Loading...
Agenda Packet 2006-09-12 CITY OF City Council � ' ' ' � � ' Agenda ,; Tony Ferrare Mayor Steven Adams City Manager Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Jim Dickens Council Member � Kelly Wetmore City Clerk Joe Costello Council Member ���Vf�C A L I F O R N I A y Ed Arnold Council Member ��r� �' � - I ' AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. I2. ROLL CALL: COUNCIL/RDA 3. FLAG SALUTE: ARROYO GRANDE LIONS CLUB 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR GEORGE LEPPER PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5.a. Mavor's Commendations Recopnizina John Godfrev and Diane Mead for their Participation in the Traffic Wav Tree Proqram 5.b. Presentation of Sewer Rate Studv bv South San Luis Obispo Countv Sanitation � District 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. ( AGENDA SUMMARY— SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.. ln response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: ♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. ♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. ♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. . Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: I ♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. � ♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. i ♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) ' Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period II August 16, 2006 through August 31, 2006. �I 8.b. Consideration of Award of Contract with Wohlford Consultinq for a Full Cost of Services (User Feel Studv (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Wohlford Consulting to conduct a full cost of services (user fee) study and appropriate an additional $2,000 from the General Fund. 8.c. Consideration of Aaproval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of , August 8, 2006, as submitted. 8.d. Consideration of Conflict of Interest Code Biennial Review (WETMORE) � [COUNCIL/RDA] Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code, including an amended Appendix of Designated Positions and Appendix of Disclosure Categories; and 2) Receive and file the 2006 Redevelopment Agency Conflict of Interest Biennial Notice. AGENDA SUMMARY — SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA: (Continued) 8.e. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Self Contained Breathinst Apparatus (SCBA1 Test Equiament (FIBICH) Recommended Action: Authorize the purchase of Self Contained Breathing � Apparatus (SCBA)test equipment. 8.f. Consideration of a One-Year Time Extension (Time Extension Case No. 06-003) for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004: 1220 Farroll Avenue: Apalied for bv Coastal Christian School (STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004. 8.g. Consideration of Revisions to the Citv's Travel Policv (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve the recommended new travel policy. S.h. Consideration of Resolution Establishins� a Citvwide Ethics Policv for Citv Emalovees. Elected Officials and Aaqointed Officials (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution establishing a citywide Ethics Policy for City employees, elected officials, and appointed officials. 8.i. Consideration of Realacement of Copier Svstems for Citv Administration and Communitv Develoament and Aqpropriation of Funds (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Authorize the purchase of two rebuilt copier systems (Panasonic DP-6010) from Superior Quality Copiers, Inc. for City Administration and the Community Development Department and appropriate funds in the amount of $3,217.50 from the Unappropriated General Fund balance. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Use of State 2006-07 Citizens Oation for Public Safetv (COPS) Funds (AEILTS) Recommended Action: Approve the expenditure of $100,000 as authorized by the State for law enforcement services under the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. 9.b. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013 for a Proaosed Wireless Facilitv Located at 300 Reservoir Road (Citv Reservoir No. 1), Aoalied for bv Cins�ular Wireless: and Consideration of Land Lease Aareement with New Cinnular Wireless PCS. LLC dba Cins�ular Wireless (STRONG) Recommended Action: 1) The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013; and 2) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Land Lease Agreement between the City and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, dba Cingular Wireless for use of 800 square feet of property located at 300 Reservoir Road. AGENDA SUMMARY — SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 4 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) 9.c. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-005A — An Ordinance of the Citv Council of the Citv of Arrovo Grande Amendin� Portions of Title 16 of the Arrovo Grande Municipal Code. Revisins� Land Use Res�ulations for Desis�n Develoament Overlav District OMU-D-2.20 within the Office Mixed Use District (STRONG) Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20. � 9.d. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007. Neis�hborhood Plan 04-001. Vestina Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Develoament 04- 002: Aaalicant— Creekside Estates of Arrovo Grande, LLC: Location — 22 Acres Located East of Noauera Court and North of East Cherrv Avenue Extension (Cherrv Creekl (STRONG) Recommended Action: Consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for residential development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two subareas. _ Subarea 1 is a proposed 30-unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Subarea 2 encompasses 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report be completed for the project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental determination. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. 11. NEW BUSINESS: None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. a. None 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. AGENDA SUMMARY — SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 5 , 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: I This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present ! issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. 17. ADJOURNMENT �.�.�..�.�.....�...� + All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda � are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. •�+���xxx+�wir�xxxx����+�� This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoprande.orp •lkir*##1ti41t11'filf tt4444R#a• City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-soan.orq. 5.a. . i C��� �F • � O s � � • � - - -- - !B � ° � � , i �� � - �� �" � i � CALIFO �iNiA __� � � 9 '1 � � ' a 0� �S 0�,�.Q� ���On Presented to � � On this izth c�'ay of Septem6er z o 0 6, In .�lppreciation for your Participation in the �raffic 1Nay �ree Program in Fcelping to 6eaut� the City. PaROVo . �� . �� .C9 . � INCORPORATlD Z , ��o errara, �or � . ' m }t JULY ID, 1911 # � cQUFOR��P - C1�"Y OF � A • ° . ► � e ------ ------ _ __---- _ _---. -- - ; - - — - �� s c . � - , , ; � �„ ; , - � , � �� ; 1 '��, � CALIFORNIA __� y � 9 1 � r a o� `s ommen a�ion Presented to � I � � � On this lztk day of Septem6er Zoo6, In .�l.ppreciation for your Participation in the �'raffic 1Nay �ree Program in helping to deaut� the City. ./ o� PRaovo c9 � � INLORPORATEU 9Z ti o ¢rrara, �(a�or � = m . ,��. ,o.,n„ � c �p 4<iFOa"` i I � pRROYp 5�8� � c� � INCORPORATED 92 " � MEMORANDUM # ,iu�r io, ie n * c4��FORN�P , TO: CITY COUNCIL � FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES� j BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR� SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period August 16 through August 31, 2006. FUNDING: There is a $581,978.50 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 127757-127943 $ 158,106.42 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 423,872.08 All payments are within the existing budget. DISCUSSION: � The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; . Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1 —August 16 —August 31, 2006, Accounts Payable Check Register Attachment 2 —August 18, 2006, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register ATTACHMENTI apckHist Check History Listing Page: � 08/28/2006 9:55AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor SGtus CIeaNVOid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check ToGI 127757 OS/16/2006 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 08162006 08/16/2006 25.00 25.00 127758 08/18/2006 004815 AIRGAS WEST 103147232 07/31/2006 18.10 18.10 127759 08/18/2006 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5252720GH OS/15/2006 12.83 12.83 127760 08/18/2006 001050AMERICANTEMPS 00044902 OS/OS/2006 1,171.60 00044841 OS/02/2006 1,142.31 00044903 08/08/2006 1,086.40 3,400.31 127761 OS/18/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V 08/18/2006 0.00 0.00 127762 08/18/2006 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS F718439 07/04/2006 30.28 ` F729964 07/18/2006 30.28 F724263 07/11/2006 22.40 F735755 07/25/2006 22.40 F718435 07/04/2006 21.50 F729960 07/18/2006 21.50 F724252 07/11/2006 2�.