for temporary drainage and power for night lighting, which could be used during future recreation center construction. The Recreation Center representatives had no S:\Community Development\CITY COUNCIL\2007\05-OS-07\05-08-07 PG&E lease CC SR.doc cITY couNCIL CONSIDERATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR 5-ACRE CITY PROPERTY AT WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD FOR TWO-YEAR TEMPORARY PARK AND RIDE LOT DURING WINTER 2008 AND 2009 MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 3 objection to the City consideration of interim lease and use as a temporary PG&E winter park and ride lot nor expectation of income other than the contribution of beneficial improvements to the site. Therefore, the $5,000 monthly rental fee for 10 months would be allocated to the City General Fund to offset policing and related traffic impacts that the City may incur during the temporary park and ride peak use. Since the City currently has a lease for the site with the Five Cities Community Foundation, it will require their approval, which they have indicated they will provide. Additionally, the improvements to the lot would be of significant benefit to other uses, most notably Strawberry Festival for parking. Staff believes this provides an effective opportunity to obtain financial benefits from an existing property and may enable the City to entertain other proposals for short-term rental for special events. Each such potential temporary use can be required to obtain a separate temporary use permit to provide for terms and conditions acceptable to the City and notification to the neighborhood property owners. ALTERNATIVES: - Authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement to enable PG&E to apply for a Conditional use permit fora 24/7 park and ride lot for up to 400 cars including shuttle bus and night lighting during winter 2008 and 2009, subject to the terms and conditions as outlined above and Conditional Use Permit approval; - Discuss the proposal and suggest other terms of the lease agreement, such as advance for estimated improvement costs, monthly rental amount or other conditions of concern; - Provide other direction to staff and PG&E if the proposed lease for temporary use as a park and ride lot is not considered appropriate. (The Conditional Use Permit will be separately processed by staff and reported to the Planning Commission.) Attachments: 1. Aerial photo. 2. Preliminary site plan for 400 car park and ride lot. 3. Souza Construction preliminary cost estimate for improvements including grading and drainage. 4. Letter from Tom Swem outlining lease proposal. S:\Community Development\CITY COUNCIL\2007\05-08-07\05-OS-07 PG&E lease CC SR.doc ATTACHMENT1 Thomas C. Swem, GRI, CC1M Commercial- Investment Real Estate REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS 570 Marsh Stree4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.544.4422 E-mail: tcdnswun ciym UPDATED PROPOSAL TO LEASE LAND The NE Corner of Branch Street and Old Ranch Road, Arroyo Grande, CA Approximately 5 Acres Thursday. Auri126.2007 Submitted on behalf of PG&E Company, A California Corporation Expetts in Commercial Investment Real Esla[e Thomas C. Swem, GRI, CCIM Commercial- Investment Real Estate REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS 570 Marsk Strcet, San Lufs Obispo, CA 93401 $05.544.4422 E-matt: tc__n',~swem_ciim L _ :. - U~ ~~o R ~a ^r~ t9 ~neJt, iid ., ¢u~~ 3b 7 o~,C ~ c P~~ tDt', nrh Sr yYeaGn t'1. C4~. .~. ~ " .. ~~' z~h Y ~ f .vma. ~` m"`~a Ate: ~ ` ~ . -., .. Oaks tea. - ~o.:L Grand Avi=., Arroyo Grando ~i}; ~'n+et __ ., ~~ tya9 r` TaY4ec P! ~',~C of ~~ . tio, MaN^ St ~ lman Ct. ~« F' 9 " ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ .. '-tc~a~ '.. ~iret/x lyay n ~j~ 4z ~A"t i ~(dt~ ~~ ~~~ w ~~i . s . ~#i ~. 'p O~~y,~ ... ~gL NI~ 2 Experts in Commercial Investment Real Esta[e ~~~ rah ~.~o~ ~~-,Z 7~1 00 ~ ~ ~ Y ~___..____....~--___-.__.._.v___~_..__ _.___. __-J-__--,.__-t ~ ba~t.Li Sn ~ }, 1 ~M .~ G~ 7 a ~ ~cr ~ ~'~v~ ,.,~~~ 0~~7 S~ k,r as.~, +'Q/~s.C 7 kr "^ Ct .:fit ~ Yea raf 'm `~~' `. i~ -w~ t N T rt s',l+. c.~ nFtl`~dv' i~ t s r i t~ }i. i 4 r t -. ,x .+a,-vDN! r.f~e ~ 1ye ^~! ger 1°'-4*@ ,V .~ "+ 'Jr "-}- r }'.oF i N w Z a+#'s~ ~ h r !,~ .c. f {t> " fi ° ~ Nry i ~ g ~~r T { ~.e / ! ,~ ~ nn ~t 3~x~ ~~ '.~ 4t hf2 1x.ye i~~`~ k.lt !? "+tnl x ,ice !~ ~ ~J el ! . -,-ky+`kr v v 4'. ~F. e+a a /+4 ~`i 1rQ >t ;._~! _i r~. V~ ~~~ ~a~:, ~>tf~ ~l+iN "~¢•f sy ar'-~.+~ -v ;yY ra G bi ~O ~ t ':~~ r ! ~ /^\OS^F ~ 54/ b ~ t jr. t (d- ~ t~9 X t ~ 6 ~ , r 1~ $.a 'w.~ r ~':[ :. I ~ / \\:1a •~Y T / i :+ F~ ~ !'4~ t ~M 55FY ~r~ ~+Y f ~~~t ..ds~"(uii .wlY ~ *5 ryr''u..~~, rx..._ ,.... Q I YP-l L ti t i } 1k f k r. 1 ~ ~! 3 ~ 4~ ~~~ ~ fe< ~~ !Y) i~sY-1'C tF ~ .(s +c'#> T~ ^''t's° f "~ f ry~[.r #s, ~ fi4 n~ ~ ~ ~'~ ai e{,z 1 ~ F s} e -. M ~} J.'O ~p x Zx t c,~s t oxi k~t i~ T`s't n+'FF` .~,. Y WC k ~"~9 t.» ~+~~~ik'V ~p 3 j.l ~ ~ ~ V !'Y. .Ce a -x a~'~'n,~ 2v v.x ! 11 -,+" l r t tw %' . d.X 4° ?*S~~ Y M:~` `Ley.rn r ~4"`yt ~"245x{~~yft7S~t~'i! ik4}~Y~~y~~£Dyk~ir. .~ xx ~,.rt ~ i' ! ; f + i S t ',~r r ~.K !a iy °sq~ r i '7~.T-~.FT f x's iy1 t ~1 \.. `.t4 t'M~ ! ~:I ~`~ ~ ". sac xt Si.i GEx~ S~ ~~~+ ~- UlUI /n~ J~. t11N~ 2! '~ ~ ~ \ m ~ r ~a tx'~i 3 F`- ~ `"q~S~ yK~` ~y- ,s ~~ ry ~Ylllt./CJ-7 .. ~ ..x r ~ .t ~e t y ~ , J - _ ~, d ,.__ F: 1 t*4Y Z.H;~tr `'F`' "f '-3 1 r V,s YL 4, r ~ `~' vyyy ~/Y~_G~ 1 \ ~ ~ ~fi~~.7~ Sh ik•~` ~ ~~ ~ . ~ O H Y ' .~ ~ - 6 ~;~ o / ~~.~ ' t ~r ~~ y ~~ i~u p~i Na~,%,c~o-o a dd _ ~`1n ~~ry) / ~ ~Sa1sCdU ~ QQ ~U`Og`~1~ U`O l`t7^ T /\ /" Sou1a ConsWCtioa, Inc. 070314 PARK AND RIDE LOT/A.GRANDE PRELIM EST. Activity Description Quantity Resource Pcs Unit Page I 03/14/2007 8:48 DIRECT COST REPORT Unit Penn Conslr Equipment Equipment Sub- Cost Labor Material Matl/Exp Owncrship Opcmtion Contrazt Total Bra ITEM ~ 1 Description= FME GRADE SITE lA FDV6 GRADE SITE GBLAD E BLADE GRADE CREW 8 EQUIP.SETUP CODES 8BI40G CAT 140GMotorgmder 8C534 CAT CB-5348 Roller Com SS615 Cat 615 self loading 8T.75TON 3/4 Ton Pitkup ST501 Peterbuil[ Wamrwck- A '''.LABOR •••• FORO Operator Foreman LABOI General Laborer, Flagman OPERO Operator 10.AII Motorgmde OPERB Operator 8-All equipment of TEAMS 3-axle waterWCk dump>I 516,206.13 0.0012 hDVSF c> Item Totals: 1 516,208.13 0.0012 MH/SF 0.106 150000 SF Unit= SF TakeofPQuan: 150,000.000 Engr Quan: 150,000.000 Quuu: 150,000.00 SF Hrs/Shtt: 8.00 24.00 CH Prod: So,t6ro.lxwo US Lab Pcs: 0.00 HR 0.000 1.00 24.00 HR 70.000 1.00 24.00 HR 60.000 1.00 24.00 HR 110.000 1.00 24.00 NR 11.000 1.00 24.00 HR 50.000 1.00 ~ 24.00 MH 0.000 1.00 24.00 MH 36.000 1,413 1.00 " 24.00 MH 23.000 986 2.00 48.00 MH 35.000 2,767 2.00 48.00 MH 35.000 2,767 1.00 24.00 MH 24.000 1,051 192.0000 MIi [0.036] 8,984 FINE GRADE SITE 192.00 MH [ 0.036 ] 8,984 0.06 7,224 16,208 0.05 O.I I BID REM 2 Description = PLACE 6" BEDROCK SURFACING 2A FURN. R.ROCK 11fAT XXX BLANK CREW 3RROCK FURN R.ROCK MATERIA 8 EQUIP.SETUP CODES A ••'• LABOR •••' 538,878.00 0.0144 MH/CY 2B PLACE RROCK GBLADE BLADE GRADE CREW 8 EQUIP.SETUP CODES BB 140G CAT 140 G Motorgmder BC534 CAT CB•5346 Roller Com Unit= SF TakeolfQuan: 150,000.000 Engr Quan' 150.000.000 Quan : 2,777.00 CV Hrs/Shft: 8.00 Cal: 508 WC: 6220G 40.00 CH Prod: 555.4000 US Lab Pcs: 100 Eqp Pcs: 0.00 2,777.00 CY 14.000 38,878 38,878 0.00 HR 0.000 100 40.00 MH 0.000 400000 MH [ ] 38,878 38,878 Quan : 2,777.W CY Hrs/ShfC 8.00 Cal: 506 1VC: 6220G 40.00 CH Prod: 555.4000 l1S Lab Pcs: 7.00 Eyp Pcs: 4.W 0.00 HR~ 0000 100 4000 HR 70.000 