Loading...
Agenda Packet 2001-12-11 CITY COUNCIL City of AGENDA )lrroyo C}rancfe Michael A. Lady Mayor Thomas A. Runels Mayor Pro Tem Steven Adams City Manager Jim Dickens Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Tony Ferrara Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Sandy Lubin Council Member NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday December 11. 2001 6:15 P.M. Arrovo Grande Citv Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT on Special Meeting Agenda Items. Members of the public wishing to address the Council on any item described in this Notice may do so when recognized by the Presiding Officer. 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: (1 ) APN 007-011-021 (2) APN 007-011-022 (3) APN 007-011-023 Agency Negotiator: Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works Negotiating Parties: (1) Southern California-Arizona Conference Camp Commission of the Methodist Church, a California non-profit corporation; (2) Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, a California non-profit religious benefit corporation; (3) The Central California Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, a California non-profit corporation. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment. (Over, Please) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 - 6:15 P.M. PAGE 2 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Announcement of reportable action from closed session, if any. 5. ADJOURNMENT. c:closedsession.agenda.121101 CITY COUNCIL City of AGENDA Arroyo qrancfe Michael A. Lady Mayor Thomas A. Runels Mayor Pro Tem Steven Adams City Manager Jim Dickens Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attomey Tony Ferrara Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Sandy Lubin Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR VINCE LLAMAS NEW LIFE COMMUNITY CHURCH, PISMO BEACH 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5.a. Introduction of Miss Teen Arrovo Grande. Dania Bennett 5.b. Proclamation - Recoanizina Eaale Scout William I. Johnson 5.c. Proclamation - Recoanizina Eaale Scout Rvan A. Oldham AGENDA SUMMARY - DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 2 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS: Persons in the audience may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to all communication; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. Upon completing your comments: . You may be directed to staff for assistance; . A Council Member may indicate an interest in discussing your issue with you subsequent to the Council meeting; . The Council may direct staff to research the issue and subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of a memorandum or staff report); or . No action is required or taken. S. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. 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 (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Approve the listing of cash disbursements for the period November 16, 2001 through November 30,2001. 8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of November 30, 2001. 8.c. Consideration of Cash Flow Analvsls/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water Facilitv Fund (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Receive and file October 2001 Cash Report and approve the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at 10/31/01. 8.d. Consideration of Annual Financial ReDort - Fiscal Year 2000-2001 ReceiDt and Use of Water and Sewer DeveloDment Fees/Charaes (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Accept and file the annual report of the receipt and use of water and sewer development fees and charges in compliance with Government Code Section 66013. AGENDA SUMMARY - DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 3 S. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) 8.e. Consideration of ADDroval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of October 3, 2001; the Special City Council Meeting of November 13, 2001; and the Regular City Council Meeting of November 13, 2001 as submitted. 8.f. Reiection of Claim Aaainst Cltv (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Reject claim submitted by Orion Auto. 8.g. AdoDtion of Ordinance Adoptina the Arrovo Grande MunlciDal Code (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance adopting the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. 8.h. Consideration of New State Minimum Waae (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution increasing wages for those part-time positions that fall below the new State Minimum Wage which goes into effect January 1, 2002. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: g.a. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01.()02 and Architectural Review Case No. 01'()11: Five Cities, Phase II (STRONG) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002; and 2) Approve Architectural Review Case No. 01- 011 for Building "M". 9.b. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 to Construct a 60- Unit Senior ADartment ComDlex and a 3.000 Sauare Foot Senior Recreation Center(STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.8. Consideration of Aareement with AGP Video for Cablecastina Services to Televise City Council Meetinas (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve the proposed agreement with AGP Video for cablecasting services in order to televise City Council meetings on the City's government cable channel. AGENDA SUMMARY - DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 4 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Consideration of the Communitv DeveloDment Block Grant (CDBG) Recommendations (STRONG) Recommended Action: Consider and provide staff direction on preliminary recommendations for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant projects. 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) General Plan Update status and request to place related issues on future City Council agenda. (Ferrara) 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. a) None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. The City Engineer has received Tract Map 2260 Phase II, owned by Berry Gardens LLC. The subject tract is located between East Grand Avenue and Ash Street on the east side of the new Courtland Avenue extension. This is a split of one parcel of 796,408 square feet in size into fifty-six (56) separate lots ranging from 6,000 to 9,088 square feet in size, and a remainder portion of 318,188 square feet in size. The remainder portion is reserved for the Tract 2260 Phase III map. Unless appealed, the Final Map will be approved or disapproved by the City Engineer within ten days following the date of this agenda. 16. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA SUMMARY - DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 5 . . . . . . . Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473- 5414. . . . * * * * In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * * * * * * * Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www.arrovoQrande.orQ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - ABBREVIATIONS revised 08104/00 A Agricultural Preserve AB Assembly Bill LAFCO local Agency Formation Commission ADA Americans with Disabilities Act LOCC League of California Cities AG General Agriculture LLA Lot line Adjustment AGMC Arroyo Grande Municipal Code LUE Land Use Element AGPOA Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association MER Lot Merger APN Assesso(s Parcel Number MF CondominiumfTownhouse APCB Air Pollution Control Board MFA Apartments APCD Air Pollution Control District MHP Mobile Home Parks ARC Architectural Review Committee 0 Office Professional ASCE American Society Civil Engineers OCSD Oceano Community Services District ASD Administrative Services Department OSCE Open Space and Conservation Element AWWA American Water Works Association PC Planning Commission BD Building Division PD Police Department CA City Attomey PF Public/Quasi Public CC City Council PPR Plot Plan Review CCC Callfomia Conservation Corps PRD Parks & Recreation Department CCCSIF Central Coast Cities Sell-Insurance Fund PRE-APP Pre-application CD Community Development PSHHC Peoples' Sell-Help Housing Corp, CDBG Community Development Block Grant PSP Planned Sign Program CE Circulation Element PUD Planned Unit Development CEC Callfomia Energy Commission PW Public Works Department CEQA Callfomia Environmental Quality Act RDA Redevelopment Agency CIP Capital Improvement Program RE Residential Estate CIWMP Callfomia Integrated Waste Management Pian RFP Request for Proposals CM City Manage(s Office RFQ Request for Qualifications CMC Califomia Men's Colony RH Hillside Residential CMP Congestion Management Plan RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan COC Certificate of Compliance RR Rural Residential CPI Consumer Price Index RS Suburban Residential CUP Conditional Use Permit RTA Reversion to Acreage DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board DC Development Code SAC Staff Advisory Committee DEA Drug Enforcement Administration SB Senate Bill E,C. Election Code SCAT South County Area Transit EDD Economic Development Department SEIU Service Employees International Union EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit SF Single Family EIR Environmental Impact Report SLO San Luis Obispo EIS Environmental Impact Statement SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments EOC Economic Opportunity Commission SLOHA San Luis Obispo Housing Authority EVC Economic Vitality Corporation SLONTF San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Force FAU Federal Aid Urban SLORT A San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority FD Fire Division SLOWRAC San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory FDAA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration Committee FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SR Senior Housing FID Financial Services Department SSLOCOWA South San Luis Obispo County Water Association FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission SSLDCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District FTA Federal Transit Administration SRRE Source Reduction & Recycling Element FY Fiscal Year SWRCD State Water Resources Control Board G,C. Government Code TPM Tentative Parcel Map GC General Commercial TT Tentative Tract Map GF General Fund TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee GP General Plan TUP Temporary Use Permit GPA General Plan Amendment UBC Uniform Building Code HCD California Department of Housing and Community UFC Unifonn Fire Code Development USA Underground Service Alert HOP Home Occupancy Permit VAR Variance HUD Housing and Urban Development Dept. VC Village Commercial I Industrial and Business Park VCB SlO County Visitors & Conference Bureau ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation VSR View Shed Review JPA J~ntPowersAuthority ZONE 3 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 3 (Lopez Project) . y ...oc::laanation . . . cognizing' lAM I. JOHNSON '02' Attaiaiag the Rank of Eagle Scout WHERE.I1S, Tbe Boy Scouts of America. since its fomuling in 1910 has been the preeminent organization for instilling positive values in its youth - membershil}; and Jf"HERE.I1S, ApIJroximately two percent of ull Boy Scouts nationwide attuin the rank of Eagle Scout; amI Jf"HERE.I1S, Good Citizenshil}, Charucter Development, Physicul Fitness, and Service to Others, are qualities l}romoted by the Boy Scout Program and are demonstrate(l in both attitude and action of Eagle Scouts; und Jf"HERE.I1S, Trool} 26 of Arroyo Grande, Culiforniu, is honoring one ofits very own members since the Troop was sturted, \VII,I~L\.1'1 '''V1I~I;' I. .JOHNSON, who has attuine(1 the rank of I~AGLE SCOUT. \V1LVS Eagle Project was constructing a bulletin ward for LolJez Lake, which will hold displays of flora amI famm &0111 the area. \VlI~L raised all the necessary money, as well as, arranging all the needed skills. TIus l}roject took in excess of 200 hours to COmlJlete, and save(1 the Comity of San LIUS Obispo nearly $3,000 due to his efforts. NOJ~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLf"ED, that I, Michael A. Lu(ly, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Cmlllcil, do hereby congratulate WILLL\.1'1 I. .JOlINSON for achieving the rank ofl'1\GLE scour, and take this opportmuty to recognize \VlI~VS colmlutment, diligence, and dedicution in IU1dertuking and COmlJleting his Engle Scout Project. IN Jf"IT NESS Jf"HEREOF, 1 have hereIlllto set my hand and cuused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this II'" day of December, 200 . MICHAELA. LillY, MAYOR .c. y ...ocla...atio. cog.izi.g - ANTHONY OLDHAM fol' Attaining tbe Rank of Eagle Seoat WHERE.lIS, TIle Boy Scouts of America, since its fomuling in 1910 has been the preeminent organization for instilling positive valnes in its youth - membershilJ; and Jf"HERE.lIS, ApIJroximately two percent of all Boy Scouts natiOlmide attain the rank of Eagle Scont; and Jf"HERE.lIS, Goo(l CitizenshilJ, Character DevelolJInent, Physical Fitness, and Service to Others, are qnalities promoted by the Boy Scout Program and are demonstrated in both attitude and action ofEaglc Sconts; and Wl"IERE.lIS, Troop 26 of Arroyo Gramle, California, is honoring one ofits very own members - UYAl" A. OLDHAM, who has attained the rank of EAGLE SCOUT. UYAl"X'S Eagle Project was constructing a sign for Lopez Lake at the Vista Lago swim area. TIle signlJosted warnings, schedules and other important information for Lopez Luke. UYAN raised all the necessary money, as well as, arranging all the needed skills. This project took 22 people donating in excess of 164 hours to complete, ami the ComIty of Sun Luis ObisllO suved a considerable amO\Ult offl.lnds due to his efforts. NOJ~ THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLf"ED, that I, ~lichael A. Lady, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City CoIUlCil, do hereby congratulate UYAl" A. OLDIL\J.,\[ for achieving the rank of F.AGJ~E SCOUT, and take this opporttUlity to recognize UYAl"'S commitment, (liligence, amI (Iedication in lUldertaking and completing his Eagle Scout Project. IN Tf"ITNESS WHEREOF, I have herelUlto set my haml and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this II'" day of December, 2001. MICHAEL A. L.illY, MAYOR 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVIC~ BY: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR~.y SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period November 16 - November 30,2001. FUNDING: There is a $738,017.98 fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1 - Cash Disbursement Listing ATTACHMENT 2 - November 16, 2001 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT 3 - November 16, 2001 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks ATTACHMENT 4 - November 23,2001 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT 5 - November 30,2001 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT 6 - November 30,2001 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS For the Period of November 16 Through November 30, 2001 n ,- , , -~ ., , ww ww , , "'" w ww wW' , , ,_'w, w'wwwww, December 11. 2001 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period November 16 to November 30, 2001. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. November 16, 2001 Accounts Payable Cks 103347-103451 2 $140,673.52 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks 3 271. 912.43 412,585.95 November 23, 2001 Accounts Payable Cks 103472-103493 4 218,529.54 Less Payroll Cks included in Attachment 3 (206,177.04) 12,352.50 November 30, 2001 Accounts Payable Cks 5 59,120.80 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks 6 253,958.73 313,079.53 Three Week Total $ 738,017.98 . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GENERAL FUND (iliO) SPEGAL REVENUE FUNDS City Government (Fund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213) 4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee 4002 - Administrative Services Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222) 4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fund 4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225) 4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System 4120 - Financial Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230) 4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax 4130 - Community Development Police Grant Funds 4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4201 - Law Enforcement Equip. (Fd 272) 4140 - Management Information System 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant (Fd 271) 4145 - Non Departmental 4203 - Federal Universal Hiring (Fd 274) Public Satehl (Fund 010) 4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt (FD 279) 4201 - Police Redevelopment Agency ( Fund 284) 4211 - Fire 4103 - Redevelopment Administration 4212 - Building & Safety ENTERPRISE FUNDS Public Works (Fund 010) Sewer Fund (Fund 612) 4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4610 - Sewer Maintenance 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance Water Fund (Fund 640) i 4304 - Street Lighting 4710 - Water Administration 4305 - Automotive Shop 4711 - Water Production Parks & Recreation (Fund 010) 4712 - Water Distribution 4420 - Parks Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4421 - Recreation 4750 - Lopez Administration 4422 - General Recreation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (Fund 350) 4423 - Pre-School Program 5501-5599 - Park Projects 4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5601-5699 - Streets Projects 4425 - Children in Motion 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects 4426 - Five Cities Youth Basketball 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects 4430 - Soto Sport Complex 5901-5999 - Water Projects 4213 - Government Buildings 4460 - Parkway Maintenance Dept. Index for Council.xIs ATTACHI1ENT 2 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 444 11/09/01 088296 UNITED STATES POSTMASTE POSTAGE 010.4145.5201 2,000.00 2,000.00 103347 11/16/01 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXY & ACETYLENE GASES 010.4305.5303 14.00 14.00 103348 11/16/01 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST.PHONE 5400 010.4145.5403 277 .83 277 .83 103349 11/16/01 102354 ABS DELIVERY SYSTEMS, IN EDIDENCE DELIVERY CHARGE-OCT 010.4201. 5324 17.00 17.00 103350 11/16/01 102269 ALERT-ALL CORP STICKERS/BADGES 010.4211.5504 350.00 350.00 103351 11/16/01 101958 AMERICAN BENEFIT SERVIC LASERFICHE NLM TO NT 272.4201.6101 2,669.65 2,669.65 103352 11/16/01 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HITT SVCS TO 10/26 010.4120.5303 490.75 103352 11/16/01 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HITT SVCS TO 11/2 010.4120.5303 547.38 103352 11/16/01 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS STRASSER SVCS-10/19 010.4421.5303 604.00 1,642.13 103353 11/16/01 004134 AMERICAN WATER WORKS AS AWWA MEMBERSHIP-TAYLOR 640.4710.5503 53.00 53.00 103354 11/16/01 004914 APEX SHARPENING WORKS LINE/PLUGS-WEED EATER 010.4430.5273 54.46 54.46 103355 11/16/01 102509 API WASTE SERVICES R/O BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS. 010.4213.5303 250.00 250.00 103356 11/16/01 006006 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SH FLOWERS 010.4201. 5504 69.55 103356 11/16/01 006006 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SH FLORAL ARRANGEMENTS 010.4001.5504 170.13 239.68 103357 11/16/01 006084 ARROYO GRANDE GLASS REPL.GLASS 010.4213.5303 93.60 93.60 103358 11/16/01 008190 B & T SERVICE STN.CONTR FUEL TANK INSPECT/CERT 010.4305.5303 450.00 450.00 103359 11/16/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER OUTLET STRIPS 010.4201. 5604 36.34 103359 11/16/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER LIGHT TUBES 220.4303.5255 60.86 103359 11/16/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER MIRACLE GROW 220.4303.5613 19.87 103359 11/16/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER LUMBER 220.4303.5613 104.50 221. 57 103360 11/16/01 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC REBUILD TURBO/CORE 010.4211.5601 1,395.12 103360 11/16/01 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC CORE 010.4211. 5601 321.00- 1,074.12 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG CORRAL BOARD/TREATED POSTS 010.4420.5605 103.21 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG LUMBER/BOLTS 350.5908.7002 30.25 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG CR:LUMBER 350.5908.7002 10.83~ 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG LUMBER/PLYWOOD 350.5908.7002 193.38 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG LUMBER 350.5908.7002 13 .15 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG LUMBER 350.5908.7002 4.00 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG NAILS/LUMBER 350.5908.7002 8.15 103361 11/16/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG BOLTS/PLYWOOD 350.5908.7002 95.56 436.87 103362 11/16/01 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-10/31 225.4553.5507 1,285.50 1,285.50 103363 11/16/01 016224 CA. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSN CALEARS DUES-FERDOLAGE/PRYOR 010.4201.5503 100.00 100.00 103364 11/16/01 016692 CA.PEACE OFFICER'S ASSN REGIS-FERDOLAGE 010.4201.5501 204.00 204.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103365 11/16/01 018330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINT CHECK-OCT 010.4301.5315 32.00 103365 11/16/01 018330 CA.ST.DEPT.OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINT CHECK-OCT 010.4425.5315 81. 00 103365 11/16/01 018330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINT CHECK-OCT 010.4130.5315 32.00 103365 11/16/01 018330 CA.ST.DEPT OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINT CHECK-OCT 010.4213.5315 32.00 103365 11/16/01 018330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINT CHECK-OCT 010.4201.5329 254.00 431.00 103366 11/16/01 101283 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUP LIGHTS 010.4201.5605 79.18 103366 11/16/01 101283 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUP CORD COVER 010.4201.5604 5.74 84.92 103367 11/16/01 102652 CENTRAL COAST GASES OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.4305.5303 26.04 103367 11/16/01 102652 CENTRAL COAST GASES OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 640.4712.5303 26.03 52.07 103368 11/16/01 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY LODGE POLES 010.4420.5605 133.22 103368 11/16/01 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY LODGE POLES 010.4424.5252 158.83 103368 11/16/01 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY PLANTS 010.4420.5605 40.11 103368 11/16/01 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY RONSTAR 010.4420.5274 85.44 103368 11/16/01 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY MULCH 010.4420.5605 34.23 451.83 103369 11/16/01 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET LUBE/OIL/SAFETY INSPECT 010.4301.5601 103.00 103369 11/16/01 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET REPR.RADIO 010.4301.5601 22.45 125.45 103370 11/16/01 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 010.4420.5307 12.00 12.00 103371 11/16/01 101528 COMPUTERLAND INK CARTRIDGES 010.4140.5602 369.15 369.15 103372 11/16/01 026208 CREDIT BUREAU REPORTS, CREDIT CHECK 010.4201. 5303 7.00 7.00 103373 11/16/01 101779 CTE COMPUTER TRAINING C REGIS-LACOUAGUE 010.4201.5501 199.00 103373 11/16/01 101779 CTE COMPUTER TRAINING C ACCESS 2000 INTRO-KODAJ 010.4201.5501 169.00 368.00 103374 11/16/01 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO STEEL TOE RUBBER BOOTS 220.4303.5255 17.12 103374 11/16/01 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO HITCH PIN/BRACKET/PIN 010.4211.5601 22.07 103374 11/16/01 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO SONA TUBE 010.4201. 5605 202.23 103374 11/16/01 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO SHOVELS 220.4303.5273 96 .23 103374 11/16/01 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO ROPE/KEY BLANKS 220.4303.5255 30.32 103374 11/16/01 026832 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO GRIP PLIERS 010.4420.5273 26.74 394.71 103375 11/16/01 027144 L.N CURTIS & SONS WRENCH/ADAPTERS 010.4211.5255 617.71 617.71 103376 11/16/01 027534 D.G.REPAIR REPL.SPARK PLUGS/COIL ASSEMB. 010.4201.5601 484.11 103376 11/16/01 027534 D.G.REPAIR HEATER MOTOR 010.4430.5601 102.45 586.56 103377 11/16/01 101702 DELL MARKETING L.P. 21/19 MONITOR 272.4201.6101 1,178.07 1,178.07 103378 11/16/01 029484 DIESELRO INC. R/R BATTERIES/GLOW PLUG 010.4420.5601 511.96 103378 11/16/01 029484 DIESELRO INC. SCAN/INJECTOR PUMP 010.4305.5603 630.00 103378 11/16/01 029484 DIESELRO INC. SCAN/INJECTOR PUMP 010.4305.5255 1,444.58 103378 11/16/01 029484 DIESELRO INC. CR:LABOR 010.4305.5603 130.00- 2,456.54 103379 11/16/01 102574 EARTHLINK,INC INTERNET SVCS TO NOV 20 010.4201.5607 41. 90 41.90 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103380 11/16/01 032214 ENTENMANN-ROVIN CO TAX/SHIPPING-M/C HELMET BADGE 010.4201.5255 10.75 10.75 103381 11/16/01 033072 FARM SUPPLY CO. HI P BOOTS 220.4303.5255 53.74 53.74 103382 11/16/01 033462 JOHN FERDOLAGE 2002 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 010.4201.5501 40.00 40.00 103383 11/16/01 101924 J.A. FISCHER, INC. DIESEL FUEL-RED CARB-2 010.0000.1202 2,003.31 2,003.31 103384 11/16/01 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC REPR. LOCK 010.4201.5601 40.00 40.00 103385 11/16/01 035840 FRAZEE PAINT & WALLCOVE SPRAYER PARTS 220.4303.5603 274.56 274.56 103386 11/16/01 101604 BARBIE GARY REIMB.SNACK SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5259 166.63 103386 11/16/01 101604 BARBIE GARY REIMB.SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 116.55 283.18 103387 11/16/01 101088 HANSON AGGREGATES ASPHALT 220.4303.5613 98.93 98.93 103388 11/16/01 041808 CRAIG HENDRICKS TUITION/BOOKS-HENDRICKS 010.4201.5502 998.24 998.24 103389 11/16/01 042302 HINDERLITER,DE LLAMAS SALES TAX REPORT 2 Q 01/02 010.4120.5303 975.00 103389 11/16/01 042302 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS SALES TAX RECOVERED 010.4120.5303 882.10 1,857.10 103390 11/16/01 042862 HONEYWELL, INC. MECHANICAL MAINT TO DEC 31 010.4213.5303 1,974.60 1,974.60 103391 11/16/01 102701 INDOFF, INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 20.89 103391 11/16/01 102701 INDOFF, INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 26.92 47.81 103392 11/16/01 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES DAS SVCS 10/1-10/12 010.4140.5303 2,830.40 103392 11/16/01 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES DATA COMM.SUPPORT 10/1-10/12 010.4140.5303 195.00 3,025.40 103393 11/16/01 045826 IRA'S BIKE SHOP BIKE GLOVES/HELMET 010.4201.5255 53.40 53.40 103394 11/16/01 046098 J C LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE MAINT. 010.4420.5303 525.00 103394 11/16/01 046098 J C LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE MAINT. 217.4460.5356 225.00 750.00 103395 11/16/01 102703 MICHELLE JARVIS REF.PARK DEPOSIT-JARVIS 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103396 11/16/01 047268 JOHNSON, ROBERTS & ASSOC PHQ REPORTS 010.4201.5303 27.37 27.37 103397 11/16/01 047814 KAUTZ TOWING TOW 010.4420.5601 72 .00 103397 11/16/01 047814 KAUTZ TOWING TOW 010.4420.5601 25.00 97.00 103398 11/16/01 101173 LONGS DRUG STORE PHOTO PROCESSING-OCT 010.4201.5255 49.73 49.73 103399 11/16/01 053274 LYON & CARMEL PROF. LEGAL SVCS-OCT 010.4003.5304 11,782.81 11,782.81 103400 11/16/01 054482 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MSA MEETING-9 PEOPLE 220.4303.5501 135.00 135.00 103401 11/16/01 054494 CATHY MALLORY REIMB.SUPPLIES-MALLORY 010.4423.5253 23.57 23.57 103402 11/16/01 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/BRAKE PADS 010.4201.5601 57.60 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103402 11/16/01 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010.4201.5601 24.44 103402 11/16/01 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE BATTERY/REPL.ALTERNATOR 010.4301. 5601 406.63 488.67 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. SLURRY 640.4712.5610 136.75 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 49.11 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. TOPSOIL 010.4430.5605 149.80 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5510 104.97 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 640.4712.5610 94.47 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 612.4610.5610 104.97 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 612.4610.5610 104.97 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. CONCRETE 350.5908.7002 95.34 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. LEACH ROCK 220.4303.5613 102.72 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. LEACH ROCK 220.4303.5613 102.72 103403 11/16/01 056940 MIER BROS. LEACH ROCK 220.4303.5613 68.48 1,114.30 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE POLY TARPS/AMMONIA SULFATE 010.4430.5605 33.14 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPRAY PAINT/MISC. HARDWARE 010.4211.5601 24.90 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE DUCT TAPE/AMMONIA 010.4211.5601 23.72 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MEASURE TAPE/LUMBER MARKER 010.4212.5255 26.76 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE RUSTSTOP SPRAY 010.4211.5601 4.27 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE POLY TARP/STRETCH CORD 010.4211.5603 6.41 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUNGEE CORD/STRETCH CORD 010.4211.5603 9.11 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FITTINGS 010.4420.5605 24.39 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 7.04 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WD 40/SILICONE 010.4211.5601 9.91 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WOOD/DOWEL 350.5908.7002 13.97 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ELMERS CEMENT 350.5908.7002 7.48 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE AA BATTERY/HANGERS 010.4211.5255 13 .24 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 15.65 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT/PAINTING SUPPLIES 350.5908.7002 51. 33 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUCKETS/CRANK ROLLER 350.5908.7002 9.28 103404 11/16/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BULBS 010.4420.5605 10.68 291.28 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 12.06- 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 58.11 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 37.57 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 20.39 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 8.74 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 2.66 103405 11/16/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 9.61 125.02 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4301.5148 13 .28 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5303 120.31 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 220.4303.5143 108.04 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 640.4711.5143 95.77 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 612.4610.5143 34.52 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4420.5143 72.28 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4305.5143 52.28 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5303 42.15 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4102.5255 5.30 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5303 28.60 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103406 11/16/01 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5303 44.92 617.45 103407 11/16/01 100887 MOMS CLUB OF SLO REF. PARK DEPOSIT-MOMS CLUB 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103408 11/16/01 058578 MULLAHEY FORD HUBCAP 010.4201.5601 31.23 103408 11/16/01 058578 MULLAHEY FORD GASKET/FLUID 010.4211.5603 200.00 231.23 103409 11/16/01 101847 NETWORK CATALYST UPGRADE COMPUTER NETWORKING 272.4201.6101 10,467.44 10,467.44 103410 11/16/01 061814 NOBLE SAW, INC. FUEL/AIR FILTERS/NUT 220.4303.5603 107.36 103410 11/16/01 061814 NOBLE SAW, INC. CHECK OUT BUSH CUTTER 220.4303.5603 30.00 137.36 103411 11/16/01 101750 OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 77 .42 103411 11/16/01 101750 OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4211.5201 34.30 111.72 103412 11/16/01 062322 ONE HOUR PHOTO PLUS PHOTO PROCESSING-OCT 010.4201.5255 11.12 103412 11/16/01 062322 ONE HOUR PHOTO PLUS PHOTOS/FILM 220.4303.5613 26.07 37.19 103413 11/16/01 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 021-2713 010.4145.5403 296.43 296 .43 103414 11/16/01 065598 DOUG PERRIN REIMB.MEETING SUPPLIES-B/SALL 010.4426.6201 78.61 78.61 103415 11/16/01 066320 PIONEER EQUIPMENT CO. R/R STEERING PUMP/LUBE/OIL 010.4420.5603 231.20 231. 20 103416 11/16/01 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE TROPHIES CITIZEN ACADEMY 010.4201.5504 69.55 69.55 103417 11/16/01 068200 PMX TRACHEAL AIRWAYS 010.4211.5206 63.83 63.83 103418 11/16/01 102673 PULITZER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 010.4002.5301 164.00 103418 11/16/01 102673 PULITZER ANNUAL FINANCIAL NOTICE 010.4002.5301 24.00 103418 11/16/01 102673 PULITZER ORD.SUMMARY-SEWER CONNECT 010.4002.5301 43.50 103418 11/16/01 102673 PULITZER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 010.4002.5301 55.50 103418 11/16/01 102673 PULITZER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 010.4002.5301 64.50 103418 11/16/01 102673 PULITZER SUBSCRIPT-TPR-CM 010.4001.5503 20.00 371.50 103419 11/16/01 069576 RADIOSHACK NEWSLINE ANSWERING MACHINE 010.4201.5255 32.09 32.09 103420 11/16/01 102631 RANGE MASTER DAY - UNIFORM 010.4201.5255 310.27 103420 11/16/01 102631 RANGE MASTER DAY-ACCESSORIES 010.4201.5255 131.55 103420 11/16/01 102631 RANGE MASTER BLACK BDU' S 010.4201. 5255 202.17 103420 11/16/01 102631 RANGE MASTER DAY-ACCESSORIES 010.4201.5255 207.95 851. 94 103421 11/16/01 102706 RESERVE ACCOUNT RESV.ACCT#21328976 010.4201. 5201 1,200.00 1,200.00 103422 11/16/01 070590 RICHETTI WATER CONDITIO RENTAL-WATER FILTER SVCS 010.4201.5604 15.00 15.00 103423 11/16/01 100192 SAN LUIS MAILING SVC OCT UTILITY BILLS MAILED 640.4710.5201 829.99 829.99 103424 11/16/01 075130 SAN LUIS OBISPO CNTY.NE CLASS AD 5554371 010.4421.5316 227.15 227.15 103425 11/16/01 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS FIELD MARKING PAINT 010.4430.5255 191. 92 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103425 11/16/01 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS FIELD MARKING PAINT 010.4430.5255 191. 92 103425 11/16/01 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS FIELD MARKING PAINT 010.4430.5255 191.92 103425 11/16/01 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS PAINT/PAINTING SUPPLIES 010.4201.5604 145.12 720.88 103426 11/16/01 076740 SANTA MARIA TIMES LEGAL #106254 010.4130.5301 299.25 299.25 103427 11/16/01 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 342.07 103427 11/16/01 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 34.79 103427 11/16/01 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 214.58 103427 11/16/01 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010.4201.5608 1,363.56 1,955.00 103428 11/16/01 074490 SLO CNTY DEPT.HEALTH CROSS CONNECTION-SEPT/OCT 640.4710.5303 1,627.47 1,627.47 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 006,085,02308 010.4145.5551 7.00 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 006,085,02464 010.4145.5551 7.00 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 006,085,02531 010.4145.5551 12.00 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 006,085,02619 010.4145.5551 7.00 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 007,774,01253 010.4145.5551 42.00 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 047,125,00286 010.4145.5551 318.60 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP TAX 047,126,01008 010.4145.5551 7.54 103429 11/16/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP.TAX 062,074,01275 010.4145.5551 26.24 427.38 103430 11/16/01 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP JUMP LEADS 010.4211.5603 45.26 103430 11/16/01 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP TEST LEADS 010.4211.5603 57.08 103430 11/16/01 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP OUTLET/HAL LITE 010.4211.5603 101. 20 103430 11/16/01 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP SCREW DRIVER/PIN PULLER 010.4211.5273 41. 25 103430 11/16/01 080340 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP ASE GUIDES 010.4211.5503 165.32 410.11 103431 11/16/01 080808 SOUTH S10 COUNTY SANIT SEWER SVC COLL-lO/01 760.0000.2304 57,840.79 103431 11/16/01 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER SVC COLL ADJ-8/31 760.0000.2304 17,200.00 103431 11/16/01 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER HOOKUPS-I0/01 760.0000.2305 12,000.00 103431 11/16/01 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER HOOKUPS ADJ-8/31 760.0000.2305 17,200.00- 103431 11/16/01 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 10-1 SAN.DIST-203 N.RENA 010.4145.5401 13.47 103431 11/16/01 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 10-1 SAN.DIST-ASH R/RM 010.4145.5401 13.47 69,867.73 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY HALOGEN LAMP 010.4201.5601 7.49 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SUPER DUTY SLIM/METAL POLISH 220.4303.5601 21. 20 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BATTERY 010.4201.5601 86.62 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY CLEANING PRODUCTS 640.4712.5601 16.46 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY CQ FLASHER 220.4303.5601 3.38 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY FILTER 010.4420.5603 35.10 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY FILTER/LAMPS 010.4211.5603 30.09 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SPARK PLUGS 010.4211.5603 13 .87 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY PREHEATER HOSE 010.4430.5601 3.09 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BELT 010.4211.5601 13.74 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY FILTER 010.4211.5601 135.68 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY WATER TEMP. SENDER 010.4211.5601 72 .41 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY ELECT. MOTOR CLEANER 010.4211.5603 3.83 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BACKUP LAMP 010.4211.5601 9.84 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY CR: BACKUP LAMP 010.4211. 5601 9.84- 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SAFETY LIGHTING 010.4211.5601 29.28 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY ULTRASORB-HAZMAT 010.4211.5325 38.52 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SEALED BACKUP LIGHT 010.4211.5601 55.08 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY THREAD LOCKER 010.4211.5601 32.89 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY DECK BELT 010.4420.5303 24.87 103433 11/16/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY AIR FILTER 010.4211. 5601 10.23 633.83 103434 11/16/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 58.17 103434 11/16/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 9.53 103434 11/16/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 42.36 103434 11/16/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 25.13 103434 11/16/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 32.45 103434 11/16/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 25.67 193.31 103435 11/16/01 102704 CHERYL STEPANIAK REF. PARK DEPOSIT~STEPANIAK 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103436 11/16/01 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS DEC RADIO SERVICE AGREEMENT 010.4201. 5606 974.00 103436 11/16/01 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS REMOTE SPEAKER MIC 010.4201.5606 73.83 1,047.83 103437 11/16/01 082836 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY GATE VALVE 612.4610.5603 59.41 59.41 103438 11/16/01 083382 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIER COPIER MAINT.AGREEMENT 010.4212.5602 195.00 195.00 103439 11/16/01 084474 TELEGRAM TRIBUNE TT SUBSCR TO 3/01/02 010.4120.5503 40.50 40.50 103440 11/16/01 102695 TRD PARTS-FIOl 010.4211.5601 1,228.57 1,228.57 103441 11/16/01 086346 TROESH READY MIX CLASS #2 BASE 220.4303.5613 103.81 103.81 103442 11/16/01 102605 UNISOURCE SUPER DUTY CLEANER 010.4213.5604 51.36 51.36 103443 11/16/01 087672 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL-LADDER 612.4610.5552 13.91 13.91 103444 11/16/01 088842 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE BATTERY 010.4211. 5601 103.58 103.58 103445 11/16/01 102486 WATERBOYS PLUMBING UNCLOG URINAL AGPD 010.4213.5303 305.00 305.00 103446 11/16/01 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/TIRES/FILTER 010.4201.5601 150.91 103446 11/16/01 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/WIPERS 010.4201.5601 55.30 206.21 103447 11/16/01 091026 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. CA CODES ON CD SUBSCRIPT 010.4003.5503 158.36 158.36 103448 11/16/01 102705 SCOTT WETMORE REF.5C YOUTH B/BALL-WETMORE 010.0000.4613 35.00 35.00 103449 11/16/01 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER 010.4102.5255 401.25 401.25 103450 11/16/01 092976 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS K-9 MAINT.TRAINING-OCT 010.4201.5322 135.00 135.00 103451 11/16/01 102707 JACQUELINE ZIEGLER REF.C/B DEP-ZIEGLER 010.0000.2206 250.00 250.00 TOTAL CHECKS 140,673.52 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8 11/14/01 10:16 VOUCHER/cHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 49,463.23 217 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 225.00 220 STREETS FUND 1,602.48 225 TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,285.50 272 CA LAW ENFORCMT TCHNLGY EQUIP. 14,315.16 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 511.06 612 SEWER FUND 396.28 640 WATER FUND 3,034.02 760 SANITATION DISTRIBUTION FUND 69,840.79 TOTAL 140,673.52 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 10/26/01 TO 11/08/01 11/16/01 FUND 010 238,401.82 Salaries Full time 152,371.56 FUND 220 12,395.94 Salaries Part-Time 23,577.39 FUND 284 5,357.19 Salaries Over-Time 13,344.07 FUND 612 4,336.47 Holiday Pay 1,705.15 FUND 640 11,421.01 Sick Pay 5,624.90 271,912.43 Annual Leave Pay - Vacation Buyback - Sick Leave Buyback Vacation Pay 6,408.17 Comp Pay 4,725.07 Annual Leave Pay 6,576.97 PERS Retirement 14,887.53 Social Security 14,550.36 PARS Retirement 292.86 State Disability Ins. 635.36 Health Insurance 20,751.86 Dental Insurance 3,657.21 Vision Insurance 793.79 Life Insurance 584.50 Long Term Disability 823.22 Uniform Allowance - Car Allowance 350.00 Council Expense - Employee Assistance 152.46 Boot Allowance Motor Pay 100.00 Total: 271,912.43 ATTACHMENT 4 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 n(16/n 15:18 VOUCHER!CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBBR DATE NUMBER NAME DESCR! PHON NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 445 1l/16/Gl 005616 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE G.A.REIMB.l1/0a/Ol Oll.oooa .1015 206,177.04 206,177.04 446 11/16/01 074178 SLO CNTY CLERK-RECORDER NOTICE OF DETERM 010.4002.5201 25.00 446 11/16/01 074178 SLO CNTY CLERK-RECORDER NOTICE OF DETERM 010.4002.5201 25.00 50.00 447 11/16/01 102717 ROBERT OR DIANA HARRIS CLAIM SETTLEMENT #315 <)lO.4003.5327 3,447.00 3,447.00 103472 11/23/01 lO21B JACKIE ALEMAN REF. PARK DEPOSIT-ALEMAN 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103473 11/23/01 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS HITT sves TO 11/9 010.4120.5303 415.25 415.25 103474 11/23/01 101465 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY CUSTOM BINDERS-MUNI.CODE 010.4003.5304 860.84 860.84 103475 11/23/01 012754 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL QUARTLEY PEST CONTROL 010.4213 .5604 68.00 103475 1l/23/01 012754 BREZDEN PEST CON'TROL QUARTLEY PES'!' CONTROL 010.4213.5604 98.00 166.00 103476 11/23/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER OUTLET STRIPS 010.4201.5604 36.34 103476 11/23/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER LIGHT TUBES 220.4303.5255 60.86 103476 11/23/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER PLANT FOOD 220.4303.5613 19.87 103476 11/23/01 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER BOLTS/WASHERS/NUTS 220.4303.56l3 41. 72 153.7:1 103477 11/23/01 102109 VICTORIA BROWN REF:5C YOUTH B/BALL-BROWN 010.0000.4613 45.00 45.00 103418 11/23/01 013806 BURKE AND PACE OF AG POSTS 220.4303.5613 104.50 104.50 103419 11/23/01 101468 CAROL CARLSON REF.SEWER HOOKUP-520 PALOS SEC 760.0000.2305 2,000.00 103479 11/23/01 101468 CAROL CARLSON REF. WATER METER-520 PALOS SEC 640. aaaa .4758 96.00 103479 11/23/01 101468 CAROL CARLSON REF.DISTRIBUTION-520 PALOS 642.0000.4761 630.00 103479 11/23/01 101468 CAROL CARLSON REF. LOPEZ AVAILABILITY-520 641. 0000 .4752 1,550.00 4,276.00 103480 1l/23/01 102708 ELIZABETH CARMINATI REF.5C YOUTH B/BALL-CARMINATI 010.0000.4613 22.50 22.50 103481 1l/23/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4212.5201 10.00 10.00 103482 11/23/01 029250 J.B. DEWAR, INC. OIL/LUBE 220.4303.5601 33.34 103482 11/23/01 029250 J.B. DEWAR,INC. OIL/LUBE 010.4420.5601 33.34 103482 11/23/01 029250 J .B. DEWAR, INC. OIL/LUBE 640.4712.5601 16.67 103482 1l/23/01 029250 J.B. DEWAR, INC. OIL/LUBE 612.4610.5601 16.67 100.02 103483 11/23/01 102715 ALICIA ELIAS REF.PARK DEPOSIT-ELIAS 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103484 11/23/01 041184 HEACOCK WELDING NORTH TOOL BOX 010.4303.6301 489.63 103484 11/23/01 04.1184. HEACOCK WELDING NORTH 'TOOL BOX 220.43D3.5601 465.45 955.08 l03485 11/23/01 102710 IAPMO IAPMO DUES-SCHMIDT 010.4212.5503 150.00 150.00 103486 11/23/01 102712 NANCY JOHNSON REF. PARK DEPOSIT-JOHNSON 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103487 11/23/01 102711 LUCY MARSHALL REF. PARK DEPOSIT-MARSHALL 010.0000.4354 25.00 25.00 103488 11/23/01 102714 KERIN MASE REF. PARK DEPOSIT-MASE 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 11/16/01 15:1B VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER N_ DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103489 11/23/01 101252 MCI WORLDCOM L/DIST PHONE CARD 010.4145.5403 3.68 103489 11/23/01 101252 MCI WORLDCOM L/DIST PHONE 010.4145.5403 223.15 226.83 103490 11/23/01 101566 CAROL MOORE REIMB.TUITION/BOOKS-MOORE 010.4201.5502 116.02 116.02 103491 11/23/01 074880 SLO CNTY TAX COLLECTOR PROP. TAX 007,192,060 08 OlO.4145.555l 310.14 310.14 103492 11/23/01 080964 SOU'l'HERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 17 .81 103492 11/23/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 75.78 103492 11/23/01 080964 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS GAS SERVICES 010.4145.5401 60.69 214.28 103493 11/23/01 100758 DON SPAGNOLO REIMB.PAVEMENT W/SHOP LODGING 010.4301. 5501 201. 64 201.64 103494 11/23/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-STREET 220.4303.5403 82.13 103494 11/23/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4301.5403 16.79 103494 11/23/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE 010.4301.5403 16.79 115.71 103495 11/23/01 101890 WATER SPECIALTIES CORP. INSTL.TOILET-621 DEL SOL 010.4211.5303 180.40 180.40 103496 11/23/01 102490 JANEE WI'IT CHEER & POM CLASS-WITT 010.4424.5351 97.50 97.50 TOTAL CHECKS 218,529.54 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 1l/lS/01 15:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 7,235.29 Oll PAYROLL CLEARING FUND 206,17'1.04 220 STREETS FUND 807.87 612 SEWER FUND 16.67 640 WATER FUND 112.67 641 LOPEZ FUND 1,550.00 642 WATER FACILITY FUND 630.00 760 SANITATION DISTRIBUTION FUND 2,000.00 TOTAL 218,529.54 i ATTACHMEHT 5 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 11/28/01 15;44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103497 11/30/01 000468 A T & T-LjDIST SVC. L/DIST.FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 41.63 41.63 103498 11/30/01 101110 AGP VIDEO VIDEO CC MEETING-IO/9 010.4101.5330 600.00 600.00 103499 11/30/01 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS STRASSER sveS-II/IO/Ot 010.4421. 5303 604.00 604.00 103500 11/30/01 102509 API WASTE SERVICES RIo BIN-DUMP/RETURN sves. 010.4213.5303 250.00 250.00 103501 11/30/01 102050 AVAYA, INC. MERLIN PHONE MAINT.AGREE 010.4145.5403 28.16 28.16 I 103502 11/30/01 100902 Aveo FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE FIRE EXT. 010.4211.5303 92.43 92 .43 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER FUEL 640.4712.5501 28.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MEALS 640.4712.5501 10.71 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GASOLINE 010.4130.5501 27.43 i 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MEAL-CROCKETT TRAINING 010.4130.5501 25.42 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GAS-CROCKETT TRAINING 010.4130.5501 26.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER GAS-CROCKETT TRAINING 010.4130.5501 10.02 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ROOM-CROCKETT TRAINING 010.4130.5501 49.45 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ROOM-CROCKETT TRAINING 010.4130.5501 257.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5501 44.38 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5501 189.81 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER CA. PARKS & REC 010.4421. 5501 140.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER MEAL-MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4421.5501 40.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4101.5201 41.48 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LEAGUE OF CA. CITIES 010.4002.5501 375.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4140.6101 259.54 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER HALLOWEEN SUPPLIES 010.4001.5504 113.36 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ECONO FORECAST W/SHOP 010.4101.5501 100.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ECONO FORECAST W/SHOP 010.4120.5501 100.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER ECONO FORECAST W/SHOP 010.4130.5501 100.00 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER FUEL 010.4211.5501 21.81 103503 11/30/01 009008 BANKCARD CENTER LODGING-CAL.CHIEF CONF 010.4211.5501 502.72 2,462.13 103504 11/30/01 009750 BRENDA BARROW CIM SNACK SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 91.67 103504 11/30/01 009750 BRENDA BARROW TURKEY TROT LABELS 010.4424.5252 10.24 101. 91 103505 11/30/01 101810 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTION SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 640.4712.5274 279.31 279.31 103506 11/30/01 102728 BIRTH & FAMILY CLINIC PRE-EMPLOY. PHYSICAL-LINN 010.4301. 5315 171.00 103506 11/30/01 102728 BIRTH & FAMILY CLINIC PRE-EMPLOY. PHYSICAL-LINN 010.4301.5315 11.00 182.00 103507 11/30/01 011426 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS RG PLANS 350.5649.7001 25.47 103507 11/30/01 011426 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS RODEO DR COPIES 350.5649.7001 45.84 71.31 103508 11/30/01 101782 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH CAR WASH 010.4201.5601 204.00 103508 11/30/01 101782 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH CAR WASH 612.4610.5601 25.00 103508 11/30/01 101782 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH CAR WASH 612.4610.5603 25.00 103508 11/30/01 101782 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH CAR WASH 640.4712.5601 25.00 103508 11/30/01 101782 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH CAR WASH 640.4712.5603 25.00 304.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 11/28/01 15:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103509 11/30/01 012168 BOXX EXPRESS UPS SHIPPING CHARGES 010.4211.5201 9.01 9.01 103510 11/30/01 012754 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL QUARTLEY PEST CONTROL 010.4213.5303 89.00 89.00 103511 11/30/01 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC STEEL HOURMETER 010.4211. 