�5 F735744 07/25/2006 21.15 F718437 07/04/2006 16.80 F724261 07/11/2006 16.80 F729962 07/18/2006 16.80 F735753 07/25/2006 16.80 F718438 07/04/2006 15.60 F724262 07/11/2006 15.60 F729963 07/18/2006 15.60 F735754 07/25/2006 15.60 F718440 07/04/2006 13.83 F729965 07/18/2006 13.83 F718434 07/04/2006 12.13 F729959 07/18/2006 12.13 F724256 07/11/2006 10.75 F735748 07/25/2006 10.75 F718441 07/04/2006 10.41 F729966 07/18/2006 10.41 F724258 07/11/2006 9.45 Page: 1 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 2 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total F735750 07/25/2006 9.45 F724255 07/11/2006 6.31 F735747 07/25/2006 6.31 F718436 07/04/2006 5.60 F724260 07/11/2006 5.60 F729961 07118/2006 5.60 F735752 07/25/2006 5.60 F724257 07/11/2006 5.00 F735749 07125/2006 5.00 F724265 07/11/2006 4.11 F735758 07/25/2006 4.11 - F724264 07/11/2006 2 8� F735756 07125/2006 2 8� 492.24 127763 08/18I2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES 67X00046 07/31/2006 300.32 300.32 127764 08/18I2006 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES CO 0013767 08/04/2006 6,640.27 6,640.27 127765 08/18/2006005615AT&T/MCI T5349473 07/11/2006 1,588.32 T5349471 07/11/2006 955.42 T5340167 07/08/2006 29 20 2,572.94 127766 08/18/2006 002180 AVAYA, INC 2724009868 08/01/2006 41.22 41.22 127767 08/18/2006 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SOLUTIOP 15207852 08/07/2006 650.11 650.11 127768 08/18/2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 91070 08/03/2006 206.56 91071 08/03I2006 151.87 90688 07/21/2006 3g•87 397.30 127769 OS/18I2006 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, I� 2323731 07/27/2006 181.18 2323552 07/25/2006 90.35 2323484 07/25/2006 64.24 2322832 07/17/2006 48.21 2322137 07/07/2006 26.20 410.18 127770 08/18/2006 004077 CA ST DfPT OF HEALTH SV 081006 08/10/2006 265.00 265.00 127771 08/18/2006 001430 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUP 7826-654805 08/03/2006 1,103.46 1,103.46 127772 O8/18/2006 003285 CALPERS EDUCATIONAL FC 081406 08/14/2006 250.00 250.00 Page: 2 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 3 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127773 08/18/2006 000143 ARON CANBY WELDING 6599 08/09/2006 49.69 49.69 127774 08/18/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 94594-480052 08/01/2006 131.40 7314-96664 08/09/2006 33.00 7314-96645 08/09/2006 14.74 7314-95749 08/05/2006 13.9� 7314-96371 08/08/2006 5.08 198.19 127775 08/18/2006 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS 123079092 07/26/2006 60.28 60.28 127776 08I18/2006 000178 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, IP 17515 08/16/2006 181.50 175396 08/16/2006 111.75 175351 08/16/2006 45.00 338.25 127777 08/18/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL MAINTENANC 806-0806 08/07/2006 515.00 515.00 127778 08/18/2006 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO 324553 08/14/2006 115.12 115.12 127779 08/18/2006 005671 DEATHRIAGE & CO. PETR.S' 4369 07/21/2006 99.00 99.00 127780 08/18/2006 001854 JIM DECECCO 081506 08/15/2006 36.00 36.00 127781 08/18/2006 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 10492304 08/03/2006 69.88 69�8$ 127782 08/18/2006 001840 DELL MARKETING LP P23661426 08/15/2006 182.31 182.31 127783 08/18/2006 005708 E AND J AUTO PARTS INC 72064 07/13/2006 127.57 127.57 127784 08/18/2006 005712 ELECTRICRAFT INC 1336 07/31/2006 1,213.35 1,213.35 127785 08/18/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1131164 07/31/2006 1,485.41 1130930 08/08/2006 246.68 1,732.09 127786 08/18I2006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 081506 08/15/2006 45.00 45.00 127787 08/18/2006 003590 SERENA FLOYD 081506 08/15/2006 45.00 45.00 127788 08/18/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 081506 08115/2006 162.00 162.00 127789 08/18/2006 004372 GARING TAYLOR &ASSOCl/ 6437 07/31/2006 162.00 162.00 127790 08/18/2006 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 8/8-200 N 08/08/2006 73.77 8/9-350 08/09/2006 69.62 Page: 3 apckHist � Check