2,600 2,800 100 40.00 HR 60.000 2,400 2,400 Cal: 508 WC: 6220G 8.00 Eqp Pcs: 5.00 1,680 1,680 1,440 1,440 2,640 2,640 264 264 1,200 1,200 1,413 986 2,767 2,767 1,051 7,224 16,208 "'~ D n m Z W Soura Construction, Inc. 070314 PARK AND RIDE LOT/A.GRANDE PRELIM EST. Activity Description Quantity Resource Pes Unit Page 2 03/14/2007 8:48 DIRECT COST REPORT Unit Perm Consu Equipment Equipment Sub Cost Labor Material MatUExp Ownership Operation Contract Total BID ITEM = 2 , Description= PLACE 6"BEDROCK SURFACING ST.75TON 3/4 Ton Pickup 1.00 40.00 HR BT501 Peterbuilt Wateruuck- L00 40.00 HR A •••"LABOR •••• 1.00 40.00 MH FORO Operator Portman 1.00 40.00 MH LABRI General Laborer, Flagman 1.00 40.00 MH OPERO Operator 10-AII Motorgmde 2.00 80.00 MH OPERS Opemtor 8-All equipment of L00 40.00 MH TEAMS 3-axle wateruuck dump>I 1.00 40.011 MH 520,307.49 O.I008 MWCY 280.0000 MH Unrt= SF TakeoffQuan: 150,000.000 Engr Quan: 150,000.000 11.000 440 440 50.000 2,000 2,000 0.000 36.000 2,354 2,354 23.0(10 1,643 1,643 35.000 4,612 4,612 35.000 2,306 2,306 24.000 1,752 1,752 [ 2.708 ] 12,667 7,640 20,307 ~ Item Totals: 2 -PLACE 6" REDROCR SURFACING 559,185.49 0.0021 MWSF 320.00 MH [ 0.05 ] 12,667 38,878 7,640 0.395 150000 SF 0.08 0.26 0.05 59,185 0.39 BID ITEM = J Description= CONSTRUCT RETENTION PAC. Uni[= LS Takeoff Quan: L000 Engr Quan: Cal: 506 WC: 622UG 4.00 Eqp Pcs: 4.00 736 160 176 1000 736 160 176 942 657 922 3,593 3A CONSTRUCT BASIN Quao: 1.00 LS Ilrs/ShR: 8.00 GHOE BACKHOE MISC. GRADE 16.00 CH Prod: 0.5000 US Lab Pcs: 8 EQUIP.SETUP CODES 1.00 16.00 HR 0000 8H410 John Deere 410g 1.00 16.00 HR 46.000 - SMISC Miscellaneous Equip. 1.00 16.00 HR 10.000 8T.75TON 3/4 Ton Pickup 1.00 16.00 HR 11.000 A •••' LABOR'••• 1.00 16.00 MH 0.000 FORD Operator Foreman L00 16.00 MH 36.000 942 LABRI General Laborer, Flagman L00 16.00 MH 23.000 657 OPERB Operator 8-All equipment of 1,00 16.00 MH 35.000 922 53,593.25 64.0000 MWLS 640000 MH [ 1504 ] - 2,521 38 INSTALL PIPING Quao: 150.00 LF Ilrs/ShB: 8.00 TU EXC2 DIG AND LAY MINOR LINES 8.00 CH Prod: 150.0000 US Lab Pcs: 3MISCPIPE FURN MISC PIP 16000 LF 20000 8 EQUIP.SETUP CODES 0.00 HR 0.000 8H690 Case 590 ex1arMahoe 100 800 HR 46.000 8L950 CAT 950E Wheel Loader L00 8.00 HR 62.000 SMISC Miscellaneous Equip. L00 8.00 HR 10.000 8T.75TON 7/4 Ton Pickup 100 6.00 HR 11.000 1,072 Cal: 508 WC: 622U G 5 00 Eqp Pcs: 4 00 3,000 368 248 80 88 3,000 368 248 80 88 Sours Constmcnon, Inc. 070314 PARK AND RIDE LOT(A.GRANDE PRELIM EST DIRECT COST REPORT Page 3 03/14/2[107 6:48 Activity Description Quantity Unit Perm Labor Material Consu Equipment Equipment MatVExp Ownership Operation Sub• Conuact Toul Resource Pcs Unit Cosl BID ITEM = 3 Dcsaiption = CONSTRUCT RETENTION FAC. A "" LABOR nv" 1.00 8.00 MH FORD Operator Foreman 1.00 8.00 MH LABRI General Latimer, Flagman 1.00 8.00 MH OPERB Operator 8-All equipment of 2.00 16 00 MH $5,505.84 0.2666 MH(LF 40.0000 MH ~> Item TotaB: 3 -CONSTRUCT RETENTION FAC. 59,099.09 104.0000 MH/LS 104.00 MH 9,099.090 I LS BID ITEM = 4 Description= MOBILIZATION qp EQUID MOB BLANK CREW B EQUIP.SETUP CODES BTLBWTTK warertruck with tiltt BTLOWBED lowbed equipment hauV p "" LABOR "'" TEAMS 3-axle watemuck, dump>I $2,190.45 16.0000 MWLS 48 GEN SUP 4GENSUP FLJRN GEN SUP ~> Item Talals: 4 $3,39045 16.0000 MH7L5 3,390450 I LS Unit= LS TakroR Quart: L000 Engr Quzn: 1000 0.000 36.000 471 471 23.000 329 329 35.000 922 922 [ 6.68 ] 1,722 3,000 784 5,506 [ 2536 ] 4,243 3,000 1.856 4,243.09 3,000.00 1,656.00 Unit= LS TakroRQuan: 1.000 Engr Quart: Qaaa: 1.00 LS Hts/Shtt: 8.00 Cal: 508 WC: 6220G 8.00 CH Prod: 1.0000 US Lab Pcs: 2.00 Eqp Pcs: 2.00 0.00 HR 0.000 1 00 8.00 HR 110.000 880 . 1.00 8.00 HR 120.000 960 1 00 8.00 MH 0.000 1.00 8.00 MH 24.000 350 16.0000 MH [ 192 ] 350 1.840 3.00 D MOBILIZATION 1600 MH Quaa: 3.00 D iirslSMR: 6.00 Cal: 508 WC: 6220 G 400 000 ( 192 ] 350 350 45 9,099 9,099.09 1000 880 960 350 2,190 1,200 1,200 1,840 L200 3,790 1,84000 1,200.00 3,390.45 $87,883.16 ""' Report Totals ••• 632.00 MIi 26,245 41,878 18,560 1,200 87,88) »> indicates Non Additive Activity -Report Notes:- The estimate was prepared with TAKEOFF Quantities. This report shows TAKEOFF Quantities with the resources. Page d P3l1d12007 B:dB Sours Consw PARE AND RIDE LOT7A GRANDE PREUM EST. coon,l~ 0~031d Quantity Unit pdivity Resource cescriPimn Pcs Sub DIRECT COST REPORT Consu EquiP~nt EquiP^1ent Contract Perm MatVExP O"^t0tship Oration Material Unif Labor Cost l~ l X00 EnBr Qµan. LS Takcofl Qom`' Unit= - 4 BIDTTEM = MOBlL1ZAT10N peunpnon` inB Firm: Estimator•Io-CharBe~. SAS Rid Date; Owntr' EnBtn~ YYY°OPe1ating$ XXX$YYY wnete xXX=Rentt< and OT IIA~ NOTES ~~ ralhec than base rate. )OB ppESN runit cost was nepcesented as to avera8e laho gnat = TPOR are dY wit + on units of MH indica Labnr Unit Cost W fthout eL~ Bn4 format XXX etc. t Column° rent R and of ytd have Week with Dayl°Ma+rdaY. ~ ~ in the Unit Cos and labor codes Tn cNiP11ent t~ur:ces, are~~~dY=Tht StattioB UaY of tlu .....-Calen~CO~s Caltndass SCE =The Total Uve eight h~~ k s 508 sundaY only SUN Bid nit Up1~ 19,500.00 0 LiMEST• NDE PRE GRA BlD.FOTp1,5 uaoti Status' Rn SF F 0,13 p.48 72 72,000.0 10 g72."t2 0311412007 PARK AND RIDE LOT/A. 000.000 150, 150,000.000 S LS 10 972. 070314 IA00 8102,472.72 s•a B'~ Descri tion GRADE SITE URFACING =_--_-- 1 S FINE LACE b" BEDROCK ON FAC. EN'Ti ' BidTatal 2 P T CONSTRUCT RE 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Thomas C. Swem, GRI, cCIM Commercial- Investment Real Estate REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS 570 Marsh Stree4 Sao Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.544.4422 E-maa: ics(sweni cS_m 26 April 2007 Mr. Steve Adams City Manager for the City of Arroyo Grande California Attn: Mr. Rob Strong, Community Development Manager RE: UPDATED PROPOSAL TO LEASE LAND The NE Corner of Branch Street and Old Ranch Road, Arroyo Grande, California Dear Mr's Adams and Strong, As per out continuing conversation about the leasing of the property noted above, the following summazizes our understanding. PREMISES & USE: The NE corner of Branch Street and Old Ranch Road, approximately five (5) acres of raw land for the purpose of opperating a temporary parkng lot. Said lot shall be for "Park and Ride" for up to 400 cars. The hours of operation will be 24/7 with pick up/drop off times at approximately S:OOam and S:OOpm. Actual morning and evening times aze contained in the attached "Arrival and Deparhue Time Estimates". TENANT: PG&E Company, A California Corporation COMMENCEMENT AND LEASE TERM: The specific use and lease periods shall be December 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008 and December 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009, a total of 10 months. IMPROVEMENTS: The City of AG, at their expense, shall complete the leased area by installing an "all weather" material suitable for temporary pazking, as well as, parking stall delineation, lighting and signage as required by the City. MONTHLY RENT: Monthly rent for the first period shall be $5,000.00 per month, Gross, payable monthly beginning December 1, 2007. Monthly rent for the second period shall be $5,000.00 per month beginning December 1, 2008. ADDITIONAL RENT: As additional rent, Tenant shall pay, upon the signing of the lease agreement, an amount equal to $112,000.00. Said amount shall compensate Landlord for costs associated with any and all agreed upon improvements, or requirements, to or for, the site. Experts in Commercial Investrnent Real Estate Thomas C. Swem, GRI, CCIM