5601 53.74 103511 11/30/01 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC cur OFF SAW 010.4211.5273 131.33 103511 11/30/01 013572 BRUMIT DIESEL,INC TOOLS 010.4211.5273 15.41 200.48 103512 11/30/01 101499 R. BURKE CORPORATION PAULDING BIKE LANE-RETENTION 350.5643.7001 4,593.65 4,593.65 103513 11/30/01 102726 SUSAN CARR REF.5 C YOUTH B/BALL-CARR 010.0000.4613 45.00 45.00 103514 11/30/01 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY BLDG MAINT.SUPPLIES 010.4213.5604 422.65 422.65 103515 11/30/01 101856 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY CABLE MODEM 010.4140.5303 227.90 227.90 103516 11/30/01 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET CONTROL 010.4212.5601 24.61 103516 11/30/01 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET GASKET 010.4211.5601 391.42 103516 11/30/01 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SMOG INSPECT 010.4301. 5601 33.00 103516 11/30/01 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET SERVICE/SAFETY INSP-PW21 010.4301.5601 42.75 491. 78 103517 11/30/01 102282 CINGULAR WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CROCKETT 010.4130.5201 35.77 35.77 103518 11/30/01 023442 CITY CLERKS ASSN.OF CAL MEMBERSHIP DUES-CITY CLERK 010.4002.5503 150.00 150.00 103519 11/30/01 023946 CLINICAL LAB.OF SAN BER WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 1,560.00 1,560.00 103520 11/30/01 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5303 182.75 103520 11/30/01 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5303 189.00 103520 11/30/01 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 140.75 103520 11/30/01 024492 COLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5303 133.00 645.50 103521 11/30/01 102723 COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE PW FLOOR CLEAN 010.4213.5303 425.00 103521 11/30/01 102723 COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE FLOOR CLEANED 010.4213.5303 450.00 875.00 103522 11/30/01 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS INTRINSIL SWITCH 612.4610.5610 271.86 271.86 103523 11/30/01 100151 COUNTRY CHRISTMAS BOUTI REF.C/B.DEPOSIT-COUNTRY BOUTIQ 010.0000.2206 250.00 103523 11/30/01 100151 COUNTRY CHRISTMAS BOUTI BLOO. SUPERVISION-COUNTRY BOUTI 010.0000.4355 130.50- 119.50 103524 11/30/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4130.5201 18.34 103524 11/30/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4101. 5201 18.32 103524 11/30/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4120.5201 18.34 103524 11/30/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4001.5201 15.00 103524 11/30/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4421.5201 35.00 103524 11/30/01 026754 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER C BOTTLED WATER 010.4301.5201 20.00 125.00 103525 11/30/01 016302 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIO CMC CREWS-AUG 220.4303.5303 3,486.41 103525 11/30/01 016302 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIO CMC CREW BILLING-OCT 220.4303.5303 2,106.98 5,593.39 103526 11/30/01 102113 NICHOLAS DEPEW REIMB.FFI CERT-DEPEW 010.4211.5501 30.00 30.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 n/2B/01. 1.5:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 1.03527 1l/30/01 lOB19 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, IN REPR.CLAMP 640.4712.5610 94.16 94.16 103528 11/30/01 102720 TERESA FISHER REF: PRE/SCHOOL-FISHER 010.0000.4603 90.00 90.00 103529 11/30/01 036738 GALL'S INC BICYCLE GLOVES/PANTS/BATON 010.4201.5255 262.95 103529 11/30/01 036738 GALL'S INC BICYCLE JACKET/ZIP SLEEVE BIKE 010.4201.5255 346.90 609.85 10)S30 n/30fol 101604 BARBIB GARY REIMB.SNACK SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5259 73.58 103530 11/30/01 101604 BARBIE GARY REIMB.SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5255 62.06 103530 11/30/01 101604 BARBIE GARY REIMB.SNACK SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5259 117.55 103530 11/30/01 101604 BARBIE GARY REIMB.SNACK SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5255 65.54 31.B.73 103531 11/30/01 101881 GREATAMERICAN LEASING C PANASONIC COPIER MAINT 01O.4BO.5303 319.07 319.07 103532 11/30/01 040014 HAM.ON OVERHEAD DOOR COM CHAIN/LABOR-DOOR REPAIR 010.4213.6401 575.25 575.25 103533 11/30/01 102725 LORI HERNDON REF.5 C YOUTH B/BALL-HERNDON 010.0000.4613 35.00 35.00 103534 11/30/01 100547 HI-TECH EMERGENCY PUMP HOUR METER 010.4211.5601 51.73 51.73 103535 11/30/01 102099 ICPC CQNF.REGISTRATION REGIS-POLICE CHAPLAINS 010.4201.5501 115.00 115.00 103536 11/30/01 102701 INDOFF, INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 73.17 73.17 103537 11/30/01 045120 INT'L CITY/COUNTY MGMT. MEMBERSHIP-ADAMS 010.4101.5503 768.00 768.00 103538 11/30/01 101848 INVENSYS METERING SYSTE METERS 640.4712.5207 8,858.70 8,858.70 103539 11/30f01 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY KITCHEN SUPPLIES 010.4211.5255 13 .37 13 .37 103540 11/30/01 102722 MIKE JENNINGS REF. PARK DEPOSIT-JENNINGS 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103541 11/30/01 048516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA REPR.DEADLATCH 010.4213.5303 164.76 164.76 103542 11/30/01 100916 GREG KLOSINSKI REIMB.FFI/FF11 CERT-KLOSINSKI 010.4211.5501 60.00 60.00 103543 11/30/01 050504 LAUTZENHISER'S STATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 347.38 103543 11/30/01 050504 LAUTZENHISER'S STATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4130.5201 13.34 360.72 103544 11/30/01 050894 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. PARTS 010.4211.5601 545.16 103544 11/30/01 050894 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. HEAVY DUTY RACK 010.421l.560l 20.30 565.46 103545 llf30f01 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE ARCHIT-TRACT94-34,43 010.4130.5303 422.50 422.50 103546 11/30/01 101034 ALAN LITTLE REF.L/SCAPE BOND~160 ANDRE 010.0000.2210 1,200.00 1,200.00 103547 11/30/01 102667 ROSEMARY LOPEZ CHEER & POM CLASS-LOPEZ 010.4424.5351 80.50 80.50 103548 11/30/01 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE REPL.VALVE COVER/GASKETS 220.4303.5601 301. 02 10354.8 n/30f01 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE SAFETY INSPECT 010.4301.5601 40.41 103548 11/30/01 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE REPL. STARTER/REPR. EXHAUST 010.4301.5601 206.96 548.39 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 11/28/01 15:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC. BATTERIES/PAINTING SUPLYS 010.4420.5605 80.13 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 350.5908.7002 20.32 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS 220.4303.5613 44.49 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE AAA BATTERY 612.4610.5255 6.41 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SCREWS/LOCKWASHER/WASHER 220.4303.5613 30.56 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC. SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 3.77 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE COTTON GLOVES 350.5908.7002 1. 89 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SPONGE/VINEGAR 350.5908.7002 6.82 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 350.5908.7002 90.94 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC. TOOLS 010.4420.5605 8.43 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SANDPAPER/WRENCH/PLIERS 640.4712.5273 81. 27 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE HEX KEY/PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4211.5255 8.11 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4420.5605 9.89 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE KEY HOLDERS 010.4211.5255 91. 45 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINTING SUPPLIES/HARDWARE 010.4420.5605 26.80 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE LAG SCREWS 350.5908.7002 .86 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 010.4211. 5601 8.54 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BATTERIES/PLUMBING SUPPLIES 010.4211.5601 38.05 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PLUMBING SUPPLIES 640.4712.5610 8.24 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SCREWS/BOLTS/SOCKETS 350.5908.7002 15.76 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 010.4420.5605 10.68 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE WATER BUBBLER 010.4420.5605 29.95 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SOFT SOAP 010.4211.5255 8.09 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MASKING TAPE/PAINT 010.4211.5601 25.07 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINT 010.4211.5255 4.27 103550 11/30/01 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE LUMBER 350.5908.7002 29.86 690.65 103551 11/30/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 20.90 103551 11/30/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFI CE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 4.27 103551 11/30/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4120.5201 8.54 103551 11/30/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 35.21 103551 11/30/01 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 32.47 101.39 103552 11/30/01 101B29 N.AMERlCAN WILDFIRE,LTD RENEWAL N.A.WILDFIRE SUBSCR 010.4211.5503 29.95 29.95 103553 11/30/01 060300 NAT'L EMERGENCY # ASSOC NENA MEMBERSHIP-HOLT 010.4201.5503 40.00 40.00 103554 11/30/01 060450 NAT'L FIRE PROTECTION A FIRE PREVENT. SUPPLIES 010.4211.5504 384.0B 384.0B 103555 11/30/01 100202 NAT'L VOLUNTEER FIRE CO DEPT .DUES-AGFD 010.4211.5503 50.00 50.00 103556 11/30/01 102016 NFPA FIRE CODES 010.4211.5503 700.00 700.00 103557 11/30/01 102044 NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER,KNOX & PROF.SVCS-S.M.VLY WATER 640.4710.5575 7,713.94 7,713.94 103558 11/30/01 102700 PACIFIC DATACOM SYSTEMS FIREWALL SOFTWARE 010.4140.6101 3,726.81 3,726.81 103559 11/30/01 102702 PALMER/SNYDER FURNITURE PLASTIC TABLES 010.4213.6201 1,340.00 1,340.00 103560 11/30/01 065598 DOUG PERRIN REIMB.CPRS ENTRY-PERRIN 010.4421.5504 40.00 103560 11/30/01 065598 DOUG PERRIN TURKEY TROT SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 46.75 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 n/28/01 15:44 VOUCHER/CHECK RBGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHBCK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103560 n/30/01 065598 DOUG PERRIN REIMB. TURKEY TROT SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 11.98 103560 11/30/01 065598 DOUG PERRIN REIMB.HARVEST SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 22.68 103560 11/30/01 065598 DOUG PERRIN REIMB.YOUTH B/BALL SUPPLIES 010.4426.6201 9.98 131. 39 103561 11/30/01 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE PLAQUES-MCCANTS 010.4001.5201 96.30 96.30 103562 11/30/01 068484 BEAU PRYOR REIMB-GAS 010.4201.5608 31.53 31. 53 103563 11/30/01 090284 SHAWN PRYOR REIMB _ GAS 010.4201. 5608 62.24 62.24 103564 11/30/01 102673 PULITZER TPR SUBSCRIP-PD DEPT 010.4201.5503 20.00 103564 11/30/01 102673 PULITZER TPR-SUBSCRIP-ENG 010.4301.5201 20.00 103564 11/30/01 102673 PULITZER TPR SUBSCRIPT-CCD 010.4130.5301 2Q.OO 103564 11/30/01 102673 PULITZER TPR SUBSCRIP-BLDG DEPT 010.4212.5503 20.00 80.00 103565 11/30/01 063180 MADDY QUAGLINO SUPER SITTER/MOM'S BIG HELPER 010.4424.5351 175.00 175.00 103566 11/30/01 102724 JOHN REILLY REF.C/B.DEP-REILLY 010.0000.2206 250.00 103566 11/30/01 102724 JOHN REILLY SLDG.SUPER-REILLY 010.0000.4355 110. 25~ 139.75 103567 11/30/01 102719 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, RDA PROFESSIONAL sves 284.4103.5303 1,875.00 1,875.00 103568 11/30/01 100200 RRM DESIGN GROUP RG PROF.SVCS 350.5512.7501 227.50 227.50 103569 11/30/01 102699 SLO CNTY.EMERG.COMMUNIC REF.C/S.DEPOSIT-SLO CNTY ER 010.0000.2206 72 .00 72.00 103570 11/30/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SOLENOIDS 010.4211.5601 26,96 103570 11/30/01 0808136 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY HANDLE ASSEMBLY 010.4211.5601 31. 77 103570 11/30/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY HI-PER. VALVE 010.4211.5601 9.20 103570 11/30/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SEALED BEAMLAMP 010.4211.5601 18.96 103570 11/30/01 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BEAM LAMP 010.4211.5601 25.19 112.08 103571 11/30/01 082134 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGN SIGNS 220.4303.5613 41.34 103571 11/30/01 082134 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGN SIGNS 220.4303.5613 170.10 211.44 103572 11/30/01 082212 RANDY STEFFAN REIMB.MEALS-STEFFAN 010.4211.5501 )0.94 30.94 103573 11/30/01 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS RADIO PARTS 010.4211.5603 516.16 103573 11/30/01 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS RADIO PARTS 010.4211. 5603 33.82 549.98 103574 11/30/01 102718 ROB STRONG SLOCOG MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4130.5501 46.43 46.43- 103575 11/30/01 083420 SYLVESTER'S SECURITY AL REPR.ALARM SYS. 640.4n2.5604 265.00 265.00 103576 11/30/01 087204 DIANE ULIBARRI CRAFT JAMBOREE-ULIBARRI 010.4424.5351 691. 80 691.80 103577 11/30/01 088062 UNION ASPHALT INC PLASTER SAND 350.5908.7002 9.75 9.75 103578 11/30/01 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. COUPLERS/ADAPT 010.4430.5605 51.19 51.19 103579 11/30/01 087672 UNITED RENTALS RENT-TRACTOR 010.4420.5552 442.36 442.36 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 11/28/01 15 :44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 103580 11/30/01 101945 UNITED RENTALS, INC. RWY SAFETY GLASSES/BATTERIES 220.4303.5255 56.65 56.65 103581 "11/30/01 101512 SHARON VALIENZIE REF.5C YOUTH B/BALL-VALIENZI 010.0000.4613 80.00 80.00 103582 11/30/01 102721 JIM VARGAS REF. PARK DEPOSIT-VARGAS 010.0000.4354 26.00 26.00 103583 11/30/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-ENG 1 010.4211. 5403 18.85 103583 11(30/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PORTABLE 010.4211.5403 21.72 103583 11/30/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CM 010.4101.5403 32.28 103583 11/30/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CHAVEZ 010.4430.5605 24.84 103583 11/30/01 102007 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PARKS SUPER 010.4421. 5602 15.64 113.33 103584 11/30/01 102248 VINE CARPET CLEANING CARPET CLEANING 010.4201.5604 441.72 441. 72 103585 11/30/01 102727 SIMONE VIOLA REF.S C YOUTH B/BALL-VIOLA 010.0000.4613 35.00 35.00 103586 11/30/01 102486 WATERBOYS PLUMBING INSTL.TOILET-621 DEL SOL 010.4211.5303 180.40 180.40 103587 11/30/01 092274 STEVE WHITNEY REIMB.HOLD ALL PILOT BAGS 010.4211.5255 97 .09 97.09 103588 11/30/01 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER 010.4102.5255 189.55 103588 11/30/01 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 490.73 680.28 103589 11/30/01 092586 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COM MONTLY SIGNAL MAINT-OCT 010.4304.5303 1,344.10 1,344.10 103590 11/30/01 102162 WULFING'S BACKGROUND & PRE-EMPLOY, POLYGRAPH 010.4201.5303 135.00 135.00 TOTAL CHECKS 59,120.80 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 11/28/01 15:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 18 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 25,948.81 220 STREETS FUND 6,883.05 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 1,875.00 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 5,068.66 612 SEWER FUND 395.95 640 WATER FUND 18,949.33 TOTAL 59,120.80 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 11/09/01 TO 11/22/01 11/30/01 FUND 010 225,288.96 Salaries Full time 157,371.26 FUND 220 11,245.07 Salaries Part-Time 26,717.77 FUND 284 4,638.09 Salaries Over-Time 9,980.68 FUND 612 3,646.30 HOliday Pay 1,118.12 FUND 640 9,140.31 Sick Pay 2,700.23 253,958.73 Annual Leave Pay - Vacation Buyback 6,042.98 Sick Leave Buyback 2,302.59 Vacation Pay 3,487.81 Comp Pay 6,541.60 Annual Leave Pay 6,648.89 PERS Retirement 14,843.60 Social Security 15,373.23 PARS Retirement 206.51 State Disability Ins. 623.46 Health Insurance Dental Insurance Vision Insurance Life Insurance Long Term Disability Uniform Allowance Car Allowance Council Expense Employee Assistance Boot Allowance Motor Pay Total: 253,958.73 B.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 'fl' FROM: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR or SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 Attached please find a report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of November 30, 2001, as required by Government Code Section 53646 (b). CIIT OF ARROYO GRANDE MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT As of November 30, 2001 """"- --"",,, "'''' "'''''''''- "'" '" "" , w"'ww,.ww '" " December 11, 2001 This report presents the City's investments as of November 30, 2001. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, type of investment, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of November 30, 2001, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy. Current Investments: The City is currently investing all short-term excess cash in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) administered by the State Treasurer. This is a very high quality investment in terms of safety, liquidity, and yield. The City may readily transfer the LAIF funds to the City's checking account when funds are needed. At this time, the City does not hold any other investments. The following is a comparison of investments based on book values as of November 30, 2001 compared with the prior month and the prior year. Date: November 2001 October 2001 November 2000 Amount: $9,950,000 9,450,000 8,135,000 Interest Rate: 3.66% 3.78% 6.47% S.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE~ FROM: SUBJECT: CASH FLOW ANALYSIS/APPROVAL OF INTERFUND ADVANCES FROM THE WATER FACILITY FUND DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . Accept the October cash report, . Approve the interfund advance of $422,962 from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of October 31, 2001. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. Attachment A - Cash Balance/lnterfund Advance Report ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH BALANCE / INTERFUND ADVANCE REPORT At October 31,2001 Balance at Recommended Revised Fund 10/31/01 Advances Balance 010 General Fund 837,235 837,235 210 Fire Protection Impact Fees 67,627 67,627 212 Police Protection Impact Fees 9,887 9.887 213 Park Development 429,458 429,458 214 Park Improvement 33,511 33,511 215 Recreation Community Center 1,938 1,938 217 Landscape Maintenance 27,777 27,777 220 Street (Gas Tax) Fund 115.020 115,020 222 Traffic Signalization 500,275 500,275 223 Traffic Circulation 460,332 460,332 224 Transportation Facility Impact 1,825,602 1,825,602 225 Transportation 33,551 33.551 226 Water Neutralization Impact 278,598 278,598 230 Construction Tax 198,312 198,312 231 Drainage Facility 16,930 16,930 232 In-Lieu Affordable Housing 368.270 368,270 241 Lopez Facility Fund 696,971 696,971 250 CDBG Fund (2,343) 2,343 0 271 State COPS Block Grant Fund 102,115 102.115 272 Calif. Law Enf. Technology Grant 76,856 76,856 274 Federal Universal Hiring Grant (33,310) 33,310 0 277 98-99 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant (105) 105 0 278 99-00 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant (37) 37 0 279 00-01 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 9,020 9,020 284 Redevelopment Agency (71,194) 71,194 0 285 Redevelopment Set Aside 34,917 34,917 350 Capital Projects (315,973) 315,973 .0 612 Sewer Fund 11,087 11,087 634 Sewer Facility 49,998 49,998 640 Water Fund 2.579,563 2,579,563 641 Lopez 337,525 337,525 642 Water Facility 1,397,581 (422,962) 974.619 751 Downtown Parking 37,053 37,053 760 Sanitation District Fund 69,841 69,841 Total City Wide Cash 10,183,888 0 10,183,888 1HE ABOVE LISTING ARE 1HE CASH BALANCES SHOWN IN 1HE GENERAL LEDGER OF 1HE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 - B.d. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES Ciiff SUBJECT: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 RECEIPT AND USE OF WATER AND SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES/CHARGES DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council accept and file the annual report of the receipt and use of water and sewer development fees and charges in compliance with Government Code Section 66013. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. DISCUSSION: Government Code Section 66013 requires that within one hundred and eighty days of the close of the fiscal year, a financial accounting of the transactions dealing with water and sewer development fees and charges shall be made available to the public. The basic accounting and reporting responsibilities under the Government Code require the following: 1. A description of the charges deposited in the fund; 2. The beginning and ending balance of the fund and any interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund; 3. The amount of charges/fees collected in the fiscal year; 4. The public improvements on which charges were expended; 5. The percentage of the total cost of the public improvements that was funded by these charges; 6. The completed public improvements on which charges were expended; 7. Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the current fiscal year. Attached to this staff report is the financial information (Attachment A) as required by Government Code Section 66013 as of June 30, 2001. The information consists of beginning and ending fund balances for each fee charged by the City, including interest earned, and details of all expenditures made from these sources. The information provided agrees to the financial records. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66013 this report is for review purposes only. WATER AND SEWER DEVELOPMENT FEES-ANNUAL REPORT Page 2 The City utilizes fund accounting to segregate development related fees from other City revenues. Although the City pools its cash for investment purposes, interest income is allocated to the facility funds based on their respective cash balances. The City accounts for water and sewer development charges in three separate funds, the Water Facility Fund, the Sewer Facility Fund, and the Lopez Facility Fund. The information in Attachment A is presented in a format consistent with the annual audit of the Fiscal Year July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. The following is a description of the City funds used to track water and sewer development related fees: . Water Facility (Fund 642) Water Main Charges and Distribution Charges, enacted pursuant to the provision of Section 6-7.22 of the City Municipal Code, are accounted for in the Water Facility Fund. These revenues are to be used for future water infrastructure improvements. . Sewer Facility (Fund 634) Sewer Facility revenue, enacted pursuant to the provision of Section 6-6.409 of the City Municipal Code, is collected to help pay for improvements and future capacity as necessary to meet the needs of the City resulting from growth and expansion. . Lopez Facility Fund (Fund 241) This fund is used to account for the accumulation of water availability charge revenues. This revenue was enacted pursuant to the provision of Section 38743 of the Government Code, and Section 6-7.22 of the City Municipal Code. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: - Approve staff recommendation; - Deny staff recommendation; - Modify staff recommendation and approve; - Provide direction to staff. Attachment: A. Water and Sewer Development Fees and Charges ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Water and Sewer Development Fees and Charges Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Sewer Water Lopez Facility Facility Availability Revenues: Interest Income $ 4.345 $ 84,751 $ 27,319 Sewer Facility Charges 39,917 Water Main Charges 1,920 Distribution Charges 87,726 Water Availability Charges 224,900 Deer Trail Well Mitigation Fee 406,600 Total Revenues 44,262 580,997 252,219 Expenditures Operating Expenses - - - Excess of Operating Revenues Over Operating Expenditures 44,262 580,997 252,219 Other Financing Uses Capital Transfers Out 63,062 - Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Other Financing Uses (18,800) 580,997 252,219 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 866,053 1,301,250 369,619 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 847,253 $ 1,882,247 $ 621,838 ATTACHMENT A CI1Y OF ARROYO GRANDE Water and Sewer Development Fees and Charges Sewer Facility Transfers Fiscal Year 2000-01 Completed Work Transfers % of Project % Complete Sewer Connection Fee Study 8,397 100% 99% Sewer & Water Rate Study $ 16 0.06% 100% Grand Avenue-Elm to Oak Park Boulevard 1,706 4% 2% Sewer Master Plan 52,943 100% 88% Total Capital Transfers $ 63,062 Fiscal Year 2001-02 Current Projects Allocation % of Project Sewer Connection Fee Study 104 100% Newsom Springs Drainage 140,245 45% Grand Avenue-Elm to Oak Park Boulevard 38,294 4% Infrastructure Inventory 10,000 33% Sewer Master Plan 7,057 100% Total Funding for Current Projects $ 195.700 - 8.e. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 214 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Special City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Runels, Lubin, Dickens, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, and Mayor Lady were present. City Staff: City Manager Adams; City Attorney Carmel; Director of Administrative Services Wetmore; Director of Public Works Spagnolo; Acting Community Development Director Heffernon; and General Plan Update and EIR Consultant Rob Strong were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Mayor Lady led the Flag Salute. City Manager Adams gave a brief overview of the discussion outline for the meeting, which would include receiving public comment; a review and discussion of the Agriculture Element policies; a review of changes to the document in response to public comment received; clarification of outstanding issues, particularly with regard to a policy regarding E. Grand Avenue Gateway affordable housing density; an opportunity to address any issue the City Council wants to clarify or revisit; a review of the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and consideration of adoption of the General Plan Update. 4. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, spoke in favor of retaining agricultural land and uses in the City. Bruce Vanderveen, 1273 Branch Mill Road, spoke in favor of converting the parcel located at 1273 Branch Mill Road from agriculture to single-family residential. He stated there were many people in the audience in support of the project and requested they stand to show the Council their support. Mona Tucker, 660 Camino Del Rey, requested the Council look favorably upon Mr. Vanderveen's request to convert his parcel from agriculture to single-family residential. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 2 Wayne King, representing the owners of the Vanderveen property, quoted from the CASP Study regarding definition of prime agricultural land. He spoke in favor of converting the Vanderveen property from agriculture to medium density single-family residential. Mary Vanderveen, Branch Mill Road, stated that the decisions the Council make affect lives. She spoke in support of converting the Vanderveen property from agriculture to single-family residential. Ed Cardoza, 428 Greenwood Drive, expressed concerns about the condition of Branch Mill Road. He stated that the Council's prime concern with further development in that area should be safe access to Branch Mill Road. He stated currently, Branch Mill Road was not safe and stated that resurfacing would be welcome. He expressed further concerns with regard to the blind turns and hills, and some areas that bottleneck on Branch Mill Road. He concluded by stating he was not against development; however, he was concerned it be handled in a responsible way. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated he was one of the few people who have preserved agricultural land, his ranch is in an agriculture preserve, and that was his choice. He stated he had watched the City grow over the years and believes that property rights are a major issue. He said if property owners want to preserve their land, there are tools to do that. He stated the City needs to focus on developing a plan that addresses traffic and streets. He urged the Council to plan properly for the City's development. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, thanked the Council for its arduous task in developing the General Plan and commented that tonight the Council would be discussing the policies on agriculture. He stated that when discussing water as a barrier to development in the City, there is no problem with water; in discussing the traffic issue, it is known from the consultant's testimony that the traffic model cannot be used without proper data to make decisions about what the City should do with traffic. He said a sound policy has been developed in that area. He stated that as the Council considers agriculture, it should also consider the rights of people to develop their property. He stated that the General Plan is a plan to guide development. Pat Cusack, 1080 Newsom Springs Road, spoke in support of Mr. Vanderveen's conversion request. He commented he had followed all of the work that has gone into the General Plan Update, and appreciated the opportunity for providing input. He spoke in favor of preserving as much agricultural land as possible, while at the same time acknowledging there are certain situations that may call for some considerations for people to convert and develop property. He supported the residential zoning of the Vanderveen property as well as the Cherry Avenue property. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 3 Carie Randolph spoke in support of saving agricultural lands, and stated she understood that property owners have property rights, although the lands in question have always been zoned as agriculture. She stated that most of the public voted to preserve the agricultural lands. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, stated that the previous speaker was probably referring to the survey that was done four years ago. She reminded the Council what the survey said, that over 88% of those surveyed said save our prime agricultural land. She requested the Council reflect back on the results of that survey. 5. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE POLICY DOCUMENTS AND ELEMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AGRICULTURE and CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Consultant Strong stated he would begin a review of the Agriculture Element policies. He clarified that from the previous public hearings, the Council has gone through the policies and objectives in the other Elements, identifying by consensus any changes. He stated the Council had made partial progress in reviewing the Agriculture Element and had requested some alternatives. He distributed a memo depicting anticipated objective and policy alternatives for the Council's review and discussion. He then explained that other policy statements have been considered and changes that had received consensus were reflected in the Plan. Consultant Strong explained there was one objective in the Agriculture Element (Ag1) that had a need for further consideration of refined wording. He acknowledged that there had been concerns expressed about the definition of prime farmland soils. He explained the proposed wording in the draft was derived from the Local Agency Formation Commission's definition of prime agriculture land which comes from State law, and it basically references Class I and Class II Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classifications, and distinguishes whether irrigated or not (provided that irrigation is feasible) it would be considered prime agricultural land. Consultant Strong requested direction from the Council regarding the alternative agricultural for Ag1 and Ag1-1. Council Member Dickens commented that due to the uniqueness of this area it is important to create or define prime agricultural lands in additional terms. He provided a handout to Council with additional proposed wording. He also displayed two graphs depicting soil types from the CASP report for reference purposes and gave a brief overview of the information. Council Member Dickens recommended his proposed additional statement be added to Consultant Strong's proposed language in Ag1-1.1, as follows: "Prime Farm/and Soils shall also include farmland of Statewide importance as identified in the USDA, Natural Resources ConseNation SeN/ces, outlined in the Land Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 4 Inventory and Monitoring (LlM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984." Council Member Runels disagreed with a few of Council Member Dickens' statements regarding what prime farmland is. He stated he believed it did not make any difference what the soil classification is, the land is operator driven. He commented that there is urbanization all the way around a lot of the parcels in question. He also stated he believed that property rights were an important consideration, and owners need to have the ability to do what they want with their property. Council Member Runels supported the revised language in Ag1 as revised by the Consultant. Council Member Lubin asked Council Member Dickens if any agricultural zoned land within the City would not be considered prime farmland under this definition. Council Member Dickens responded no and provided clarification. Discussion ensued regarding how the proposed policy could define all the agricultural zoned property as prime farmland. Consultant Strong explained that the proposed wording of the policies do not exempt non-prime land from conservation and preservation, but it does emphasize that the most important focus of preservation should be on prime agricultural land. For consistency, he supported Council Member Dickens' proposed additional wording for Ag1-1.1 which is consistent with the CASP report and does not preclude from converting. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara commented that the Council had skipped through Ag1 and made an assumption that the words "avoid, minimize, or mitigate the loss of prime farmland soils" was something that was appropriate. He disagreed with the proposed alternative for Ag1 and stated he believed that avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the loss of prime farmland weakens the policy. He strongly supported the original draft language for Ag1 of no net loss of prime farmland soils, and supported changes to Ag1-1.1 as proposed by Council Member Dickens. Mayor Lady asked for each Council Member's position on the revised language for Objective Ag1 - Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Council Members Lubin and Runels supported Ag1 as revised. Council Member Dickens stated he preferred to have no net loss of prime farmland so he would go support the original wording of the Objective as drafted. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he would not support Ag1 as revised. Mayor Lady supported Ag1 as revised. Mayor Lady asked for each Council Member's position on the additional language to Ag1-1.1 as proposed by Council Member Dickens. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 5 Council Member Lubin supported the additional language to Ag1-1.1. Council Member Runels did not support the additional language to Ag1-1.1. Council Members Dickens, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, and Mayor Lady supported the additional language to Ag1-1.1. There was majority consensus of the Council on the wording of Ag1 and Ag1-1.1 as follows: Ag1 - Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non- prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Ag1-1.1 - "...Prime farmland soils shall also include farmland of Statewide importance as identified in the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Services, outlined in the Land Inventory and Monitoring (LlM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984." Consultant Strong referred to Ag1-1 and requested direction from the Council regarding the deletion of the introductory statement, "Except as' already committed to County Fringe Area Residential Rural and Suburban Development and the City's established urban land use pattern,". There was consensus of the Council to delete the statement from Ag1-1. Revised Ag1-1 reads as follows: Ag1-1 - Designate prime farmland soils that are not predominately committed to non- Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) and/or Agriculture Preserve (AgP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use. Council Member Dickens requested adding a statement under Ag2-1 to read as follows: "Support requests that seek to provide needed surface and/or ground water resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very Low Density and Low Density." Consultant Strong indicated the statement was consistent with the objective. There was some discussion on the definition of "Support requests" as used in the statement. Following discussion, there was a suggestion to change the words "Support requests that seek" to "Support efforts". There was consensus of the Council to add the statement as policy 2-1.2 as follows: Ag 2-1.2 - Support efforts to provide needed surface and/or ground water resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very Low Density and Low Density. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Ag2 and wanted to ensure that the Land Use Element also contains supporting language with regard to ensuring sufficient water for sustaining agriculture. Consultant Strong referred to the cover page of the Agriculture, Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 6 Conservation and Open Space Element which states that it is an integral part of the Land Use Element. Consultant Strong referred to alternative wording provided in Ag3-1, Ag3-14, Ag3-14.1, Ag3-14.2 and requested direction from the Council on the proposed revisions. Following discussion, there was consensus of the Council on the policies as follows: Ag3-1 - Excopt as provided iA -"€I 1 1, Designate non-prime farmland soils for all lands currently in agricultural use and vacant lands that have been used for agricultural production at least six months during the past ten (10) years as Agriculture (Ag) unless otherwise classified and partiallv developed for non-Aqricultural uses. Ag3-14 - Consider re-classification iAtO \,IreaA \,ISO of an Ag parcel (or contiguous-set of parcels) withiA City eO\,lAsarios or SI3AOrO of IRR\,Ionco, only if and when the parcel or set of parcels is less than the minimum size (e.g. leqallv non-conforrninq as to area) and is "isolated" from other agricultural uses. Ag3-14.1 - "Isolated" shall refer to a parcel or set of parcels being Dredominatelv separated from other nearbv Aqriculture areas. or Dredominatelv surrounded (OR all four ~ by existing urban non-aqricultural uses, such that it lacks contiguity with or connection to other areas of existinq or Dotential agricultural use. Ag3-14.2 - In cases considered for conversion re sosi€JAatioA, the parcel(s) shall be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be subject to environmental analysis as referenced in ACOSE Policy Ag1-4. Consultant Strong referred to Ag5-2.2 and explained the Planning Commission discussed minimum agricultural buffer distance requirements and the need for flexibility to fit existing conditions. The Commission recommended that 'No portion of any new residential structure should be located closer than 200 feet from the site of agricultural operations. Greater or lesser distances may be required based upon site-specific circumstances" . Council discussion ensued with regard to minimum agricultural buffer distances. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara suggested addition of wording to include consideration of established or existing farming operations or practices. The Council reached consensus on Ag5-2.2 as follows: Ag5-2.2 - No portion of any new residential structure within a non-Agricultural land use designation shall be located closer than 100 feet from the site of agricultural operations within an Agricultural land designation. Greater distances may be required based upon site-specific circumstances, to include consideration of established or existinq farminq operations or Dractices. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 7 Council Member Dickens referred to Ag5-2.3 and requested that the wording be revised to require that the buffer area be "noticed and/or" fenced and landscaped. He also referred to Ag5-2.4 and said that a 20 foot landscape buffer area was not deep enough and proposed it be increased to 30 feet. Following discussion, there was Council consensus on Ag5-2.3 and Ag5-2.4 as follows: Ag5-2.3 - The buffer area shall be noticed and/or fenced and landscaped in such manner to discourage human and domestic animal movement between the urban and agricultural areas and to screen urban uses from dust and wind-borne materials. Ag5-2.4 - The buffer area shall contain a minimum 20 feet depth of landscaping. Plantings shall be sufficiently dense and mature to provide aerosol protection within the first year of establishment. Greater landscaping depth may be required based upon site- specific circumstances, to include consideration of established or existina farmina oDerations or Dractices. Mayor Lady called for a break at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:36 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to C/OS1-1.1 and stated that the definition of what constitutes a "scenic resource" is underdeveloped. He requested the last segment of the sentence read as follows: .....unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City." There was consensus of the Council on C/OS1-1.1 as follows: C/OS1-1.1 - For purposes of this policy, a 'scenic resource' may refer to agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature, uniaue to the Citv. or contribute to the rural. small town character of the Citv. Council Member Dickens requested an Implementation Measure be added as Ag/C/OS.21 as follows: "SUDDort the establishment of a local fundina mechanism. as identified bv Citv Council. which allocates funds toward the voluntarv Durchase of aaricultural conservation easements." There was consensus of the Council to add the Implementation Measure as proposed. Consultant Strong referred to a memorandum distributed to the Council dated October 3, 2001 relating to additional policy clarifications regarding density and mixed use projects prior to comprehensive Development Code revisions. He recommended that a policy be included in the Introduction of the 2001 General Plan and repeated as LU5-12 directing staff to initiate at the earliest feasible time a Development Code Amendment including a provision substantially as follows: "Mixed Use developments in current VC, HC, GC, or I zones - Any combination of mixed sues, or any project proposing a residential component in a commercial or industrial district shall be considered pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval (Development Code Section 9-03-050) or Planned Unit Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 8 Development Permit approval (Development Code Section 9-03-160). In addition, where affordable housing is proposed in a Mixed Use designation, density incentives exceeding 25% may be considered." There was consensus of the Council to approve staff's recommendation. Consultant Strong reviewed responses to public comment and stated that there were no land use designation changes to the Land Use Element Map or substantive changes to the policies. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he had some suggested wording changes in the General Plan Elements, as follows: Take out "an" on Page LUE14, LU9 - "Provide for aR appropriate maintenance, development...." . Council concurred. Add "CEQA review" and omit rest of sentence on Page LUE17, LU11-3.3 - "...Any project that would degrade the Level of Service at the peak hour per City circulation policies will require CEQA review a StateR'1ent of Overrielin~ Consielomtiens er CEQ^ finelin~s. Council concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Page CE9, CT5-6.2 and stated he was not sure it needed to remain as a General Plan Policy. Discussion ensued regarding Project Study Reports, funding plans for projects; and the roles of County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans, and SLOCOG in reviewing regional projects. Following discussion, Council reached consensus on the following revision to CT5-6.2 as follows: CT5-6.2 - Request that the County, Caltrans, and SLOCOG consider proportional participation in Les Berres, EI CaR'1j3e, Trattis Way, Fair Oaks, Valley anel Halsyon Reael iR'1j3revoments between Highway 1 anel Frooway 101 Droiects involvino reoional traffic impacts. Consultant Strong indicated this was the opportunity for the Council to clarify or revisit any other issues. Mayor Lady stated he would like to readdress Land Use Areas 7Eb - East Myrtle, East Cherry and East Cherry Extension East of Noguera Place South of Arroyo Grande Creek, Including Lierly Lane; 7Sb - South of East Cherry Avenue, East of Traffic Way; and the Vanderveen property off of Branch Mill Road. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he would like to readdress Land Use Area 2, Rancho Grande/Noyes Road. Mayor Lady referred to the 10+ acres on East Cherry and suggested an alternative land use. He suggested a changed use from agriculture to a Planned Development with an agricultural buffer, with the agricultural portion to be for non-pesticide farming uses. He Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 9 explained this would allow the zoning change of the 1.3-acre portion owned by the Japanese Welfare Association to be residential; and the Planned Development would allow smaller residential lots. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara agreed that Mixed Use is a good reclassification and the Planned Development would specify uses and result in a good plan. He inquired whether the 2-acre parcel on Traffic Way currently zoned Highway Commercial would be included. Discussion ensued with regard to Mixed Use classifications; Planned Developments; non-pesticide use farming; and clarification regarding the intent of integrating an agricultural related component to the land use designation, rather than referring to it as an agricultural buffer. Council Member Lubin referred to the Planned Development concept and asked if the Council designates the parcel as Planned Development with an Agricultural component, does the Planned Development proposal come back to the Council for approval of specifics with regard to the project? Consultant Strong responded yes. ConsuHant Strong clarified that the General Plan land use classification is not the zoning; therefore by designating it for a combination of residential and Mixed Use to include agricultural retention on portions of the property, the General Plan designation is complete. He explained the hearing process the property owner would have to complete in order to proceed with rezoning the property from agriculture and receiving Council approval for a Mixed Use Planned Development. City Attorney Carmel explained that due to the unique nature of this proposal, he stated the text change within the General Plan should be very specific with regard to setting parameters for development of the property. He suggested the Council determine roughly what portion of the property should be agricultural and what portion of the property and what lot sizes are preferred for the residential component. Mayor Lady suggested lot sizes of approximately 5,500 square feet. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara summarized the discussion by clarifying that this planning area would be classified as Mixed Use, Planned Development, and would contain a residential component with approximate lot sizes of 5,500 square feet, an agricultural component which may include the operation of an organic farm, a teaching farm, or other agricultural related use, and would also contain a Highway Commercial frontage of approximately 2.5 acres which would border Traffic Way and Cherry Avenue. City Attorney Carmel and Consultant Strong stated this language was specific enough for the General Plan. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 10 Following further discussion, there was consensus of the Council regarding Land Use Study Area 7Sb - South of East Cherry Avenue, East of Traffic Way as proposed by Mayor Lady. Council Member Runels referred to the Vanderveen property on Branch Mill Road and gave a brief overview of the area's history. He suggested that it was appropriate to change the land use designation the applicant has requested from Agriculture to Medium Density Single Family Residential. Mayor Lady stated he could support that suggestion. Council Member Dickens asked if it would be appropriate to look at the remaining four parcels the same way. He said if the subject parcel was changed, the other parcels should also be changed. Mayor Lady stated the other parcels should be considered on their own merit at such time that the property owners request a redesignation. Council Member Dickens referred to Ordinance No. 153 C.S. which was adopted in May 1977 and read portions of the Ordinance that said property was rezoned from "A" Agriculture to "A-D" Agriculture District with the "-D" override to provide a basic five (5) acre minimum parcel size. He displayed a map highlighting those areas. He asked City Attorney Carmel if the Council would need to readdress this particular Ordinance. City Attorney Carmel replied that as with all new General Plan designations, ultimately the Council will have to render the zoning consistent with the new General Plan designation. He stated that this property was not any different than rezoning any other property consistent with its General Plan designation. He explained that all ordinances can be amended or repealed. Council Member Dickens stated that the objective of providing the Ordinance was to display the intent of the owners in the area at that particular time, the intent of the Council at that time, and it was part of the conditions of approval of the Greenwood Tract. He suggested that if it were the intent of the Council to look at these smaller parcels with a transition from agriculture to non-agriculture, it would set a precedent. He further discussed some of the agricultural and open space uses surrounding the subject property. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked if the modification to Ag1-1.1 with regard to prime farmland soils would in any way impact this decision. Consultant Strong responded that proposed policies of the General Plan Update do not apply until they're adopted. City Attorney Carmel explained that the policy comes into effect when it is adopted which would be simultaneously with the adoption of the new land designations. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 11 Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked Consultant Strong to display the map depicting the area and expressed concerns with creating a domino effect by converting agricultural land. He stated he did not favor a change in land use designation; however, if the Council was moving in that direction, he would ask there be some consideration for Single Family Low Density. He stated this would be a good compromise. Council Member Lubin stated he had considered both sides of the issue and it appeared that if the Council was moving in the direction of reclassification to residential, one of the things to accomplish was maintaining the City's rural atmosphere. He stated it appeared appropriate to have the beginning of some buffering in terms of residential. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara that it was appropriate to lower the density and supported classifying the property as Low Density (1 uniVacre). Consultant Strong explained the current residential zoning classifications and then gave an overview of the proposed residential zoning classifications. Council Member Dickens referred back to the public workshops in 1998 and stated that the community overwhelmingly opposed the conversion of agriculture to low-density development. He read from an ad the farmers took out in the newspaper opposing development on prime farmlands. He further read a portion of a 1998 letter from Lorraine and Leroy Saratari regarding zoning regulations and restrictions that property owners must comply with and opposing any change in zoning designations. He concluded by stating he could not support conversion of agriculture to residential. Council Member Runels asked the Mayor if the Council was going to move forward to give some direction on the matter. Mayor Lady said yes. Council Member Runels stated he would like to see Medium Density (4.5 units per acre); however, he stated it appeared from the discussion that there was more support for Medium-Low Density which would be 2.5 units per acre. Mayor Lady stated he could support the Medium-Low Density (2.5 units per acre). Council Member Lubin stated he would support Low Density (1 unit per acre). He stated this was a transitional area and it should be built out properly. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated that he could not support the density that the Mayor was proposing. Council Member Runels referred back to the Low Density classification (1 unit per acre) for discussion. Mayor Lady stated that density was not what he had envisioned for the property. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 12 Council Member Lubin stated it was not a proper location for a higher density classification, and that it was more of a rural area that he did want to see urbanized. He stated that one-acre lots would be more appropriate for this area. Mayor Lady commented that based on the discussion, there was no consensus on either the Low-Medium (2.5 units per acre) or the Low Density (1unit per acre) classification. Council Member Lubin commented he thought if no consensus was reached, then it would stay, as is, a 5-acre Agriculture parcel. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he would support that. Mayor Lady inquired of Council Member Lubin whether he had made a suggestion of 2 units per acre. Council Member Lubin stated that would still be half acre lots, similar to Rancho Grande, and that would be too much for that area. Mayor lady commented on the difference in topography between the two locations. Council Member Runels referred back to Council Member Lubin's suggestion of one unit per acre and giving the applicant the option of saying whether he wants to do something with the property or not. Mayor Lady stated he would support it. Following further Council comments, consensus was reached by a majority of the Council Members for conversion of the parcel from Agriculture to Low Density Single Family Residential (1 unit per acre). Mayor Lady referred to Land Use Study Area 7Eb - East Myrtle, East Cherry and East Cherry Extension East of Noguera Place and South of Arroyo Grande Creek, including Lierly Lane. Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to property ownership and stepped down from the dais. Consultant Strong reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to reclassify from Residential Rural to Single Family Residential, Medium Density (SFR-MD), subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate infrastructure improvements and providing for an agriculture buffer to the southeast and Conservation/Open Space along Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 13 Mayor Lady stated he could support that recommendation. Following discussion, it was determined that consensus had already been reached on this land use area, and there was no change. Council Member Dickens returned to the dais. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Land Use Study Area 2 - Rancho Grande at Noyes Road and requested reducing the density due to potential encroachment on the hillside. He stated he would not favor a retaining wall on Noyes Road and due to the geophysical constraints of the area, 35 units is much too dense. Discussion ensued with regard to Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and the nature and topographical features of the area. Council Member Lubin and Mayor Lady shared concerns expressed by Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara; however, the stated designation allows "up to" a maximum of 35 units and the EIR would address environmental issues with regard to the property and the Council could make a determination with regard to the number of units. Council Member Runels agreed. Following discussion, there was majority consensus to leave the classification as Planned Development (PO) designation allowing up to 35 dwelling units. Council Member Runels referred to the Circulation Element, Objective CT2 and asked for further clarification and explanation. Consultant Strong referred to the first page of the Circulation Element, Objective CT2 and explained that policies CT2-1, CT2-2, CT2-3, and CT2-4 identify future evaluations and considerations and what happens if it is impossible to attain or maintain LOS 'C' in the future. He explained that Policy CT2-4 suggests the City should periodically review the LOS policy and actual system performance to identify model deficiencies and consider programs, mitigation measures and/or policy revision and refinement. 6. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR TELEVISING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 9. 2001 Staff recommended the Council authorize the City Manager to contract for services and allocate $600 for televising the City Council Meeting on October 9, 2001, if adoption of the General Plan is continued to that meeting. Council Member Lubin moved to authorize the City Manager to contract for services and allocate $600 for televising the City Council Meeting on October 9, 2001, if adoption of the General Plan is continued to that meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 by voice vote, with Council Member Runels dissenting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 14 The meeting was adjourned to the Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, October 9, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street. Mayor Lady adjourned the meeting at 11 :55 p.m. in memory of Karl Hogan, a former member of the Arroyo Grande City Council from 1980 to 1984. Michael A. Lady, Mayor Attest: Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services/ Deputy City Clerk MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6:18 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, Council Members Runels, Lubin and Dickens, City Manager Adams, and City Attorney Carmel were present. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 2. CLOSED SESSION: a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. Title: City Manager 3. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Lady announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. 4. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting of November 13, 2001. Michael A. Lady, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Runels, Dickens, Lubin, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara and Mayor Lady were present. RDA: Board Members Runels, Dickens, Lubin, Vice-Chair Ferrara, and Chair Lady were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Adams; City Attorney Carmel; Director of Administrative Services Wetmore; Director of Financial Services Snodgrass; Community Development Director Strong; Acting Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Perrin; Chief of Police TerBorch; Director of Public Works Spagnolo; and Consultant Senior Engineer Campbell. 3. FLAG SALUTE Members of Cub Scout, Den 1, Pack 13 led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Jean Bowser, Bahai Faith, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only Council Member Runels moved, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, spoke regarding the Referendum that was filed relating to the adoption of the General Plan. He quoted Election Code Section 18600(a) and (b) relating to misrepresentation by a circulator and stated he believed that the press release issued by the proponent contains erroneous information which misrepresents the facts and misleads the public. He requested that the Council agendize the issue for discussion. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 2 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Lubin pulled Item 8.e. Council Member Dickens moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.j., with the exception of Item 8.e., with the recommended courses of action. S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16, 2001 through October 31, 2001. 8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of October 31, 2001. S.C. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water Facility Fund. Action: Received and filed September 2001 Cash Report and approved the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of September 30, 2001. S.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved minutes as submitted for the Special City Council Meeting of October 23, 2001 and Regular City Council Meeting of October 23, 2001. S.f. Consideration of Authorization to Solicit Bids for March 2001 Storm Restoration at Rodeo Drive, Project PW-01-04. Action: 1) Approved the construction plans and specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for the March 2001 Storm Restoration at Rodeo Drive Capital Improvement Project; and 2) Found that the March 2001 Storm Restoration at Rodeo Drive Capital Improvement Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (d) and directed Administrative Services to file a Notice of Exemption. S.g. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution to Change the State License for the Children In Motion Program and Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) of San Luis Obispo County. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3557 acknowledging the Children In Motion Program is changing its State License to accept non-ambulatory participants and approved the Memorandum of Understanding. S.h. Consideration of Huasna Road Pavement Overlay, City Project No. PW-01- 03, Notice of Completion, Final Progress Payment No.2, and Retention Release. Action: 1) Authorized Final Progress Payment in the amount of $25,422.00; 2) Directed staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorized release of the retention in the amount of $22,549.99, thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been filed. S.i. Consideration of Adjustment to Employee Medical Insurance Benefits. Action: 1) Adopted Resolution Nos. 3558, 3559, 3560, 3561, and 3562 amending City participation in the CalPERS medical insurance program; 2) Adopted Resolution No. 3563 amending medical insurance benefits for CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 3 management employees; 3) Approved the letter of agreement modifying the MOU with AGPOA regarding medical insurance benefits; and 4) Approved the letter of agreement modifying the MOU with SEIU regarding medical insurance benefits. a.j. Consideration of Determination of Industrial Disability. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3564 determining that Senior Police Officer Richard Checansky suffers from an industrial disability. AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. S.e. Consideration of Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for Oak Park Boulevard Street Widening Project, Project PW.00.01. Action: 1) Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for the Oak Park Boulevard Street Widening Capital Improvement Project; 2) Appropriate $81,623 from the Transportation Facility Impact fund for the Oak Park Boulevard Street Widening Capital Improvement Project; 3) Accept and record on behalf of the City Grant Deeds from the four property owners on Oak Park Boulevard; and 4) Find that the Oak Park Boulevard Street Widening Capital Improvement Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (c) and direct Administrative Services to file a Notice of Exemption. Council Member Lubin commented that one side of Oak Park Boulevard was within the City limits of Grover Beach. He asked if the project was being coordinated with the City of Grover Beach. Director Spagnolo responded that Arroyo Grande was proceeding with its portion of the project. He explained that Grover Beach was in the design phase and their portion of the project which had been funded by SLOCOG. Council Member Lubin asked if the portion from Atlantic City Avenue to the freeway was going to be widened. Director Spagnolo replied that it would be; however, it was included as part of Grover Beach's project. On motion by Council Member Lubin to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Council Member Runels, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 4 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of the Request from South County Sanitary Service for Integrated Solid Waste Collection Rate Increase. City Manager Adams presented the staff report. He explained that the item had originally been considered at the September 25, 2001 City Council meeting and the Council had directed staff to further assess the findings in the Solid Waste Rate Review report. He explained that the formal rate review was further assessed by him, the City Attorney, Director of Financial Services, and the Manager of the Integrated Waste Management Authority, and the results of this additional analysis confirmed that the review was performed correctly and was consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo Rate Review Process and Methodology Manual. City Manager Adams further addressed concerns identified by the Council regarding retroactive reimbursement; issues relating to operating profit; setting rates based on a proposed volume based rate structure; phasing the increase in over a two-year period; and clarification regarding terms in the Franchise Agreement. Staff recommended the Council adopt a Resolution approving integrated solid waste collection rate increases. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Hearing no public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the breakdown of customer accounts for both Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach as presented in the staff report and stated that the percentage of accounts receiving 32-gallon service was close in both cities. He spoke of the need to maintain recycling rates and asked how a volume based fee structure would impact recycling efforts. Tom Martin, Controller for South County Sanitary Service, indicated that every home in the City has a blue recycling container. He noted that there were more persons per household in Arroyo Grande. He explained that customers receive a 32-gallon recycling container; however, the may request a larger, 64-gallon, recycling container for no additional cost. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara inquired about the extra bag rate of $4.36 and asked if that applied to garbage and recycling. Mr. Martin responded that it applied only for garbage. Council Member Lubin asked Mr. Martin if there was a significant change in service when the City of Pismo Beach went to a volume based rate structure. Mr. Martin explained that the City of Pismo Beach started off their program with a volume based rate structure. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 5 Council Member Runels commented on costs for replacement of equipment and the increase in the number of trucks South County Sanitary has had. He also commented that the fees to dump at the landfill are higher. He supported staffs recommendation. Council Member Dickens expressed concern about the impacts of a large rate increase for citizens, especially for those on fixed incomes. He supported staffs recommendation and recommended that a press release be issued informing citizens of the program available to assist low-income households. He further commented that he would like to consider requests for increases on an annual basis. Council Member Lubin said to avoid large increases, he supported reviewing requests for rate increases on an annual basis. He stated he was leaning toward the volume- based fee structure and commented that those disposing of trash to the landfill should pay the higher fee. He supported looking into the volume based fee structure. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated at first he was looking toward a volume-based approach; however, having looked at the numbers, he was concerned about the resulting increases to consumers with larger containers. He stated he believed the appropriate strategy was to support staffs recommendation and then review the volume-based fee structure next year. He suggested during the next year, staff proceed by preparing and marketing the new program by providing detailed explanations on how to reduce garbage and encourage recycling. Mayor Lady commented that going to a volume-based fee structure later would provide an incentive to recycle more. He supported staffs recommendation as proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to approve the integrated solid waste collection rate increases and adopt a Resolution establishing integrated solid waste collection service rates, as amended for the rates to be effective on December 1, 2001. He further moved that the action be preceded by a community based marketing approach to explain the background and purpose of the increase; provide and explain incentives for continued recycling; and to direct staff to re-examine a volume-based fee approach for consideration next year. Council Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Ferrara, Runels, Dickens, Lubin, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.b. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Abandon a 1.40- acre Portion of Land within the Proposed 10-acre Rancho Grande Park Site. Council Member Lubin declared a potential conflict of interest and stepped down from the dais. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 6 Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report. He stated the Council had previously approved the creation and sale of three potential residential lots located on the subject 1.40-acre portion of land within the proposed Park site. He explained that prior to abandoning a portion of property originally dedicated for park purposes, the City must first adopt a Resolution of Intention describing the portion of the park to be abandoned and fixing a time, at least 30 days after adoption of the Resolution, when the Council will meet to take final action. Council Member Runels inquired as to the status of the lot configuration for the proposed three residential lots. Director Strong responded the configuration of the lots was detailed on the Park Master Plan and briefly reviewed the size for each lot. Council Member Dickens recalled that residents in the area had objections to the original configuration of the lots. City Manager Adams responded that those concerns had been resolved at a previous meeting and adjustments to lot lines had been made. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara recalled concerns expressed by residents regarding other issues such as fence lines and potential view sheds. He clarified that the proposed architecture and positioning of homes would have to conform to the development's CC&Rs. City Manager Adams noted that the meeting previously mentioned had included representatives from the Homeowners Association and from RRM Design. Council Member Runels asked if there were any restrictions on. what was to be built on the three lots. Director Strong replied it would be Low Density Single Family Residential. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Denise Wilson asked what was the original intent of the property to be used for. Mayor Lady explained that the portion proposed to be abandoned was part of the proposed 10- acre Rancho Grande Park site and that the sale of this portion would help fund the construction of Rancho Grande Park. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Dickens commented that, because of its topography, the subject portion of land proposed for abandonment may not be suitable as part of the proposed Park and supported staff's recommendation. Council Member Runels stated the City will need every bit of open space and did not support abandoning any portion of the proposed park site. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara supported staff's recommendation and stated the additional funding would allow the Park to be finished and construction would not have to be phased. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 7 Mayor Lady commented that if finances were available for a 10-acre Park, he would not recommend abandoning a portion of the land. However, he stated since that was not the case, he supported staffs recommendation. Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution of Intention to abandon a 1.40- acre portion of the proposed 10-acre Rancho Grande Park site, pursuant to Government Code Section 38501 et. seq., which includes setting a meeting date of January 8, 2002 for final City Council action on the proposed abandonment. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: Runels ABSENT: Lubin There being 3 AYES, 1 NO, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Lubin returned to the dais. 9.c. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Regarding Sewer Connection Fees. Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report. He explained the Council, at its October 23rd meeting, had directed staff to modify the second paragraph of Section 6-6.411 to delete the wording related to credit for prior payments and then introduced the Ordinance for first reading. He gave an overview of the modifications to the fee structure and explained that the Ordinance provides that the connection fee amounts be established by Resolution. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Hearing none, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt an Ordinance amending Articles 4 and 5 of Title 6 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding sewer connection fees. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Dickens, Runels, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution establishing sewer connection fee amounts. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 8 AYES: Lubin, Dickens, Runels, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. Consideration of Approval of the Wastewater System Master Plan. Director of Public Works Spagnolo presented the staff report. He stated the Council authorized distribution of the draft Wastewater System Master Plan at its July 24th meeting. He gave a brief overview of the purpose of the Wastewater System Master Plan. Consultant Senior Engineer Craig Campbell was present to answer questions. Council Member Runels asked questions of staff regarding long-term capital improvement projects. Director Spagnolo responded that recommended projects were prioritized in a phased capital improvement program to be implemented over a 20-year period. Council Member Runels asked is the City could be subject to pollution fines. Director Spagnolo responded yes; however, the. replacement of Lift Station No..1 was included as a Priority 1 improvement. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the difference in the population figure in the Water Master Plan and the Wastewater System Master Plan and asked for clarification. Consultant Senior Engineer Campbell responded that the time between the preparation of the Water Master Plan and the preparation of the Wastewater System Master Plan, staff was directed to research the current figure as part of the General Plan Update process. He said at that time, a figure was established and used as basis in the Wastewater System Master Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked if there were plans to reconcile the population figure in the Water Master Plan with the figure used in the Wastewater System Master Plan. Consultant Campbell replied yes. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. John Keen, 298 N. Elm, stated that he found the study to be very comprehensive and acknowledged staff's work on the Plan. He commented that the City limit lines on the maps were not clear and suggested that they be clarified. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 9 Council Member Runels moved to approve and adopt the 2001 Wastewater System Master Plan. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll- call vote, to wit: AYES: Runels, Dickens, Lubin, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Fiscal Year 2001/02 First Quarter Budget Status Report. [COUNCIURDA] Director of Financial Services Snodgrass presented the staff report. She highlighted the City's Projected Fund Balance at June 30, 2002 ($1,389.100); Carryover Appropriations ($390,700); Approved Adjustments ($8,000); Proposed Adjustments ($66,400); Total Decrease to General Fund Balance ($332,300); and Adjusted Fund Balance at June 30, 2002 ($1,056,800). Council/Board Member Lubin referred to the Projected Fund Balance and the Council's goal of achieving a fund balance of 15% of appropriations. He asked Director Snodgrass if the City was ahead in achieving that goal. Director Snodgrass replied that the fund balance was much better than anticipated and that there was a fund balance of approximately 10-12% of appropriations. Council/Board Member Lubin referred to the property tax revenue increase and asked where the information comes from and when it is determined. Director Snodgrass replied that the County Tax Collector assesses the tax rolls and provides an estimate. She explained the information arrives in late June after the Budget has been approved and published. Council/Board Members Runels and Dickens commented that staff had presented a good report. Mayor Pro TemNice-Chair Ferrara asked if the City anticipated receiving revenue for responding to a mutual aid fire. Director Snodgrass replied no and that she did not incorporate that revenue into the budget. She stated when the money is received, it is included in the quarterly budget reports. Mayor Pro TemNice-Chair Ferrara referred to rising costs associated with healthcare issues. He expressed concern about the financial impact over the long range and suggested incorporating this issue into the Long Range Financial Plan as there were a lot of unanswered questions. Mayor/Chair Lady opened up the item for public comment, and upon hearing none, brought the item back to Council for consideration. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 10 Council/Board Member Lubin referred to Schedule A on page 2 and asked for explanation with regard to the "Total Available" column. Director Snodgrass explained the difference between "Total Available" versus "Appropriations". Mayor Pro TemNice-Chair Ferrara referred to page 18 regarding the State of California facing a $14 billion shortfall because of the slowing economy and the State energy crisis. He suggested continuing to work harder to support the League's position on putting a cap on ERAF. He further addressed the potential loss of Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue and urged support of the League's efforts in communicating with legislators over this very serious issue. Council/Board Member Lubin moved to: 1) Approve Carryover Appropriations as detailed in Schedule B; 2) Approve detailed budget adjustments and recommendations as shown in Schedule B; and 3) Approve Schedules A through F included in the First Quarter Status Report. Council/Board Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: Council AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. RDA AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS a) Rotation of Mayor Pro Tem. (FERRARA) Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he had served in the role of Mayor Pro Tem for exactly three years and although this was not an election year, he had held discussions with others and looked into what other cities do with the rotation of this position. He explained the role of Mayor Pro Tem and said it was good experience that should be shared among the other Council Members. He said it was fitting at this time to give another Council Member a chance at serving as Mayor Pro Tem and that he intended to resign effective immediately. He asked City Attorney Carmel if an item to select a new Mayor Pro Tem would need to be placed on a future Agenda. City Attorney Carmel explained that with an immediately effective resignation, the need to take action on an item had arisen subsequent to publication of the Agenda and the Council could add an Agenda item to tonight's Agenda on a 4/5ths vote of the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara then resigned his position as Mayor Pro Tem effective immediately. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2001 PAGE 11 On a voice vote, it was agreed unanimously to place the selection of a new Mayor Pro Tem on the Agenda for immediate action. b) Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. Council Member Lubin moved to appoint Council Member Runels as Mayor Pro Tern. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Mayor Lady thanked Council Member Ferrara for his service over the last three years as Mayor Pro Tem. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS City Manager Adams reminded the Council that the joint meeting with the Lucia Mar Unified School District Board was being rescheduled for early January. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Runels thanked the Council for appointing him to his new role. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lady adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Michael A. Lady, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services/ Deputy City Clerk - 8.f. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY-ORION AUTO DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council reject the attached Claim for Damages against the City filed by Orion Auto, Salt Lake City, Utah. FUNDING: None. DISCUSSION: The City's insurance administrators have reviewed the claim of Orion Auto and recommend it be rejected. -,rt""-I\fC] ~~A j';,'.':II", , , ,.- ":.';' ,"";:' ...~~:'::..\'D [ Next Report Due: December 28,2001 0\ "'I'; 25 'i \ 9: 25 I" 1,'''''. STATUS REPORT #2 November 21,2001 City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Attention: Steven Adams, City Administrator RE: My Principal City of Arroyo Grande DOl 6/11/01 Claimant ';6riori Aiffij:<";!; My File No. A10492-S Dear Mr. Adams: PREVIEW: The claimant carrier alleges that their insured damaged his vehicle in city parking lot. REPLY REOUEST: GOVERNMENT CODE REOUIREMENTS A. Action By Public Entity: I recommend that the City forward a standard rejection letter to the following claimant: Orion Auto 1245 E. Brickyard Rd # 640 P.O. Box 65589 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Please forward a copy of this rejection letter to this office for our file. B. Statute Of Limitations: The statute oflimitations will expire six months ITom the rejection CARL WARREN & CO. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT. CLAIMS ADJUSTERS P.O. Box 1052. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1052 Phone: (805) 544-7963. Fax: (805) 544-1068 City of Arroyo Grande Steven Adams November 21,2001 Page Two (A10492-S) CITY REPORT The City of Arroyo Grande provided inspection sheets for all the concrete stops the city is responsible to maintain. The records indicate this particular stop was inspected on May 25,2001. The City was notified on June 12,2001 of the rebar protruding out of the stop. The problem was remedied the following day. The stop was inspected. The stop exhibited tire marks on the opposite side. It appears that that a vehicle drove over the stop, backed up and displaced the stop. LIABILITY The City of Arroyo Grande is not responsible for this loss. The City had no notice of this condition prior to the claimant's incident. The records indicate that once the City was notified of the condition, they corrected it. There is no negligence on behalf of the City. CLAIM STATUS: Claim Status Reserves LPD- Orion Ins. Open $1075.00 Loss $500.00 Expense COMMENT: I am placing my file on diary for December 28, 2001 awaiting receipt of requested documentation. Very truly yours, ca~en & Company Keith Swanson, LPCS, CCLA V Suite 640 OnonAuto Phone 1245 E Brickyard Rd 801 486.0176 PO Box 65589 TolJ Free 5altlake City UT 84165'05~'tc: = I \f::r.: 800365.4642 ShlppmgZlp 84196_~...:: .., l~'"):lV'-1 -.. rax-- i 1 '., ,.".. ,.' , '. ' 801 484.8456 01 SEP Il, no< '>. L8 rli V' I September 6,2001 City Of Arroyo Grande City Managers Office PO Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 RE: Our Claim Number: 050291869 Our Insured: Gould, George Accident Date: 06-11-01 Accident Location: Arroyo City Park SUBROGATION NOTICE To Whom It May Concern: We have been informed that you are the insurance carrier for the party designated in the caption of this letter. Our investigation has established that your insured was responsible for this accident. Please accept this letter as notice of our subrogation or reimbursement rights under: X Vehicle Damage Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Medical Payments Coverage Other Supporting documentation attached. Ifwe make payment under the policy, we will be looking to you for reimbursement. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact our office. Sincerely, VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN Ryan Ja Claims Adjuster 888-760-4642 ext. 6519 Q.~ C;M W~~Co. ql~lol OA9Z04SI099 Part of the Royal & SunAlIiance Insurance Group - 'ffity 0/ . P.O. Box 5SO ~ &f~ 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Gr.nde, CA 93411 Phone: (805) 473-5414 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FAX: (805) 473-0JU E-Man: agclty@arroy..nde...... December 12, 2001 Orion Auto 1245 E. Brickyard Rd. #640 P.O. Box 65589 Salt LakeCity, UT 84106 REJECTION OF CLAIM PRESENTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on September 14,2001 was rejected on December 11, 2001. WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail to file a Court. Action in a Municipal or a Superior Court of the State of California on this claim (See Government Code Section 945.6). You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Kelly Wetmore . Director of Administrative Services c: City Manager . City Attorney . . Direc:torof PublicWorks Carl Warren &Co. 8.g. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance adopting the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The City Council, at its meeting of November 27, 2001, introduced for first reading an Ordinance adopting the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. It is recommended the City Council adopt the Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the Ordinance; - Modify and adopt the Ordinance; - Do not adopt the Ordinance; - Provide direction to staff. ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 provides for the codification and publication of the permanent and general ordinances of cities; and WHEREAS, Book Publishing Company has compiled, edited and published a codification of the permanent and general ordinances of the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, there are now on file in the office of Administrative Services, for public inspection, three copies of a document entitled "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code", together with three copies of each of the secondary codes therein adopted by references. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Adoption. There is hereby adopted the "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code", as compiled, edited and published by Book Publishing Company, Seattle, Washington, a copy of which is on file in the Office of Administrative Services and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Title--Citation--Reference. This code shall be known as the "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code" and it shall be sufficient to refer to said code as the "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code" in any prosecution for the violation of any provision thereof or in any proceeding at law or equity. It shall be sufficient to designate any ordinance adding to, amending, correcting or repealing all or any part or portion thereof as an addition to, amendment to, correction or repeal of the "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code". References may be made to the titles, chapters, sections, and subsections of the "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code" and such references shall apply to those titles, chapters, sections, or subsections as they appear in the code. SECTION 3. Codification Authoritv. This code consists of all the regulatory and penal ordinances and certain administrative ordinances of the City of Arroyo Grande codified pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code. SECTION 4. Ordinances Passed Prior to AdoPtion of the Code. The last ordinance included in this code was Ordinance No. 525 C.S., passed on March 27, 2001. The following ordinances, passed subsequent to Ordinance No. 525 C.S., but prior to adoption of this code, are hereby adopted and made a part of this code: Ordinance Nos. 526 C.S., 527 C.S., and 528 C.S. In addition, the term ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 "C.S.", which previously meant "Code Service", shall be eliminated from the sequential numbering of all future Ordinances. SECTION 5. Reference Applies to All Amendments. Whenever a reference is made to this code as the "Arroyo Grande Municipal Code" or to any portion thereof, or to any ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande, California, codified herein, the reference shall apply to all amendments, corrections and additions heretofore, now or hereafter made. SECTION 6. Title, Chapter, and Section HeadinQs. Title, chapter, and section headings contained herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of any title, chapter or section hereof. SECTION 7. Reference to Specific Ordinances. The provisions of this code shall not in any manner affect matters of record which refer to, or are otherwise and which are included within the code, but such reference shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within this code. SECTION 8. Effect of Code on Past Actions and ObliQations. Neither the adoption of this code nor the repeal or amendment hereby of any ordinance or part or portion of any ordinance of the City of Arroyo Grande shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date, hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee, or penalty at said effective date due and unpaid under such ordinances, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee, or penalty at said effective date due and unpaid under such ordinances, nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof required to be posed, filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance and all rights and obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force and effect. SECTION 9. Constitutionality. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this code, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason this code should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. SECTION 10. Publication. Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this ordinance, it shall be published once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 SECTION 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing ordinance was adopted this _ day of ,2001. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 8.h. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER~ BY: KAREN SISKO, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER~. SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW STATE MINIMUM WAGE DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to increase wages for those part-time positions that fall below the new State minimum wage which goes into effect January 1, 2002. FUNDING: The fiscal impact would be approximately $182.00, which can be absorbed in each respective departments' budget. DISCUSSION: The minimum wage is increasing January 1, 2002 from $6.25 per hour to $6.75 per hour. There are several part-time positions in the City that will fall below the minimum wage and will need to be increased. The positions effected include the Police Cadet, Recreation Leader I and II, Assistant III, and the Student Intern. The Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department utilizes the permanent employees who are Assistants in the AM/PM Childcare Program interchangeably with the recreation staff in the summer. It is recommended that the Recreation Assistant I and II positions be eliminated since employees are rarely coded under this job category. The City currently utilizes fourteen hours of Cadet services per week. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Approve staffs recommendation; 2. Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or 3. Provide direction to staff. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE NEW STATE MINIMUM WAGE FOR PART- TIME POSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001.2002 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") deems it in the best interest of the City to increase wages for part-time employees whose wages fall below the new State minimum wage and to implement the new minimum wage hereinafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that: 1. The part-time positions designated below will receive the new minimum wage as follows: POSITION HOURLY RATE START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS(+) PAY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE Police Cadet $6.75 - - Student Intern $6.75 - - AM/PM Assistant III, High School $6.75 $6.93 $7.28 $7.64 Recreation Leader I Eliminate position Recreation Leader II Eliminate position 2. This rate of pay shall become effective January 1, 2002. 3. All other part-time employee salary and benefit terms and conditions remain in full force and effect as set forth in Resolution No. 3463 and Resolution No. 3535. 4. The positions of Recreation Leader I and Recreation Leader II will be eliminated effective January 1, 2002. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,2001. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 MICHAEL LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY - 9.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will hold a Public Hearing on the following item: CASE NO.: Amended Conditional Use Permit 01-002 APPLICANT: Nadel Architects, Inc LOCATION: Five Cities Center, Phase II, Rancho Grande Parkway PROPOSAL: Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 96-541, to allow an expanded patio seating area for Building 'M' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines REPRESENTATIVE: Mike Leberman The City Council will consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Building 'M' in the AGRA Five Cities Center to allow an expanded patio seating area. Any person affected or concerned by this issue may submit written comments to the Community Development Department before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the' project. Any person interested in the project can contact the Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 or ,Administrative Services Director! Deputy City Clerk Publish 1T, Friday, November 30, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT~ BY: ~~'KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-002 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 01-011; FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the Council; 1. Adopt a resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002; and 2. By minute action, approve Architectural Review Case No. 01-011 for Building "M". FUNDING: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 2001 the City Council approved amendments to the original Conditional Use Permit for the Five Cities Center subject to Architectural Review of Buildings "l" and "M" by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Planning Commission and City Council. The ARC reviewed the building elevations on October 29, 2001 and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuing a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following information for ARC approval: 1. Submit color and placement details for the accent tiles of both buildings. 2. Show a sample of the wood sash windows and the door of Building 'M'. 3. Show screening detail for the patio on the north and west elevations of Building 'M'. 4. Show the electrical service room on the site plan for both buildings. City Council December 11, 2001 CUP Amendment 01-002; Arch. Review 01-011 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission considered the building elevations on November 6, 2001 and recommended approval for both buildings as submitted, and further recommended that a Conditional Use Permit Amendment be processed for the entire 1,100 square feet of outdoor patio area proposed for Building "M", of which only 400 square feet is currently allowed (reference Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes). Since the Planning Commission was in favor of the CUP Amendment, the project has been forwarded directly to City Council for consideration. The City Council approved the Architectural Review for Building "L" on November 27, 2001. The applicant has since submitted revised plans for building "M" that identify additional windows by the entry tower and the use of pre-cast columns for the trellis instead of wood. The ARC recommended approval of these revisions on December 3, 2001 (reference Attachment 2 for Meeting Notes). The plans also show the electrical equipment as being enclosed on the far left side of the east elevation per the ARC's recommended conditions of approval. Proiect Description The architectural style of Building "M" is intended to blend with the existing Spanish style buildings of the Five Cities Center. The structure is 5,016 square feet in size and will be occupied with a restaurant use. The tallest section of the building is 23.5 feet, which is less than the 30-foot maximum allowed. The exterior colors and materials are listed in the table below. BUILDING "M" Materials Colors Roof .Mission Clay Tile . EI Camino and Mallorca Exterior Walls .Cement Plaster .Cielo Blanco .Bone White .Legend Tan Accent Features .Wood Trellis .Stained Brown The purpose of the CUP Amendment is to expand the allowable outdoor seating area for the restaurant by 775 square feet. The applicant proposes 1,175 square feet of patio seating, allowing up to twelve (12) tables and requiring four (4) additional parking spaces from the previous approval. As seen in the table below, the additional patio space does not adversely impact the parking configuration or the ability to provide sufficient parking for Phase II. City Council December 11, 2001 CUP Amendment 01-002; Arch. Review 01-011 Page 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS Proposed Parking Required Parking Commercial Retail n/a (shared parking area) 234 stalls Restaurant n/a (shared parking area) 91 stalls Patio Seating n/a (shared parking area) 19 stalls ---------- --------- --------- --------- Total: 346 stalls 344 stalls Condition of Approval No. 8 has been modified as follows to reflect the proposed patio area expansion. For consistency purposes, the reference to "28 persons" for patio seating between Buildings "J" and "K" has also been modified to "seven (7) tables". 8. The seating capacity between Buildings K and J shall be limited to ~ ~eF€eR~ - "'TN", and the patio area for Building M shall be limited to ~ I1Ilu' ., square feetl, . .\ . "^i i t ,J.;'k11"''',*I'1' hh, ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt a resolution approving CUP Amendment 01-002 and Architectural Review 01-011 for Building "M"; 2. Modify as appropriate and adopt a resolution approving CUP Amendment 01-002 and Architectural Review 01-011 for Building "M"; 3. Do not approve CUP Amendment 01-002 and Architectural Review 01- 011 for Building "M"; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. Attachments: Resolution of approval Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval Exhibit "B": City Council Resolution No. 3157 Exhibit "C": City Council Resolution No. 3553 Exhibit "D": Site Plan 1. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2001 2. Draft ARC Meeting Notes of December 3, 2001 3. Draft ARC Meeting Notes of October 29. 2001 4. Letter from Nadel Architects 5. Architectural Elevations of Building "M" 6. Color & Materials Chart RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-002, APPLIED FOR BY AGRA, LLC, LOCATED AT FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II (RANCHO PARKWAY AND WEST BRANCH STREET) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered an application for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 96-541, filed by AGRA, LLC, for a modification to the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on this application in accordance with the law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 of State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the Rancho Grande Planned Development (PD 1.2) pursuant to Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code, and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed because all the necessary easements, circulation, parking and setbacks would be provided. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure the public health and safety. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2001. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR! DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01- 002 AGRA, LLC FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 96-541 authorizes the following modification to the approved site plan as follows: a. Allow up to 1,175 square feet of outdoor patio seating area for Building "M" for a total of twelve (12) tables. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 96-541 shall remain in full force and effect as indicated in City Council Resolution 3157 approved on July 9, 1996 included herein as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof. 2. All conditions of approval for Amended Conditional Use Permit No. 01-001 shall remain in full force and effect as indicated in City Council Resolution 3553 approved on September 25, 2001 included herein as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof. 3. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for this Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002. 5. This application shall automatically expire on December 11, 2003 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to .the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of December 11, 2001 and attached hereto as Exhibit "D". All related site improvement plans shall be revised to be consistent with the amended site plan. 7. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. SPECIAL CONDITION 8. The seating capacity between Buildings "K" and "J" shall be limited to 2!i j38FS@!'1S ~~}<~!1mltlr~l,t~I:iI~~, and the patio area for Building "M" shall be limited to 400 ,1.1X'9 s uare feei'anarlg~!fi!llW:eli!f;1r(,1~~l\aQ[~s. q "...,..R...............""">>,.".. ..,........".., EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 3 157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PD SPECIFIC PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 96-541; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2220 AND PLANNED SIGN ~ f PROGRAM 96-118, APPLIED FOR BY GENCOM, INC. FOR ! AN APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRE SITE AT WEST BRANCH t STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY, REFERRED TO AS GRANDE PLAZA. WHEREAS, GenCom, Inc. (the "Applicant") has submitted applications to the City of Arroyo Grande for a planned development specific plan/conditional use permit; tentative tract map and a planned sign program for an approximately 45 acre site located at West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway, referred to as Grande Plaza; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Grande Plaza; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with CEQA and the City's local CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held public hearings on April 16, May 24, June 4, and June 20, 1996, and the City Council held a public hearing on July 9, 1996 to consider the request and allowed all interested persons the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared which incorporates written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA and the City's local CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, adverse environmental impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible by the mitigation measures described in the Final Environmental Impact Report, and no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, written and oral staff reports. Additional information supporting the following fmdings is provided in Attachment "B". Written reports are r incorporated by this reference. PD Specific Plan Findings: l - 1. The proposed specific development plan is consistent with the goals, objectives policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 3157 PAGE THREE Planned Sign Program Findings: l. The proposed signs as conditioned, are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and r programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. Additional review of signage by the staff and Architectural Advisory Committee is required prior to approval. Said review will be pursuant to project-specific design guidelines which are required by the PD approval. "- 2. The proposed signs conform to the applicable development standards as modified by the PD Specific Plan, and provisions of this Title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The physical location or placement of signs are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and does not pose a safety risk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. The City Council certifies that the Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and Procedures. 2. The City Council hereby states that the information contained in the final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the members of the City Council. 3. The City Council hereby approves the applications submitted by GenCom, Inc. for a planned development ordinance amendment; conditional use permit (specific development plan); tentative tract map and a planned sign program, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment "A". On motion by Council Member Souza , seconded by Council Member Brandy , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: A YES: Souza, Brandy, Fuller, and Mayor Dougall NOES: Council Member Lady ABSENT: None f I the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of July, 1996. I i ; i , - ATTACHMENT nAn PD Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 r Page 1 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL t GENERAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DRVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for the following applications: Planned Development Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Pennit Case No. 96- 541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; Planned Sign Program Case 96-118. 3. These applications shall automatically expire on [date of adoption], unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. The tentative map approval shall automatically expire on [dateofadoption], unless the final map is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9-02.140.C. of :he Development Code. 4. One year oner the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the applications shall be reviewed by Ihe Trnffic Committee and the City Council for traffic impacts on Rancho Parkway and Camino Mercado, to determine if the portion of Camino Mercado between the entrance on Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway should be converted to a one way street (west). A public hearing shall be required to review !bis issue. The applicant shall deposit with the City a bond or other security equal to !be cost of such conversion as determined by the Public Works Director. This bond or Sef:urity shall be released if the one-way street is deemed not nef:essary. 5. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the ( Planning Commission at the meeting of [date of adoption] and marked "Exhibit "A", and I Exhibits "Co, through "EO,. ( ~- 6. The applicant shall agree to defend at hisiher sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to rdin'llli~h such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or PD Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 r Page 3 NOISE 12. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of7:00 am and 6:00 pm on non-holiday weekdays, and on Saturdays to between the hours 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. The operation of heavy equipment in the area of the project to the southeast of Rancho Parkway, adjacent to the school shall be limited to operation during the summer months, or required to install temporary noise barriers. If operation during school year is necessary, such operation shall be after regular school hours. Extended hours may be approved by the Public Works Director with the concurrence of the ST. Patrick's Schoo! administration. Prior to such grading, a noise abatement plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. DEVELOPMENT CODE 13. Development shall confonn with the adopted zoning requirements except as otherwise approved. 14. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Chapter 9-13. An exception shall be granted for this project to exceed sign standards as follows: all center identification signs may be up to, but not exceed twenty (20) feet in height and three hundred (300) square feet in sign area. 15. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all buildings, all ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened fi:om public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transfonners, and large water piping systems be completely screened fi:om public view. All roof-mounted equipment which generates noise, solid particfes, odors, etcetera, shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away fIom residential properties. A plan for the treatment of rooftops shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building pennit Fire r Department connections shall be separate from double-defector check valve assemblies to I allow screening of the double defector check valve assembly. j \ . - 16. The applicant shall submit revised Design Review Guidelines to be approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee, prior to the issuance of first building permits. The Design Review Guidelines shall include the architectural style pennitted; and the colors; materials and structural design details allowed. Prior to issuance of any building pennits, PO Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 r Page 5 BONDING/SURETY t, 26. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall bond for conversion of the portion of Camino Mercado between the entrance on Camino Mercado and Rancho Parkway as a one way street. See also Condition 4. LANDSCAPING 27. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, Community Development, Police, Building and Fire, and Parks and Recreation Departments. The landscaping plan shall include the following: (I) Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; (2) The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; (3) The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: (a) Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; (b) Water conservation practices including the use oflow flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan; (c) All slopes 2: I or greater shall have jute mesh, nylon mesh or equivalent material; (d) An automated irrigation system; (4) The size, type and location of all plant materials; (5) The type and location of all paving and furniture, including benches, fountains, or other features. (6) Treatment of all unbuilt pads. PD Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Pennit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCorn, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 r Page 7 34. All buildings shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height and shall not block the views from the adjacent residences to the west (except that architectural projections for roofline t variation and projections to screen roof mechanical equipment, may project up to thirty- four (34) feet). Grading cut and fill slopes shall be in conformance with the approved grading plan shown in Exhibit "A." 35. The parking lot site plan shall be revised to show additional landscaping. Emphasis shall be on planters with trees to break up aisles of parkiDg spaces. The revision shall be indicated in the landscaping plan required by Condition 27. 36, Per Title 24, Section 2-7102 of the State Disabled Access Regulations, the parking lot shall provide seven (7) handicapped parking spaces for the first five hundred (500), and one (I) parking space for each additional two hundred (200). 37. The applicant shall install a sidewalk separated by a landscaped parkway extending the project length of Rancho Parkway and Camino Mercado. The location and design of said sidewalk and parkway shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ". ,'t.". ,r 10 issuance of building permits, a revised circulation plan shall be submitted showing -.' lite \. 1<::JI ion for a transit turnout. It shall be located on a street frontage or in the project parking lot. the location and design shall be subject to review and approval of tile Community Development Director; after review and recommendation by the Director of SCAT and SLRTA. At least 26 parking spaces shall be designated and signed as a park and ride lot. Bicycle racks shall be installed at the equivalent of three (3) percent of the total amount of parking spaces. 39. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management program to reduce single-occupant car transportation, to be approved by the Community Development Department Director. P ARKS AND RECREATION DEP ARTMENT CONDITIONS r , These features shall be reflected on a revised site plan subject to review and approval of the Parks ! and Recreation Director and Community Development Director. , \ ~ Landscaping: 40. The developer shall pay the current street tree planting fee/deposit. One 15 gallon size or PD Ordinance Case No. 96-00 I; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 r Page 9 t (b) No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree. (c) No grading shall occur under a trees drip line, unless approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. (d) A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of8' from the trunk of each tree. 45. All trees to be pnmed, shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Agricultural Pruning Standards. Special Conditions: 46. The method of maintenance of detention basin shall be included on the plans (developer is responsible for installation, operation, planting and maintenance of all landscaped areas, private or public property). 47. Developer shall provide design details (or vendor specifications) for all streetscape items (planters, waste containers, benches, bicycle racks etc.) with first building permit applications. 48. A deposit shall be required to cover the installation of irrigation, landscaping, and plant materials (relocation) based upon the estimate of costs to be paid for and provided by the developer. See condition 26. 49. Parking lot design shall include provisions for oversized, recreational vehicle parking spaces; location and design shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks and Recreation Director. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 50. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for first building, the applicant shall post handicapped parking, per Police Department requirements. -' 51. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for each building, the developer shall install a burglary (or robbery) alarm system per Police Department guidelines, and pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee of ($30.00). PD Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 Page 11 60. Prior to issuance of first grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-<:onfomUng items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. Security Key Box: 61. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building, applicant must provide approved "security key vault" per Building and Fire Department guidelines. Fire Sprinkler: 62. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. Opticom Device: 63. An opticom traffic signal pre-emption device shall be installed that meets Building and Fire Department requirements, where traffic signals are installed. Demolition PermitlRetaining Walls: 64. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued for Sizzler relocation. 65. Separate permits must be obtained for retaining walls. Fire Flow: 66. Project shall have a fire flow of2,000 gpm for a duration of 4 hours. Other Permits: 67. Prior to issuance of a building permit, County Health Department approval is required for all back flow prevention devices and restaurants. Compaction Test: 68. Prior to concrete pour inspection, compaction tests are required for all footings. PD Ordinance Case No. 96-00 I; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9,1996 Page 13 Grading: 77. All grading shall be done in conformance with Grading Ordinance 303 C.S. Improvements: 78. All public improvements shall be designed in accordance with City specifications and standards, including the following: a. Street plan and profile: b. Drainage ditches, culverts, and other structures (if drainage calculation require): c. Water plan: d. Sewer plan: e. Grading and erosion control plan for subdivision related improvements: f. Provide necessary easements to all water and sewer mains and storm drains. 79. Prior to approval of grading and improvement plans, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of said improvements. Water: 80. Fire hydrants shall be instal1ed at minimum of intervals along all public streets and on site subject to approval of the Fire Chief. Sewer: 8l. The subdivider shall install sewer laterals to each buildable lot shown on the tentative map at it size appropriate for proposed use. The minimum size shall be calculated and submitted to the Public Works Director for approval. 82. Abandonment of existing sewer and drainage easement shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of the subdivision map act. 83. The applicant is in the process of revising the Preliminary Plans for water, sewer and storm drains. The revised Plans shall be subject tot he approval of the Public Works Director. 84. City will not take maintenance of on-site storm drains installed by this project PD Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, rnc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 Page 15 Comments trom the utilities regarding required easements, transformer locations, etc. shaIl be forwarded to Public Works Department for review and approval. EasementsIDedications: 94. A Public Utility, Cable TV, and Telephone easement shall be dedicated in a size and location approved by the Public Works Dept. All public utility easements shaIl be shown on the map. 95. The applicant shall dedicate pedestrian access and traffic control device easements at all signal controlled intersections. The easement shall foIlow the Public Utility Easement, as applicable, from curb return to curb return. 96. Retarding basins shaIl be dedicated on the final map as drainage easements, common to all lots within Tract 2220 and areas tributary outside of Tract 2220. 97. All easements to be abandoned by the map (Government Code Section 66499.20) shall be clearly identified as such with City-approved notation on the tentative and final map. Soil Testing: 98. Prior to approval of tract map, a preliminary soils report, prepared by a civil engineer registered in this state, and based UpOTl adequate test borings, shall be required and submitted to Public Works DepartmeTlt to comply with Government Code 66490 (SubdivisioTl Map Act). . 99. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, a soil analysis will be required for the determination of street structural sections. Fees: 100. Applicants shall pay engineering fees, per Resolution 2470. Bonds/Surety: 101. Faithful Performance - 100% of the approved estimated cost of all public improvements. 102. Labor & Materials - 50% of the approved cost estimate. PO Ordinance Case No. 96-00L; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and PLanned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center JuLy 9,1996 Page L 7 Public Works Department for checking and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The following items shaJl be incorporated and labeled as proposed or existing, on the site/utility plan before resubmittal: a. Location & sizes of public water, sewer & storm drainage facilities in abutting street/aJleys. b. Location, quantity & sizes of all proposed/existing sewer & water laterals. c. Location, quantity & orientation of trash enclosures. d. Show all parcel lines and easements crossing the project site. e. Show the locations and dimensions of all existing driveways and sidewalk. f. Location of street lights, utility poles, guy wires, telephone facilities, gas lines and so forth. 112. All work performed within the State Highway 101 right-of-way requires an encroachment permit issued by California Department of Transportation. A note to this effect shall appear on the plans as applicable. ]]3. Reciprocal access, utility and drainage easements may be required for the subject project prior to issuance of building permits. (The specific easements needed cannot be determined at this time with the information submitted.) 114. InstaJlation of Public Improvements by developer: a. The developer shaJl install a handicap ramp on all curb returns at street intersections. Water: 115. Backflow prevention devices shall be installed by the applicant on all water services as required by the Water Superintendent, County health officer or their representatives as necessary for the safety of the water system. Examples of the types of uses requiring backflow prevention include medical uses, landscape services, on-site plumbing which incorporates pumps, etc. If in doubt, contact the City Water Superintendent for PD Ordinance Case No. 96-001; Conditional Use Permit Case No. 96-541 (Specific Development Plan); Tentative Tract Map No. 2220; and Planned Sign Program GenCom, Inc. - Grande Plaza Shopping Center July 9, 1996 Page 19 127. This project shall be subject to all mitigation measures in the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #96011063), which are incorporated herein by this reference. Minor changes in the implementation of said measures may be approved by the discretion of the Community Development Director if in the Director's opinion such changes do not substantially affect the intent of said mitigation measures. , 128. Developer shall provide a pedestrian crossing connecting the east and west portions of the project on Rancho Parkway, and it shall have special pavement treatment and signage, design shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director. 129. Pedestrian walkways between the theater and larger retail stores shall not be integral with the roadway, to the extent practical. 130. Food service uses shall be permitted along both sides of the corridor between the theater and larger retail stores; size and location shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 131. A community performing arts theater shall be a permitted use in this project. 132. Major entry signs at West Branch shall be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. 133. CCR'S shall include provisions for maintenance of the site and landscaping and procedure for pruning/eliminating trees that obstruct views, signage or parking lot lighting. 134. Approved uses shall include offices, supennarkets, and drive-through restaurants; however, the location of any supermarket shall be limited to that portion of the site west of Rancho Parkway and any drive-through restaurant shall be subject to "site plan review" and approval by the Community Development Director. 135. Minor changes to these conditions and mitigation measures may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided that in the Director's opinion, such changes do not significantly alter the intent of said conditions or mitigations. -------. ------------- ~----_._-- 6. The subdivision and improvements do not alter public roads or right-of-ways or other public access easements, except to actually widen them in some places to afford better public access in this area. 7. Sewer impacts are discussed in the EIR which found that sewer system can accommodate the proj ect and, therefore, no violations of the water code should result. 8. The EIR specifically analyzes public services and facilities and finds them adequate for the project. .Planned Sign Program: 1-2. The conditions of approval require design guidelines for the entire project; signs will be reviewed for consistency with these guidelines. The proposed entry signs do exceed usual height standards, and depending on the final design, may also exceed usual area standards; but signs larger or taller than these standards may be permitted through the PD. In this case, the large size of the project, its large site and its orientation away from any residential areas and toward the freeway, warrant some relaxation of the usual standards. That notwithstanding the conditions of approval set maximum height and area limits for these signs deemed appropriate for the scale and location of the project. 3. The location of the main project signs has been moved to the West Branch Street entry, away from all residential areas; no impacts on the surrounding area are expected. The location of the signs will be set back from comers and rights-of-way to avoid any significant safety risks. 2 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. 3553 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-001, APPLIED FOR BY AGRA, LLC, LOCATED AT FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II (RANCHO PARKWAY AND WEST BRANCH STREET) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered an application for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 96-541, filed by AGRA, LLC, for a modification to the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on this application in accordance with the law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 of State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the Rancho Grande Planned Development (PD 1.2) pursuant to Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code, and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development pOlicies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed because all the necessary easements, circulation, parking and setbacks would be provided. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure the public health and safety. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts. RESOLUTION NO. 3553 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-001, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Council Member Lubin, seconded by Council Member Ferrara, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lubin, Ferrara, Dickens, and Mayor Lady NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Runels the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 25th day of September, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. 3553 PAGE 3 MICHAELA. ~{~ ATTEST: ORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR! DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ST&~" c(,.y MANAGE~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: RESOLUTION NO. 3553 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01- 001 AGRA, LLC FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFNT DEPARTMFNT This Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 96-541 authorizes modifications to the approved site plan as follows: a. Change the land use designation of Building L from restaurant to commercial retail; b. Rotate and move Building L to be parallel with Rancho Parkway and approximately forty (40') feet closer to West Branch Street; c. Allow 4,095 square feet of restaurant space in building J; d. Allow outdoor patio seating areas for Building M, and between Buildings J and K; and e. Decrease the size of Building M from 6,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet. GFNFRAI CONDITIONS 1. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 96-541 shall remain in full force and effect as indicated in City Council Resolution 3157 approved on July 9, 1996 included herein as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof. 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for this Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-001. 4. This application shall automatically expire on September 25, 2003 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 5. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of September 25, 2001 and attached hereto as Exhibit "C". All related site improvement plans shall be revised to be consistent with the amended site plan. 6. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the altemative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the RESOLUTION NO. 3553 PAGE 5 City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attomey's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. SPFCIAl CONDITIONS 7. Prior to issuance of building permit for Buildings Land M, the applicant shall submit revised building elevations for review and approval by the Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. 8. The seating capacity between Buildings K and J shall be limited to 28 persons, and the patio area for Building M shall be limited to 400 square feet. 9. The screen fencing and landscaping on the bank adjoining St. Patrick's School and the project site shall be completed per the approved landscape plan, as amended per Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-1698 attached hereto as Exhibit "D", prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings Land M, site improvement plans pertaining' to parking and landscaping for Buildings Land M shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and Parks and Recreation Department. PIIRLlC WORKS DEPARTMFNT 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Building Land M, revised site improvement plans pertaining to the locations for Buildings Land M, including grading and utility plans, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Public Works Director and the cQmmunity Development Director. RESOLUTION NO. 3553 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that Resolution No. 3553 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 25th day of September, 2001. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 28th day of September, 2001. !IVL-- TM RE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES! DEPUTY CITY CLERK .. .~ '" ., I ' , , : ; , " I, :-' ! " ! , I , I EXH'BlT D , - , ! Q\ ; I I ; <:: \ I <:: I ! : \ ! i ~ , , 0 , ; , 1 - \ I \ \ - - - -." / _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _'~w,'./ f ~-O' - -- (') . ._~'o~. o ,- ~ $; ; ~O ! :II ~. ...,0-""'_ ~ -< 'J'-' z m " -, ~-< ,"\"1J ., "= 0 CJ >.'-"> ~ II> (fJ ::2" fT1 bYi 0' a., :-I o~ n .... !< , ,~' mOD _ '!." .- , ~ a. <:0 _ mOl. w :5 "S! = . ~ ,,"" ,r.A ' 00 ~ :;:: . a;'" " ,0 · ~~ = <, ~ "w 8"- < m~ = ~ ' ",'" i < '-. )> _ 1.1 , II> '-n I ,,~ (fJ I ,~ P> ~:z ~ - ' ,," ,,- -{ '!- " ~ .~ . ' I: rn ~ j" v ,o~" - " ~." ," ' ,.,m I' . '..1 a: u 'C'" ..,,41~' . 0;> I --"<-........ ClCIpu' 'I' -"- . ~1t 1 'n',C~ Z >-"cO" .... _." ",1,' llll' () --~ ""'c. -^. ""'P'~y ri --- , ~ y _, >' if "'OZ" .." ~~ "'~ ' ~ ': _, ,.' 0' .".,,!t ~ ~ 0 ~." ~ ~'~19 ." ~ "'~ II'''"' ,,,. · . ,. ,1'" 00 ,- , < '" >, " ' , . __" _ 00 . 0 " <- _o~ ,"n"..!P"'..J ~'(")~\~ ID"'~ ~i ~ o.e:h~ ,;;1 ~€.. ~~~J~ 3'.-;" ;-., Z~n() <,_,.... 2.f 2 . .,~ ~ ~, 0"<;- j 1,,-- ~.JI -1"_' Z u OO'~Jt trt .~. ~ ~r-*--~ ~. 0 '&'~ 3 ~~:;- < ;0 'J' " I oeZ '1' ~ ~ - if ~:D ~<'; 7 II> H;j ~ 1 . y .' () y ._ n. ... CD ~ . ..,"" ~ ' "y,,;j; >~"I ," . ," "..... < "".m ",1' ".' ~..' . 'P' ,0 ..." , ,.", . , ",. y ~ ,0_ i ...., i i- ~ g ~!!! It Ii: g;;:: t>;;:: _.~. .!!.;. 6.' 9 ! ;:; P: ~ ~ "t/'JI , c ~ c ,. ~ ,.... ..... .' . ,,,'" , "." " "" ,0 ,'" · ".., " " . ,,,., '~: co''', ." ' ""m," ' ' ,."., >>" ,o'''' " .' , . C . '" ....' · I'" (')1 .I {, 1 . . O~~ A I . , ,,' ,,, .... ,. .,.. . " " ... ...,.. .. , . h--- ... ...... " · ',' . .. ,. , . ..... '" . '0" ' ,. Q," .. ."... . . II SITE ~l~'i.TUR"L H'GH~':" CITIES CENTER i: ;. N:::: ~ ~ i ~II" i .._ ' 0lIl 'RROYO GRANO PARKWAY """'"'" '----- SITE DEVE DE FEAL EST ~ 'OP.......O".. ~~~..:' 1111111 ~adel M LCi;' MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 PAGE 2 The P ning Commission concluded that the Lot Line Adjustment met all the required conditions d the Variance met all of the findings. r moved that the Plannin Commission ado t: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1807 A RESOLUTI OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING CO ISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE . 01-005 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 01-003 FOR FOUR LOTS, LOCATED ON PASEO AND MCKINLEY STREETS, LIED FOR BY HANS AND LORENE VANDERVEEN Includin Exhibit 'A'. Commissioner Brown The motion was approved bv the followinq roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE Yes Commissioner Brown Yes Commissioner Fowler Yes Commissioner Guthrie Yes Commissioner Keen Yes Chair Costello III. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF BUILDINGS 'L' AND 'M'; APPLICANT - NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC; LOCATION - FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, read the staff report. Ms. Heffernon said that on September 25, 2001, the City Council approved amendments to the original Conditional Use Permit for the Five Cities Center, with the condition that the architectural elevations for buildings "L" & "M" be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). the Planning Commission, and City Council. The ARC reviewed the elevations on October 29, 2001 and recommended that minor corrections be made to the elevations, and a letter outlining the differences between the proposed buildings and the existing buildings in the Five Cities Center, be submitted to the City. The ARC further requested that prior to issuing a building permit, the applicant should bring the following details back to the Commission: . Submit color and placement details for the accent tiles of both buildings. . Show material samples of the wood sash windows and the door of Building 'M'. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 PAGE 3 . Show screening detail for the patio on the north and west elevations of Building 'M', . Show the location of the electrical service room on the site plan for both buildings. The combined patio area currently exceeds the 400 square feet maximum by approximately 675 square feet. The plans will have to be modified to show a patio area no larger than 400 square feet before any building permit can be issued. Commissioner Brown had concerns regarding the 600 square feet of patio area, the view from Via Vacquero, and the trash enclosures. Commissioner Guthrie asked for a clarification on the procedure if the applicant wanted to have 1000 square feet of patio area, and for a clarification on the amount of tables for the patios. Ms. Heffernon said they would have to modify the Conditions of Approval for the CUP and these changes could be made before going to City Council, or before a building permit was issued. There will be a total of 15 tables for all the patio area including building 'M' and the area between buildings "J" & "K", based on 4 people per table. Commissioner Keen commented that the trash container would fit better over by Trader Joe's and not look good in front of the building. He referred to the Starbucks trash container as an example located across the parking lot away from their building. Chair Costello said Trader Joe's may object to having the trash container outside their door. Commissioner Brown asked about the reduction in parking spaces. Ms. Heffernon said that overall there has been a reduction in restaurant use, which has a higher parking requirement, so the parking situation has actually improved. Chair Costello said that the staff report summarized that the required parking is 340 spaces, and project provides 348 spaces. Mike Leberman, representative Nadel Architects: . There will be 400 square feet of patio area- the west side will be a small area, attached to the bar area used for gathering and the tables will be on the north east corner. . The grease generated from the restaurant has to be tied to the grease interceptor (required by the health code!. so the trash enclosure has to be close to the building. We will make the trash enclosure esthetically pleasing with the architecture of the building, keep it away from the entry door and it will be fully screened. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 PAGE 4 Commissioner Guthrie commented that the area shown as the standing bar area is where the ocean view is and that is where people will collect and therefore should be calculated into the seating. Michael DePaulo, architect, said that this area had been shown as a gathering area, but he would like to consider this as a seating area if it would not hold up the project. Commissioner Guthrie: . Asked for further clarification on the parking. . Are the roof peaks, shown on the elevations, taller than the tower elements? . Looking from Via Vacquero would the parapet walls screen the roof equipment? . Will building 'M' block Trader Joe's sign from the freeway? Mr. DePaulo replied: . There is about 40 parking spaces not shown as developed at this time. . The tower elements are about 1 foot 6 inches higher than the roof peaks. . The parapet walls will screen the roof equipment looking down from the north elevation. . It is not known if the Trader Joe's sign will be blocked by building 'M'. Commissioner Keen: . It would be a good idea to have the seating area where the gathering area is to take advantage of the ocean view. . Asked about the placement of signage for the buildings both from the entry and the street sides of the building. The Planning Commission further discussed how the additional patio area might be included in the project. The Planning Commission made two motions: 1. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion to recommend to Citv Council approval of the architectural renderinQs as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. With the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE Yes Commissioner Brown Yes Commissioner Fowler Yes Commissioner Guthrie Yes Commissioner Keen Yes Chair Costello 2. Commissioner Guthrie made a motion to recommend that Citv Council review the Conditional Use Permit for this proiect to make complete use of the entire 1100 square feet of patio pictured in the drawinQs. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6,2001 PAGE 5 With the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE Yes Commissioner Brown Yes Commissioner Fowler Yes Commissioner Guthrie Yes Commissioner Keen Yes Chair Costello TELECOMMUNICATION SITING GUIDELINES AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Ms. Heffernon said that on September 27, 2001 the Architectural Review Committee and Planm Commission held a special joint meeting to discuss issues regarding the siting of wireless elecommunication facilities. After reviewing industry expert's presentations and follow-up, 'scussions by the ARC and Planning Commission staff was directed to develop the Telecom nication Siting Guidelines. The ARC reviewe on October 29, 2001 and recommended that language be added r arding the visual impacts of co-location, and the option to require physical samples of faci materials and/or a three-dimensional model if deemed appropriate. Commissioner Keen: . Requiring a 3-dimensional m del would not be necessary and put too much of a burden on an applicant. Trying to ge model, in scale, to look at the visual impact over the large area that we need to look a ill not achieve this. . Recommended language added that t the conclusion of a lease agreement equipment should be removed from a site. Ms. Heffernon said concerning the latter st ement, this will be provided for in the Conditions of Approval. After a further discussion and question period, the Pia ing Commission recommended the following amendments be made to the Guidelines: 1. Add stronger language under A. General to restrict the telecommunication facilities on ridgelines. 2. Add a statement regarding co-location under A. General Gui 3. Under E. Visual Impact Information, revise the fourth bullet t "multiple vantage points" instead of "each" vantage point." 4. Require the applicant to describe whether the proposed facility is a or "capacity" site. Notes ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT ARC Meeting December 3, 2001 Page 2 C. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 01-011- APPLICANT - NADEL ARCHITECTS; LOCATION - BUILDING "M' FIVE CITIES CENTER, PHASE II Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner said the applicant has submitted revised plans for building "M" that identify additional windows by the entry tower (shown on the east and north elevations) and the use of precast columns for the trellis instead of wood. Per the ARC's recommended condition of approval for building "M", the electrical equipment is now shown as being enclosed. The ARC noted that the applicant had added the glass patio enclosure with the low wall that they had suggested at a previous meeting. Ms. Heffernon informed the ARC that the windows by the tower are real, but pointed out some windows that were fake. It had been decided to leave them in but make them fake to provide balance. Melanie Hodges asked about the tile detail that was supposed to be shown on the color renditions as it was still not clear what colors were going to be used. Chet Kielan said the applicant had also not yet provided a sample of the wood sash as requested by the Committee. Ms. Heffernon said both the colors and the wood sample would be a condition of approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Warren Hoag said he understood the applicant would be coming back for the signage, but he wanted to comment that the signage they are showing on the plans (dark letters mounted on the stucco, not lit, probably iron), looks classy. Chet Kielan said he thought the signage was a very nice asset to the corner. Warren Hoag said the signage looks classy and more upscale than the rest of the center, but said it should because of its location and the fact that this is an upscale restaurant. The other Committee members agreed with this comment. A motion was made by Committee Member Ohler, seconded by Committee Member Kielan to approve the project as submitted with the condition that the following items be submitted to the ARC before a building permit is issued: Notes ARC Meeting December 3, 2001 Page 3 1. A sample of the wood sash. 2. Clarification of the proposed colors for the decorative tiles. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2002. Chet Kielan would not be able to attend the next meeting as he will be on vacation. A TT ACHMENT 3 NOTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ARC) MONDAY. OCTOBER 29. 2001 The meeting of the City of Arroyo Grande Architectural Review Committee was called to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present were Committee members Warren Hoag, Chair. Chet Kielan, Vice Chair, Chuck Fellows. and Melanie Hodges. Member Jamie Ohler was absent. Also present were staff members Kerry McCants, Kelly Heffernon. Lyn Reardon-Smith. and lain Haworth. APPROVAL OF NOTES: Notes of October 1. 2001 were approved as written. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. II. PROJECTS: A. Review of Architectural Elevations for Buildings "L" and "M" at the Five Cities Center. Phase II Kellv Heffernon, Associate Planner. presented the application saying there was an amendment to the original CUP to change the allowable use of building J and made some changes to the location and sizes of buildings Land M. Building L is proposed to be an investment firm, and building M is changed to be a restaurant. The applicant has color boards and material board of the proposed architecture for the two buildings. Architect. Noel Anasco stated that with regard to the roof tiles and stucco finish. the buildings are to match the existing architecture of the other buildings in the Five Cities Center. In addition, on Pad 'L' they have enhanced the building with terra-cotta color. There will be no signage on the awnings for Building 'L'. The architectural style for Pad 'M' is Spanish Mission with a rustic wood trellis over the patio area. There is an entry tower for the restaurant building. There are built up columns on the building wall to give some depth, with a ceramic tile wainscot to match the other buildings in the center. On the restaurant there will also be wood frame windows in place of aluminum to upgrade the look. The signage for the two buildings will be submitted at a later date for ARC review and approval. Kerry McCants- . It would be advisable to bring a clear. detailed list of information regarding the difference between the proposed and existing buildings in the Five Cities Center when you present this project to the Planning Commission. Committee Comments and Questions: Chet Kielan - . Where is the trash enclosure? Notes ARC Meeting October 29, 2001 Page 2 Chuck Fellows - 0 Conceptually I like the buildings, but more detailed renderings may need to be brought back to the ARC. 0 On the north elevation the tile roof element is missing. 0 Are the awnings going to be stretched taut over the frame for Building 'L'? Melanie Hodges - 0 There is no detail on the renderings to clearly indicate how the color combinations will be used on the buildings. 0 The ARC will need to see a sample of the tile patterns. 0 Liked the concept and thought it had distinctive quality. 0 For the restaurant building on the west elevation, the patio area may need a low planter wall to block the wind. 0 The awnings are in fitting with the Five Cities Center and particularly on the more formal financial institute. Warren Hoag - 0 Will the tiles be on the restaurant building? 0 On the south elevation roof peak only outlined in, will it be finished off? 0 Where will the signage be on the restaurant? The south elevation will not lend itself to a wall sign. Will you be having a freestanding sign? He would not like anything to extend above the horizontal building. 0 How will you screen the roof top equipment on both buildings? It is preferable to screen with the existing features and not with any special screening structures if possible. The view from Via Vaquero (above the buildings) should be checked out. 0 He liked the Colonial Spanish style on the restaurant building. 0 The patio for the restaurant may need to have glass or acrylic screens to protect it from the wind. 0 On the south elevations the view of sides of tile roof elements, from the west and east elevations, looks narrow; without a two-dimensional model it is hard to tell. The ARC had an extended discussion on the tile roof element; Chet Kielan stated that if the columns are made wider the bearing walls would need to be changed. The Architect - 0 There will be tiles on the restaurant building. 0 The outline of the roof peak on the rendering will be filled in. 0 On the peak of the roof there will be till on all four sides. 0 The signage on the restaurant would have to be confirmed with the tenant. . The parapets will be adjusted to hide roof-mounted equipment. 0 Burgundy color will be used for the awnings on Building 'L'. Chet Kielan - 0 He would like to see a sample of the wood sash. Notes ARC Meeting October 29, 2001 Page 3 Kerry McCants- . The electrical boxes would have to be located in a service room inside the building. A motion was made bv Melonie HodQes, seconded bv Chuck Fellows, to recommend approval of Architectural Review Case No. 01-011 as submitted with the followinQ conditions satisfied before a buildinQ permit is issued: 1. Show tile detail- color and placement. 2. Show a sample of the wood sash windows and the door of the restaurant building. 3. Show screening detail for the patio on the north and west elevations. 4. Show the electrical service room. 5. Add the missing roof drawing on the north elevation. 6. Correct the slope on the south elevation. The motion was passed with a unanimous voice vote. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department, Proposed Ie communications Siting Guidelines and Permit Submittal Requirements Kelly fernon said there was a joint workshop on September 27, 2001 to discuss these facilities. o date we have only approved three telecommunication facilities and we have several proje waiting to go through the public review process. Chuck Fellows- . How do these 'delines compare to other City's guidelines? . In Oregon he ha een towers everywhere on top of the mountains and these guidelines do try to k these below the ridgelines. Kelly Heffernon- . We purposely stayed away fro rigid guidelines that can tie you down and not give room for creativity. All jurisdictio appear to encourage co-location, and we do not necessarily want this if they are goin Warren Hoag- . Thought the guidelines would have an ordinance. . Suggested adding language on page 4, under heading -Location Information, to add wording that states "while the City encourages co-Io tion there should be an evaluation as to whether it will result in a lesser visual impact an multiple towers." . Section E, Visual Impact Information, add language to the effect at will give staff the discretion to determine if it is necessary to submit a 3-dimensional the project. Melanie Hodges- . Add language saying that "use of artificial vegetation, match the actual surroundings as much as possible." ATTACHMENT 4 3080 Bristot Si October 30, 2001 SUite 500 7 I Costa Mesa I C,liiorni,92626 714.540.5000 FAX 755.3013 Nadel Ms. Kelly Heffernon CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Architects Inc Community Development Department Herbert Nadel, Architect, FAIA 214 E. Branch Street Architecture Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Planning Interiors Re: Exterior Materials Review Pads Land M Building Five Cities Center Arroyo Grande, California NADEL #: 0117S.00 Dear Kelly: Pursuant to your request, the following items are the list of exterior finish materials for Pads Land M Building in comparison to the existing shopping center finishes. . ITEM PADL PADM SHOPPING CENTER Stucco Stucco Stucco Field Color: Off-White Walls Field Color: Off-White Accent Color: Tan & Field Color: Off-White Accent Color: Tan & Beige Beige Accent Color: Tan Mission Clay Tile Mission Clay Tile Mission Clay Tile Roof Color: EI Camino & Color: EI Camino & Mallorca Blend Mallorca Blend Color: EI Camino Blend Wood Frame Doors & Storefront Dark Bronze Windows Dark Bronze Anodized Aluminum Stain Color: Dark Anodized Aluminum Brown Awning Fabric by Sunbrella None None Color: Burgundy Wood Trellis None Stain Color: Dark None Brown Tile Wainscot @ Slate Tile None Slate Tile Canopy Columns Color: Red to match center Accent Tile with Glaze Tile by Summitville Glaze Tile by Summitville Stucco Frame Color: Red, Green Gold Color: Red, Green Gold None Surround and Blue and Blue Exterior Materials Review Pads Land M Building, Five Cities Center, Arroyo Grande, California NADEL #: 0117S.00 October 30, 2001 Page 2 I hope this information should help you clarify your concern on the exterior materials used for the Pads Land M building with the rest of the shopping center building. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC. Noe nasco Project Manager cc: i , J i I I ATTACHMENT 5 I I i , I , I , I oi'L , H. , ~ " - ~~ i " ~m 0 ~~ , r ~~ 0 , ;0 I "' ~m ; po ~m ;: I ~ -r ~!ii , m em " ! ;0 .~ ~~ I '> ~ ~ r "' i ~ I::, , I Z Z I , , i -@ I I ; I I , , I i "U )> o oi'J\ oi'Z ~I::, ,,~ OJ ~~ ~~ -I ~ ~I: c'm ,<m !...\ -~~ 1-\ qm r~ ~ O~ '-\ is - z Z G) ~, - - s: - - )-'&! I"""''""'' FIVE CITIES CENTER INVESTEC fff .p, . , ARCHITECTURAL HIGHWAY 101 & RANCHO PARKWAY 200 E. CARRILLO ST. STE 200 , . Nadel ... ELEVATIONS ARROVO GRANDE SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 \ I ~ N SHOP BUilDING. PAD L (805)-962-8989 ! ! t, : ,_~, ;\".""., 0::: W ATTACHMENT 6 2. r- FABRiC AWNING 4631-BURGUNDY BY SUNBRELLA Z W 0 3. C/) FABRIC AWNIN~ 4622- TERRACDTA 1. BY SUNBRELLA W '. r- .' . . '.....:-- -, 5. 0 .- . .-'." , .' " I~-' - - . :.,....". . ,-. ~ ", ~. "'~ .. it: .-. . , . . . '. ~ " "I -. ,,::", ..- " W I.:", :~~~ : ..: "'.. - .-, .-~" , I~~ - . . '."....--. -",.' - " > .... ,-..... .- -- 4. ,,' '. . . OOERtOR CEMENT PlASTER 20/30 SAND FINISH LL .......' 9. RED SLATE TlLETO MATCH 4x4 DESIGNER GlAZE 878 EXISTING CENTER. COBALT.8Y SUMMIlVILLE 15. I I l____.~_~____ WOOD STAIN TO MATCH OOERIOR CEMENT PlASTER/PAINTED # 725 BY OLYMPIC STAiN 390 'EL PASO PEACH' ICI (PAD M) I "L I I I I 11.1 OOERIOR CEMENT PlASTERipAlNtED OOERiOR CEMENT PlASTER/PAiNTED 2003 'CIELO BLANCO' BY ICI 2002 'BONE WHiTE RM' BY ICI (PAD L) -- ----- 10. "j J 13. DARK BRONZE ANODIZED OOERiOR CEMENT PlASTER OOERIOR CEMENT PlASTER ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 547 'ClASSIC IVORY" 8Y ICI 539 'LEGEND TAN' 8Y ICI HIGHWAY 101 & RANCHO PARKWAY, ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA AGRA FIVE C/TIES LLC Nadel 200 E. CARRillO ST. STE ~oo Architects Inc. SANTA BARBARA'9 CA 93101 """"" ""'*' ...... (805)-962-8 89 _HiIIISL~5aO,c.k_~t2121 (fl...... 01178.00 OCTOBER 1, 2001 9.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will hold a Public Hearing on the following project: CASE NO. Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 APPLICANT: Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. LOCATION: 597 Camino Mercado PROPOSAL: Construction of a 60-unit senior apartment complex and a 3,000 square foot recreation center. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration REPRESENTATIVE: Steven Puglisi, AlA The City Council will consider a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 60-unit senior apartment complex and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Department has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the above project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review at the Community Development Department, City of Arroyo Grande. If the City Council does not feel that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate, project approval will not be considered. Any person affected or concemed by ihis application may submit written comments to the Community Development Department before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing. Any person interested in the proposals can contact the Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.). If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, Califomia 93420 Kelly etmo , Administrative Services Directorl Deputy City Clerk Publish H, Friday, November 30, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG ~S COMMUNITY DEVEL PMENT DIRECTOR BY: ~,~. KELLY HEFFERNON ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010 TO CONSTRUCT A 50-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AND 3,000 SQUARE FOOT SENIOR RECREATION CENTER; 579 CAMINO MERCADO; CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt a Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration, instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. Staff requests that Council review the attached Memorandum from Rob Strong to the City Council regarding financial assistance and fee waivers for affordable housing (Attachment 5) and provide direction. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered the proposed project on November 20, 2001. After discussing issues related to affordable housing, ADA compliance, parking, and traffic impacts, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council (reference Attachment 2 for Planning Commission meeting minutes). Staff has amended the conditions of approval relating to these issues per Planning Commission direction. Proiect Description The project site is located within the Professional Commercial District ("P_CH) of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) and is approximately four (4) acres in size. Surrounding the site is an approved office development to the west (currently under construction), single-family residences to the east, the Oak Park Professional Center to CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 2 the south, and designated open space property to the north between the project site and James Way. The PC District conditionally allows the development of apartment units, but does not stipulate density. The applicant proposes to construct forty (40) two-bedroom and twenty (20) one- bedroom apartments in six (6), two-story buildings having a California Craftsman architectural design. The apartments range in size from 828 square feet to 978 square feet. The age of tenants would be restricted to 55 and older, and twenty-five percent (25%) of the units would be reserved for those qualifying for moderate-income housing. The project also includes a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center that will be open to both the apartment tenants and the senior community as a whole. All facilities and access to the project site will be ADA compliant. A bus stop is also proposed in front of the property to facilitate mobility (reference Attachment 3 for Developer's Statement). Pre-Application Review The Planning Commission and City Council initially reviewed the proposed project as a Pre-Application on July 17, 2001 and August 14, 2001, respectively (reference Attachments 10 and 11 for meeting minutes). Discussion focused primarily on ADA compatibility, parking, traffic impacts, visual impacts and affordable housing. Staff Advisorv Committee The SAC reviewed the Conditional Use Permit on September 18, 2001 and discussed the following issues (reference Attachment 12 for meeting notes): . Adherence to ADA standards. . Access for emergency vehicles. . Fuel management of the back slope located adjacent to and north of the project site (Rancho Grande open space parcel). . Location of existing and proposed utilities. . Soils information. . Camino Mercado road improvements. . Traffic impacts and parking requirements. . Height of retaining walls (elevations). Architectural Review Committee: The ARC discussed the proposed project on October 1, 2001 and November 5, 2001 (reference Attachments 13 and 14 for meeting notes). The Committee was satisfied with the changes made to the plans regarding the accurate location of ADA ramps and showing the relationship of the senior center with the rest of the project. The Committee also stated that the three-dimensional scaled model greatly enhanced the ability to visualize the scale, height and density of the buildings on the project site. All comments were favorable and the ARC recommended approval to the Planning Commission with no specific conditions added. CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 3 DISCUSSION The proposed project is subject to both the Development Code standards for parking and landscaping, and to the specific standards outlined in the P-C District of PD 1.1. As shown in the table below, the project meets all relevant site development requirements except for off street parking, which is discussed further below. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PC District and Proposed Development Code Requirements Setbacks: Front 3 feet 100+ feet Sides 5 feet 20 feet Rear 1 0 feet 20 feet Max. Lot Coverage 70% 26% Max. Height 30 feet 30 feet Min. Off-Street Parking 150 spaces 141 spaces Landscaping 10% Approx. 46% Density n/a in the PC District 15 dwelling units per acre (25 DU's per gross acre in the Senior Housing District) BuildinQ Heiqht The Development Code allows a maximum building height in the P-C District of either two (2) stories or thirty feet (30'), whichever is less. Building height is defined as the vertical distance between the average finished grade and the highest point of the roof (excluding mechanical equipment, chimneys, etc.). The proposed project is within this height limit. Traffic Impacts Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (reference Attachment C of the Initial Study), the development is anticipated to generate 19 trips during the AM and PM peak hours, which is less than the 20-peak hour threshold of significance established by the City. The analysis concludes that the study intersections will not fall below an acceptable level of service with the added trips under the existing conditions. Under the future traffic conditions, however, the West Branch Street/Camino Mercado intersection is expected to degrade to a level of service F, and a signal is therefore warranted at this intersection. Similar to other recently approved projects adding trips to this intersection, recommended mitigation includes payment of the project's proportional share of the City's traffic transportation facilities and signalization fees. This includes installing a signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado at West Branch Street, subject to a reimbursement agreement with the City. CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11,2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 4 BioloaicallmDacts The biological survey previously prepared for the Horizon Senior Housing project identified three populations of Pismo Clarkia on the project site, a plant species federally listed as an endangered species and classified as a State Rare Plant. The applicant will be required to protect these plant populations. Approximately 12 mature Coast Live oak trees exist on the site. No oak trees will be removed as a result of this project, and the project is conditioned to implement tree protection measures during construction. Landscape materials selected for the natural and perimeter sloped areas of the site are predominantly native plant species and drought tolerant, and therefore compatible with the native oaks. Densitv The Professional Commercial District of PD 1.1 is silent with regard to density standards. The zoning district that most closely resembles the proposed land use is the Senior Housing Residential District (SR), which allows up to 25 units per acre when twenty-five percent (25%) of the units are reserved for low and moderate-income housing. Placing sixty (60) units on the 3.97-acre project site calculates to a density of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. Moderate Income Restriction Twenty-five (25%) of the units, or 15 units, would be restricted to moderate-income senior housing. A deed restriction would be recorded against each of these units to ensure that the rent remains at the moderate-income level. An independent agency, such as the San Luis Housing Authority, would review the facility records to verify compliance. These records would be submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande on an annual basis for review (reference Condition of Approval No. 14). The applicant submitted a letter of intent to apply for funding assistance from the City's in-lieu fund collected for affordable housing purposes to help offset infrastructure and City fees (Attachment 4). To date, the City has not implemented a formal process for utilizing this fund, which currently stands at $344,876. The RDA housing set-aside fund currently has a balance of $34,525. Because the project includes a senior recreation center, staff recommends the Council consider waiving the Recreation Community Center Impact Fee, which is estimated to be $3,985 (reference Attachment 6). The attached Memorandum from Rob Strong to City Council addresses the issue of City assistance and fee waivers for projects that include affordable housing (Attachment 5). Parkina The Development Code requires the following number of parking spaces for independent living-senior housing, including a 3,000 square foot senior center: CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Required Number of Proposed Number of Parking Spaces Parking Spaces 1 Bedroom (20 units): 1 covered space per unit (20 (Development Code Sec. 9- covered spaces) 12.060.1.f.) 2+ bedrooms (40 units): 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit (40 covered and 20 uncovered spaces) Visitor Parking: 0.5 uncovered space per unit (30 uncovered spaces) SUBTOTAL: 60 covered and 50 uncovered spaces (110 spaces) ........................ ........................ ...................... 3,000 square foot Senior 1 parking space per 50 Center (Development Code square feet of floor area Sec.9-12.060.2.b.) designed for public assembly (40 spaces, assuming 2,000 square feet is used for public assembly) ........................ ........................ ...................... TOTAL: 150 total parking spaces 141 total parking spaces (60 covered and 90 (96 covered and 44 uncovered) uncovered) As indicated in the above table, a total of 150 parking spaces are required per the Development Code for this project, and 141 are proposed. The Development Code allows up to a 30% reduction in the required number of parking spaces for common parking facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The reduction requires a parking study that shows how the shared uses (the residential units and the recreation center) have different hours of operation that do not conflict. The applicant is requesting an exception to the required number of parking spaces based on this provision and has submitted a parking study to justify the request (reference Attachment 15). Specifically, the analysis concludes that because of the various modes of transportation available to seniors at this location (walking, using Dial-A-Ride or taxi services, carpooling), the actual parking demand will be less than the parking requirements for these combined uses. CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. An initial study was prepared and based on this analysis, a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and noticed for public review. No comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration and a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the City Council to review. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the resolution; 2. Modify the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the resolution; 3. Take tentative action to deny the project application and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council action; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. If the Council selects alternative 3, staff will return with the appropriate resolution at a later meeting. Attachments: Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval Exhibits "81 - B5": Project Plans 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2001 3. Developer's Statement (July 11, 2001) 4. Letter from Applicant Regarding Fees (November 19, 2001) 5. Memo from Rob Strong to City Council Regarding Fee Waivers (December 11, 2001) 6. Memo from Daniel Hernandez to Rob Strong Regarding Park Development Fees (November 27,2001) 7. Letter from Applicant Regarding Conditions of Approval (November 26,2001) 8. Memo from Rodger Olds to Kelly Heffernon (November 30, 2001) 9. Letter of Support from Stephen Cool (November 15, 2001) 10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2001 (Pre-Application) 11. City Council Meeting Minutes of August 14, 2001 (Pre-Application) 12. Staff Advisory Committee Meeting Notes of September 18, 2001 13. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of October 1, 2001 14. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of November 5,2001 15. Parking Demand Analysis (dated 10/05/01) 16. Initial Study Attachment A: Soils Report (dated 10/04/01) Attachment B: APCD Referral Response (dated 11/01/01) Attachment C: Traffic Impact Analysis (dated 8/31/01) Attachment D: Biological Survey (dated 5/28/99) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010, LOCATED AT 579 CAMINO MERCADO, APPLIED FOR BY CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT,INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010, filed by Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. for construction of a 60-unit senior apartment complex and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this application in accordance with the City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the Professional Commercial (P-C) District of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) pursuant to Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code, and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed because all the necessary easements, circulation, parking and setbacks would be provided. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure the public health and safety. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts. Architectural Review Findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Architectural Review Guidelines for the City of Arroyo Grande. 2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. 3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project. 4. The general appearance of the proposed building is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because the size and design are consistent with other buildings in the vicinity. 5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City. 6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. ! Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption: 1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. 2. Based on the initial study, a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared for public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department 3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the record as a whole, the City Council adopts the mitigated negative declaration and finds that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this project. Further, the Council finds that said Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, instructs the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approves Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2001. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 MICHAEL A. LADY. MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR! DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS. CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01- 010 Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. 579 Camino Mercado COMMUN/TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS This approval authorizes the construction of a 60-unit senior apartment complex and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center. 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. 3. This application shall automatically expire on December 11, 2003 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expira~ion of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of December 11, 2001 and marked Exhibits "81 - 85". Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans, except as specifically modified by these conditions. 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. DEVELOPMENT CODE 6. Development shall conform to the Professional Commercial (P-C) zoning requirements of the Oak Parks Planned Development (PD 1.1) except as otherwise approved. 7. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Chapter 9-13. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 8. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans except as specifically modified by these conditions. NOISE 9. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. WATER 10. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. SOLID WASTE 11. Per Development Code Section 9-10.120(c), trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials, and shall be made of masonry or concrete with an exterior finish that complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall be large enough to accommodate recycling container(s). 12. Trash enclosures shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling container storage. Miscellaneous tires, auto parts, boxes, bins, racks, etc., will not be allowed within the enclosure. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 13. The development shall be restricted to senior citizens (ages 55 and older). 14. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the apartment units (or 15 units) shall be reserved for moderate-income seniors through a 30-year deed restriction recorded on each unit, or equivalent restrictive covenant. Annual reports shall be submitted to the City from an independent agency (such as the San Luis Housing Authority) verifying compliance to this restriction. 15. For paving proposed under the dripline of existing oak trees, only porous pavers shall be used to allow air and nutrient exchange to the root system. The pavers shall comply with the most current ADA standards. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 16. The Community Development Director shall approve plans for the trash enclosures. 17. The development plans shall comply with Development Code, Chapter 9-12, "Parking and Loading Requirements". RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 18. The applicant shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department or Building and Fire Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this inspection. 19. The applicant shall submit details of all proposed screening and retaining walls for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Any fence, wall, or combination thereof exceeding six (6) feet in height, but less than eight (8) feet, shall require a Minor Exception approved by the Community Development Director. 20. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. The plan shall be consistent with the requirements of Development Code Section 9-12.130, "Landscaping for Off Street Parking Facilities". The landscape plan shall include the following: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. No significant trees to be removed. d. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: 1. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; 2. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan; 3. An automated irrigation system. 4. Pampas grass shall be permanently removed from the project site. 5. No landscape materials shall be planted under the dripline of any existing oak tree. PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 21. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 9-10.070, "Fences, Walls and Hedges"; 9-10.080, "Lighting"; 9-10.110, "Performance Standards"; and 9-10.120 "Screening Requirements". 22. The developer shall provide mail receptacles for the units as required by the Postmaster of the Pismo Beach Post Office. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 23. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 PARKS AND RECREA TlON DEPARTMENT 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. 25. Linear root barriers shall be used at the front of the project to protect the sidewalks. 26. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box. POLICE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 27. The applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval. PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 28. The applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. 29. The applicant shall post handicapped parking,. per Police Department requirements. BUlLD/NG AND F/RE DEPARTMENT 30. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 31. The project shall have a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute for a duration of four hours. 32. The project shall be compliant with current state and federal disabled access laws (ADA). 33. The project shall comply with California State amended building codes. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 34. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. 35. The applicant shall obtain County Health Department approval for the kitchen in the Senior Recreation Center. 36. Any review costs generated by outside consultants, shall be paid by the applicant. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 37. Fire hydrants shall be installed per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. 38. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. Directional signage shall also be posted for emergency access to the buildings. 39. The applicant must provide an approved "security key vault" per Building and Fire Department guidelines. 40. The building must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. 41. The applicant shall install a Fire Department approved fire alarm system per National Fire Protection Association Standards. 42. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. 20, the applicant shall provide a Vegetation Management Plan for a portion of the open space property located adjacent to and north of the project site. The Plan shall include an area having a depth of 200' along the northem project boundary. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GENERAL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 43. Site Maintenance - The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning city streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site. The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Director of Public Works or the Community Development Director. 44. Encroachment Permit - The applicant. shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right of way. 45. Grading - All grading shall be done in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance. 46. Fees - The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are due. (For your information, the "Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions" is provided below). RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 PROCEDURE FOR PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR EXACTIONS: (A) Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by meeting both of the following requirements: (1 ) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition. (2) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of the following information: (a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or satisfied, under protest. (b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (A) shall be filed at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on a development project. (C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (A) may file an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice. (D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required. (E) The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 47. Improvements required - All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications, except as may be modified by these conditions of approval. The following improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control. b. Curb, gutter and sidewalk. c. Public utilities. d. Water and sewer. e. Traffic signal and street improvement for the intersection at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. f. Signing and striping plan for the intersection at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. 48. Site Plan Requirements - The site plan shall include the following: a. The location and size of all water, sewer and storm water facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. b. Location, quantity and size of all sewer laterals. c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. d. All parcel lines and easements related to the property. e. The location and dimension of all paved areas. f. The location of all public or private utilities. g. The location of all existing improvements such as retaining walls. 49. Traffic signal design - Prior to issuing a building permit, all plans related to the traffic signal at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street shall be completed, and approval by the City and Caltrans shall be obtained. 50. Fee reimbursement - The developer shall implement the design and installation of the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street signalization improvements as described in these conditions. The City will reimburse the developer for the design and construction costs for the signalization improvements to the extent that such costs exceed the developer's responsibility to pay for traffic signalization fees. The improvements that are included in the reimbursement are the signal installation, related signage and striping, and island modification. 51. Reimbursement Agreement - Prior to signal plan approval, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. Reimbursement agreement shall include the amount and timing of reimbursement. 52. Water Storage - Consistent with Mitigation Measure No.3, the applicant shall pay a water storage fee for fair share of costs of projects identified in the water RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 12 master plan. Based on previous calculations, the fair share would be $2,625 per Equivalent Residential Unit water usage. 53. Drainage design - All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. 54. Parking lot design - The cross slope on parking lot driving lanes shall not exceed 5 percent. 55. Entrance design - The driveway entrance shall be designed with curb returns having a minimum radius of 15 feet. 56. Improvement agreement - Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 57. Soils report - A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 58. Adjacent structures - The grading plan design shall include measures to protect the adjacent structures from damage due to the construction. 59. Landscape approvals - Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments. 60. Utility company review - All public improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 61. Plan submittals - Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a reproducible mylar set and 3 sets of prints of the improvements for inspection purposes. Prior to acceptance of the improvements, the applicant shall provide reproducible mylars, and 2 sets of prints of the approved record drawings (as builts). 62. Recorded documents - All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8Y:!' x 11" City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing fees. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 13 PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 63. Water Neutralization Program - Consistent with Mitigation Measure No.2, The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation; or, Pay an in lieu fee of $2,200 per Equivalent Residential Unit water usage. 64. Street widening - Camino Mercado shall be widened along the property frontage. The widening shall provide a width 22 feet from centerline to the curb (matching the existing curb to the east). The pavement structural section shall be based on a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0. 65. Intersection signalization - A traffic signal at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street shall be installed and operational. 66. Curb and sidewalk - A concrete curb, gutter and 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the property frontage. 67. Parking lot striping - The parking lot spaces shall utilize double line striping. 68. Road Repairs - Camino Mercado shall be reconstructed across the property frontage and to the center of the street to a structural section capable of supporting a TI=6.0. 69. Site Drainage - Roof drainage and parking lot drainage shall be collected in a storm drain system. The public storm drain in Camino Mercado approximately 100 feet west of the project boundary shall be extended to connect to the project drainage system. 70. Storm Drains - The onsite storm drain system shall be private. The storm drain in Camino Mercado shall be public. All on-site private drainage structures shall be equipped with a fossil filter and debris catcher. A regular maintenance and cleaning program for the on-site drainage facilities shall be implemented by the applicant. Both the filters and the maintenance program shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 71. Site Grading - All existing cut slopes, which have been previously graded and left in an unsafe condition, shall be graded to a safe condition with a maximum slope of 2:1. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 14 72. Relocate Water Facilities - The existing water air release valve and the existing fire hydrant shall be relocated as necessary to accommodate the new improvements, as required by the Director of Public Works. 73. Onsite private fire lines - Private onsite fire sprinkler lines shall be connected to the public water system with a backflow prevention assembly. The backflow assembly shall be painted green. Fire department connections shall be located per the Fire Department requirements. 74. Onsite public fire lines - A 15-foot wide easement shall be provided for public waterlines serving onsite fire, as required by the Director of Public Works. 75. Water-sewer crossings - All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. 76. Water meters - Water meters shall be located in the public sidewalk or as approved by the Director of Public Works. Separate meters may be used for irrigation. 77. Sewer Connection - The onsite sewer system shall be private and shall connect to the public sewer system in a single location. Sewer laterals larger than 4 inches shall connect to the public system at a manhole. 78. Existing Services - Existing water and sewer services not used by the project shall be abandoned per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. 79. City benchmark - The applicant shall install new City Benchmark in the vicinity of Camino Mercado. 80. Underground new utilities - All new public utilities shall be installed as underground facilities except as noted. 81. Utilities operational - Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 15 MITIGA TlON MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing that the mitigation measures have been implemented. 1. The applicant shall implement the recommendations included in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. dated October 4, 2001 (Project No. SL002497-1), included in the Initial Study as Attachment A. Monitoring: Review of grading, drainage, and foundation plans Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 2. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: Implementing an individual water program that utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation; or, paying the in lieu fee. Monitoring: Review of individual water program or payment of the in lieu fee Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 3. The applicant shall pay a fee of $2,625 per Equivalent Residential Unit water usage for adequate water storage for the project. Monitoring: Pay required fee Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 4. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Monitoring: Review of building plans Responsible Dept: Building and Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 16 5. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. Monitoring: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans Responsible Dept: Parks and Recreation Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 6. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations indicating that increased run-off can be accommodated by existing facilities and/or provide on- site retention basins to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Monitoring: Review of grading plans Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit 7. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. 8. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. 9. Permanent dust control measures identified in the revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. 10. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 11. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 12. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 13. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 14. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 17 For Mitigation Measures No.7 - 14: Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections Responsible Dept: Public Works and Building & Fire Departments shall inspect plans and spot check in the field Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during construction 15. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. The applicant and the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement providing that the City shall reimburse the applicant the difference in costs between the signal installation and the project's Signalization Impact fee. The applicant may be reimbursed for those costs to the extent that signalization impact fees are available and programmed for this project. Monitoring: The applicant shall install the traffic signal Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 16. The applicant shall pay the City's Transportation Facilities Impact fee prior to issuance of building permit. Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees Responsible Dept: Building & Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 17. Site development plans shall specify that grading and other types of disturbance be precluded from a 25-foot buffer zone around the Pismo Clarkia populations to minimize impacts. A fence and appropriate signage shall be placed around the buffer zone to preclude impacts to Pismo Clarkia during construction. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit plans showing these protection measures. Responsible Dept: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit 18. The site development plans identifying protection areas around the Pismo Clarkia shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) at least 10 days prior to the start of site work. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit the plans to CDFG Responsible Dept: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 18 19. Protective fencing shall be installed around each tree at the dripline. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing, grading, or demolition activities, and shall remain in place until construction is complete, including landscaping. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating the following: Tree Protection Zone No personnel, equipment, materials, or vehicles are allowed Do Not move or remove this fence [Name of arborist or consultant] [Name and phone number of developer or general contractor] Monitoring: Field inspection Responsible Depts: Parks & Recreation and Community Development Departments Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit 20. The applicant shall submit a Vegetation Management Plan for. a portion of the open space property located adjacent to and north of the project site. The plan shall include an area having a depth of 200' along the northern project boundary. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit the plan Responsible Dept: Building & Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 21. All construction equipment shall be provided with well-maintained, functional mufflers to limit noise. 22. All construction activities shall comply with the time limits specified by the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. 23. To the greatest extent possible, grading and/or excavation operations at portions of the site bordering developed areas should occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive uses. For Mitigation Measures No. 21 - 23: Monitoring: Notes shall be placed on the construction plans referencing the above measures. Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: During construction RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 19 24. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: "In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the significance of the resources are determined. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or additional mitigation measures as required by the Califomia Environmental Quality Act if archaeological resources are found on the site." Monitoring: Review of grading plans and site visits by the Public Works Inspector Responsible Dept: Public Works and Building & Fire Departments Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during site grading 25. The applicant shall pay all applicable park development fees to the City. Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the park development fees Responsible Dept: Parks & Recreation Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit EXHIBIT B 1 ...\ U\jt\\ \ ~\\\9~~1W\ \~\'\\ f ,\\~I,\(\,I~~i~ \\~ '1\ \:\~~\ ~ ;~ ~I Id \ I ~ \,\ \\I' ~ \ \~ ,W' 'I '\ t I~ i' ^ ~' I, w. \ I \ I'I I" ~ I' \ · ",." I I II'" .. h i\ I · \... .......... I...... ,,,,, .~. "'\ \ i' .'" , .... .... .., , . , I!.... \ i \ \! \ \ . ~J' i . . \! \i a,.. ~ \ . \~ \! . \. i... ~ '" \ I\j! L \ \J . . __\__' i i r i 1m ..,. .". "m.. .h' \ ,i i i. .t)J ...... . " !. . " .,~ " , .. . , . . , .' 0 > ~ 1 0 0 0 + ' > % 0 \ ! \ .~ ) \ ~ ~ \ '1 "a I. ""'t \ w~~ (I) ~\ ~ \ ~\ Vi \\ ~. i\~ h' '\ \ t 6 '~~ 1 ~, , ,:g> h t ~ ~ 5 :) \l ~ It) Ii .~ 0- \ ~~ \1 '" .1 1; :< a \' II> ~J It) 0- :r. ~\ Ii \ 3,0 - ~ ", 1 \ q t!\ ~( "'(I) pi I ;\~~ \~ I It) \\i !.hr:' ; :) ~ II t; \ ~\;~ ~ 0 - ! , ~ . . . J J , H \ ;; ~i \\ \ ,on \'. H\ \\" \\ i ,hi. . .. ~\u ~ - \. . L' \ . . \ .... II, r EXHIBIT B2 . I 1/1 , . II \ . ! , - III I' ~ ,~~, II ~~---- I ' J'I 0- .. H, !:!1 It! In , 1\ Ii . j i , . .- ._-', 11I1~nl\lI ,I' '''II , .1 till II 'II , 1'- Iii I II "II. I ,Ij!' I I i.t I II 11 , Ii I I , I 'I I: I I J. lim 'tIIUI <;Ul- _'I , 'pl 'UUI!.. P;;:"I~UI IIZ';-,.,.. I"! 't\U',e..!ft nn;u. iUllr 6; '" .,1 "I '111111 !!l1i 11111111 IUII\II' 1!!WiIIlIQm51!111P, U\lliiIl1j' ~IIIIIII~!I ~ ill j i i I'! Ii I Iii II iJi . I'j', I !~ ~ .ill ;:I ~ " , , ~ ~, m en : ;11 i II ~11111111111111!1'111!lllllllililll~;!I~I'lfllllllllllll1IIIIIIIIIIIrll~III~IIIIIIII~IIIIII'11111111111 j I ".. i ' I ! I I .1 r il I '11'1' 'i 'II II' , I'll'," '''111'11'' '/' 1'1" "'II' .: \ ~ ~ ~ Ildi I' Ii I! 'illl! ! i ':"1 hlj 11.1 II IllhiUi il ili'j III !I j !ili!; ,PI!I II Hiihl! hi j' II ~ I" m ~,. Iii' I' 1 I ! hi .,' I ! I - I,'" I I I z ~ Q:;Q II I ' I 0 .~ !;;. ~ !lli ;;1 '0;; ~ ~ ,{ I '" -.- EXHIBIT B3 / ... ;1 i!\ !I u!6 , ;- Iii -p r,~ ~ r i ~ . ;i. ., ." ~~ . .. i;g ~! \ 1\ ; q !: r L 1. ( , ~ ... " , , r C ..,,,- ~ ~._-_..~ .. r L- , r () ~ . :'1. .. ~ t L'i l~ 5' ... )>0 ,.. "a \ -03: 0 r ~ I~ ~ . ',: I 1>>", 0 ~~ h ~~; H ~ I~[V ;::1.- '" . .' ~ 3" . ;~ . .' "'~ ... i~ ., a- ~ ' %.0 ,.. 'i i' "'en )> ~ " L;\ 'till % '" '" i ~ :I o' - i I \ ~ ; - :, , 1ft : ~ \ \- . . < .'.1! i~ I i: ' . i \~ I ~ { t-.....--t; \ I \ I ,.- \ ,- . . \ ill j; ~ -\ \- ; I ~ \ \- i/g i~ ~ " \ I,~ I )I> :g 1 ~.. ~ ! !- ~ . \" ~\':J: ~~; \4; '-1JI<~ ..- EXHIBIT B4 j ;~ m x H 0 -I !>) rn .. f' 3 ~ ~ 0 ,f S' c I ~ -I i! )> 0 m :t ,. I' "C s: .. m if ~3 -I :! rn ~ ~ r m m < ~ - rn ,. ~. CD Q) m ~~j . < -I .z :::::J C. < ~ ,. 0 ~ _0 ,. "'rn -I -I - Z (I) 0 0 :0 z Z o' '" , i I'" '" r -. , - 1""= Ii "8 '0::- 1'4 ;i" I. .... c- n , 1~,i9 ./>. EX\-\\B\T B5 , \ \ , ' ~.~-'tf \\ " \' () \ ~\ 3 \ , ,} -' , II ~ , 'i~; '" ; , \ I>> (I) -I rn " \1 1~ '" )< " - -' z \ ~t ~% ~'" 1ft 0 ~ ,. ." ::0 ~ '" \ ~ \~ 1\ - ... ' .. ~ o -x. ~ ... . ::) 1- ;0 '" " '" ~ -' ~;'i ... . ... . 0 (t\ 1ft; '" . ~ ~ Q I t"''''~ " , ~' ~ ~'" rn -I ~ ... <:-' . '" o , 0 0 ,. %. ~ Z -I -I ; - ' 0 0 Z :% \ <J> '. ,\ i i - ~ ~ ~ . ,U '0%' W\\~ "X '.fI, ~. "1 (:0 ,,0 . . :1':j:., .J..... ~ MINUTES CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2001 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Costello called the regular Planning Commission meeting of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL X Commissioner Brown X Commissioner Fowler ---.X Commissioner Guthrie X Vice-Chair Keen X Chair Costello PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fowler led the Flag Salute. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the ARC were unanimously approved by a 5/0-voice vote as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Copy of letter from the law office of Stephen N. Cool, dated November 15, 2001 regarding Conditional Use Permit 01-010, 597 Camino Mercado. 2. Copy of letter from M. J. A. Wysong, 1660 Brighton Avenue, Grover Beach, regarding East Grand Avenue. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-010; APPLICANT - CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION - 579 CAMINO MERCADO Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, said the applicant proposes to construct 60 one and two bedroom apartment units averaging 900 square feet in size, and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center. The apartments would be restricted to senior citizens, ages 55 and older, and 25% of the units would be reserved for those having a moderate-income level. A deed restriction is required as a condition of approval to ensure that the rent remains at this lower level. The apartment units meet all disabled access requirements, and the pedestrian path between Camino Mercado and the apartment units is also handicapped accessible. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2001 PAGE 2 The project meets all relevant Development Code requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height, and landscaping. There are no density requirements in the Professional Commercial District, although the proposed 15 dwelling units per acre is less than the maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre allowed in the Senior Housing District. The only standard that has not been met is the required parking. The project includes a total of 141 parking spaces, most of which would be covered. The Development Code requires 150 spaces, and therefore the project is nine spaces short. The applicant is requesting an exception to the parking requirement, which the Development Code allows through the CUP process if it can be shown how the shared uses have different hours of operation that don't conflict. The parking analysis prepared for the project makes the case that the actual parking demand will be less than the parking requirements due to the various modes of transportation available to the future tenants, and proximity of the apartments to the senior center. Because the hours of operation for the senior center may well conflict with the residential use, the Planning Commission might consider restricting the hours for the center, and/or delineating the residential parking from the senior center parking with either signage or special pavement markings. As part of the environmental review process, a traffic analysis was prepared which concluded that the Level of Service on surrounding intersections would remain at an acceptable level with the addition of traffic from the proposed development. This analysis was based on the assumption that the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection would be signalized. Given that a signal is warranted at this intersection, the project is conditioned to install the signal subject to reimbursement from the City up to the amount of the project's signalization impact fee. This condition is contingent upon other projects in the review process that have a similar requirement. Essentially, the first project to obtain a building permit that has this condition shall be required to construct the traffic signal and enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. Three populations of Pismo Clarkia have been identified on the property, which is a federally listed endangered plant species. As mitigation, a 25-foot buffer is required around the plants, which the applicant has already identified on the project plans. All of the existing oak trees are proposed to remain and are required to be protected during construction. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20. 2001 PAGE 3 Commissioner Brown stated that he thought the language was too general with regard to Condition No. 14, with respect to the apartment reservation for moderate- income seniors, especially with respect to the deed restriction. Rob Strong stated that the City would be consulting with the City Attorney and the Housing Authority on the language, and hopefully it would be resolved prior to action by the City Council. Commissioner Fowler stated that Condition No. 39, with respect to fire lanes, was too general and she would like to make sure that more specific directional information be conditioned. Ms. Heffernon said she would follow up with the Fire Department to see if more specific language would be required. Chair Costello asked about the ADA compliance with regard to the bus stop and access to the bus stop. Steve Puglisi, Architect for the project, addressed the concerns: . The traffic circulation, specifically with respect to emergency vehicles, can now egress the site since the bridge structure has been eliminated. As discussed with the Fire Department, a key location has been selected where any emergency vehicle can station itself. At this key location there is an elevator and emergency response teams can access every unit on the site from this point. . There has been a series of modifications to the handicap access ramp to ensure that pedestrians can go from Camino Mercado to the main entrance of the building, and immediately at that location is one of the three elevators adjacent to the senior center. . The bus stop that is currently shown on the drawings is easily accessible from the handicap access ramp, as it starts moving itself down the site. We foresee no problem with getting the ramp from the vehicular entrance on Camino Mercado to the bus stop. . Parking is the only area we are not in compliance, but the traffic engineers analysis suggests that this project will in fact require 1 7 fewer spaces than City Ordinance requires. We are proposing nine fewer spaces, so we are in the plus eight category. We would rather not put more parking than the project requires. The project meets all other aspects of the Ordinance. Commissioner Brown asked why a public facility, that would generate traffic from the community, would not require more parking spaces rather than less? MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2001 PAGE 4 Mr. Puglisi replied that Penfield & Smith anticipates that 70% of the visitors to the senior center will be via private automobile, 25% will be walking and 5% will be by taxi. The visitors walking and by taxi will account for 16 individuals and therefore 16 less cars that will be required. Commissioner Brown commented that it appears that the roof of the structure goes above the ridgeline. Mr. Puglisi showed a cross section through the site and pointed out the elevation of the top of the roof. The footings of the building are not above the ridgeline, but the roofline goes above the ridgeline. PUBLIC HEARING Rav Abdun-nur, 955 Via Las AQuilas, some of the concerns he had were: . Parking on Camino Mercado. . Would the roof blend in with the rest of the community? . Amount of visitors to the senior center? . What does moderate pricing mean? . Grading. Ron LivinQson, 580 Dos Cerros, representative Homeowner's Association concerns: . Not being noticed about the project even though he lived within 300 feet. . General appearance of this building better than the previous proposed project. . Parking and traffic in the area. . Drainage during heavy rain. . The cost to the City for the senior center. . Is the senior center for Arroyo Grande or 5 Cities and where will the people be walking from? Earl PaulinQ, 232 La Cresta Drive, representative for many non-profits and represents many seniors who are not attending the meeting tonight because they do not like to drive or go out when it is dark. . Seniors need a place to meet, very pleased about this proposed project. . Seniors support this center and are already concerned about getting on a waiting list for the 60 units. . The Women's Center parking lot during meetings is usually 60-70% empty because seniors do not need a lot of parking; they carpool and meetings are usually attended by 30-40 people. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2001 PAGE 5 Garv YounQ, Applicant and Representative for Central Coast Real Estate Development, addressed: . Specifics would be applied to the deed restriction for 25% of the units dedicated to moderate-income seniors 55 years and older. . ADA compliance from the bus stop to the property. . Parking requirements and how they will be met. . Senior center, how it might be funded, and how it might be run. Commissioner Brown asked for details about fee relief for the project. I ! Mr. Young replied that the fees had not yet been arrived at. Rob Strong advised that the Planning Commission not involve themselves in the fiscal fee reduction requests unless City Councilor Parks & Recreation refer this back to them. Chair Costello asked: . Were there any guidelines in place if occupants became unable to take care of themselves? . If there were any significant parking impacts in the future what solutions would there be to expand the parking. . Would parking spaces be designated specifically for the residents and would there be 31 assigned parking spaces for the senior center? Mr. Young said there would be no assistance because this will be independent senior living. Mr. Puglisi said he did not foresee a parking problem, but rather than add more parking it would be better to adjust the hours of operation for the senior center. Mr. Young said each unit would have one assigned parking place and the rest would be at large parking. Commissioner Fowler: . Would the "moderate income" status apply to this project? . Believes that seniors do require less parking because they often have only one car per family. Rob Strong said the percentages for this project would apply to "moderate income" performance standards for housing and this is something the City will need to address in the future. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2001 PAGE 6 Commissioner Keen referred to Condition No. 51 with respect to the signalization improvements: . The figures quoted by Penfield & Smith in their traffic study, for the improvements, do not seem realistic. . The improvements do not include road widening and he thought this should be included, as he would hate to see the City have to redo the signal in the future. Rodger Olds, Public Works, stated that these figures reflect only the applicant's share of the cost. Concerning the improvements, only the signal and roadway improvements particular to that signal are included, no roadway widening has been included. Commissioner Guthrie: . The building does a good job of protecting the ridgeline. . Prefer to see the senior center parking delineated from the rest of the project so in the future, if there was a problem it could be tracked. . Traffic is always an issue in this area, but what the community is receiving is worth taking the risk. . The 25% of "moderate-income" units is a real plus for this project. . He was not aware of the problem with drainage on Camino Mercado expressed during the public comment period. . Hours of operation for the senior center may have to be instituted some time in the future. . A bus stop in the middle of a block may be a liability. Rodger Olds said the drainage was intended to go into City storm drainage facilities, into the Caltrans ditch next to Hwy 101, and then further downstream into the basin at Oak Park and West Branch Street. Chair Costello commented on: . Traffic and the City standard of the Level of Service (LOS) "C", and said he believes that this intersection is worse than "C", but traffic would only be minimally affected by this project. When the traffic signal lights have been installed he hoped it would improve the situation. . Parking should be adequate, but if more than 50 people turned up at the senior center for a meeting, there would be additional parking available that was not being claimed by residents. In the future there may have to be some restrictions on parking on Camino Mercado. . He asked staff to confirm what the design standards were for the issue of the ridgeline. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2001 PAGE 7 Rob Strong said the design standards are from the current General Plan and there are no specific design standards to preclude roof projections above the ridgeline. The Planning Commission agreed that the applicant had made all the changes previously requested by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the project met all the required findings for the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Keen moved that the PlanninQ Commission adoDt: RESOLUTION NO, 01-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010. LOCATED AT 579 CAMINO MERCADO. APPLIED FOR BY CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. INC. includinQ Exhibit' A', with an amendment to add a condition that would delineate the tenant parkinQ from the parkinQ for the senior center. Commissioner Fowler seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE Yes Commissioner Brown Yes Commissioner Fowler Yes Commissioner Guthrie Yes Commissioner Keen Yes Chair Costello III. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. DISCUSSION ITEMS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP REPORTS 1. Planning Programs: Steve Adams, City Manager, gave a presentation on the East Grand Avenue Master Plan, giving an update on the progress to date. The City has made an extensive effort to make sure everybody has had an opportunity to be involved and provide their feedback. Based on the results we are now developing some recommendations for Planning Commission and 'EC;:: ATTACHMENT 3 . w JVED 1 1 70S. . ',-' ~\. , Central Coast JI....I Estate Develo.pment . Inc. -:':".YT . , 2815 MesaAltaLane Arroyo Grande. CA. 93420 805-431-4243 fax 805-473-9485 pnu.;1 _ pryone@hof"ln1.lil.com Overview As a developer on the Central Coast and more importantly as a developer who lives and develops here in beautiful Arroyo Grande, I as well as my company realize how important it is to keep the character and integrity of this great city in the forefront of our minds. The project proposed in this "Pre-Application" form does just that. This 6O-unit apartment complex provides much needed moderate-income senior housing, while preserving the ambiance of the city. This project intends not only to preserve the great look of our city, but also to add to it. The proposed project located on 597 Camino Mercado will be architecturally developed using the craftsmen style. This style is the same style used in many of the older residential areas throughout Arroyo Grande and the flavor of the Village. We believe both the City and its residents prefer this style and that it is consistent with the city's General Plan. As developers, we understand that there are housing needs to be met, but at the same time we also understand how important the environment is and the functions it serves. It is our goal to preserve and enhance the natural environment along Camino Mercado. We will in our consttuction of this facility use the most methodical approach to minimhe the disturbance to the site and the oak trees. Description of proposed project. This project will consist of 60 apartment units l"'nging in size from 1 to 2 bedrooms. These apartments are intended for senion and are to be rented only by citizens who are 55 years or older. Out of the 6O-purposed apartment units, 15 of them will be reserved for moderate-income residents. This moderate income level and corresponding rent will be determined by the San Luis Obispo County "Affordable Housing Worksheet" which was provided to us by Diane Shelly of the City of Arroyo Grande via the County of San Lnis Obispo. The mechanism insuring that these apartments will stay at the moderate-income level is a deed restriction that is placed on each affordable unit. In compliance with this regulation there will also be accountability in that an independent auditing agency, approved by the City, will review the records of the apartment management agency on an annual basis. The authority will insure that the rental rates charged are in compliance with the moderate-income threshold, and, that the occupant continues to qualify for the unit. These records, along with the independent auditing agencies findings, will be submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande annually for review. This procedure will insure both parties are held accountable and that the intention of "Affordable Housing Element" is being fulfilled. The Development Code for Senior Housing (SR) District states, "if a minimum of 25 percent of the total units are to be reserved for low and moderate income residents, the density for independent living developments may be increased to up to twenty-five dwelling units per gross acre". This project is only proposing to build 15 dwelling units per gross acre. This is 1 drastically less then the maximum allowable units of 25 per acre. For the (SR) District we understand that there is no specific density standard in the Professional Commercial District of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development, where this site is located. This downsizing in unit count will help negate the density issues City Council members have had with previous proposals at this location. Another issue in prior proposals was the 15 percent slope of the driveway that lead to the complex. We have also minimi7M this concern. The driveway in our plan will have a 10 percent grade on average. This will make it easier and safer for the seniors to get to and from our complex. There will be 40 two-bedroom and 20 one- bedroom apartments. The approximate square footage of these apartment units will be 725 square feet for the 1 bedrooms and 925 square feet for the 2 bedrooms, The buildings will be two-stories high and will comply with the City's Development Code. It will be two-stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. This project will be fully ADA compliant including handrails, benches and ADA compliant elevators, to make sure all of its seniors safety needs are met. There will also be an apartment manager on -site in case of an emergency. This facility is also proposing to include a 3,000+- square foot Senior Center that is not only open to its senior tenants of this apartment complex, but to the senior community as a whole. The seniors of both the apartment complex and Arroyo Grande may use this facility by making an appointment with the Five Cities Seniors organization. This organization will be in charge of staffing and rllnning this facility. There will be 2 spas on sight and a walking path surrounding the complex so the seniors will have a safe and onsite area to exercise. To address runoff and drainage concerns per request by the City, we will be required to connect to the open air drainage basin located on W. Branch street near St. Patrick's cemetery. To detour people from parking on the street along Oomino Mercado, we propose having the red curbs along the bus loading area. There will also be a bus stop added to aid in the transportation needs of the seniors, both to and from this location. Although we cannot entirely solve the issue of traffic we can attempt to address it. We understand that another project located on James Way and Oak Park boulevard is already conditioned to put in a signal at the intersection ofW. Branch Street and ('...mino Mercado, as well as a recendy approved professional office project located on the northwest corner of this intersection. We have no problem sharing in the financial costs of instaUing this traffic signal. Location and surrounding area The proposed property for this 6O-unit apartment is a 3.98-acre site in Arroyo Grande. This property is located north of highway 101, north of Camino Mercado, on 597 Camino Mercado Street. The surrounding land uses are commercial and residential development. Neighbors in the vicinity of this project include Wal-Mart, Trader Joes, and the Premier Inns Hotel. The site consists mosdy of non-native grassland with Coast Live Oaks scattered around the periphery of the site. The south slope of the property consists of California sagebrush and deerweed with non-native 2 grasses such as wild oat, red blOme, and darnel. The total cover of the coastal sage scrub species does not exceed 15%. Specific goals of the project This 60 unit apartment c:ompla has three main goals: 1) To provide affordable apartments for seniors 55 years of. and older. In the City of Arroyo Grande, and in many other cities all over California, the demand for senior housing (more specifically, affordable senior housing) is rising. This apartment complex will provide much needed affordable housing for many of the aging Arroyo Grande citizens who have lived here all their lives and wish to continue doing so. If something is not done soon many seniors who deserve to live here will be priced out of the market. We at least owe the seniors of our community the courtesy of providing housing they can afford, so they can continue to live in the city they have grown to love and cherish. 2) To provide a Senior Center for seniors to meet and plan activiries together. Another issue the seniors of Arroyo Grande face is the lack of a facility were they can meet and interact. Seniors have been in need of a place were they can meet and plan activities for many years. This project will provide a Senior Center in which seniors can do just that. This facility will not only help the seniors, but if approved, it would say a lot about the character of the city. 3) To provide a community like atmosphere for seniors, one in which seniors can live, exercise, and interact together. This project and its amenities will provide a home and a community for the seniors of Arroyo Grande. With this facility and the things it offers, seniors can now not only afford to live here, but they can meet and interact with one another. It is very important for seniors to have a place to go and to feel apart of something. We believe this facility accomplishes that. :\ ATTACHMENT 4 Central Coast )1....1 Estate Development . Ine. 281 5 Mesa Alta Lane Arroyo Grande. CA. 93420 805-459-0356 fax 805-473-9485 Email- centralcoastred~ahoo.com :r~,.~ ' ',,", Hand Delivered r1~; . ~. '(" 01 November 19, 2001 0' .l ~ (Ji "'IT' \",,' Rob Strong en!"., . ,"':- i~'~PT. v' ..:.~ C/o Oty of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Camino Mercado assistance with multi-family housing project with 25% inclusionary zoning for moderate income seniors Dear Rob, Thank you for the time Friday morning and the discussion that we had regarding our attempted application for assistance from the "housing in lieu fee" and also our interest in potential fee reductions related to the Camino Mercado project. . After reading the staff report and proposed conditions of approval, I have a few questions that I will in all probability, ask the Planning Commission and wanted to give staff advance notice of the questions as they will probably be deferred to you. First, is regarding the statement in the staff report "that it is likely that a higher priority will be placed on proposed projects located within the Oty's Redevelopment District"". I assume that the reference in the staff report was made due to our application for those funds. Facts: (1) We submitted a letter on July 30, 2001 (copy attached) stating our intent to request assistance through the housing in-lieu fund and to date have not had a written response regarding how to make the formal application. Therefore, I assume that with the letter application was made. (2) We also submitted a letter to the Parks and Recreation Department requesting a relief from their fees due to the fact that we are providing on site recreational facilities. To date we have had one verbal telephone response related to the inquiry and no formal response on which to base our affordability factors. Also please note that we plan on asking the Planning Commission about the "priority" of the redevelopment district over and above other areas of the Oty. The authority that we will quote is the City New General Plan section H3-1, which states in part "affordable housing for low and moderate-income households shall, to the extent practical, be distributed throughout the Oty and not concentrated in a particular area or neighborhood". We would also ask the Planning Commission what ordinance or policy directs priority to the redevelopment district? Unfortunately we did not have a current 1 copy of all city policies, ordinance, fee schedules and code sections available to us over the weekend. Your comments on Friday were a welcome relief in your indication of your personal knowledge that affordable housing cannot be accomplished by private sector alone. Your comments were mimicked at the City Council meeting of August 14, 2001 by a number of councilmen. Council Member Dickens "encouraged the applicant to work with the City with regard to the possible use of the City's affordable housing in lieu fee fund", from City Council Minutes, August 14, 2001, page 8. I would also appreciate noting an additional section of the General Plan which states: The City shall give priority to processing of housing projects that provide for low and moderate income residents and shall consider fee waiver or reductions when requested". Section Hl-3. I do recognize, and have been told specifically by a councilman, that project's on the other end of Grand Avenue (west end) is where multi-family and affordable should be located. However, in the spirit of the General Plan and non-discrimination we are pursuing our project on the eastside of the freeway with the proposed 25% inclusionary zoning for moderate-income seniors. There are other sections of the General Plan that are applicable but I've probably bored you enough for this correspondence on this subject. Second, in reference to the current fee structure for parks and recreation we cross- referenced from the City General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element Section, Neighborhood and Community Park Standards, Implementation Measure PR1-1.1, Ordinance 313 e. S. adopted June 26, 1984. It appears after through reading of this ordinance that it may only be applicable to subdivisions, and more specifically parcel and tract maps, which are to be recorded. It is also interesting that the document address that" review of new development proposals for impacts to neighborhood park facilities and require dedication of land and/ or payment of in-lieu fee pursuant to Ordinance 313 e.S. The ordinance states in Section 9-3.507 (1)(2) "Requirement. At the time of approval of the tentative map or parcel map, the City Council shall determine pursuant to Section (4) hereof the land required for dedication or in lieu fee payment". Two interesting facts are represented here: (1) since the subject parcel is located with a P.D. that has already dedicated land for park purposes it may be exempt from not only the parks fee but other fees referenced on the fee estimate furnished by the City (see attached). At this time it is important to reinforce that we are providing a 3,000 sq. ft senior center, which will be leased on a long-term basis to the Five Cities Seniors a 501 (q(3) organization. providing a park area with gazebo and picnic facilities and walking paths around the complex. Additionally note (this is important) that all facilities located on the apartment site are available to the general public through the Five Cities Seniors, which control the facility. 2 Back to the issues. Since we are providing on-site facilities we feel that the elimination of the park and recreations fees are justified. In the General Plan Policy PR1-1 deals with community park facilities and the implementation measure PR1-1.1 indicates that community parks shall include playfields for such activities as baseball, softball, soccer and football, volleyball and tennis courts, restrooms and picnic areas. Needless to say that the later two, are probably the only facilities required of the majority of our proposed community Policy PRl-2, Implementation Measure PR1-1.2, requires "review of new development proposals for impact to community park facilities and require dedication of land and/ or payment of fee pursuant to Ordinance 313 C.S. The formula I believe would indicate a fee of approximately $1,666.67 for the complex. Section 9-3.507 (1)(7) formula. The only exact figure that we were unable to determine over the weekend is the FMV as determined by Subsection (8). We used a plug number of $20,000.00 for this factor based on our intuition, be it good or bad.. In the General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element, Section Cooperation with Other Agencies indicates that the goal is to "provide for the operation and maintenance and to develop additional facilities and services" . Granted this appears to be only with other governmental agencies and may preclude private-public partnership of the type that we are proposing. Private as we are planning, operating and maintaining the facility, government as we are requesting consideration of elimination of fees and permits due the City of Arroyo Grande. Therefore Implementation Measure PR2-2.2 states, "In cooperation with other agencies, pursue construction of a senior's and/ or youth recreation center". Please note here the "and/or". Therefore Policy PR2-2 articulates the creation of a senior center with other agencies. Policy PR2-3, Implementation Measure PR2-3.3 states" encourage private and concessions by identifying those area of the City that could accommodate such facilities". Through our planning process we have identified that area of the City. I am sure that when the new General Plan was drafted that it was never foreseen that a private developer would construct, maintain and donate such a facility for the benefit of the senior community of Arroyo Grande. Or perhaps the term other agencies may refer to the private sector in general terms In summary, finally, we are requesting direction and assistance in the application and process of how we present to the appropriate council or commission the subsidy, reduction or waiver to the goal of eliminating all fees (as attached) associated with the proposed project. Best personal regards, V;;::?1 Gary L~ g President :1 . Central Coast Real Estate Development . Inc. 2815 Mesa Alta Lane Arrovo Grande. CA. 93420 805-459-0356 fax 805-473-9485 email-earvoneliVhotmail.com July 30, 2001 Kerry McCants Community Development Director 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande Ca, 93421 Dear Kerry, We are planning on making application for funding assistance through the housing in-lieu fund. Would you please advise us as to the procedure for this process? We are anticipating application for these funds to offset infrastructure and city fees. Thanks, g_ 6~ Jas n B. Blankenship Associate Planner Central Coast Jl_1 Estate DevdQpment . Inc. 2815 Mesa Alta I-'lne Arroyo Grande. CA. 93420 805-474-6521 fu 805-474-9485 em..il -p.r:yone@botmail.com July 9, 2001 Dan Hernandez C/o City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 RE: Park Fees Dear Dan, We recemly received from rhe Building Department an "estimate list" of city fees due for our proposed senior apartment project on Camino Mercado. As you are aware the three fees imposed by the Patk and Recreation Department are quite signitlcant, approximately $250,000.00. Please note the following in relation to the project. . The projecr will be age restricted to 55 and over: . The projecr wi!1'be inclusive of a senior center of approximately 3,000+- sq. ft. and rherefore is providing onsire activities and will also be available to all senior of the community: Since the community is currently unable to provide a senior center rhrough rhe municipality we believe that we are jus titled in requesring that all cicy park and associates fee be waived for our development. , We are available to meet with you to further discuss this issue ar your convenience. Besr personal regards, G~!J7 President City of Arroyo Grande Building Department and Water Service Permit # 011332 Property Owner Contractor Date 07/03/01 ! GARY YOUNG i 537 CAMINO MERCADO C;11 111 A I ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 Permit Ite,m/I".. ...,:" ,,' '.J'.). ;,.,r" T~an.sCode;~';r"'W'F,i!!;'\ .; Fee. .,;"t;':L,,;,.!,~, :;'~i;l~,;.~. . ' ' .'. " ,0 " .<'c". ,.,' -_,~,"$:'>~"),,~,/~;,' ~_ "~f'!~;:.\, :">":."'>"': ~:'~:.',' '~;J:"~~<r;',.'r;,~'iI',,~:~" :;;'>"'. " , ,',<;",.:' :~:}~'.tc;,},;i:-;;~'-..<'.., ,,' .. lijullolng ;jLlU '''.'''0 Electrical 3060 2,358 Mechanical 3050 2.993 Traffic Mitigation 3290 u Traffic Impact 3275 , Traffic Signal 3:>35 1tj,f1:$ Drainage 3040 0 Plumbing 3200 :$,,,,,,, Sewer Inspection 3220 1:' Sewer Hookup 3145 , Plan Check 3120 1!,~j;jo S.M,IP. 3315 ;j:>tj Grading I 3020 u Parks Fee 3280 11;j,10U Park Improvement Impact 3278 tj4.9ro Rec. Community Ctr. Impact 3295 ;j,"1!:J Water Neutrilization . 9998 4L.tjlU C.U.P. Police 3225 U Police impact 3224 tj,U11 Land Conservancy 3310 0 Street Trees 3215 u Fire Misc.lPlan Check 3288 "uu Buildino Tax 3211 U Fire Imoact 3284 0.:>4:$ Re-roof 3015 0 Erosion/Landscaoe bond 0180 u Sewer Facility 90% 3230 ;j,tjf1 ISe:wer Facility 10% 3228 43U Dp.moiition 3030 0 Affordable Housino in lieu 3222 u Misc Charoes 0 Plan Check Retainer 3330 < 0> Water Service . . ., . '. , ". j ..... '. . Distribution 3250 3,360 Water Meter 3260 1.104 Service Main 3255 U ~opez \ vvarer AvallacllnYJ 3212 1,500 -t <C () rom TOO! L;narge 0 Water Service Total . .,\.: .c>"ci.. ii,";" .4. 0~t.r"" ..".i....".,...........:,..,...".':;':,' . Grand Total .' " .'. .Arin,:t!~~':,!';.-""'; ".." '.' . .' . '.'. . ,c'. -, . Meter Size: 1 2" I Building Official's Signature Individual 0 Subdivision n ATTACHMENT 5 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~ SUBJECT: ASSISTANCE/FEE WAIVERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT RELATED TO CUP CASE NO. 01-010. CAMINO MERCADO DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 On Friday, November 16, 2001, at the informal request of developer Gary Young, I advised that a letter requesting consideration should be sent to City Council regarding affordable housing assistance and/or fee reductions. On Monday, November 19, we received the attached letter from Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. Although the letter suggested Planning Commission consideration I recommended that they avoid discussion of this fiscal matter unless it was requested by the City Council, after action on the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission therefore did not consider this request at their hearing on November 20, 2001 regarding the Conditional Use Permit. Re HousinQ In-Lieu Fee Allocation Apparently the developer did not receive prior response to his letter of July 30, 2001 regarding the procedure for making application for funding assistance from the City's housing in-lieu fund "to offset infrastructure and City fees". The 1993 Housing Element of the General Plan included General Policies A.2(c) and A.5 that provided: " ...other incentives for low income housing and senior projects (that meet the requirements of State law.)" and "The City shall consider fee reductions as an incentive for low income housing; alternatives or reductions to traffic mitigation fees shall be available for low income housing units". These same polices were included as H 1-1 c, and H 1-3 in the 2001 General Plan Update, adopted October 9, 2001. Assistant/Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing Project December 11, 2001 Page 2 On March 28, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 514CS, adding "Affordable Housing Requirements" to the Development Code (With the new Municipal Code, these are outlined in Title 16.80.) These provisions include: "In all cases where, at the property owner's request, the City Council amends the General Plan and/or zoning designation of a property, which results in an increase in the allowable residential density above that authorized by the adopted version of the City's General Plan and/or Zoning Map, the requirements shall be as follows: 1. At least 25% of the units or lots approved for development on the subject property shall be affordable for lower income households; or... " New housing developments, other than General Plan and/or zoning amendments, involving 50 or more units are otherwise required to provide at least 10% of the total units as affordable to low income households. Inasmuch as the affordable housing requirements are applicable to all developments within the City, the City should anticipate similar requests for assistance from housing in-lieu fees and for potential fee waivers or reductions throughout the City. Council policv direction is needed before this initial reauest is resolved. The staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the Conditional Use Permit indicated "that it is likely that a higher priority will be placed on proposed projects located within the City's Redevelopment District" regarding allocation of housing in-lieu fee assistance funds. This is one preliminary criteria recommended by staff, but not yet considered by the City Council. The purpose of this recommendation is not to encourage affordable housing only in one area of the community. It is simply a recognition that the Redevelopment Agency currently has limited development incentives available and the in-lieu housing funds can serve as a viable economic development tool for a redevelopment project. It is evident that the housing in-lieu funds available will be requested by at least one other pending planned development (at Courtland and Grand Avenue) within the Redevelopment District. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund created in March 2000, provides for administration "under general supervision of the Community Development Director and pursuant to such rules, regulations and guidelines as the City Council shall adopt and/or amend from time to time". This is the first application for allocation: rules, regulations, and guidelines have not been previously considered by the Council. Re Parks and Recreation Fees Regarding Waiver or Reduction of Parks and Recreation fees, pages 646 through 653 of the new Municipal Code, Section 16.64.060 outlines the City's requirements for Assistant/Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing Project December 11, 2001 Page 2 dedication of land and/or payment of in-lieu fees. Although the project site was part of the Oak Park Planned Development which included a tentative tract map, it was NOT considered as a residential property in the calculation of park land requirements or in-lieu fees. Section J outlines "Credit for Private Open Space", not to exceed 75%, which may be given against the requirements of land dedication or payment of in-lieu fees, if the Citv Council finds it is in the public interest to do so, and certain requirements are met. The six requirements (listed on page 649 of the Municipal Code) include that the use of the private open space be secured by recorded covenant that cannot be eliminated without the consent of the City. While provisions of this Code section primarily address credit for parkland open space, it does indicate that it may be given for a "combination of other recreational improvements that will meet the specific recreation needs of future residents of the area." "Recreation buildings and facilities designed and primarily used for the recreational needs of residents of the development" is one of the elements listed. The estimated park development fee amount is $113,160. In the opinion of the Parks and Recreation Director as well as the Community Development Director, the provision of a "senior center" does not substantially reduce the need for public neighborhood and community parks. Some reduction of fees or waiver of community center fees may be justified, but "the determination as to whether credit shall be given, and the amount of the credit" is up to the City Council. Whether or not a long term lease to the Five Cities Seniors organization, including a 3000 square foot building, small open space with gazebo and picnic facilities and walking paths around private complex is sufficient to qualify for any or all of the maximum credit of 75% is a Council decision. The details of how the facility would be operated for public access, comply with other code requirements, and reduce other park needs have not been submitted by the proposed project developer. In summary, the staff has discussed the need for further information and justification from the applicant and analysis by staff, before the City Council responds to these two unresolved policy issues. The applicant agrees and requests continuance of the conditions of approval if the Council is interested in further consideration of the allocation and fee reduction proposals. Staff requests Council discussion and/or direction, but recommends that Conditional Use Permit approval be deferred until these policy questions are resolved. ~O~~!~?,.~,g - Park'tjevelop~~~^.~~e~~~~~~~w._~'_.m~"m ~~'~~~=~~:'::~$~~~~~>u ~~~~,'_ ~ ..===.w~~,~:=:-~^_ ~~'_~~,',^:'^:,~,^_,^,^,^,^~_~~~_~1] From: Daniel Hernandez ATTACHMENT 6 To: Strong, Rob Date: 11/27/01 9:06AM Subject: Park Development Fees I had a chance to talk to the Building Division regarding fees paid by other senior housing projects in the City. In 1997, the Horizon Senior Housing Project paid park fees in the amount of $25,398. This was based on $1,411 per unit for 18 units. There are a total of 37 units on site, but they were given credit for the 19 units that were on site and were demolished so the complex could be built. These were the only fees in effect at the time and establishes precedence regarding these particular fees and senior housing units. I do not support the waiver of these specific fees. However, waiver of Community Center Impact Fees would be appropriate since they are planning to include a senior center on site. Let me know if you want more info from my end Dan , ATTACHMENT 7 Central Coast ]1....1 Estate Dnelopment . Inc. 2815 MesaAlta I...ne Arroyo Grande. CA. 93420 805-474-6521 fin' 805-474-9485 November 26, 2001 A Rob Strong City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 RE: Conditions of Approval # 01010 Dear Rob, Thanks you for the support at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the grant of the approval for our project. As you are aware we received the Conditions of Approval a few days prior to the meeting. We definitely have some questions and clarifications needed before we proceed to the City Council Agenda on the following conditions: Item 48: Specifically"e" and "f' Item 50: The reference to Caltrans approval, does this require their review of plans, or a "PSR"? Does the City currently have any correspondence from Caltrans as to the requirements of the intersection/interchange? Item 52: This item should contain a specific reference to Mitigation Measure 14, I have concems about the language of the mitigation measure as referenced below. Item 53: This is a new condition and not present in the original fee estimate obtained from the city. The formula used by the city department responsible for the exact fee would be appreciated. Item 64: Clarification offormula for calculation purposes. I.e. 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, sq. ft.? Item 66: References also made in Item 52 and Mitigation Measure #14, probably need to be clarified and combined into one condition. , . Mitigation Measure #14: This item needs clarification as related to item 50 and 52.. Specifically "the applicant may be reimbursed for those costs to the extent that signalization impact fees are available and progra1tlnU!d for this project". Programmed? A rather unclear and moving target? Mitigation Measure #19: Does this mean that we will be maintaining the city parkland? Mitigation Measure 24: We are still anticipating a reply from our letter dated in Ju1y of this year. We know that these items must be resolved prior to our project being scheduled for City Council Hearing and Approval. Please schedule us an appointment as soon as convenient for you and your staff for clarification and resolution of these issues. We will be available at anytime as it is imperative to finalize the approval as soon as possible. ATTACHMENT 8 MEMORANDUM TO: KELLY HEFFERNON - ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: RODGER OLDS - ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER UL.. j.G. SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPLICANT QUESTIONS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CUP 01-010 DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2001 DISCUSSION: The Public Works Department has reviewed the November 26 letter from Gary Young regarding the Conditions of Approval for CUP 01-010. The following are responses to the questions that pertain to Public Works conditions of approval: Item 48: Prior to issuance of the building permit, the signal design for the Camino Mercado and West Branch signal must be completed and approved. The signal design consists of two plans; a signal and street improvement plan, and a signing and striping plan. , Item 50: Yes, Caltrans will review the plans. To the best of our knowledge, a PSR will not be required. The City did receive a letter from Caltrans stating the need for this signal. This letter can be made available to the Developer. Item 52: The purpose of this condition of approval is for timing purposes to ensure that the agreement is in place prior to construction beginning. Item 53 and 64: Both of these fees are calculated the same way based on estimated water usage for the site. The formula based on water usage factors, is as follows: SFU = Water Usage Factor (single family residence) = 0.37 SAU = Water Usage Factor (senior appartment) = 0.12 CHU = Water Usage Factor (church no WUF for a senior center is avalable) = 0.14 ESFU = $ for single family usage ($2200 for C of A #53 ; $2625 for C of A #64) I = Calculated index Senior Apartments $ per unit = (ESFUlSF)*(SA) , I = ((Senior Center Square Footage/1000)/(SF))*CH Senior Center Cost = (ESFUlSF)*(I) Item 66: Items #52 and #66 are placed in the conditions purely for timing. It is the intent for the City for the developer to design the signal during the development of the project improvement plans and to have the developer install the signal concurrent with construction of the development. Mitication Measure #14: Th;e Traffic Signalization fund is intended to pay for not only the Camino Marcado and West Branch intersection signal but other intersections previously identified by the fee study. At the time the reimbursement of the cost of the signal becomes due to the Developer, there may not be adequate funds in the Traffic Signalization fund. In this case, the funds will be reimbursed to the developer as they become available. I hope that this address the concerns presented in the letter by the Developer. If there are further questions, please let me know. C: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Assistant City Engineer LAW OFFICE: ATTACHMENT 9 STEPHEN N. COOL 1577 EL CAMINO REAL ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 TELEPHONE: (80S) 489-8433 STEPHEN N. COOL E-MAIL: coolaw2@aoLcom ....TTORNEy ....T L....W FAX.. C80S} 489-6702 BOBBIE L. COL.ESON LEG....L. ....SSIST....NT November 15,2001 Rc:"-'f~ "~ {'o'" ") . - tMO ~., ' ~ '~) t:~,<. ""..'.....:' NUV 1 e 2001 cln . , ~~,~FT. Community Development Department City of Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande City Hall Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-010 897 Camino Mercado Dear Sirs: As one ofthe developers ofthe commercial property at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street, by this letter I am advising you of our support for the senior apartment complex and recreation center proposed under the above case number. As you know, we are developing our property as an upscale professional office complex, and of course are very sensitive to the other type of development which might go into our neighborhood. Weare acquainted with the development plan which is being proposed by Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. for their property, and feel that the development is in keeping with the quality of the area and will be a very compatible use for the area. ~ -~ STEPHEN N. COOL SNC:blc cc: Steven Puglisi, AlA ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 10 MINUTES JULY 17, 2001 PAGE 3 ITEM. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. PRE-APPLICATION CASE NO. 01-002; APPLICANT - CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; LOCATION 579 CAMINO MERCADO. The project site is located within the Professional Commercial District ("P-C") of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) and is approximately four (4) acres in size. Surrounding the site is vacant land to the west (approved for office development), single-family residences to the east, the Oak Park Professional Center to the south, and open space property maintained by the Rancho Grande Homeowners Association to the north. The proposed project is to construct forty (40) two-bedroom apartments, and twenty (20) one-bedroom apartments. Twenty- five percent (25%) of the units would be restricted for moderate-income senior housing. The project also includes a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center. Applicant Gary Young 2815 Mesa Alpha, and Architect Steve Puglisi presented proposed plans for: . One and two bedroom units for senior living. . Dedication of 15 units for those with moderate income. . Senior living area with a Senior Center. . Addressed concerns of previous failed project including: . ADA compliance, . Traffic, parking and fire access . Height and mass of buildings . Asked for input from Planning Commission and Staff to meet any immediate concerns. The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding ADA compatibility, parking, traffic studies, and visual impact. Mr. Paulding, President of the Five Cities Seniors Associate spoke in support of this project and the much-needed senior center. ITEM. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS Director Kerry McCants discussed the format for the General Plan Update meetings of July 18 and 19, 2001. This discussion included the introduction and approval of sign in sheets for members of the public wishing to speak and limitation of time for these speakers and reserving parking for the Commissioners. ITEM. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT None. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ATTACHMENT 11 AUGUST 14, 2001 PAGE 7 staff to forward the funding applications and resolution to SLOCOG for funding consideration. Mayor Lady opened the item for public comment. Fred Sweeney, Greenwood Drive, spoke in support of the Branch Mill Road project. He described serious problems with the road surface, including numerous potholes and stated the condition of the road has gone from bad to deplorable and dangerous. He referred to a previous petition submitted to the City signed by many of the surrounding neighbors and requested the Council choose this project as the top priority for funding. Ed Cardozo, 428 Greenwood Drive, spoke in support of designating the Branch Mill Road project as the number one priority. Steve Devencenzi, SLOCOG, updated the Council on The Pike project and explained the regional significance of the project. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady brought the item back to Council for discussion. Council and staff discussion ensued to prioritize the projects. Council Members reaffirmed that last year's priority was finishing up the Grand Avenue project ; commented that the Brisco Road and EI Camino projects may be addressed in the PSR that is currently pending; acknowledged the deteriorating condition of Branch Mill Road; and unanimously supported Branch Mill Road as the number one priority for this cycle of funding. There was discussion and subsequent consensus for allocating any remaining funds to The Pike project. Mr. Devencenzi stated that SLOCOG would work with staff to balance the funds between the projects. Council Member Runels moved to adopt a Resolution declaring the Council's interest in securing 2002 STIP funding for the proposed projects with Branch Mill Road as the top priority; authorize staff to prepare SLOCOG funding applications for the candidate projects; and, direct staff to forward the funding applications and the resolution to SLOCOG for funding consideration. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Runels, Dickens, Lubin, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11.c. Review Pre-application Case No. 01-002, Proposed Senior Housing Facility, Located at 579 Camino Mercado; Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2001 PAGE 8 Associate Planner Heffernon highlighted the staff report. She stated the 4-acre project site is located within the Professional Commercial District of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development. The applicant proposes to construct 60 senior apartment units, 25% of which would be restricted to moderate-income seniors. The project would also include a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center. She explained that the proposed development is within the 30-foot height limit, has a relatively low density of 15 dwelling units per acre, would provide 15 affordable units for moderate income seniors, would be ADA compliant, and based on a recent traffic analysis, would generate approximately 19 PM peak hour trips, which is less than the 20 peak hour trip threshold that the City established as a potentially significant environmental impact. The parking analysis indicates that the project is roughly 10 parking spaces under what the Development Code requires. The applicant requested that an exception to this parking requirement be made based on lower parking requirements used for similar projects in other jurisdictions. Council Member Lubin asked for clarification regarding the traffic analysis. Associate Planner Heffernon explained that the applicant had conducted an independent traffic analysis based on actual traffic counts near similar facilities in Morro Bay and in Arroyo Grande. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to the moderate-income criteria and inquired if staff knew what the range of rent would be. Associate Planner Heffernon responded that the County establishes the criteria and that the applicant could provide that information. Mayor Lady inquired as to how deed restrictions could be placed on apartments for rent. Mayor Lady opened up the item for public comment. Gary Young, applicant, spoke on behalf of the project and addressed issues relating to ADA accessibility, traffic, and the affordability restrictions. He stated the project is targeted for moderate income seniors, with one bedroom units renting at $1,056/month and two bedroom units renting at $1,188/month. Steven Puglisi, project architect, presented an overview of the project and requested the Council consider a deviation or reduction in the parking requirements for the project. Council Member Dickens spoke in support of providing affordable senior housing within the proposed project; suggested locating a bus stop at Camino Mercado; stated if there were to be retaining walls on the property that they do not exceed eight feet in height; encouraged the applicant to work with the City with regard to possible use of the City's affordable housing in-lieu fee fund; and commented that the proposed senior center would be a major asset within the project. Council Member Runels expressed concerns regarding the proposed parking lot. He spoke in general support of the project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2001 PAGE 9 Council Member Lubin spoke in general support of the project; stated he would support reducing the parking requirement; agreed with the need for a senior recreation center; stated that traffic was a concern and he wanted to ensure there was no burden on Camino Mercado; agreed that a bus stop in the area was a good idea; and expressed support for a meandering walkway. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated that the concerns he had regarding the previous proposed project in this location still remain with regard to traffic, density, category of use, pedestrian accessibility, and the preservation of trees. He said the senior center was a good amenity; however, he was concerned with the size and scale of the project. He opposed a bus stop located on Camino Mercado. He suggested that a project with less density which would generate less traffic, such as commercial office, would be better suited for the site. He stated that the need for senior housing projects were being met elsewhere in the City and he would not support the proposed project. Mayor Lady spoke in support of the proposed project and then ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback and direction with regard to moving forward with plans for the proposed project. 11.d. Authorization to Distribute Draft Ordinance and Resolution Amending the Sewer Connection Fees. Director of Public Works Spagnolo highlighted the staff report. Staff recommended the Council authorize the distribution of a draft Ordinance and Resolution amending the Sewer Connection Fees and direct staff to return in approximately 45 days with a summary of public comments and to introduce the proposed Ordinance for first reading. Director Spagnolo responded to questions from the Council. City Attorney Carmel recommended that the Council also release the study prepared by Tuckfield and Associates which analyzed the sewer connection fees, including the sewer area charge. There was no public comment. Council Member Dickens moved to authorize the distribution of the study prepared by Tuckfield and Associates, a draft Ordinance and Resolution amending the sewer connection fees and direct staff to retum in approximately 45 days with a summary of public comments and to introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading. Council Member Lubin seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Lubin, Runels, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. SAC Meeting ATTACHMENT 12 September 18, 2001 Page 2 . The undergrounding would be conditioned to ensure that all the necessary utilities would be undergrounded. . Most of the conditions applied to the previous submittal would still be in effect for this submittal. Tom Lingo, Developer for the apartments, said he would work on the driveways and parking for the project to improve the safety and to keep it to code. Terry Fibich, Fire Department- Building and Fire Department concerns are addressed together and they are: . With regard to traffic everything should be to the new earthquake code. . Fire lanes are to be designated and posted. . Fire flow should be 1500 gpm for a duration of 4 hours (this flow probably not achievable until the Grand Avenue water project gets completed next year). . Both buildings will have to be sprinkled. . The buildings will require alarm systems. . Lock boxes will need to be put in. . On-site fire hydrants will be required. Fire hydrants should be at normal spacing on the street, additionally a hydrant would be needed on either of the islands on site. . A food sales permit will be required. . Secondary emergency access will be needed. Diane Sheeley, Economic Development, said there is approximately $32,000 in the redevelopment "set aside" fund for housing. Thomas Lingo said he had called around the County and there is not much funding available for low-income housing. He said he would continue to pursue this issue. Rodger Olds- with regard to the traffic count, advised the applicant to show counts from an existing facility in a similar community. Kerry McCants- told the applicant that they should prepare a 3 dimensional model of the project. Kelly Heffernon advised the applicant to come back to SAC with a revised Pre- Application. B. APPLICANT - CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT; REPRESENTATIVE - STEVE PUGLISI; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010; LOCATION - 579 CAMINO MERCADO Kelly Heffernon- the applicant is proposing senior housing consisting of 60 one and two- bedroom apartments, and a 3000 square foot senior center. Steve Puglisi said: . The entry drive has been held to a 10% grade, and 7 % as it further extends all the way to the back. The secondary driveways are virtually flat. . He explained the fire access to the buildings. . The parking is 10 spaces short because of the way the City counts the Senior SAC Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 3 Center issue. The ordinance does not allow shared parking. We showed diagonal parking when we went to City Council, but the Engineer has since informed us that we cannot have diagonal parking. However, from a practical perspective we believe we are over-parked, and our traffic analysis will show this. . The darkened trees on the site plan are the actual Oak trees onsite. The actual height and location is also shown on the plan. . The site is fully ADA compliant. Every unit, in every building, will be able to be accessed from every unit in every other building, and site amenity, without having to walk up any steps. There are now 3 elevators. Kelly Heffernon said: . The Parking requirement could be reduced if the different hours of use for the Senior Center versus apartments can be shown; this information can be obtained from the Development Code. . On the site plan they should show- existing trees, their diameter and health, number to be removed, etc. . The landscape plan needs to show a table of the quantities of each individual species to be planted and the location and size. . There is no "allowable density" in the PC District of PD1.1, and she advised the applicant to delete this statement. Rodger aids said the following items should be addressed: . With reference to the grading plan and the ADA compliant ramp, the street will be required to be widened, and from the end of the ramp an ADA compliant walkway would be required to where the bus stop will be. . The driveway to the Kolbo site should be shown. . The crosswalks and all the way to the beginning of the paths should be ADA compliant. . Show how the water from the slope to the retaining wall will be handled and show all site drainage. Anyon site drainage will have to have a fossil filter and it will have to be maintained by the property owner. The City's underground drainage will have to be extended to about 100 feet up to the site; this should be shown on the plan. . There will be a traffic signal required at Camino Mercado. The developers involved in this intersection will be required to design and build the signal and the City will reimburse the cost, excluding the amount of Traffic Signalization Fees. . The mitigation for the water storage will have to be paid. . Instead of the driveway approach show the rounded curb returns. . Show on the site plan where all the City utilities and onsite fire hydrants are going to go. . A soils report will be required prior to completing the environmental review. . The relocation of the fire hydrant with a blow-off valve should be shown as part of putting in the sidewalk. Mr. aids gave the applicant a written list of conditions already compiled. Terry Fibich said for Building and Fire the project should comply with: . UCD/UFC current editions. . Prior to occupancy all designated fire lanes shall be posted and marked. SAC Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 4 . The project shall have a fire flow of 1500 gpm, 4 hours in duration, since the buildings will be sprinkled. . On site fire hydrants will have to be installed - probably a minimum of six. The hydrants must be installed and working before combustibles are brought on site. . There must be an alarm system. . Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit show proof of properly venting all non- conforming items, such as septic tanks etc. . Security key boxes installed, one at the office and one at the community center. . County Environmental Health approval given for the kitchen and the senior center. . Water mitigation fees paid prior to issuance of building permit. . A definition of the occupancy classification relating to level of resident care. . Provide disabled access rooms and facilities as required. Terry Fibich then asked for clarification on the driveway access for emergency vehicles. Steve Puglisi pointed out the best way to access each building and where the emergency vehicles would park. After further discussion Mr. Fibich said there would need to be some very specific directional markings. The directional information would need to be conditioned. Terry Fibich said a fuel management plan for the hillside should be coordinated with Parks & Recreation and Building on an ongoing basis. Kelly Heffernon said Parks and Recreation requirements were as follows: . Deep root planters for all parking islands with drip irrigation. . All trees a minimum of 15 gallons in planters, 24" box for street trees along Camino Mercado. . Ms. Heffernon advised the applicant to go forward to the ARC. C. APPLICANT - HANS VANDERVEEN, REPRESENTATIVE - ERIN O'CONNOR; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. 01-005 & VARIANCE CASE NO. 01-003, LOCATION - PASEO STREET Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner, said this is a Lot Line Adjustment involving four (4) lots and this proposal would make two (2) lots more conforming with the minimum lot size for RS district (12,000 ft.2) and two (2) lots less conforming. A variance has also been proposed to address the lot size. Erin O'Conner, representative, gave a short history on the property. Rodger aids said as long as these lots were legally created there should be no problem with this, but he would be researching this. Hans Vanderveen, the applicant, stated that he wanted to make sure that no buildings would be put on these areas because of the Oak trees. Mr. aids said they could include this stipulation in the Certificate of Compliance. Notes ATTACHMENT 13 DRAFT ARC Meeting October 1, 2001 Page 3 of 5 liB. BAJA FRESH, FIVE CITIES CENTER, BUILDING uJ", DAVID MAHN, VISIBLE GRAPHICS; ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 01-009. Kellv Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the application for installation of signs on two sides of Building "J" located in the Five Cities Center. Per the approved Sign Program for the Center, one sign is permitted per frontage. "Frontage" is described as building front or side, which directly abuts a public street or parking area. The proposed lease space of Baja Fresh is on the south end of Building "J", which has frontage on the west and south sides. Because the south side abuts a public patio seating area and has a side entrance, staff believes that it qualifies as building "frontage", and that the business is therefore entitled to two separate signs Committee Member Comments: . The second sign at this site is reasonable because it will have two entrances and the second sign is not on the back of the building. . All labels are to be placed on the top of the sign. . The signs must be centered above the entrances. . The drain holes must be covered on the sign. A motion was made bv Melanie Hodqes, seconded bv Chuck Fellows, to approve Administrative SiQn Permit 01-009, with the followinQ conditions. . Must meet all standards of the Center and the Development Code. . Each sign must be centered above the entrance. . The UL labels must be placed on the top of the sign so that they are not visible from below. . Drain holes must be covered to prevent light leakage. . If the south entrance is not constructed in conformance with the application, a sign will not be permitted on that side of the building. IIIC. CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, 579 CAMINO MERCADO, GARY YOUNG; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-010. Kellv Heffernon presented the application to construct 60 senior apartment units reserving 25% at the moderate-income level. The project also includes a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center. All facilities and access to the project site will be ADA compliant. A bus stop is also proposed in front of the property to facilitate mobility. A total of 150 parking spaces are required per the Development Code for this project, and 141 are proposed. The Development Code allows up to a 30% reduction in the required number of parking spaces for common parking facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The reduction requires a parking study that clearly shows that the shared uses (the residential units and the recreation center) have different hours of operation that do not conflict. The applicant is requesting an exception to the required number of parking spaces based on this provision and will be required to submit a parking study for justification. Notes DRAFT ARC Meeting October 1, 2001 Page 4 of 5 Garv YounQ. applicant, discussed: . Twenty-five percent of the units reserved for moderate income housing, for thirty years, controlled through deed restriction. . The Five Cities Seniors will have a ten-year lease to operate the Senior Center. . Elimination of the concerns of height and mass of the previous project at this location. . Design based on California character with a Craftsman style. . The complex has firewalls and is sprinklered. . Colors were chosen to match and blend with the natural environment of the site. . No wood on back of building. . Worked to preserve standing oaks and incorporated them into landscaping. . Ease of access for all tenants and visitors to the complex: . Made the entire complex ADA compliant. . Alley and walkways allow residents to easily get from one section of complex to another. . All areas accessible by the three elevators. . Units are designed for ease of living: . All units have private balconies and the units are 800 to 1,000 square feet in space to allow room for walkers, etc. . Each unit has stacked washer and dryers. Discussion Questions: . Will the plantings intrude on the dripline of the standing oaks? . Are pavers in the walkway ADA compliant? . Revise south elevations to accurately show location of ADA ramp. . Revise plans to more clearly show the relation of Senior Center to the first elevation and the first parking area. . How is the definition of "moderate" income determined? . Will there be a kitchen in the senior center? Applicant and Representative- . Every effort has been made to protect the natural elements of this site, will use pavers or some other substitute in lieu of concrete sidewalks to protect the root systems the of standing oaks. . There are many products that are available to use in walkways that are ADA compliant. . Definitions for low and moderate housing are standards issued based on the income levels in this county. . City ordinances will allow deferential treatment due to the combination of the two services to offset the shortage of parking. . The center will have a kitchen and a couple of offices. A motion was made by Chuck Fellows and seconded by Chet Kielan to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 01-010 to the Planning Commission with the following conditions. The applicant shall submit the following information to the Architectural Review Committee for review prior to issuance of building permit: Notes DRAFT ARC Meeting October 1, 2001 Page 5 of 5 . Revised elevations that include the accurate location of the ADA ramps, and the relation of the Senior Center to the first level. . Floor plans with specific labels and dimensions of the units. . Samples of actual materials that accurately demonstrate color, design, and texture of the elements of the project. . Keys on the plans to indicate where the colors will go on the structure. . The applicant shall also submit a scale model of the project to present to the Planning Commission, including the perimeter, existing and proposed landscaping, and ridgeline. III. UPDATE OF PROJECTS Next ARC meeting will be on November 5; the agenda will include the guidelines for wireless siting. IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/STAFF COMMENTS No written Communications at this time. Kelly Heffernon reported that the new Community Development Director will be Rob Strong, starting November 1', V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m. Moved by Melanie Hodges and seconded by Chuck Fellows. NOTES ATTACHMENT 14 DRAFT ARC Meeting NOVEMBER 5, 2001 Page 4 of 6 On September 19, 2001 Signature Properties submitted the above referenced application to change the signage on an existing ground sign. The property is in a small commercial center located in the Office Professional district. The ground sign is two sided, stands six feet high and has a sign face of twenty-two square feet. The sign is located adjacent to the access drive to the Villa Arroyo Professional Building. The applicant presented color samples and explained the impact on the businesses in the complex due to the poor sign age. The sign is faded making is almost unreadable. Tenants in the center have put up signs to notify potential clients making the property look cluttered and unattractive. ARC Recommendations for changes to the propose sign: Raise existing sign, repaint & match colors Insert Aluminite sign with tenant's names below-within height regulations (maximum S') Colors dark blue (navy) with white letters, possibly reverse coloration on lower sign Redo the gold color on the original sign. The lower (new) abut against the bottom of the raised existing sign Frame bottom of new sign Remove existing extraneous signs Melanie Hodqes made a motion to approve the siQn prOQram with the fOllowinq conditions: The siqn will be navv with white letterinQ, the existinq siqn will be raised and a lower siqn will be made to insert below the existinq siqn in the same color. The qold in the existinq siqn will be repainted. The bottom siqn will be framed. The applicant will remove all extraneous siqns. Chuck Fellows seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. liE. Central Coast Real Estate Development, Conditional Use Permit No. 01-010. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the application for a senior housing aiclity located at 597 Camino Mercado. The ARC considered this project on October 1, 2001 and requested the applicant return with the following information: . Revised elevations that accurately show the location of ADA ramps. . Floor plans of the units . Revised plans indicating the relationship of the senior center to the first elevation and the first parking area. . Samples of building materials and colors samples . Color keyed to buildings . Three-dimensional model to scale of the project including the existing landscaping, and ridgeline. Kelly advised the Committee that the requested plans, samples, materials and color boards had been submitted. She introduced Jason Blankenship as representative for Central Coast's project at Camino Mercado. The Committee member reviewed the plans, looked at the samples and the model. NOTES DRAFT ARC Meeting NOVEMBER 5,2001 Page 5 of 6 Jamie Ohler made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 01-010 as proposed. Melanie HodQes seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. liD. S & S Homes, Amended Architectural Review 01-012. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the proposed changes to the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, previously approved for 149 detached single-family residences with ten (10) plan types, and was amended in August of this year for an additional plan type (Plan "I "). the proposed plans are reportedly in response to demands from buyers and to allow usage of smaller lots within the development. The Members of the Committee agreed that they needed to have a representative present to answer questions regarding color, style and the detailing of models. Jamie Ohler made a motion to table this proiect to be heard at a future reQularlv scheduled meetinQ of the Architectural Review Committee. Chuck Fellows seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. IIF. California Pacific Annual Conference of Methodist Church. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-004. Kelly Heffernon presented this application to install a 55-foot tall monopole within a 10,000 square foot lease area on Wesley Street at the United Methodist Church Camp Site. The ARC considered this project on May 7, 2001 and after much discussion about visual impacts recommended approval tot the Planning Commission with the following stipulations: 1) State of the art technology should be used to camouflage the arrays to the maximum extent possible. 2) The applicant should provide the Planning Commission with a 3-D model of the "Chameleon" tree. 3) The utility camouflage should have substantial density of branches around the arrays. The Planning Commission considered this item on July 3, 2001 and made the following comments: . The city should have a master plan as soon as possible for these cell sites. . It would be preferable to have just a few clustered cell sites in the City rather than many separate sites, and a grove of trees rather than one large tree. . The tree on this project site is too tall and located too high on the ridge. It should be moved closer to the other trees, but then it may be in the Village viewshed. . The site should be reviewed in relation to the City water tank. . Undergrounding the poles will address visual impacts and the Development code specifies that this must be done. . Would a new driveway be better than the old one? A major cut in the bluff would have a visual impact on the Village. Penfieldl~Smith ATTACHMENT 15 ENGINE rRS SUI~VI.YI)RS 101 rr\sr YICTI1R:A SHEET ::O:;i 1 NORm SOLAR DIME /'.0. OOX ')8 SUITE 225 SANtA 11M(:>^~i\ CAt.lrCri~M ~?!IO~ OX"lJARv, CALIFor<NJA 9.10)0 ~Lh"'H-;-, 9~n . FAX 80S-%6.QF!OI ?i03-9<D 74~'J .. FAX &orl-9Ijj-151'6 W.O. 14,405.01 October 5, 2001 ". .~: if'" , ~: U " (UU1 Mr. G~ry Young Centra] Coast Real Estate Development, lnc. CO'. .. 2815 Mcsa Alta Lane ,"_..i [;~PT. Arroyo nr8nclc, CA 93~.20 SUBJECT, Parking Demand Analysis for the Camino Mercado Scnior Apartments ancl Senior Center; Arroyo Grande, California Dc[\( 1',1r. Young: Penfield & Smith IP&S) conduded a traftic impact study (dated August 13, 2001) for the proposed Camino Mercado Senior Apartments and Senior Center in Arroyo Grrmde. The traIfie study incll1ded an asse"sment of the existing and projected fntnre traffic conditions within the area. delermined the expected trip generalion for the project, and evalnated the potential traffic impacts associated with the project. Per yonI' request, we have prepared thc follo,,~ng pm"king demand analysis as ~ Rupplcmcnt to the: traIfic study previously submitted by OUr office. Specifically, our ~11t1ty~i5 focuses on the p,-lrking den1cmd associated ~.;th the proposed senior center. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The: project is proposing to construct a 60 unit senior apartment buildin~. induding 40 two~bedroom units and 20 one~bcdroom units. In addition. a 3,000 SF scnior centcr is proposed to be located adjacent to the apn.rtrt1ents. The center wiII be opcn to both the apartmcnt tcnants, as well as tile senior community as a whole. PARKING ANALYSIS Bascd on the City of Arroyo Grande's pMJdng code. 110 spaces are requircd for the 60 unit aparlment building and 40 spaces :lIe required for the senior ccntcr (based on 2.000 5fo' of asscmbly area), for a total of 150 spaces. 141 spaces are proposcd for the: proj(;Cl. Thus. a shortfall of 9 spaces cxists. However, given the naturc of the proposed project, it is eU1ticipatcd that the actual p3rking demand will be significantly lower them the parking code requirements. This is based on the follo"'~ng factors: _IrCa._ ...~~ Mr. Gary Young Oclober 5, 2001 Page 2 Wnll,ing Trips Given the proxImity of the ap~rtmcnts to the senior center, it is anticipated that a portion of the ~eniors will walk to the center from their apartment and thereforc will not require an additional parking space. As a conservative estimate, it is reasonable to assume that at least 25%, of the seniors will walk to the center from the apartments, Dial-A-Ride/Taxi ,'rips As part of the original traffic study for this project. P&S conducted traffic counts at the Morro Bc\y Senior Center, During the counts. P&S staff observed that many of the trips associated with thc Scnior Center werc "dial-a-ride" trips, Many seniors are not "ble to drive or do not even own cars. Thus it is anticipated that some seniors wilt use the dial-a. ride service to be dropped off at the centcr. As a worst-case analysis we have estimated that approximately 5% of the seniors wilt arrive by dial.a-ride/t"xi. Private lIutomobile Trips It is estimatcd that the remainer of the seniors (70%) will arrive by private automobile. However, based on our experience with other projects of this type (including the Morro Bay SC'I)ior Center). it is also reasonable to 8ssume that some seniors will carpool to the center. Therefore we have assmed an average vehicle occupancy of 1,5 occupants/vehicle. This ratio tal,es into aCCOUnt the fact that some people wilt drive alone while others may carpool with 2 to 3 people. PARKING DEMAND It is 'mticipatcd that the senior center wiJ] have a maximum attendance of npproximatdy 50 seniors on any given day, Although it is ,mticipated that the attendance ",in be spread throughout the day, for the pUrposes of this analysis we have a,,"umcd thal all 50 seniors could be at the center at onc Time. Therefore, based on an attendance of 50 people and on the factors described above, it IS estimated that the senior center wilt have a peal< p1ITking dcmand of approximately 23 spaces. Dne to the potcntial for the ~eniors to walk, use the dial-a-ride service, or C'arpooJ more than half of the seniors wilt not ,'equire a parking space. This is summarized below; MooS_. Percentage People Spaces Private Auto' 70% 34 people 23 spaces Walk 25(Yo 13 people o spaces Tf\xi 51Vo 3 people o spaces Totnl 100% SO people 23 spaces 'l:!.J.;,ul ()!1 i1n aVUj..I$~<": v<.:hidc OCCUP:if',cy of 1.5 occ/vch. The actual parking dem~nd al the senior center would be 17 spi>ces lese, than City's parking requirement for this type of facility. Thu s, it is anticipated th3t the 141 sjJ~ccs proposed (lID for the apartments and 31 spaces for the center) will be srlequate to nlCel the parking demand and operation of the project. pt~s Mr. Gmy Young October 5, 2001 Page 3 Should you require any additional information or wish to discuss this letter further, plcuse contact mc at (805)963-9532 Or via email at JmV@penfie1dsmith.eom. Thank you for your consideration of Penfield & Smith for this project. Vcry truly your~, PENFIELD &. SMITH d' 'b{1 . '15<[. ( ~~- Lis"- Valdez C A:s..s.uciate Planner p&s ATTACHMENT 16 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - INITIAL STUDY - 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 3. Contact Person & Phone #: Kelly Heffernon (805) 473-5420 4. Project Location: 579 Camino Mercado Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: Central Coast Real Estate Development 2815 Mesa Alta Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 6. General Plan Designation: Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PO 1.1) 7. Zoning: Oak Park Acres Planned Development (pO 1.1) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary. support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project is to construct sixty (60), one and two-bedroom senior apartment units in six (6), two- story buildings, and a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center on a 3.97-acre site. The property was partially graded in 1987 and is currently vacant. Utility construction and minor street improvements are required to serve the project. Because of the previous grading activities, minimal grading will be required and no trees will be removed. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): None. 1 DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect{sl on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. / /f)/Z7N/ ~/ -/ Date ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNiFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checkiist on the following pages. o Land Use and Planning . Biological Resources o Public Services o Population and Housing o Energy and Mineral Resources o Utilities and Service Systems II Geophysical II Hazards o Aesthetics II Water II Noise . Cultural Resources II Air Quaiity o Mandatory Findings of Significance . Recreation . Transportation/Circulation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for al/ answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a fead agency cites ;n the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" question is adequately supported jf the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fautt rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it ;s based on project specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operations impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or is the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately anaiyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the discussion. 2 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: al Conflict with general pran designation or zoning? (source #(sl: 1,2,3.41 X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (source His): 1,6,7) X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from incompatible land usesl? (source #(s): 9, 11) X dl Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (source HIs): 2.4,11} X II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (source His): 1,5,9} X bl Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects jn an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X (source Its): 9,10) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (source His): 9,10,111 X III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (source #lsl: 5,61 X b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (source #Is): 5,6) X cJ Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source His): 5,6) X d} Landslides or mudslides? Isource #(s): 5,6) X e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils conditions from excavation, grading or fjJI? (source #Is): 10) X fl Subsidence of land? Isource His}: 5,6) X 9} Expansive soils? (source #lsl: 5,6) X h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source His): 5,6,10,11} X IV. WATER: Would the proposal resultin: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (source #(s): 10) X b) Exposure to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Isource #Is): 81 X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? {source #(s/: 9) X 3 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (source #151: 9, 10) X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (source HIs): 9, 10) X fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Isource HIs): 9, 10) X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Isource #(5): 9, 10) X hi Impacts to 9roundwater quality? (source #(5): 9,101 X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise avaiiable for public water supplies? (source #151: 6) X V. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: al Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X (source #(5): 7, 13) bl Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (source #(5): 10,11) X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (source #151: 91 X dl Create objectionable odors? (source #(5): 9,101 X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (source #(5): 131 X b) Hazards to safety from desi9n features (e.g.. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (source #(5): 9, 10) X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sites? Isource #(sl: 9, 101 X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source #(sl: 3, 9, 101 X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (source #(5): 9,101 X II Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (source #(5): 9, 10) X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, X animals, and birds? (source #(5): 61 b) Localiy designated species (e.9., heritage treesl? Isource #(5): 10, 11} X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitatl? (source HIs): 10, 11) X 4 dl Wetland habitat le.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pooll? (source #(sl: 9, 11) X el Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (source #(sl: 111 X VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (source #Is): 1, 6) X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (source His): 9, 10) X IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances !including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (source #(sl: 9) X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (source Its): 9, 10) X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential heaith hazard? (source #(sl: 9, 10) X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (source #lsl: 9,10,11) X eJ Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass, or trees? (source His): 10. 11) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source lis): 1, 9) X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (source His): 9, 10) X XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire Protection? (source His): 61 X bl Police Protection? Isource #lsl: 6) X c) Schools? Isource #Is): 6) X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Isource #Is): 6) X e) Other governmental services? (source #(sl: 6) X XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: al Power or natural gas? (source His): 9, 10) X b) Communications systems? (source #(s): 9, 10) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution lacHities? Isource #Is): 6) X d) Storm water drainage? Isource #Is): 6) X e) Solid waste disposal? (source #Is): 6) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Isource #lsl: 1, 10, 111 X 5 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Isource HIs): g, 10, 11) X c) Create light or glare? Isource #Is): 9,10) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontologicai resources? Isource #Is): 6, 11) X b) Oisturb archaeological resources Isource #Is): 6, 11) X c) Affect historical resources? (source His): 6, 11) X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cuitural values? Isource #Is): 11) X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (source #Is): 10, 11) X XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (source #(5): 1, 3) X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Isource #Is): 1, 5) X XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self.sustaining leveis, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or X prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? I"Cumuiatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by earlier documents. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6 SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan 2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map 3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code 4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report 6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR 7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan 8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map 9. Project Description 10. Project Plans 11 . Site Inspection 12. Ordinance 431 C. S. 13. Institute of Traffic Engineers Trio Generation Manual ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is approximately 3.97 acres in size and is located on Camino Mercado in the Professional Commercial District (P-C) of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1). Surrounding the site is an office development currently under construction to the west, single-family residences to the east, the Oak Park Professional Center to the south, and open space property to the north. The site slopes steeply up from Camino Mercado and then becomes relatively flat where a building pad was graded in 1987. The property is highly visibie from Highway 101 and from the properties west of Highway 101 along EI Camino Real, Chilton Street and Hiilcrest Drive. The property is currently vacant and contains numerous mature Coast Live Oak trees. No trees will be removed as a result of this project. Pismo Clarki a, a federally designated endangered plant species and a State Rare Plant, has been identified in three areas along the western property boundary. The project site is not located near a known cultural resource area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project evaluated by this initial study is to construct sixty (60) senior apartment units and a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center with 141 parking spaces. On-site drainage will be accomplished by a drainage system that will convey runoff from both on-site and off-site sources. The project will be served by a public water system, and thus will have no direct or indirect impact on groundwater resources. EXPLANATIONS TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The property is located in the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1), and is subject to the site development standards for the Professional Commercial zoning designation of PD 1.1, and other ordinances of the City of Arroyo Grande. Construction of a senior housing facility is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site, and no impacts in land use and planning would result. The proposed project does not pose conflicts with existing environmental plans and/or policies. There are no agricultural operations in the vicinity of the project site. The project is adjacent to existing residential development. an approved office development and open space. Given these diverse existing land uses, the proposed project would not disrupt or divide an established community. Analysis of Significance: No impact. II. POPULATION & HOUSING Occupancy of the project upon completion would increase the population of the area above current levels, but not above levels anticipated by the General Plan. As stated above, the project is consistent with the Generai Plan and zoning for the site. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact. 7 III. GEOPHYSICAL In 1986, a 180-room skilled nursing facility was approved for this site. Construction for that project began in 1987, but ceased in early 1988 after several building pads were cut and retaining walls installed. As a result, minimal additional grading is required for the proposed project. The applicant has submitted a soils report discussing existing site conditions, and measures to reduce potential soils-related impacts (reference Attachment A for soils report). Standard erosion control measures would address on-site construction period erosion by wind or water. Long-term erosion potential would be addressed through installation of landscaping and storm drainage facilities, both of which would be designed to meet applicable regulations. Based on the General Plan and review of the Alquist-Priolo Zone Fault maps, the proposed project is not located on a known earthquake fault subject to rupture. The proposed project will be subject to the effects of periodic seismic events in the region, including ground shaking. However, exposure of people to these events can generally be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk by following Uniform Building Code development standards. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall implement the recommendations included in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. dated October 4, 2001 (Project No. SL002497-1), attached to this initial study as Attachment A. Monitoring: Review of grading, drainage, and foundation plans Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit IV. WATER/DRAINAGE Water. Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. Projected water demand is approximately 7.2 acre-feet of water per year. The water consumption by this project would further reduce the City's supply of available water. This impact could be mitigated using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 2. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: Implement an individual water program that utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation; or, Pay an in lieu fee. Monitoring: Review of individual water program or payment of the in lieu fee Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 8 According the City's Water System Master Plan (adopted 7/13/99). the project does not have adequate water storage facilities to serve the project. The Rancho Grande Reservoir (Reservoir No.5) provides water storage to the vicinity of the proposed development; however, it has been identified as being inadequate to provide sufficient water storage to the site vicinity. The City currently has capital improvement plans to upgrade the Oro Reservoir (Reservoir No.3). which would interconnect with the Reservoir No.5 and add greater storage capacity. Specifically, the recommended capital improvement outlined in the Water System Master Plan states the following: "Construct an additional 750,000 of storage at Reservoir No.3. Connect the Rancho Grande Pressure Zone to the Oro Pressure Zone via a 12" transmission line, and upgrade the Oro Booster Station." Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated Mitigation Measure 3. The applicant shall pay a fee of $2,625 per Equivaient Residential Unit water usage for adequate water storage for the project. Monitoring: Pay required fee. Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 4. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Monitoring: Review of building plans Responsible Department: Building and Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 5. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping. drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. Monitoring: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans Responsible Department: Parks and Recreation Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit DrainaCle. Development of the site will increase impervious surfaces, which in turn will change absorption rates and increase the amount of runoff. The site would drain onto Camino Mercado and existing drainage facilities would accommodate the increased flows. Detailed drainage calculations would be reviewed as part of the plan check process. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 6. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations indicating that increased run-off can be accommodated by existing facilities and/or provide on-site retention basins to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Monitoring: Review of grading plans Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit 9 V. AIR QUALITY Construction activities would generate dust, which couid cause potentially significant environmental impacts. Operation of the project would also generate approximately 19 AM and 19 PM peak hour trips. Based on the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) emission thresholds, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality (reference Attachment B for APCD referral response). Although air quality impacts will fall below APCD thresholds for significance, the project will contribute emissions to the air basin, which is already a non-attainment area for the State ozone standard. Emissions generated by this project, together with emissions generated by reasonably foreseeable new development, will result in a cumulative adverse impact on air quaiity unless all reasonably available mitigations are included in the design of the project. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor shall also designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order in'creased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. The name and telephone number of such person's) shall be provided to APCD prior to issuance of grading permit. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 7. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep ail areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. 8. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soii binders to prevent dust generation. 9. Permanent dust control measures identified in the revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. 10. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 11. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 12. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading uniess seeding or soil binders are used. 13. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 14. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections . 10 Responsible Departments: The Public Works and Building and Fire Departments shall inspect plans and spot check in the field Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION Access to the project site is from Camino Mercado, a collector street with a 56-foot right-of-way. Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project (Penfield & Smith dated 8/13/01, Attachment C), the development is estimated to generate 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 19 trips during the PM peak hour. Since the project is estimated to generate below the 20-peak hour trip threshold established by the City, the trip generation is not expected to impact the study intersections under the existing conditions. Under the future traffic conditions, however, the West Branch Street/Camino Mercado intersection will degrade to a level of service F, and a signal is therefore warranted at this intersection. The project traffic would also contribute to the cumulative negative impact on the backbone circulation system. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 15. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. The applicant and the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement providing that the City shall reimburse the applicant the difference in costs between the signal installation and the project's Signalization Impact fee. The applicant may be reimbursed for those costs to the extent that signalization impact fees are available and programmed for this project. Monitoring: The applicant shall install the traffic signal Responsible Dept./ Agency: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 16. The applicant shall pay the City's Transportation Facilities Impact fee prior to issuance of building permit. Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees Responsible Dept./Agency: Building & Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A rare plant survey was conducted on May 28, 1999 by Dames & Moore, which identified three Pismo Clarkia (C/arkia speciosa ssp. immaculate) populations along the western parcel boundary (reference Attachment D for biological survey). Pismo Clarkia is listed as endangered by the federal government and is a State Rare Plant. The populations found varied in size from 25 to 50 individuals each, for a total of 75 to 150 plants onsite. The report by Dames & Moore concluded that the presence of Pismo Clarkia along the site boundary does not preclude further development of the site and recommended that the following measures be implemented to protect the existing plant populations. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 17. Site development plans shall specify that grading and other types of disturbance be precluded from a 25-foot buffer zone around the Pismo Clarkia populations to minimize impacts. A fence and appropriate signage shall be placed around the buffer zone to preclude impacts to Pismo Clarkia during construction. 11 Monitoring: The applicant shall submit plans showing these protection measures. Responsible Department: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit 18. The site development plans identifying protection areas around the Pismo Clarkia shali be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) at least 10 days prior to the start of site work. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit the plans to CDFG Responsible Department: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit Approximately 12 mature oak trees exist on the property, all of which are proposed to remain. Tree protection measures must be in place during construction per Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. Analysis of Significance: Potentialiy significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 19. The applicant shall retain an arborist during the grading and construction phases of the project. Protective fencing shall be installed around each tree to remain at the dripline, or as directed in the field by the arborist. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading, and shall remain in place until construction is complete, including landscaping. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating the following: Tree Protection Zone No personnel, equipment, materials, or vehicles are allowed Do Not move or remove this fence [Name of arborist or consultant] [Name and phone number of developer or general contractor] Monitoring: Field inspection Responsible Departments: Parks & Recreation, Community Development Departments Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Development of the site with an assisted care facility will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or result in the wasteful use of non-renewable resources. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact. 12 IX. HAZARDS The project does not pose an undue risk to project occupants or occupants of surrounding properties. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the open space area north of the project site for fire protection purposes. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 20. The applicant shall submit a Vegetation Management Plan for a portion of the open space property located adjacent to and north of the project site. The plan shall include an area having a depth of 200' along the northern project boundary. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit the plan Responsible Department: Building & Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit X. NOISE Existing noise levels would be increased temporarily during the construction phase of this project. Noise resulting from construction activities will be short-term, and is subject to the City's Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 21. All construction equipment shall be provided with well-maintained, functional mufflers to limit noise. 22. All construction activities shall comply with the time limits specified by the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. 23. To the greatest extent possible, grading and/or excavation operations at portions of the site bordering developed areas should occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive uses. Monitoring: Notes shall be placed on the construction plans referencing the above measures. Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: During construction XI. PUBLIC SERVICES Development of the site with an assisted living facility would increase demand for fire and police protection services, but not beyond levels anticipated by the General Plan for City buildout. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed project will not create a significant demand for new or altered power, gas, communication systems, water treatment capacity or solid waste disposal. The project can tie into the existing infrastructure for these systems to serve the site. The project is within the expected demand for these systems based on the growth rate established in the General Plan. 13 Analysis of Significance: Less than significant. XIII. AESTHETICS The proposed facility will be placed into the side of the ridge above Camino Mercado where a building pad was previously graded and will be highly visible from the Highway 101 corridor. To reduce visual impacts, the colors and materials of the architecture were selected to blend with the surrounding environment. The landscape plan shows a variety of large evergreen trees along the front portion of the project, which will also help obscure the structure from the south. The open space areas located north and east of the project site containing an established oak woodland will screen the structure when viewed from James Way and adjacent Rancho Grande residences. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeologist Robert Gibson conducted a phase one archaeological surface survey on the site, and no 'significant historic or prehistoric archaeological materials were found. Based on the survey, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on any known cultural resources. If during construction excavation, any buried or isolated prehistoric cultural materials or historic features are unearthed, work in that area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can examine them and appropriate recommendations made as outlined in CEOA. In such an event, Robert Gibson or the Community Development Department of the City of Arroyo Grande should be contacted. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 24. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: "In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, and archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has reviewed the resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures." Monitoring: Construction plans shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure the note is in place. Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit XV. RECREATION The proposed project would increase demand for City park and recreational facilities. In this case, the Parks and Recreation Director has indicated that this impact would be mitigated by the City's Standard Condition requiring payment of the park development fee. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 25. The applicant shall pay all applicable park development fees to the City. Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the park development fees to the City. Responsible Department: Parks and Recreation Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 14 A TT ACHMENT A PRELIMINARY SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR HOUSING 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL02497-1 Prepared for CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ATTN: MR. GARY YOUNG 2815 MESA ALTA LANE ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 Prepared by GEOSOLUTIONS, INC. 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORt'lIA 93401 (805) 543-8539 @ n-""" , . '1 '., . K . .~ October 4, 2001 \UV 1 ;) 2001 C!-;-" ~:+ CCy: ,'~ ,.'''': . ._ :.->= ::;:~ T. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................1 3.0 SUB-SURF ACE SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................. ................... ......... ........... ........ 2 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS ...........................................................................2 4.1 Clearing and Stripping............ ............................................................................................. 3 4.2 Preparation of Building Pad................................................................................................ 3 4.3 Preparation of Paved Areas ................................................................................................. 4 4.4 Structural Fill....................................................................................................................... 4 4.5 Excavating Conditions...................................................................... ~.................................. 4 4.6 Foundations......................................................................................................................... 5 4.7 Slab-On -Grade Construction.......................................... ..................................................... 5 4.8 Retaining Walls ......... .......................... ........... ..................... .................... ........... ......... ........6 4.9 Pavement Design.. ..... ....................... .............. .................. .......... .... .......... .......... ......... ........7 4.10 Underground Facilities Construction.............. .................. .......... ............. ........... .......... .......8 4.11 Surface and Sub-Surface Drainage......................................................................................9 5.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES .............................................................................. 9 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS............................................................ 10 FIGURES Area Location Map Site Location Map Setback Deminsions PRELIMINARY SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR HOUSING 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL02497-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Camino Mercado Senior' Apartments development is to be located along the north side of Camino Mercado approximately 200 yards north of the intersection of West Branch Street, in the City of Arroyo Grande, California. See Figure I, Site Location Map. It is our understanding that the project will consist of building pads, connecting driveways, parking, and utilities. The driveway extends from Camino Mercado. The proposed residential units are to be situated upon previously excavated pads located on the south flank of the east-west trending ridge. South of the proposed units, the natural slope drains toward the south. The residential units consist of two-story apartment complex and will utilize slab-on-grade floor systems. Dead and sustained live loads are anticipated to be relatively light with maximum continuous footing and column loads estimated to be on the order of 1.5 kips per lineal foot and 10.0 kips, respectively. The site had been previously graded, resulting in the multi-tiered building pads separated by cut slopes. It is understood that extensive volumes of soil were removed from the site, and fill soils exist along the south side of the lower pad and along the driveway area off Camino Mercado. No records are known documenting the proper placement of this fill, therefore it will be assumed to be non-compliant and will require removal and replacement in conformance with current engineering standards. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The scope of our work for this investigation was limited to the following: 1. Review of existing geotechnical information pertaining to the site and current site conditions. 2. A review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site including: i. Engineering Geology Investigation, Professional Office Building, 500 Block of Camino Mercado, Arroyo Grande, California, Project SLOI245-1, dated January 24,2000. ii. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Camino Mercado Senior Apartments, City of Arroyo Grande, California, by R. Thompson Consulting, dated August 31, 2001. iii. ALTNACSM Survey, Alternative Living Services, Arroyo Grande, California, by Garing Taylor & Associates, dated November 24, 1998. 3. Preparation ofthis report summarizing our findings and conclusions regarding Site development. October 4, 2001 SL02497-1 In the event that there are changes in the nature, design or location of improvements are not consistent with actual design values, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and conclusions of this report modified if required. Evaluations of the soiJ for corrosive potential, hydrocarbons or other chemical properties are beyond the scope of this investigation. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site is underlain by bedrock units of the Paso Robles fonnation. These units were observed to consist of indurated, pebble conglomerate and sandstone. The relatively flat lying bedrock unit is very resistant, with no observable jointing or other fractures. During the original site grading, all topsoiJ and weathered bedrock had been removed from the proposed development areas. Located along the south side of the access driveway and the lower building pad, from 1 to 8 feet offill was observed. It appears to consist of sJightly siJty, fine to medium sand with gravel. No documentation is known to exist which identifies the method of original ground preparation, placement procedure, or compaction compJiance. Therefore, the fill should be assumed to be non-conforming, requiring its removal and recompaction in compJiance with current standards. As an alternative, further investigation may be perfonned, which could confinn compliance. Structural building design parameters within the 1997 Unifonn BuiJding Code (UBC) are dependent upon several factors including Site soil characteristics and faults near the Site. This data is presented below in tabular fonn. Soil Profile Type SD - Stiff Soil Seismic Source Type Greater than 15 kilometers from an A fault Less than 2 kilometers from a B fault. Seismic Zone Seismic Zone 4, Z= 0.4 Near Source Factor Na = 1.3 N.= 1.6 Seismic Coefficient Ca = 0.44Na = 0.44 (1.3) = 0.57 C. = 0.64N. = 0.64 (1.6) = 1.02 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that undocumented fill be removed to hard bedrock. The removal of loose and medium dense sand and gravel is anticipated to be I to 8 feet. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should be present during site grading to verify over-excavated soils are properly removed to competent material. The soil Can be excavated with conventional heavy earth moving equipment. Hard rock conditions may be locally encountered. Fill constructed on slopes should be benched into competent hard bedrock prior to placcmcnt. Site grading and construction of structures should e founded into the underlying finn competent bedrock as approved by the Engineering Geologist. ,', J) ~. 2 October 4, 2001 SL02497-1 2. Our recommendations are presented as guidelines to be used by project planners and designers for improvements associated with construction of the project. These recommendations were prepared assuming that GeoSolutions, Inc. is commissioned to review final project grading and foundation plans prior to construction, and to observe and test during grading and foundation construction. Site development should be perfonned in accordance with the applicable standards of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Unifonn Building Code. 3. The Engineering Geologist should provide field observation and testing during the grading operations and footing excavations, so that the adequacy of the Site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, if applicable, the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the project geotechnical specifications. AIty work related to grading perfonned without the full knowledge of, and under direct observation of the Engineering Geologist, may render the recommendations of this report invalid. 4. The Engineering Geologist should be notified prior to the commencement of site clearing or grading. The Engineering Geologist should be present to observe the stripping of deleterious material and provide consultation to the Grading Contractor in the field. 4.1 Clearinl! and Strippinl! I. All surface and sub-surface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building areas and disposed of off-site. This includes, but is not limited to, any debris, organic materials, construction spoils, buried utility lines, septic systems, building materials, and any other surface and sub-surface structures within proposed building areas. Trees designated for removal on the construction plans should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed under the observation of a GeoSolutions, Inc. representative. Voids left from site clearing should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. 2. Once the site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soil. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should detennine the required depth of stripping at the time of work being completed. Strippings, including the stockpiled tree stumps, if they remain at the time of Site development, may be either disposed of off-site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas if approved by the landscape architect. 4.2 Preparation of Buildinl! Pads I. It is anticipated that during grading operations, fill and resistant bedrock will be encountered. Where cufslopes encounter fill, it should be removed to competent bedrock as verified by the Engineering Geologist. All colluvium and soft or weathered bedrock should be removed prior to the placement of any fill. 2. Fill slopes should not have a gradient steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The use of well-graded fill material is recommend to minimize surface instability. Intennediate drainage terraces are recommended for all fill slopes steeper than 5: I with vertical slope height greater than 30 feet. Refer to Section 4.4 Structural Fill for more details on fill placement. All cut slopes exposing undisrurbed bedrock should be no steeper than 1.5: I (horizontal to vertical) with all slopes verified by the Engineering Geologist. Existing cut slopes that 3 October 4,2001 SL02497-1 exceed 1.5:1 should be supported by retaining structures, excavated to 1.5:1, or evaluated for permanent stability. 4. During grading, a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should evaluate the need for a sub drain or back-drain system. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with sub- surface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. Sub-surface drainage facilities may include gravel blankets, rock filled trenches or Multi-flow systems or equal. The drain system should discharge in a non-erosive manner into an approved drainage area. 5. All final grades should be provided with a positive drainage" gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. 4.3 Preparation of Paved Areas I. Pavement areas should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade. The soil should then be moisture conditioned to produce a water content of at least I to 2 percent above optimum value and then compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density based on the ASTM D 1557-91 test method. 2. Subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between the time of water conditioning and compaction, and the time of placement of the pavement structural section. 4.4 Structural Fill I. On-site soils free of organic and deleterious materials are suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill should not contain rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches in greatest dimension. 2. Imported fill should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have very low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Before delivery to the site, a sample of the proposed import should be tested in our laboratory to determine its suitability for use as structural fill. 3. Structural fill using approved import or native should be placed in layers, each not exceeding eight inches in thickness before compaction. On-site inorganic soil or approved imported fill should be conditioned with water, to produce a soil-water content of near optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91. 4.5 Excavatine Conditions We anticipate that excavation of on-site materials may be accomplished with standard heavy earthmoving or trenching equipment. However, locally hard rock conditions may be encountered and could require specialized equipment and techniques. 4 October 4, 2001 SL02497-1 4.6 Foundations l. Conventional continuous footings and spread footings joined by grade beam of equal depth as the adjoining continuous footing may be used for support of the proposed structures. Isolated pad footings are permitted for single floor loads only. 2. For planning purposes for one and two-story construction, footings should be a minimum of 12 and IS-inches wide, respectively and founded on a minimum of IS and 18-inches, respectively, below lowest adjacent grade in engineered fin or competent bedrock as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Minimum reinforcing should be one No.4 bar top and bottom or as directed by the project structural engineer. Final minimum footing depth and pre-saturation requirements shall be verified after building pad grading has been completed and the in-situ material for each building has been tested for expansitivity. 3. Allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,800 psf may be used for continuous and pad footings founded in engineered fin or competent bedrock. This value may be increased by one-third for the inclusion of seismic or wind forces. 4. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings andlor friction between the engineered fill or competent bedrock and the bottom of the footing. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.35 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of the footings extending a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill. The friction factor may be increased to 0,55 for footings founded into competent bedrock as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. 5. A passive resistance of 2S0-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in engineered fill and 3S0-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in competent bedrock. If friction and passive pressures are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this finn prior to the placement of reinforcing steel andlor concrete. Concrete should be placed only in excavations that have been pre-moistened and are free of loose, soft soil, or debris. The depth of pre- moistening and testing requirements are to be verified by laboratory testing the expansitivity of the soils after the final rough grading ofthe building pads is completed. 6. The minimum footing setbacks from a descending slope must be maintained see Figure 3, Setback Dimensions. The base of an grade beams and footings should be level and be stepped as required to accorrunodate the slope while maintaining the minimum footing embedment. In areas subject to rockfall, greater setbacks may be required. 7. Foundation design should confonn to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the latest edition of the Unifonn Building Code. 4.7 Slab-On-Grade Construction 1. Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared native materials. Preparation of subgrade to receive concrete slabs-an-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report or supported entirely on unifonn competent bedrock as verified by a representative of GeoSolutions. Soil pre- moistening is recommended prior to the placement of concrete. S October 4,2001 SL02497-1 2. Where concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining material to service as. a capillary break. A typical 1" X #4 concrete coarse aggregate mix is suitable for this application. Where moisture susceptible storage or floor coverings are anticipated, a 10 ml Visqueen-type membrane should be placed between the cushion and the slab to provide an effective vapor barrier, and to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. It is suggested that a 2-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. Moisture condensation under floor coverings has become critical due to the use of water- soluble adhesives; therefore it is suggested that moisture sensitive slabs not be constructed during inclement weather conditions. 3. Concrete slab-on-grades should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with No.3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated unifonn floor loads not exceeding 200 psf. If floor loads greater than 200 psf are anticipated, a structural engineer should evaluate the slab design. 4. Concrete for all slabs should be placed at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. If fibers (Fibennesh) are used to aid in the control of cracking, a water-reducing admixture may be added to the concrete to increasc slump while maintaining a water/cement ratio. which will limit excessive shrinkage. Control joints should be constructed as required to control cracking. 4.8 Retaining Walls I. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures froin adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. We recommend using the following lateral pressures for design of retaining walls of 10 feet or less in height at the site. ~il~~~lif~~~~~~~~~~~t~l\i~l}. ;tfi~~~~t~ikl~ k;~41:4~1:~t;~.i:(fS~~};~.;~ .""" "-Slope ".. .' ~t~~b~f,~~~f~~f~::i~ Active Case, Native Drained (K,) 50 Level Active Case, Native Drained (K,) 60 3:1 Active Case, Native Drained (K,) 70 2:1 Passive Case, Engineered Fill (Kp) 250 - Passive Case, Competent Bedrock (Kp) 350 - The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist shall address individual retaining walls having heights exceeding 10 feet individually following an examination of the site. 6 October 4,2001 SL02497-t 2. Retaining wall foundations or keyways should be founded a minimum 12 inches into engineered fill or competent bedrock. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the engineered fill and the concrete footings. The friction factor may be increased to 0.55 for footings founded into competent bedrock as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. 3. In addition to the lateral soil pressure given above, the retaining walls should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are required to operate within 10 feet of a wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account through design. 4. Thc above-recommended pressures are based on the assumption that sufficient sub-surface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of filter material should be a minimum of 18 inch thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to within 12 inches of the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of water conditioned, compacted, clayey soil. A 4-inch diameter drain pipe (Schedule 40 PVC) should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drainpipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material. A typical 1 " x #4 concrete coarse aggregate mix is a suitable filter material. 5. For hydrostatic loading conditions (Le. no free drainage behind retaining wall), an additional loading of 45 pcf equivalent fluid weight should be added to the above soil pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged conditions, the allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50%. Iri addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. 6. Additional forces may be imparted to retaining walls during an earthquake. In the absence of a rigorous seismic analysis, a peak effective ground acceleration of OAg for UBC Seismic Zone 4 may be used for design. 7. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of the walls. 8. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be considered for any basement construction, and for building walls that retain earth. 4.9 Pavement Desi!!n 1. All paving construction and materials used should conform to applicable sections of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications, State of California, Department of Transportation. 2. As indicated previously, the top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under pavements should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557- 91 test method at slightly above optimum. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the aforementioned test method. 7 October 4, 2001 SL02497-1 3. The following table provides the recommended pavement section based on an assumed R- Value of 30 based on R-Value tested and the California Department of Transportation Highway Design' Manual Section 608.4(2). Final design pavement section will be dete!I11ined after preliminary grading is complete and the California Test Method No. 301- F test is perfo!I11ed on a representative pavement sub-soil sample encountered at the Site. ~S:"fi~"'-'1fi-J.\\~~"'~~""~~"""'~"'~~"'~~~--~'''''~''''''''''''-''-1i\3:~- .". i1::'1i ' .. -.~ ""-t-. ' -.J.,. . t;..~~ . .~ ~ '''''-,' . Joi;:)f'" ..,......~~.~ .' .. .~. . 'c<' '?<: -...", ... ~...-~," 1f~~~ "'~.~,,. e''" omtneI1dea~Mini" ';1' ";~s -1i'ii1t;. "'oiiCi'teia";enie'htiSefiio"":"-~~~-?g': ~T..i"<&mr"""'~"":<>i",,~,!f"""'$)r"""'~"~7i''''''~ ;~-'''''-.,)~~';-;'j;*"W.'&.:"';^"",;',, ::t'1..2 :,J~ ~~ :-.: ~'L-~~'~R~}'~~~!.titt ~;{Desi Dc', :blckiiess.'; ,,..)~~ ~_~' ~~.;;:!.~, 1r.i';:';"-.. /:'~;'i:.~1'-;;',,~J2}..~. ~t~~~~1.i~il'ff:'i";7:t;,1;'~~~~~~~~';t:J_~t~~.i~~*~i&A'~;~.~~t~i;f~'F.~~~;;~;~T~~.;.~cdr.~~~j;T;Ztfi;; T.I. A.C. (in.) A.B (in.) 5.0 2.50 7 5.5 3.00 8 6.0 3.25 8 6.5 3.50 10 7.0 4.00 9 7.5 4.25 11 8.0 4.50 12 T.I. = Traffic Index A.C = Asphaltic Concrete meeting Caltrans Specification for Class II Asphalt Concrete A.B. = Aggregate Base meeting Caltrans Specification for Class II Aggregate Base (R-Value = 78 Minimum) 4. A minimum of 6 inches of Class II aggregate base is recommended beneath all asphaltic concrete pavement sections and all sections should be crowned for good drainage. All asphalt pavement construction and materials used should confo!I11 to Sections 25, 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications, State of California, Department of Transportation. 4.10 Unden!round Facilities Construction 1. The attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for "Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork" . Trenches or excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accord with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. 2. For purposes of this section of the report, bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free-draining sand should be used as bedding. Sand to be used as bedding, should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91. 8 October 4, 2001 SL02497-1 3. On-site inorganic soil, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs and vehicle pavements. !ri' these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water (or allowed to dry), to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers, each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to the requirements given in report section, "Site Preparation, Grading and Compaction" for vehicle pavement sub-grades. Trench walls must kept moist prior to and during backfill placement. 4.11 Surface and Sub-Surface Drainaee 1. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the Site should be conveyed in pipes or in Jined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 2. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in pipes that discharge in controlled drainage 10caJities. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundations, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we recommend that a minimum of four percent gradient be maintained. 3. Careful attention should be paid to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacentto the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where hard edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runoff. Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for Jining drainage channels. 4. Sub-drains should be placed in established drainage courses and potential seepage areas. The location of sub-drains should be determined after a review of the grading plan. The sub-drain outlets should extend into suitable facilities or connected to the proposed stonn drain system or existing drainage control facilities. The outlet pipe should consist of an non-perforated pipe the same diameter as the perforated pipe. 5. Maintenance of slopes is important to their long-tenn perfonnance. Precautions that can be taken include planting with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect, and not over-irrigating, a primary source of surficial failures. 5.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a Jimited number of trenches and on the continuity of the sub-surface conditions encountered. It is assumed that GeoSolutions, Inc. will be retained to perfonn the following services: 1. Consultation during plan development; 2. Plan review of grading drainage and foundation documents prior to construction; 3. Construction inspections and testing as required including, but not limited to, stripping, grading, ver-excavating, backfill placement, imported materials, expansion index testing, footing ~ j~cation where required, pre-moistening testing if required, and compaction. 9 October 4,2001 SL02497-1 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or hislher representative to notify GeoSolutions, Inc. a minimum of 48 hours before any stripping, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at this site. 2. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the site GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or hislher representative to ensure that the infonnation and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/ her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they be due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 543-8539. T' " , RAPIJLO \\Betty\Geosolutions\Soii Engineering Reports\SL02497-! 579 Camino Mercado\SL02497-1 579 Camino Mercado ser.doc 10 FIGURES Area Location Map Site Location Map Setback Deminsions ~ m This Project ~ L ~ Arro~o Plsmo ~ Bea~h 8 Grande bOO' Grover Beac.h Vicinity Map no scale '7;::->'~'=-'....-:::;..~: -::-:7 ',-~-::.: ~':{~'''..''''.''~'~'!:.-:''"-: ~':~:'~':~;O----;,,-~::--~-'177;': BASE MAP PROVIDED BY R THOMPSON CONSUL TJNG GeoSolutions, Inc. SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE I 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340t 519 CAMINO MERCADO PROJECT (805) 543-8539 Fax: (805) 543-2171 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SL02497-1 '-- ........ -. - - --, - - - - ...... .!n. 2.o.00FF 240.00Ff --- I "-- ....~....' ~. --- _:::::.--:.. .~~. _. .......,.,.._. --- -...." I 230.00 FF - - - . ....-- t -----~a.'t-----_...___ . . . . BASE MAP PROVIDED BY R THOMPSON CONSULTING GeoSolutions, Inc. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 110 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340! 579 CAMINO MERCADO PROJECf (805) 543-8539 Fax: (805) 543-217l ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SL02497-1 FACE OF FOOTING TOP OF SLOPE FII=' .- / FACE OF STRUCTURE TOE OF H SLOPE HI3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FT. (12 192 mm) MAX. H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT. (4572 mm) MAX. I I . - I I GeoSolutions, Inc. SETBACK DIMENSIONS FIGURE 3 I 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 579 CAMINO MERCADO PROJECT (805) 543-8539 Fax: (805) 543-2171 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SL02497-1 " _ AIR POlLUTION ATTACHMENT B CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DATE: November 1,2001 ,~') '. ., J !; ': : TO: Kelly Heffernon ';ij\i 1 :5 2001 Associate Planner FROM: Anna Bertinuson /fJ9 ",..\.- Air Quality Specialist , SUBJECT: Senior Housing and Senior Center Project Conditional Use Permit Case No, 01-010 Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the Senior Housing and Senior Center Project to construct 40 two-bedroom and 20 one- bedroom apartments and a 3,000 square foot Senior Center in City of Arroyo Grande at 579 Camino Mercado Street. The district has the following comments regarding the proposal: GENERAL COMMENTS We would first like to commend the applicant on several elements of the project design: 1. The project provides development with in the city limits with nearby access to Wal-Mart, Trader Joe's and transit service, which will reduce dependence on driving. 2. The proposed residentia] buiJdings are two stories, resulting in a greater floor to area ratio. This creates a higher density land use, making transit services more viable and effective. 3. The project combines a senior center and apartments on the same site, which has the potential to decrease dependence on driving. 4. The project provides a pedestrian path with the inclusion oflandings, which creates a fiiendly pedestrian environment. 5, The project will add a bus stop to the Camino Mercado Street. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Staff calculations of the potential construction and operational emissions from this source indicate the projects will not fall within the Class I category, thus will not require an Environmental Impact Report. The project does however exceed the 10-lbs/day mitigation threshold. Therefore, we are recommending the following mitigation measures to be included in the project design and implementation. SITE DESIGN MEASURES Again, the District would like to commend the applicant on the inclusion of a pedestrian path, which leads to the bus stop. However, the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan does not cJearly demonstrate how pedestrians will safeJy navigate ITom upper levels and through parking Jots to the start of the pedestrian path. The District recommends that the path be linked with safe and handicap accessible access from each ofthe buildings, DUST MITIGATION MEASURES San Luis Obispo County exceeds the state air quality standard for PMw; therefore, emissions of PMIO are a high priority concern for the District. Additionally, fugitive dust emissions reduce visibility and can cause a nuisance problem for nearby properties. The Grading Notes in the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan states that the contractor is responsible for preventing 3433 Roberto Court. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . 805-781-5912 . FAX: 805.781-1002 cleanair@stoapcd.dst.ca.us .:. www.stoapcd.dst.ca.us .q;:;.~ - - -- - ._I_~ - ___~ Senior Housing and Senior Center Project November 1,2001 Page 2 damage or nuisances caused by dust during the construction phase of the project. In order to achieve dust control, the District recommends inclusion of the foJlowing fugiti~e dust mitigation: . Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. . Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. . All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. . Pennanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible foJlowing completion of any soil disturbing activities . Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. . All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. . Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. . All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet. of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top ofload and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Increasing the energy efficiency at the site will decrease the demand on electrical supply, thus reducing emissions at the power plant source while saving money for the occupant. Therefore, the District recommends the following Energy Efficiency Measures: . Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. . Use built-in energy efficient appliances, where applicable. . Use double-pane windows. . Use sodium streetlights. . Use energy efficient interior lighting. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these comments please contact me at 781-5912. H:\ois\plan\response\24l6.AJB.doc , ATTACHMENT C CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS Traffic Analysis August 13, 2001 Prepared By: Penfield & Smith Engineers, Surveyors, Planners 805.963.9532 .",_ .c"'O ""']'/1'.- ,"', ~~-r '?'--'~. :.'-:'. ~ ~ '1:: k~~ . ; 1 :i 2001 W.O. 14,405.01 CIT ..K,~\~:CE _ COw.". . ...."..'.-'.T nFPI 1/1,.11...;1.., , '-'_, __.__, II,~\' u_ . Penfield [~Smith TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS INTRODUCTION Penfield & Smith, in coordination with the City of Arroyo Grande, has prepared the following traffic impact analysis for the proposed Camino Mercado Senior Apartments. The project is located at 597 Camino Mercado in the City of Arroyo Grande. This analysis includes an assessment of the existing and projected future traffic conditions within the study area, determines the expected trip generation rate for the project, and evaluates the potential traffic impacts associated with the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is proposing to construct a 60 unit senior apartment building, including 40 two-bedroom units and 20 one-bedroom apartments. The one-bedroom apartments are planned to be approximately 725 square feet and the two-bedroom apartments will be approximately 925 square feet. The facility is also proposing to include a 3,000 square foot Senior Center that will be open to both the apartment tenants, as well as the senior community as a whole. The curb frontage along Camino Mercado will be painted red to prohibit parking along this street. A bus stop will also be installed to aid in providing tenants access to the City's bus system. The proposed site is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. Study Area The project study area is generally bounded by West Branch Street to the west and Rancho Parkway to the east. A vicinity map is presented in Exhibit 1 on the following page. As part of this analysis, the City of Arroyo Grande requested that the following intersections be evaluated to assess the potential traffic related impacts during the AM and PM peak hour. Study Intersections . West Branch Street at Oak Park Boulevard; . West Branch Street at Camino Mercado and Highway 101 NB Ramps; . West Branch Street at Rancho Parkway; . West Branch Street at Brisco Road; and . Brisco Road at Highway 101 NB Ramps. Penfield & Smith 1 ~ o (/) 0.. 4: ,... 01-<0 '" <ffi~w z. o 0 <Q ffi~~~ ::> I--a: :x: ~ ~ ~C) o~Qo z >>- - a: 0 ~o ~ 0- 4: ~ ~ <( 0 .~ 4- "- is 1'f13 S Q-1?& iti 1;/ >I~d >lVO ~~ =1!\c:J .0:3 0 ,.0 C\ z e>- . ii w ~ is ",>(S c:J ~o: ~ :) ... I!\ ... ~ 'G' 1H _W~ 'awo z .ri 0-0 C> ... a.Z'" w - - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE The City of Arroyo Grande's minimum level of service (LOS) standard is LOS C, with LOS D acceptable on a short-term basis provided that there is a funded and scheduled improvement identified that will provide a minimum of LOS C when implemented. The City has adopted thresholds to determine when an impact is considered significant. For signalized intersections, the following thresholds have been set. Table 1 Signalized Intersection Thresholds of Sil!;nificance for Traffic Im1lact Studies Threshold Criteria Guidelines Based on Projected Trips Level of Generated From Project Service (LOS) Per Lane Peak Hour Total Project Peak Project Peak Hour Trips Added to Hour Trip Trips Entering a 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 For un signalized intersections, a significant impact can be determined when the additional project or project plus cumulative traffic decreases the intersection level of service to D or below. PROJECT IMPACTS The following section evaluates the potential impacts associated with the addition of the project generated traffic on the area roadway system. Included in this analysis are the estimated trips generated by both the apartment complex and the senior center. Project Trip Generation Typically the ITE Trip Generation Reference Manual is used to estimate the number of trips that a proposed land use could generate on the road system. However, due to the small number of case studies for the land uses planned for this project, actual traffic' counts were conducted at similar local facilities. Penfield & Smith conducted traffic counts at the Parkview Manor Apartment building in Arroyo Grande 1 and the Morro Bay Senior Center2 on August 7, 2001 through August 9, 200l. The counts were taken from 7-9 AM and from 4-6 PM at both locations. The count data for the Park View Manor Apartments is summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the apartments generated approximately 8 trips during the AM peak hour and 7 trips during the PM peak hour. P&S staff observed that most of the trips were employee/volunteer generated trips. These trip generation rates equate to , Parkview Manor Apartments. 365 South Elm Street, Arroyo Grande - 62 Apartments , Morro Bay Senior Center, 1001 Kennedy Way, Morro Bay - estimated 5,900 square feet of meetin9 space. Penfield & Smith 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS 0.13 trips per unit during the AM peak hour and 0.11 trips per unit during the PM peak hour. These rates are slightly higher than the rates listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for this type of use. Table 2 Parkview Manor Trin Generation Rates Anartment Comnlex AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Actual Counts 4 4 8 4 3 7 Rate ner Unit162 unitS) 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.11 Traffic counts were also gathered at the Morro Bay Community and Senior Center. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of the Center is dedicated to "community programs"3 and the remaining one third of the center is associated with the senior programs. It should also be mentioned that P&S staff observed that most of the trips generated were related to the community center and very few were directed towards the senior center. Of the trips associated with the senior center, a majority of them were "dial-a-ride" trips. Table 3 below summarizes the total trips observed for the senior usage of the facility. Table 3 Morro Bay Senior/Community Center TriJ) Generation Senior AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Center 17:30 - 8:30 AMI /4:30 -5:30 PMI In Out Total In Out Total Actual Counts 8 3 11 6 6 12 Using the count data collected at both locations, a trip generation rate for the Camino Mercado Senior Apartment Project and Senior Center was found. This is presented in Table 4. Table 4 Estimated Project TriJ) Generation Land AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Size In Out Total In Out Total Aoartment I 60 rooms 4 4 8 4 3 7 Trio Rate 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.11 Senior Center 3,000 SF 8 3 11 6 6 12 Total Proiect 12 7 19 10 9 19 As shown in Table 4, the project is expected to generate 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 19 trips during the PM peak hour. These trip generation estimates are conservative due to the proximity of the proposed apartments and senior center. With the senior center proposed to be located adjacent to the senior apartments, there would be a reduced need to drive from the apartments to the center for any of the activities. Therefore, it is anticipated that many of the center users will walk from the adjacent apartment complex and thus will not add any additional trips to the road 3 Summer Children's Programs Penfield & Smith 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL YSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS system. In addition, the Morro Bay Senior Center is nearly double the size of the proposed senior center. Therefore, the estimated trips are expected to be slightly lower than the number of trips observed at the Morro Bay facility. As such, the estimated trip generation for this project is considered to be conservative. . Project Trip Distribution The project related traffic for the AM peak hour (19 trips) and the PM peak hour (19 trips) were distributed and assigned to the local street network based on the type of existing land uses, current traffic flows in Arroyo Grande, and a knowledge of the local street network and travel patterns. In general, the project traffic was distributed as follows: Proiect Trip Distribution North on US 101, using Camino Mercado and Oak Park ramps 25% South on US 101, using Camino Mercado, Oak Park, & El Camino Real ramps 20% South on Oak Park Boulevard 20% North on Rancho Parkway 10% South on West Branch Street 15% Local Shopping/Medical Office Trips 10% Total Project Traffic 100% For small projects, it is difficult to estimate the travel patterns and trip distribution with less than 5 peak hour trips.. Distribution of traffic flows at less than 5 trips cannot be reliably made with certainty and is beyond that which is reasonable traffic engineering practice. Therefore for this project, the assignment of measurable project traffic beyond the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps is not technically reliable. The project will however, add 16 trips to this interchange during the AM peak hour and 16 trips during the PM peak hour. Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps Based on the level of service information provided in the City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element (July 2001), the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps is currently operating at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. This is summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Existine: Intersection Level of Service* I Intersection Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Control Hour LOS Hour LOS West Branch Street at Camino All-Way Stop 10.3 sec/veh 19.1 sec/veh Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps LOS B LOS C 'LOS obtained from the City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element (July 2001) Based on the City's guidelines previously described, the project added trips (16 at this intersection) falls below the significant impact threshold of 90 peak hour trips for Penfield & Smith 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS existing conditions. Therefore the project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts under the existing conditions. Under future traffic conditions, the intersection is projected to degrade to LOS F during the PM peak hour assuming no change to the stop sign control. Therefore the project would contribute to a significant impact at this intersection under the future conditions. This is presented in Table 6. Table 6 Future Intersection Level of Service* Intersection Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Control Hour LOS Hour LOS West Branch Street at Camino All-Way Stop 11.4 sec/veh 50.5 sec/veh Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps LOSB LOSF 'LOS obtained from the City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element (July 2001) This intersection however, is scheduled and funded to be signalized to mitigate the fu ture traffic conditions of other development. With the signalization of this intersection, it is forecast to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. Therefore, as there is a scheduled and funded improvement at this location, the project should contribute it's fair share cost to the improvement of this intersection (1% of $150,000 estimated cost of traffic signal or $1,500) to mitigate the project impacts. SUMMARY This analysis has assessed the existing and future traffic conditions within the study area, determined the expected trip generation rate for the project, and evaluated the potential traffic impacts associated with the project. Based on actual field traffic count data, the project is expected to generate 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 19 trips during the PM peak hour. Given the relatively small size of the project, the number of trips generated win not impact the study intersections under the existing conditions. Approximately 85% of the project traffic (16 trips during the AM peak hour and 16 trips during the PM peak hour) win travel through the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps. However, beyond this intersection the number of trips disburses to less than 5 trips and therefore the assignment of project traffic is not technically reliable beyond this location. The West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps currently operates at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Therefore, based on the City's guidelines, the project added trips to this intersection falls below the significant impact threshold of 90 peak hour trips for existing conditions. Therefore the project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts to this intersection. Under the future traffic conditions, the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado /Highway 101 NB Ramps win degrade to LOS F without the proposed signalization. Therefore, the project should contribute it's fair share cost to the improvement of this intersection (1% of $150,000 estimated cost of traffic signal or $1,500). Penfield & Smith 6 ."'1(-111" A ~ 4. MCiCiii'fGibup co;;.~-' ATTACHMENT D - . . .. . ...-. - -~... 7101 '\tr~ ^'\Icnuc:. Stritc 700 August J 1. 1999 Ik<hc<d.t. Muyhnd 20R 14--4810 301 652 22tS Td Ken Gelfarb, Esq. 30 I ~S6 8059 F-." ManorCare Health Services, Inc. 7361 CaJhoun Place, Suite 3UO Ro\kvillt:. .'AD 20855 Re: Pi!mo Clarida Survey Arroyo Gnlhde, California D&M No. 42495-002-155 Denr Mr. Gdfarb: This letter repolts thl: results of the rare plant survc:y you requested on the 3.98-acre property in An'oyo Grande, California. Dames and Moore botanist Jim R.ockS "onduct~d a rn1Vey of the property on May 28. 1999. The property is located inunediately north of highway }o1. north of Camino Mercado in the City of Arroyo Graude. The surrounding land llse is commercial and rt"..$idcmilll dev<:lopmollt. The sit<! bas be\:II graded and terraced. resulting in mostly distUlhed and non-native grassland habitat with coast live oaks (QlIl:1rcus agrifolia) scattered around the periphery or the site (Figure 1). The dislurb<:d patch of coastal sase se:rub ou the south dope of the property consists of Calitomia sagebrush (Arlemisitl ctJJifomica) and deetweed (Lollis .\'CDpllrilLf) with lion-native grasses snch as wild oat (Avena sp.), red brome (Bromlls madrlce1lsls ssp. mbcu.r), aud darnel (Lo/iu/11 lelllulelltum). The total cover of coastal sage scrub species docs not exceed 15%, The "ite: also cOnTains two areas that support wetland vegetatiou (Figure 1). No water 'was present in these areas during the survey. However. the presence of high water marks and dry, crack"d soil suggests water was ".,cenrly 'pre~ent. The area supports the wetland species rush tJl/llCUS spp.}, bulrush (ScirpllS sp.) and spikerush (E/eocharis sp.). A second, smaller area locared on the terrace to the nOl1h also supports these species. as well as brass buttons (Cotu/a CO)'OJwpifo/iaJ, but this plant cover is less dense. The local hydrologic flow pattem that created rhese wetland areas is anificially derived. Grading Ilctivitics have produced slope: and shelf 10pography across the sit" snowing water tQ pool on the shelves creating au arrizkial e:nvirolUnent sufficiently suitable to support these hydrophytic species. No stl'cambeds or natural dr~jnage channels were evident onsite; thcretore, the site docs not supportjulisdictional wetlands due to the lack of appropriate natural hydrology and hydric soils. - Pismo Cldl'kia (C/arkia "piJciosa ssp. immacu/ala) was found ill Wee populations a!ong the wc~t"'m parcel boundary. This speck:s is listed as endangered by the federal govcmmellt and is a St'\te Rare Plant. The Ca!ifomia Native Plant Socicty hu induded this species 011 its List IB, u..hich th~ California Deparunent ofFish sud Game (CDFG) infonllally uses as its candiuate list tor future lisrings uuder the Califomia Endangered Speck's Act (CESA). The popnlations were in sandy soil, in relatiyely open aleas within non-native grassland. Populations varied in size flom 25 to 50 individuals each, tor a tolJJl of 75 to 150 plants onsile. RECEIV~ Woridwid< ,1UG 3 1 2001 . CTYOF fi":G'((J e;;NiCE CC":;::',,: <'.1Irl0EVELCP;~;::;-jT CEPI . -. - - -- .. . . L-.:,~ DA~~S..~. MO.,?RE . -..- ". . .. '" "_. . '..- .... ... ~~~1 A DAMES & MOON: CR.OUP CQMf".ANY Mo.1.nOl<'c.r<: H~ulth S'.e-rv;.;., August II. 19'19 P.go 2 Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prohibits the removal and reduction to possession (i.e., .::ollection) of endangered and threatened plants from lands undor Fedornl jUllsdictioll. Tt timher prohibits the removal, cutting. digging, damage, or desnuction of listed planls on any other area in knowing violation of a state law or regulation. Plants, however, (lQ lIot enjoy Ihe full protection accorded animals under this section against "take" (i.e., harass, harm [which includes significam habitat modification or degradation], pursue. hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capnm:, or attempt to ellgage In any such conduct). Unlike listed animal species, federal Ii<["d plant species located on private property are lIOt regtllatcd under the FESA: FESA SEC. 9(lI/(2} Except as provided in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of this Act, with respect to any endangered species of plants listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act, it is unlawthl for any person subj<:ct to the jurisdiction of the United States to- (A) ImpoLt any slIch species illto, or eXPQrt any such species from, the United States; (B) TcmOVe "nd r"d\\ce to possession :\llY such species from llr"a.r under Federal illri,'dicrion; maliciously damage or destroy any such species on any such area: or remove. cut. dig up. or damage or destroy any such speci<:s on any other 3r"8 in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any state or i11 the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass Jaw; <C) dclivcr, T<'c..iv~, cany, "',"sport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; iD) sell or offer for sale in interstate or IOl'eign coml11e~e any sucb species; or (E) violate any regulation pertaining to such species 01' to any threatened species of planes listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authorily provided by this Act. PIa lit species designated by CDFG as State Rare are ))Ot regulated under the CESA; howev..r, lanc.!owners intending to modify their property are required to notify CDFG at least 10 days in advance to allow fOT SJI]Yage of the rate plant resource: Fish (/lid Game Code 1913(C) Notwithstanding tbe provisions of subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section. where the owner of land has been notified by the department pursuant to Section 1903.5 that a rare or endangered native plant is growing on sllch land, the owner shall nOli!)- the department al lcast 10 "ny~ in advance of changing the land U$C to anow for salva!:c of such plant. The tililure by the depanlllenl to salvage snch plant \vilhin 10 days of notification shaH entitle the owner of the land to proceed without regard to this chapter. TIt" local land use permitting agency, acting as the Lead Agency under the California Envitonrnclltat Quelit)' Act (CEQA). can det,mnin.. that unavoidable impacts to species oH"F,.C"Swe>rid-)i". (...0:.... .......~ . DA~~S &. MOORE ... ~':i! AOAMEs&.MOO~lGliOUf'Co.MrANY M..nC>TC~rc: Ht:~1th CScrvic(!:iO ....lIgll,t j 1,1999 Y.:.Igt" 3 r",.;oW'iz..<J as "~ensil;ve" by the. state or federal resource agencies can be considered signitlcant and require mitigation. This essenliaUy treats sensitive species, regardless of their listing status, the. same as fonnal1y tiStcd specie~ and a mitigation progrem required as part of the latld use permitring process. Dames & Moorc's inquiries with the City of AlToyo Grande Planning De.partme.nt indicated that this jurisdiction has no fonna! policy or guidelines dictating Ibeir tre.atment of sensitive spCj;ies. Thc:y resolve this issue on a case-by-case basis. In sUJllmary, rhe presence of Pfsmo Clarkia along the ~ite. boundiuy doeG nOT preclude furthe.r de.ve!opment of the site. No re.source agency (i.e.. USFWS. CDFG) has jurisdiction over this' spe.cific rare. plant spe.cie.s on private land; the City of Arroyo Grande. w!ll dictate under CEQA how Ihis issue would boO addr..ssed. Due. to the rare status and the federal listing of the Pismo Clarkia, Dames & Moore recommends the following: . Site development plans should specifY that grading and other types of disturbance be precluded trom a 25 foot buffer zone arollnd the Pismo Clarkia populations to minimize impacls. A fencoO and tlppropriate signage should be placed around the buffer zone to preclude impacts to Pismo Clarkia during construction. . The sit.:: d.::vclopment plan specifying the above plan should be submitted to the CDFG er kast 1 U days in advance of Ihe start of site work. . If a 2) foal buffer zone is 110t feasible based on proposed site deve!opmellt, the City of Arroyo Orande Planning DoOp~menl, under CEQA. could require the purchase of habitat offsile supporting a comparable population ofPismo Clarkia. Please call either of the undersigned if you have any questions or if Dames & Moore can be of further assistance. Siltcen:!y, DAII1!(S & MOORE f~ A";~ Patrick J. Mock, Ph.D. Senior Biologist 7I4f!1 Michael J. Wolf Associate Artaehmcnt~ Ofr.cClS W\,~~. L . ~. ~; . :. D~~S ~_00C?~E ---- . '--_. ---.. --.. .-. --. ..-- . '-- r~;:~q~] .A DAMES & MOOJtf GROUP COMPANy ManorC;u& H~2h11 Servk~s Augu" 11. 1999 Page 4 Arroyo Grande Property Plant Species List :)nedes t i\IiGlOSPf:RMS (FLOWERING PLANTS) MONOCOTYLEDONEAE C'i1'ERACEAE - Sod!!. FOlnity l::/eDcAar;" $p. - spikerw;h :jet/pus .p. - bu.lru3b IEtlDACEAE -In. fomily !i6yrinchiu", be//um - blue-eyed IIra5s JUNCACEAE - Rush family Jt,WCllS sp. - ru5h POACEAE . GTu.. Forni!y . ,.1 vel'" b"I'bnlfJ - $1C"cdC:f wild Qat a.Sramru. un::nIJrius .. BruI/lU.'O ,liuml11ls - ripgut brome .. B. 1ttczdri/f;!1Ij'h ssp. rubE!Ju .. fox~iJ chess .Ct)l/d(/~ria sp. -p1il11)J~s gm:; . Lotium leJ1JuJent'ufIJ - dl1%uc1 Na/sella ,'c!J'1'IUa OrCOTYLEDONEAF; AIZOACEAE - Fill-Ma,igold family C"'PObrfJIUS edul;>' - tis-marigold ANACARDJACEAE - S"",,"c Family T uxicDdend,'OIt diverSilobum - poison oak ASTERACEAE . SuntJowcr Family Arrc/rlt.../tI ciJlljomtca - Califomi<o ~I\cbru.h Bncchari.s pilularis - coyote brosh 'C~lIftlurea sols/ilia/is - yellow starthisrl< "Cir>'iuOI I'ulgar" - bull this!!e "COOl/a c(Jronopljoltn - br.u::II butIQu," (j'wphalium rherma/a var. ca/f~SCCII~' HaZIJrdia squarrosCJ Vo-T. :r'l'lalrQ.3U -liIliw-loothod.sotd~nhu,h . San,'hus of;:I"al:r!UJ lar~OCI'," CJjJid"C1/~ - ..:onu11on dandctljon CACTACEAE - o.ctus family Oputtria [iu"ralis - c04st.1 prickly pIC'" ~ITIC'~Wct~C . . \>' , ~ DAMES & MOORE . ;::: ....-..--... ---- ---. ---. .... . . -.,.. u'.._.__ -" l~r-.~'J'.:.'~ A [).A.ME5 &. MQOP.f c;nOUP COMPANY Mal10rCafc H~a1th S~tvic~s Augu>t Ii. 1999 Page; EUPHORBIACEAE - Spllrs. Family };"r<mo<'alpus s.rlgeru.> - rurkey nluUcin FABACEAE ' Pea family LolUS Pkno/JialltLf LOlliS .,"c:upuriIlS - dc~rwe~d LIlpillw" sp. Vida ml1~r1cana FAGACEAE - Oak F~,"ily Quercus (/grifolia - "O~Sllivc oak GERANIACEAE - G.r~nium family . Erodium ciculorlum -led-stem Iilar.e LAMJACEAE - Minr Family Sa/ltfo sparhacell P AI' A VERACEAE - Poppy Family E,,'ho1:la califomlca - Californtl poppy PLANT AG!NACEAE - Planroin Family I'/nntngo .p. POLEMONIACEAE - Pblox Family N(l\'t2T"~liQ sp. POL YGONACEAF. - Buckwheat Fanu1y P,,/ygonum sp. PORTULAC.o\.Ct...r - J'ur>!.ac Fami!y CIay/nll/" .p. PRIMlILACEAE - Primro.e Family .AnaZl2I/iJ al"',"Jls - 5"311er pimpernel RUBIACEAE - Madder Family O,1JiJJm QpariJle - bedstraw SCROPHVLARl.o\.CEAE - FigwOl1 Family Mimu.lus auranticu.:tls - red bush monkey flowcr tlil11JlIU$ )1'. Vt:1"on;ca DT\lellsis - spe:cdwdl SOLANACEAE- Nighuh.d~ F~mily So/aI/urn douglasiz' ___.____......___w____......________~_....___.._._ I Nomcncl.rucc from Hiclcn~n (1993) anJ B..uchamp (1986). . Non-n;1tiv~ spt'Cics O/!ia< WOl~ . . 'J ~~~E5._~. MOORE .p-._-._....... '-'0... ...___...... I ~~ii:~"rJ A ()AMES &. MOOfI.E GRouP COW-.4Ny ManurC'are Health S.rvi~.s August 11. ) 999 Poge 6 REFERENCES Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater River Press. 241 pp. Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, Califomia. 1400 pp. Off'1c~ Wo:l~. - ~ \ s;;:. D t ~ . \ , .,.. I ~ ~-. ~ ~ ..,.. ,~ , .~ ~. t. ~\. R''j, 'Ii; ~ .. o~:s .,., V' ~ . ~i:: C'1~ n ~ ~~ ;, 1 ,. - i-:;\~ ~M "i;r- .~ ~"'" :.~ ." ~ );' ~ *"' .... ~ i:~ . ". '" ~ _. t :! i_ ::: 4('"'):::> VJ ~ (~ .:::ta-'" .:;;.'::- ~ ~ tog ... ;$ == " '" :.. ......i " ,... " 1 ~.. 2' .~ - 'I --~ '"' ;; s: .. !,. ? v ~ ~ .?;' "- "- ~ ~ i .- ii d ~:: , i i /1 ~ , t ~ .-t r --L W; i ~ ... . 'b ... '" '!'," - ~ - '. ~ -; Jr.' t .:. a. \ .. :;::=- ~ l -"""- . r--~ it' \ . 4"'''''''~~ ~Q~,.- . 1!"U/fI!H(" . ~t'- . , < ~ - ~ ,.~.:>' ! ,. ....... . . ....-.... "\ .. - " H ..- \c! !>. ~c:. H ., .\~:. \\ '. 1~ .,- i. -, . ..,~ . ."'11''' / ; 4"""~~ - -~ "0 "'-. -,,,-..,--"- , '. ~l ,~ t ....",4 .- .. t.; ~ H~~ ~ .... ~~:.1"~ l\ - " P' ;: -\~