History Listing Page: a 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 8/9-1375 08/09/2006 65.37 8/7-1500 08I07/2006 4�.2� 8/3-200 08I03/2006 17.95 8/3-208 08/03/2006 10.58 8/3-214 08/03I2006 9.53 294.09 127791 08/18/2006 000272 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL TRl 74506N 08/08/2006 22.33 22.33 127792 08118/2006 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 562758 07/31I2006 547.33 547.33 127793 08/18/2006 004025 EDDIE HARRIS 081506 08/15I2006 90.00 90.00 127794 08118/2006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY INC 115080 08/01/2006 136.74 136.74 127795 08/18/2006 0028201NDOFF, INC 768705 07/31/2006 56.37 56.37 127796 08/18/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 154637 08/11/2006 193.87 193.87 127797 08118/2006 000361 ED KALIN 081506 08/15I2006 1,220.00 1,220.00 127798 08118/2006 004845 JOHN LARSON 081506 OS/15/2006 54.00 54.00 127799 08118/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 081506 08/15/2006 60.00 60.00 127800 08118/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 081506 OS/15/2006 108.00 108.00 127801 08118/2006 005710 LIVE OAK LANDSCAPES 5043 07/31/2006 975.00 975.00 127802 08/18/2006 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING & 073106 07/31/2006 6,088.40 081506 08/15/2006 4,691.90 10,780.30 127803 08/18/2006 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 0015039 08/08/2006 274.93 274.93 127804 08/18/2006 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PR 115586 07/10/2006 300.30 115681 07/11/2006 205.92 116292 07/24/2006 112.61 116346 07/25/2006 109.40 � 115287 07/03/2006 101.89 115728 07/12/2006 69.71 115780 07/13/2006 63.28 116373 07/25/2006 36.47 116590 07/28/2006 28�96 1,028.54 Page: 4 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 5 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Tota� 127805 08/18/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 96166 08I07/2006 160.86 96257 08/08/2006 $9�� 96088 08/07/2006 53.00 94089 07/22/2006 51.42 96460 08I10/2006 18.20 96386 08/09/2006 16.06 112906 08115/2006 14.45 95740 08/03/2006 11.75 96233 08/08/2006 10.71 96375 08/09/2006 8.56 96103 08/07/2006 8.25 96576 08/11/2006 7.94 96318 08/08/2006 7•5$ 96352 08/09/2006 4.28 96297 08I08/2006 2.45 96138 08/07/2006 �84 466.12 127806 08/18/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 35508 08/09/2006 19,576.45 35751 08/09/2006 13,124.46 112953 07/31/2006 440.70 33,141.61 127807 08/18/2006 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE SER' 349 08/10/2006 237.50 348 08/10/2006 185.00 422.50 127808 08/18/2006 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 933066312-057 07/29/2006 191.34 191.34 127809 08118/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 246931251-001 08/04/2006 383.60 346940328-001 08/04/2006 101.01 347616538-001 08/04/2006 62.76 345893627-001 07/28/2006 54.44 346091898-001 07/28/2006 Z8•14 345930408-001 07/28/2006 6.36 636.31 127810 OS/18/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 812-481465 08/02/2006 158.08 158.08 127811 OS/18/2006 000490 PERVO PAINT CO 40968 08/02/2006 1,572.83 40969 08/02/2006 1,119.69 2,692.52 127812 08/18/2006 000809 MATTHEW POLKOW 070806 07/08/2006 21.58 21.58 Page: 5 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: s 08128/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127813 08/18/2006 005711 JILL POLLARD 081406 08/14/2006 44.00 44.00 127814 08/18/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 081506 08/17/2006 54.00 54.00 127815 08/18I2006 000536 GREG ROSE 081506 08/15/2006 54.00 54.00 127816 08/18I2006 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 081506 08117/2006 94.50 94.50 127817 08/18/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 081506 08/17/2006 15.00 15.00 127818 08/18/2006 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 192794 08/07/2006 392.96 392.96 127819 08/18/2006 000578 ANN SARMIENTO 081506 08/17/2006 67.50 67.50 127820 08/18/2006 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 081506 08/17/2006 108.00 108.00 127821 08/18/2006 000552 SLO COUNTY AUDITOR-COP 062606 06I26I2006 13,507.00 13,507.00 127822 08/18/2006 004592 SLOCAPRA 081706 08117/2006 20.00 20.00 127823 08/18/2006 004860 TAMMY SMITH 081506 08/17/2006 52.50 52.50 127824 08/18/2006 004393 SP MAINTENANCE SERVICE 15370 08/10/2006 170.00 15362 OS/08/2006 85.00 255.00 127825 08/18/2006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY&SIG� 49732 08/07/2006 137.45 