Commercial- Investment Real Estate REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS 570 Marsh Strcet, San LRIs Obispo, CA 93401 805.544.4422 E-maa: tcs~a_wcm,cgm ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR ADDITIONAL RENT: The Additional rent, as noted above is comprised of the following: • Souza Construction Estimate for surface work $(02,000 • Lane delineation $ 2,500 • Lighting contribution $ 7,500 LEGAL REVIEW: Landlord and Tenant both reserve the right to have all aspects of this transaction reviewed and approved by legal counsel. BROKERS: The parties understand and acknowledge that Real Property Investments, Tom Swem, Broker, represents the Tenant exclusively, as its agent. This Updated Proposal does no[ constitute a binding agreement between the parties, nor does it constitute a reservation of space. All parties aze advised to seek reliable legal the tax counsel prior to entering into a binding Lease Agreement I"11 look forwazd to hearing from you on this proposal. Sincerely, REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS As agent for PG&E Company, a California Corporation TomSwem Tom Swem, GRI, CCIM Broker Experts in Commercial Investment Real Estatc Thomas C. Swem, GRI, CCIM Commercial- Investment Real Estate REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS 570 Marsh Streek San Luls Oblapo, CA 93401 805.544.4422 E-mall: tc_uliswm,c~m Estimated Vehicle Arrivals oer Time Period at Arroyo Granda Parkins Lot Craft 3:30-4:OOAM 4:00-4:30AM 4:30-S:OOAM 3:30-4:OOPM 4:00-4:30PM 4:30-5:OOPM SGT Day Shift 25 75 DZ-NPS Day Shift 25 75 Totals 25 100 75 SGT Night Shift 25 75 DZ-NPS Night Shift 25 75 Totals 25 100 75 Craft 6:00-6:30AM 6:30-7:OOAM 6:00-6:30PM 6:30-7:OOPM SGT Day Shift 100 ', ', DZ-NPS Day Shift 100 Totals 100 100 SGT Night Shift. DZ-NPS Night. Shift 100 ', 900 100- 700 5 Espcrts in Commercial Investment Real Estate 11.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRE/C,T~ORS FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~~.1 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LE POINT PARKING LOTISTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors: 1) approve the Le Point Parking Lot/Structure Feasibility Study; 2) approve Concept A, Alternate 2 as the preferred alternative or Alternate 3 if a land swap can be achieved to acquire areas identified as Al and B1; and 3) direct staff to determine if Alternate 3 will be feasible and identify options for implementation. FUNDING: The estimated cost to construct initial surface parking under Alternate 2 is $441,000. The estimated cost for Alternate 3 is $315,000. It is proposed that the cost be partially funded from sale of the Le Point Street frontage portion of the property. The remainder would be funded from a combination of Downtown Parking and Redevelopment Agency funds. DISCUSSION: At the November 28, 2006 meeting, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors approved contracting with Parking Design Group to develop a parking study for both initial surface parking and future potential multi-level parking at property purchased by the Redevelopment Agency at 210 Le Point Street. The property was acquired in June 2006. The primary objective of the study was to determine the optimal area for parking to accommodate a future second and/or third level. This will then enable staff to identify the remaining area on the Le Point Street frontage available for a mixed-use development and issuance of an RFP to select a developer. The proposal includes combining the new property with the existing parking area behind the City Council Chambers. The existing area includes 23 spaces. A copy of the final study results is attached and the consultant will make a detailed presentation of the findings at the Council meeting. The report outlines three options. S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Pazking Structure Study 5.8.07.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF LE POINT PARKING LOT/STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 Concept A was determined to be both most economical, as well as provides the greatest flexibility for future expansion. Therefore, Concept A is recommended. A number of alternatives are included within Concept A. Alternate 2 is recommended because it provides the greatest number of added spaces within the City's existing property in both surface parking, as well as from future potential second and third levels. Under this alternative, initial surface parking could be increased by a total of 42 spaces. This is based upon 9' spaces, which is the City's existing standard. Alternate 3 includes an option to expand parking to the west through a land swap or acquisition of the adjacent property. By doing this, the area available for private development could be expanded to the area in the report identified as C and C1 and still increase surface parking by 58 spaces by adding areas identified as Al and B1. Since this would provide the most effective approach to maximizing both parking and an attractive mixed-use private development project, it is recommended as the preferred alternative if a coordinated approach can be agreed upon with the neighboring property owner. The concept could also be expanded to the next property to the west. Both property owners have been contacted and have expressed some level of interest. The report also provides an option for expanding existing parking to the south by eliminating a portion of the yard area behind the City Council Chambers if the adjacent property owner agrees to provide access through their existing private parking area. However, the property owner was contacted and was opposed to a connection at this time unless modifications were part of future development on their property. If directed to proceed, staff will develop a project schedule and funding recommendations. It is proposed that a 2-3 year time frame be established for implementation of initial surface parking expansion. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendation; - Select only Alternate 2 as the preferred option and direct staff not to pursue additional expansion; - Select Alternate 1 as the preferred option, which would result in the greatest cost recovery for the City, but would reduce the increase in parking spaces to 30; - Approve staffs recommendation, but direct staff to assume construction of 8'6" spaces to maximize the number of spaces; - Select Concept B or C as the preferred options; - Request additional information, analysis and/or alternatives; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Le Point Parking Lot/Structure Feasibility Study parking design group ~~ ~n~~l~ ~m~h~ h~~t~n Arroyo Grande Parking Expansion Study City of Arroyo Grande, CA May 1, 2007 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 parking facility design .land-use planning . demandlfeasibility parking design group Insangeles Omaha houston May 1, 2007 Mr. Steve Adams City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Re: Arroyo Grande Parking Expansion Report Arroyo Grande, CA Dear Mr. Adams: Following is the final version of the Parking Expansion Study forArroyo Grande, California. PDG would like to thank you, your staff and the entire Arroyo Grande community, for the opportunity to assist with addressing the proposed parking development in your community. Please review and provide additional commentary as necessary. As you read through this report please keep in mind that in a few cases (primarily site plans) Concepts A, B or C may be referred to as an Option. PDG remains available to assist you with more detailed design development and planning as your needs dictate. This also includes any feedback and desires of the community. Sincerely, V1larren C. Vander Helm Senior Partner Parking Design Group, LLP 110 UVest Ocean Blvd., Suite 309 Long Beach, CA 90802 712-722-1586 direct 562.983.7105p Cc Rob Strong -City of Arroyo Grande David Vogel -PDG Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 3 parking design group los angeles Omaha houston sEC rioN i Executive Summary The parking development study focused on a hillside parcel approximately 32,000 s.f. in area, and evaluated the site considering six, individual design criteria to determine the most economical and functional land-use plan: Adaptation to sloping site Footprint size -configuration Vehicular access and vertical circulation Pedestrian movement -accessible parking Future expansion capabilities on Le Point Parking design standards -approach This study establishes a basis for developing, perhaps in phases, a parking asset in Arroyo Grande to better address present and future needs of the community. Concept A - a three-tier approach to the hillside site, thereby minimizing excavation, and increasing efficiency with "no-outlet" parking bays, and circulation between floors accomplished with aslab-on-grade access ramp. The ramp is on the east side of the property and would create the primary vehicular link between Le Point and the area behind businesses on Branch. An opportunity exists where the City may conduct a land swap with the neighboring property owner to create a more desirable parking development site. This would also provide the property owner a more viable mixed-use development site at Le Point Street. Concept B -three flat-floor parking levels with ramped access to the east, similar to Concept A, but different in two ways: ramp area is comprised on one elevated ramp above the slab-on-grade ramp, and vehicles can cycle throughout all parking levels. Concept C -three flat-floor parking levels with an internal express ramp system for circulation between floors. The basic premise forthis option is to set-aside the northeast corner of the site for a future pad site, or to move in an existing building onto the site. One-way traffic and angle parking makes this option feasible, although cost per space is the highest here. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 4 Adaptation to existing topography of the site: o Concepts B and C cut deeper into hillside to improve future site efficiency. o As will be demonstrated in this report, Concept A is the most efficient approach. Stair-step configuration of no-outlet park- ing bays on the hillside make this the most feasible land-use plan. Footprint size -configuration o All three concepts demonstrate how to "hold-back" upper level (+20' EL) to re- duce mass and impact of structure in full build-out. o All concepts are based on a future grade level plus atwo-supported level configu- ration, due to the extent of elevation dif- ferencefrom Le Point to Branch Street. o Due to Concept A's stair-step design, ex- cavation into the hillside is minimized, along with costs associated with sprin- kling and ventilation. ConceptA is also the most constructible concept. 0 147-ft. available site width in the east/west direction, compromises effi- ciency of all concepts, but most signifi- cantly in Concepts B and C. Vehicular access and vertical circulation o In all concepts, vehicular access from Le Point is provided to improve development potential, and limit "dependence" on easements or vehicular access across the rear of neighboring properties to the south (see left). o Concepts A and B ramping, or vertical circulation takes place on the east side of the property, which offers improved effi- ciency, and an appropriate level of ser- vice (LOS) and degree of functionality. Additionally, this is a benefit if future site access or parking access on the North Mason side of the property is ultimately programmed. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 5 ~ all options to make use of fill footprint Pedestrian movement -accessible parking o In all concepts, assuming some form of future development takes place on Le Point; patrons will vertically circulate via elevator from lower parking levels, up to commercial/residential space matching elevation with Le Point Street. 6 C o In a surface lot, or Phase I, and in future build-out, accessible parking would be provided at the alley(south}side of the structure, allowing egress via future easement across neighboring property, and to the pedestrian way, and cross- walk on Branch (see previous page dia- gram}. Future expansion capabilities - development on Le Point o Excavation is reduced in Concept A by "stair-stepping" down the hillside and rep- resents agood land-use scenario from a functional and constructability standpoint. o If the City pursues further evaluation of Le Point frontage, all options allow for good integration with the occupied space and allows for extension of the commer- cial/residential development out, and over the +20 parking level. o Concept A, coming in with the lowest cost per space and efficiency factor would appear to offer the most long- range parking and development benefit to the City. Parking design standards -approach for analysis Applied a parking layout standard throughout all Concepts to achieve an "apples-to-apples" comparison: • 8'-6" wide parking spaces. • 62-foot bays where 90-degree or head-in parking is used and two-way parking drive aisles are created. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 6 LEPOINT -' ,~ ,~ ~' ' C1 ~~ W~ bJ4~ J I ¢; B1 Al U Z Q m 0 Preferred Concept A Surface Parking Alternate 2 Q north • Where feasible, create one-way traffic flow based on a 65-degree angle ar- rangement, 8'-6"wide spaces and a 53'-6" clear bay dimension necessary for a three-bay design and this site width limitation of 147'-0" in the east/west di- rection (see plan at left) • To develop a surface lot, and then ex- pand on it efficiently in the future, will re- quire one of three possible scenarios: 1. stair-step the hillside in approximately 10-foot vertical increments, build a level at grade and one supported in Phase 1, and the add the second supported level (+20' Elev.) in Phase 2, Concept A. 2. cut a "flat" surface lot into the hill, and add two "flat" levels, and supported ramp in a future phase, Concept B. 3. cut a "flat" surface lot into the hill, and add two "flat" levels in a future phase, Concept C. • Renderings are included in this report to aid in understanding mass and configura- tion only -details of the actual proposed parking layouts can be found in plan view for all three options (see sample at left). • cost estimates include provisions for sprinkling (as per Arroyo Grande Fire Dept.} along with ventilation and shoring costs associated with Concepts B and C. Concept Astair-step design permits cross-ventilation of floors, and limits ad- ditional costs associated with shoring, re- tainingwalls and deep excavation. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 7 B R A N c H Alternate 2 SECTION 11-Preferred Concept A Summary Concept APhase I -Surface Parking Options The body of our report begins on the following pages, with six surface parking alternates, configured to accept future structured parking as shown in the preferred Concept A. This option also takes into consideration the possible land swap that may occur between the City and the neighboring landlord. This land swap would result in the City acquiring the neighbor's property that would allow for a more desirable "footprint" for parking development (immediate and future). This is illustrated in this section as added parcels in Alternates A.1, B.1 and C.1. This would also result in the neighboring landlord acquiring Le Point street front property, property that would be more desir- able forfuture mixed-use development. The following diagrams illustrate the potential thatwould result from this land swap. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 LE POINT i QC - i 'i i' ''i m , iI i i' i .; i ©' ~: ~'' i ~ i i i'' i /i i i i '' i i' i ;; i '' i i' i i i i p~rki~g design group -, ; loa angles ~~refra f1UUSIUfE '~ north B R ' A' N' C H 311 ~~~OO~ Parking Expansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, ~A fobG028 Concept A Ica e: ~ :4 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 5]1/2007 b LEPDINT `,r i r' i ,r' i i ~r`r I I .r I ~ ;rir i I ~ I I I I I I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ i I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I W I I J ~ I J I Q ! I I I I I I I I I I parking design group los angeles orraha haus-on north 311512ooT Parldn~ F.~ansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Job#BO~B Concept A Scale:l:4o Alternate 2 A, B and C ~~ {87 w1 ~`'` apaoaa~ + ~} ~ pa~d-~ spaces Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 10 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 11 LE PO/NT _._a._,_. ~_._'_1_._._._._._._._~_._._~_._._._._._,_ i i i ~p ..~ 0 U O 0 Alternate 4 A, B, C, A1, B1 and C1 109 spaces X115 wl B-6"spaces} - + (3) existing parking spaces parking design group los angeles Omaha houston north B R A N C H 3/15/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Job#6028 Concept A Scale: 1:40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 12 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 13 Section 111-Three Parking Development Concepts (Concepts A, B and C) ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ A~~~~ H ~~1 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 14 ~~r4cin~ ~~l~r~r~~ F~ ~4r Exhibit r Perking Development option A Exhibit II Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 15 LEPOINT Future Structured Parking Concept A -Level P-1 l - ~ ~ _______~ ~~ ~~ ~I ~ I I I ~, ~ I IV ,,', 'i ~ i II 'I ~r I~ ', U p 'I I I' ~i 7r _~ li I I ~i ~i ~~ ~i i i ~i ~i ~i i i ~i ~i i II I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i i j i i i i i i i i i i i i I I i i i i i i i i i i I l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I ~i ~i ~ ~i i i ~i ~i ~i i i ~i ~i i ICI I i i i i~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i i I I Ir----- sill i i,. ~ III ii 'I ~ ~ i ICI I i i i, Ir---- i i i i i i i i i i i i i I ~ ii,l 1, i i ~i ~i i i ~i ~i ~i i i ~i ~i i t I i~l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I ~~ iil I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t r I` ii ii ii i ii i i ii ii ii i i ii ii i t I I II !~ i~ I I l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i~~! III II, i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t ~~ I ~ i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i V `:-.~ WTI ii ii ~~ ii i i i i i i i i i i I~ ~' ~~ Wig i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i I ii,~ l i i i ~i i i i i i i i i i i ~n I i ~I ~i ~i , i i ~i ~i ~i i i ~i ~i i l I liil i i i i i i i i i i I i i i ~i i i i i i i i i i i I I ill ~i ~i i i i i i i i i i i i I ~ I i i i i i i i i i i i i t I ii i i i i~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i y I II I ±------~------~~I ii I ~~I n I "I n I I ii,~ I i lily i ~~I it it I il6 I I I I I I I II I I I CanceptA P1 Level 29parking spaces Shawn parking design group los angeles Omaha houstan north 4/09/2006 Par bng Expans ien Ana lysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Jab#6028 Con cept A Scale: l; 40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 16 cEPOiNr Future Structured Parking Concept A -Level P-2 -- ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ i '~, Ili ~~I ~ ~~ i ', ~ S ~~ ~~~ '~ ~i i ii ~' Sr i~ ~~ ~~I ~; i ~'i ail ~ ~' ~ 'i ~ I '~ Iii ~i ll ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 'I I I'~ a'' =a I~Ilil ~p it I~ I u I i i~ iii I I i i~ I II ii iil I i I i it li I li lil i ii~il I~ Ilil ii yid i i ail Concept A P2 Level 51 pa rking spaces sh own P1 Level parking 29 spaces Two parting levels 80 spaces parking design group los a~geles Omaha housto~ north 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis -City of A~ayO Grande, CA Jab#6028 Concept A Scale:1;40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 17 LEPOINT Future Structured Parking Concept A -Level P-3 ,, ,~ ~~ ~~ ConceptA P3 Level 61 parking spaces shown P1 &P2 Levels +8o spaces total parking 141 spaces parking design group las angeles amaha houston north 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis -City of A~oya Grande, CA Jab#6028 ConceptA Scale:1;40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 18 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 19 Adaptation to sloping site: o "Stair-step" down hillside with tiered parking to improve future site efficiency. o Basic concept achieves a reasonable amount of flat-floor (no greaterthan 2% from alley side up to Le Point side) parking in later phases. Footprint size -configuration o Each "tier" is approximately 62' wide for 90-degree parking on each side of a two-way drive aisle. o Considers Grade Level (0.0'} plus to elevated parking levels (approximately +10' Elev. and +20'Elev.). Vehicularaccess and vertical circulation o Vehicular access via east-side ramp from Le Point to hold down cost and provide access to each tier of parking, two-way access to all parking can be achieved from Le Point only; thereby it represents a concept not dependent on a vehicular access easement on the alley (south) side of the site. o Vertical, vehicular circulation via the east-side, uncovered access ramp from Le Point. o Two-way access to tiers of parking appropriate here, given the smaller parking capacity, and the configuration, which includes some "no-outlet" parking, is the most efficient concept stud- ied. Pedestrian movement- accessible parking o Assuming some form of future development takes place on Le Point, patrons will have direct foot access from the top, (+20' Elev.) parking level to commercial/residential space matching elevation with Le Point Street. o Stairs would be required on the alley (south) side as a secondary means of site egress. o Elevator access would be provided from +10 Elev. parking level up to +20 Elev. for access to commercial/residential occupancies. o In final build-out, +10' Elev. and +20' Elev. parking floor elevations can be configured with im- provedfunction and elimination, or mitigation of no-outlet areas. o In a surface lot, or Phase I, and in future build-out, accessible parking could be provided at the alley(south) side of the structure, allowing egress via future easement across neighboring property, and to pedestrian way, and cross-walk on Branch Street. Future expansion capabilities - Development on Le Point o Excavation is reduced in this option by "stair-stepping" down the hillside and represents a good land-use scenario from a functional and constructability standpoint o If the City does pursue further evaluation of Le Point frontage, this Concept allows for good in- tegrationwith the occupied space, allows extension of the commercial/residential development out, and over the +20 parking level, and is the most cost effective Concept overall Parking design standards -approach for analysis o If Phase I includes +10 tier slab-on-grade only, and not the supported bay, then 53 spaces can be realized and accessed from Le Point via a Phase I ramp. If the +10 level is expanded, and constructed above the grade level in the first Phase, then approximately 80 spaces can real- ized and effectively accessed from Le Point o Approx. 65 degree angle parking, or 90 degree, two-way parking would be recommended here, with 8'-6"wide spaces, taking advantage of interlock dimension where cars queue up nose-to-nose. (top, +20 level Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 20 parking design gaup los angales o~ha ha~to~ Proposed Arroyo Grande Parking Structure Parking Capacity ~ Area Summary -Concept"A„ Arroyo Grande, GA April 12, 2007 Grade + ~ elevated BUILDING S12F =irregular PARKING LEVEL STD. TAND. COMP. ACC VACC TOTALS SLAB QN GRADE SUPPORTED SLAB SFISPACE Ram 4 0 0 0 0 4 6,900 0 1725.00 Grade Level 0.0' 25 0 0 0 0 25 7 075 0 283.00 P1 Level +10.0' S1 0 0 0 0 51 7 075 8385 303.14 P2 Level +20' 61 0 0 0 0 61 7,075 17,240 282,62 Totals = 141 0 0 0 0 ** 28,125 25,625 2,125 Gross Floor Arm NSF} = 53,750 Gross Flaar Area {SF~ = 53,75Q Design EfFciency = 53,150 + = 381.21 9~ Compacts of Total = O.O~a ** The final parking capacity may be reduced by as much as 10 to 15 spaces far changes in infrastructure requirements, handicap perking cansidera#ians ar design madirications. Proposed Arroyo Grande Parking Structure Cost Estimate -Concept "A" Arroyo Grande, CA On-Grade Parlang 28,125 s.f. ~ X15,00 = $421,875 Elevated Partang 25,625 s.f. $65,00 = X1,665,625 Total Area 53,750 Additional Below~rade premium 6,000 s.f. ~ $30,00 = X180,000 Es~mated Construc~on Cost = 2,267,50Q Indirect E~enses** C~ 12~ _ $272,100 Contingency 5°~ _ $~ 13,380 Es~mated Total Cost = $2,fi52,984 Estimated Construction cast per Space $2,267,500 142 spaces = X15,988 Estimated Total Cost per Space X2,652,980 142 spaces = X18,683 Design Efficiency 53,750 s.f. 1 142 = 379 s.f.lspace ** Indirect eenses include Design Fees, Permits, Plan Check Fees, Soils Report, Survey, Blueprints for Construction, Testing and Inspections. This is a preliminary cost estimate based on current trends in parking stnacture construction and should be used as a preliminary estimate only. All figures should be reviewed and confirmed by a Califiamia area contractor experienced in below~rade constnaction. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 21 n r ~ Perking Dev~lvpment option 6 Exhibit III Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 22 LEPOINT Future Structured Parking Concept B - Level P-1 ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ 'i ~r i~ i ~~ i ~ ~I ~ ~' i ~ i Concept B P1 Level 55 irking spacesshawn parking design group los a~geles amaha housta~ north 41091~Q07 Parking Expansion Analysis -City of A~oya Grande, CA Job#6028 Concept B Scale: 1;40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 23 LEP 0/NT Future Structured Parking Concept B -Level P2 __ _ _____ ~i % i ~ ~ ti~ ~~~ , ~, ~~ ~~ I ~r i Up ~I ~ I I II I I Concept B P2 Level 59 parking spa ces shown P1 Level parting + 55 spaces Twa parking levels 114 spaces parking design group los angeles Omaha haustan no rth 4/09/2007 ~ Parking Expansion Analysis -City of Arr~+o Grande, CA ~ Job#6028 ~ Concept B ~ Scale: 1:40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 24 LEPOINT Future Structured Parking Concept B -Level P-3 _r ~ ~ Propo ~ bl dg line a i f / ~ i i i it ~ ~ i ~i i ~ ~~ ~_ -;__-= ~ ~ ~, ;___ I I i li li ~~ ~«i~'i rJi ~ ~ ~ ~ - i i ~__. I Co ncept B P3 Level 37 parking spaces sh awn P2 & P 3 parki ng + 114 s pa ~ s total parking 1 ~1 spaces parking design group las angeles amaha haustan north 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis - City ~ Arroyo Grande, CA Job#G0~8 Concept B Scale: 1;40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 25 1 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 26 Adaptation to sloping site: o Cut into hillside to improve future site efficiency. o Basic concept achieves a reasonable amount of flat-floor (no greaterthan 2% from alley side up to Le Point side) parking in later phases. Footprint size -configuration o East-side ramp, as in Concept A, but combined with a 110'-wide floor plate to allow some sep- aration of ramp from parking levels to improve vehicular turning maneuvers and provide natu- ral light penetration. o Considers Grade Level (Elev. 0.0') plus two elevated parking levels (approximate Elev. +10' and Elev. +20'). Vehicularaccess and vertical circulation o Vehicular access via east-side ramp from Le Point Street to hold down cost and provide ac- cess to each level of parking, two-way access to all parking can be achieved from Le Point Street only; thereby it represents a concept not dependent on a vehicular access easement on the alley (south} side of the site. o Vertical, vehicular circulation via the east-side, covered access ramp from Le Point Street. o Two-way access to parking from the ramp, appropriate here, given the smaller parking capaci- ty, and the configuration, which includes one-way angle parking, is the second-most efficient concept studied. Pedestrian movement- accessible parking o Assuming some form of future development takes place on Le Point Street, patrons will have direct access from the top, (Elev. +20') parking level to commercial/residential space matching elevation with Le Point street. o Stairs would be required on the alley (south) side as a secondary means of pedestrian egress. o Elevator access would be provided from Grade, and Elev. +10' parking level up to Elev. +20' for access to commercial/residential occupancies. o In a surface lot, or Phase I, and in future build-out, accessible parking could be provided at the alley(south) side of the structure, allowing pedestrian egress via future easement across neigh- boring property, and to pedestrian way, and crosswalk on Branch Street. Future expansion capabilities - development on Le Point o To excavate site and construct a "flat" Phase I surface lot is only practical if future needs call for development on Le Point Street, and/or additional parking on an Elev. +10' level as a later phase. o If the City pursues further evaluation of Le Point Street frontage, this option allows for good in- tegrationwith the occupied space, allows extension of the commercial/residential development out and over the Elev. +20' parking level, and represents a sound option overall, even though less efficient than Concept A. Parking design standards -approach for analysis o If the Elev. +10' level is constructed above the Grade Level in the first phase, approximately 114 spaces can realized and effectively accessed from Le Point Street, still allowing develop- mentalong Le Point Street at a later date. o Approximately 65-degree angle parking, or 90-degree, two-way parking would be recommend- ed with this option, with 8'-6" wide spaces, taking advantage of interlock dimension where cars queue up nose-to-nose. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 27 parking design group los anAelas arrsha houstan Proposed Arrays Grande Parking Structure Parking Capacity ~ Area Summary -Concept "B" Arroyo Grande, GA April 12, 2001 Grade + 2 elevated BUILDING S12F =irregular PA RKING CAPACITIES AR EA~SFf EFFICIENCY PARKING LEVEL STD. TAND, COMP. ACC VACC TOTALS SLAB ON GRADE SUPPORTED SLAB SFlSPACE Ramp 3 0 ~ ~ 0 3 5,800 1,800 1933.33 Grade Level O.a' S5 0 0 0 0 55 19 570 U 355.82 P1 Levial +10,4' S6 4 4 4 0 56 3 750 18 050 353.57 P2 Level ~+20' 31 0 4 4 0 31 0 18,540 445.95 Totals = 151 0 4 4 0 ** X9,120 40,354 1l~,1 LU Grass Floor Arm NSF} = 69,40 Gross Floor Area ~SF~ = 69,470 Design Efficiency = 59,410 = 4G0.07 9~ Com pacts afi Total = 0.09 *'~ The final parking capecky may be reduced by as much as 10 to 15 spaces for changes in infrastructure requirements, handicap parking consideralians or design modifications. Proposed Arrays Grande Parking Structure Cast Estimate -Concept "B" ArrrDyo Grande, CA On-Grade Parking 29,120 s,f. $15.00 = $436,840 Elevated Parking 40,350 s,f. ~ $85.00 = X2,622,150 Total Area 69,470 Additional Belaw~rade premium 12,a0a s,f. $30.04 = 364 Dao Estimated Construe#ian Gust = $3,419,560 Indirect E~enses** ~ 129 = 41 4,350 Contingency ~ 5°Ifl = $174,98D Estimated Total Cost = $4,00a,t380 Estimated Construction Cast per Space $3,419,550 + 151 spaces = $22,646 Estimated Total Cost per Space X4,000,880 + 151 spaces = $28,496 Design Efficiency 69,470 s.f. 1 151 = 480 s.f.lspace ** Indirect expenses include Design Fees, Permits, Plan Check Fees, Sails Report, Survey, Blueprints for Construction, Testing and Inspections. This is a preliminary cost estimate based an current trends in parking structure construction and should be used as a preliminary estima#e only. All figures should be reuiewed and confirmed by a California ar~aa contracts experienced in below-grade construction. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 28 r Perking Dev~lvpment ~pti~n C Exhibit IV Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 29 Future Structured Parking Concept C -Level P-1 staining wall required in Phase 1 surface lot - OptionsBand C. Accessible pathot travel from grade~0.a' EL) parking level to Branch Street sideu~lalk elevation ~n occur over an approx. 4 ft. change in elevation ~2°/° max. ~o pe x 210' dis~nce = 4.2 tt.) prapertle s to th e s auth, etc. "down" to B ranch ~__ _ 2 °/°slope maximum ~ various vehiallar ingressleg Tess alters atives exist depending aneasements, partnering with neighboring parking design group los angeles Omaha houston Surface Lot C onGept C P-1 Level 70 parking spaces shown north 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Job#6028 Concept C Scale: 1:40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report- Parking Development 5/1/2007 30 Future Structured Parking Concept C - Level P-1 (with ramps) parking design group los angeles Omaha houston no rth 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Job#6028 Concept C Scale: 1:40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 31 Future Structured Parking Concept C -Level P-2 parki ng on ~2} levels 104 spaces parking design group los angeles Omaha houston no rth 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Job#6028 Concept C Scale: 1:40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 32 P-1 Level parking +52 spaces Future Structured Parking Concept C -Level P~ Le Point parking onall levels 133 spaces parking design group los angeles Omaha houston no rth 4/09/2007 Parking Expansion Analysis - City of Arroyo Grande, CA Job#6028 Concept C Scale: 1:40 Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 33 P1 & P2 Level parking +104 spaces Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 34 Adaptation to sloping site: o Cut into hillside to improve future site efficiency. o Basic concept achieves a reasonable amount of flat-floor (no greaterthan 2% from alley side up to Le Point Street side) parking in later Phases. Footprint size -configuration o Demonstrates how to "hold-back" upper level (Elev. +20') to reduce final mass of structure o Considers Grade Level (Elev. 0.0') plus two elevated parking levels (approximate Elev. +10' and Elev. +20'). Vehicularaccess and vertical circulation o Vehicular access to and from Le Point Street improves development potential. o Vehicular access from west side of property, leaving NE corner of property available for com- mercial/residential development, or as a pad site to accommodate a relocated building. o Vertical, vehicular circulation via internal, express ramps. o One-way traffic flow, combined with side-by-side express ramps yields a functionally sound, parking land-use scenario; however, due to limited site size, is less efficient, driving up final cost per space. Pedestrian movement- accessible parking o Assuming some form of future development takes place on Le Point Street; patrons will verti- cally circulate via elevator from lower parking levels, up to commercial/residential space matching elevation with Le Point Street. o Stairs would be required on the alley (south} side as a secondary means of pedestrian egress. o Given the conceptual nature of this analysis, and a desire for a fair comparison of available op- tions, handicap accessible parking has not been calculated into this option. o In final build-out, accessible parking would be provided on the top (Elev. +20' Le Point Street side) parking level, allowing forwheelchair access into the "back" of commercial/residential space, and up one elevator landing to Le Point Street. o In a surface lot, or Phase I, and in future build-out, accessible parking would be provided at the alley(south}side of the structure, allowing egress via future easement across neighboring property, and to pedestrian way, and a crosswalk on Branch Street. Future expansion capabilities - development on Le Point o To excavate site and construct a "flat" Phase I surface lot, as demonstrated in this option is only practical if future needs call for development on Le Point Street, and any associated addi- tional parking requirement. o If the City pursues further evaluation of Le Point Street frontage, and considers this amount of site excavation, then other efficient design solutions may be achievable that combine elements from Options A and B. Parking design standards -approach for analysis o Phase I (surface application} based on a three-bay parking scenario, in an effort to improve ef- ficiency on asite only 147' in the east/west direction. o Approximately 65-degree angle parking would be recommended here, with 8'-6" wide spaces, taking advantage of interlock dimension where cars queue up nose-to-nose. Fine tuning of the concept will allow observance of City parking designllayout standards. o Depending on commercial needs in later phases, perhaps adjust space width to 9'-0" wide on those spaces dedicated to high-turnover parking, likely the uppermost (Elev. +20') level. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 35 parking design group los angeles Omaha houston April 1~, 2507 Grade + ~ elevated BUILDING SIB =irregular Proposed Arroyo Grande Parking Structure Parking Capacity & Area Summary -Concept "C„ Arroyo Grande, CA PARKING LEVEL STa. TAND. CDMP. ACC VACC TGTALS SLAB DN GRACE SUPPORTED SLAB 5FPACE Grade 52 0 ~ 4 4 52 23 28Q 0 447.69 P 1 Level 52 0 0 ~ ~ 52 ~~ 280 486.15 P2 Level 29 0 ~ ~ ~ ~9 ~0,20~ 696.55 Totals = ~ 33 0 ~ 4 4 ~' 23 280 45 4$4 1~,2~U Gross Floor Area NSF) = B8,TB0 Crass Floor Area (SF~ = 88,7 Design Efficiency = fi8,~60 + = 516.99 ~b Compacts of Total = 0,0°~ ** The final parking capaci~ may be reduced by as much as 10 to 1 ~ spaces for changes in infrastructure requirements, handicap parking considerations or design modifications. Proposed Arroyo Grande Parking structure Cost Estimate -Concept "C~' Arroyo Grande, CA On-Grade Parking 23,280 s.f. ~ $15.00 = $349,200 Elevated Parking 45,800 s.f. ~ fi5.00 = $3,042,000 Total Area 70,888 Additional Below-grade premium 12,000 s.f. X30.00 = $360,000 Estimated CanstructianCast = $3,751,200 Indirect Expenses** 12°~ _ $450,140 Contingency 5°~ = 187 560 Estimated Total Cost = $4,388,900 Estimated Construction Cost per Space $3,751,200 + 133 spaces = $28,205 Estimated Total Cost per space $4,388,900 + 133 spaces = $32,999 Design EfFciency 70,080 s.f. # 133 = 527 s.f.#space ** Indirect expenses include Design Fees, Permits, Plan check Fees, oils Report, unrey, Blueprints for Construction, Testing and Inspections. This is a preliminary cost estimate based on current trends in parking structure construction and should be used as a preliminary estimate only. All figures should be revieMred and confirmed by a Califamia area contractor experienced in below~rade construction. Arroyo Grande Conceptual Design Report -Parking Development 51112007 36 11.d. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 53, CHAPTER 591 OF STATUTES OF 2006, AS CODIFIED IN CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33342.7, BY DESCRIBING THAT THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEREFORE HAS NO PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN DATE: MAY 8, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council introduce the attached Ordinance to comply with requirements of Senate Bill 53, Chapter 591 of Statutes of 2006, as codified in California Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, by describing that the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency does not have authority to acquire real property by eminent domain and therefore has no program to acquire real property by eminent domain. FUNDING: There is no cost impact to the City from the proposed action. DISCUSSION: SB 53 was adopted by the California State Legislature during the 2006 legislative session and became effective January 1, 2007. It requires the legislative body of every community that has a redevelopment plan to adopt an ordinance describing the redevelopment agency's "program to acquire real property by eminent domain." As a result, it is referred to as an "SB 53 Ordinance." According to the City's redevelopment legal counsel, the Legislature and Governor were apparently unaware that no redevelopment agency has a "program" to adopt real property by eminent domain. Agencies follow what is in their redevelopment plans and in the California Eminent Domain Law. The Legislature also did not differentiate between communities that have redevelopment plans that authorize the acquisition of CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF SB 53 ORDINANCE MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 2 real property by eminent domain from those communities with redevelopment agencies with no eminent domain authority, such as Arroyo Grande. Nonetheless, the City is required under the legislation to adopt the SB 53 Ordinance to comply with State law by identifying that its redevelopment plan does not authorize the acquisition of real property by eminent domain. The attached SB 53 Ordinance contains language that complies with all of the SB 53 requirements, which must be adopted by the City Council no later than June 30, 2007. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendation and introduce the Ordinance; - Make modifications as appropriate and introduce the Ordinance; - Do not introduce the Ordinance and direct staff to take other action to seek compliance with SB 53; - Provide staff with direction. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 53, CHAPTER 591 OF STATUTES OF 2006, AS CODIFIED IN CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33342.7, BY DESCRIBING THAT THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEREFORE HAS NO PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Declaration of Puroose. A. The Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law which is codified at Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. (the "CRL"). B. By adoption of Ordinance No. 487 C.S. on June 17, 1997, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, in compliance with the CRL and other applicable law, adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project, as amended from time to time with technical amendments as authorized by the CRL (the "Redevelopment Plan"). The Redevelopment Plan delineates the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). C. By enactment of Senate Bill 53 (Stats.2006, Ch. 591), the CRL was amended to add Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7 to require that communities with redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 2007 must adopt an ordinance prior to July 1, 2007, that contains a description of the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council, with the adoption of this Ordinance, to comply-with Senate Bill 53 by describing that the Agency does not have a program to acquire real property by eminent domain because the Redevelopment Plan does not authorize the Agency to acquire real property by eminent domain. Section 2: The Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency Does Not Have A Program to Acquire Real Prooertv By Eminent Domain. A. The Redevelopment Plan does not grant the Agency the authority to authority to acquire real property by the use the power of eminent domain and therefore the Agency does not have any program to acquire real property by eminent domain. The foregoing limitation on the Agency's authority may be changed only by amending the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to the CRL. B. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to, or shall, act to limit or extend the authority of the Agency or the City as may be provided in the Redevelopment Plan or the CRL or other applicable law or regulation. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 Section 3: Adoption of Ordinance Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) [14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3)] which sets forth the rule that "CEQA" applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." This Ordinance merely restates Redevelopment Plan provisions and does not cause or implement any specific application or project. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to file a Notice of Exemption with the County of San Luis Obispo pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062(c). Section 4: Required Proceedings. All required proceedings and considerations precedent to the adoption of this Ordinance have been regularly taken in accordance with applicable law. Section 5: Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid. Section 6: Ordinance Not To Be Codified. This Ordinance shall not be codified in the Municipal Code but shall be an uncodified ordinance. Section 7: Publication. A summary of this Ordinance has been published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council at which this Ordinance has been adopted. A certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance has been posted in the in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of this adopted Ordinance. Section 8: Effectiveness. ~ 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 , 2007. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 TONYFERRARA,MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL CITY ATTORNEY