137.45 127826 08/18/2006 000614 RANDY STEFFAN 072406 07/24/2006 40.03 40.03 127827 08/18/2006 000620 STREATOR PIPE&SUPPLY S1009450.001 08/02/2006 204.81 S1011408.001 08/08/2006 65.20 270.01 127828 08/18/2006 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 854 07/31/2006 402.66 402.66 127829 08/18/2006 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIEF 33555 07/18/2006 1,635.07 33634 07127/2006 208.56 33619 07126/2006 81.46 1,925.09 127830 08/18/2006 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1013963 08I08/2006 32.55 32.55 127831 08/18/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2060670385 07/22/2006 111.84 2060467297 07/22/2006 109.34 221.18 Page: 6 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 7 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor SWtus ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127832 08/18/2006 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 760261 08/09/2006 369.77 369.77 127833 08/18/2006 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COP 0605 07/31/2006 1,593.75 1,593.75 127836 08/18/2006 000673 US POSTAL SERVICE 081806 08/18/2006 3,000.00 3,000.00 127837 08/18I2006 002177 SECRETARY OF STATE 081406 08/14I2006 40.00 40.00 127846 08/23/2006 000303 CRAIG HENDRICKS 082106 08I21I2006 340.00 340.00 127847 08/23/2006 005186 NAN PENNOCK 082106 08/21/2006 120.00 120.00 127848 08/24l2006 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK-RECOI 081606 08/16/2006 25.00 25.00 127849 08/25/2006 000010 AFSS 082306 08123/2006 55.00 55.00 127850 08125/2006 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 1803 08/03I2006 3,437.50 3,437.50 127851 08125/2006 003281 AGVIA 801 08/16l2006 1,000.00 1,000.00 127852 08/25/2006 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING SR� L5245715GH 08115/2006 33.98 33.98 127853 08/25/2006 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS 44959 08/15/2006 1,171.60 44958 08/15/2006 1,086.40 2,258.00 127854 08/25/2006 002632 API WASTE SERVICES 68A00035 08/10/2006 298.88 68F00032 08/18/2006 259.52 558.40 127855 08/25I2006 005507 AT&T 8/7-0153 08/07/2006 194.54 8l8-9816 08/08/2006 �7.85 8l7-3953 08/07/2006 33.33 8l7-3956 08/07/2006 33.33 8/7-3959 08/07/2006 33.33 372.38 127856 08/25/2006 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 8/8-7762 08/08/2006 2,477.97 8/8-2581 08/08/2006 1,068.42 8/8-9163 08/15/2006 483.00 8/8-2083 08/08/2006 423.84 8/8-2091 08/08/2006 193.69 8/8-2059 08/08/2006 114.80 8/8-9436 08/08/2006 9���2 Page: 7 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 8 08/2812006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 8/8-9328 08/08/2006 7.4$ 4,860.32 127857 08/25/2006 004496 NICK BARRAL 081606 08/16/2006 29.00 29.00 127858 OS/25I2006 000065 BRENDA BARROW 081706 08/17/2006 200.28 20028 127859 08/25/2006 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YAI 129917 OS/10/2006 4.20 4.20 127860 08/25/2006 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 91216 08/09/2006 69.93 69.93 127861 08/25/2006 001577 BURDINE PRINTING 8313 08/06/2006 471.70 471.70 127862 08125/2006 000110 CA ST DEPT OF CORRECTI( 6300 08I11I2006 2,520.96 2,520.96 127863 08/25/2006 000603 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-100104 08/22/2006 68.31 7314-98395 08/16/2006 51.76 731496562 08/09/2006 31.95 152.02 127864 08/25/2006 003168 CELLULAR ONE 02058 08/22/2006 129.63 129.63 127865 08/25/2006 005086 PAT COLLINS 081606 08/16/2006 30.00 30.00 127866 08/25/2006 002842 COMMERCIAL MAINTENANC 813-0806 08/14/2006 495.00 495.00 127867 08/25/2006 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY Sl 10186 08/11/2006 698.63 698.63 127868 08/25I2006 005713 MIKE OR GINNY CONROW 081706 08/17/2006 81.25 $�.z5 127869 08/25/2006 005714 AMELIA COVINGTON 080806 08I08I2006 30.00 30.00 127870 08/25/2006 000577 LENNY DE LOS SANTOS 082106 08I21I2006 229.60 229.60 127871 08/25/2006 005671 DEATHRIAGE & CO. PETR.S' 4361 07/27/2006 539.50 539.50 127872 08/25/2006 001854 JIM DECECCO 082206 08/22/2006 54.00 54.00 127873 08/25/2006 002673 DOCTOR'S MEDPLUS MEDI( 13881664 07I29I2006 295.00 13880538 05/25/2006 245.00 13880635 05/31/2006 236.67 13881039 08/09/2006 220.00 13880794 05/18/2006 180.00 13880516 05/26/2006 145.00 13880629 05/30/2006 145.00 Page: 8 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: s 0812812006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 13880684 O6/02/2006 125.00 13880609 OS/27/2006 50.00 13880949 06/16/2006 50.00 13881012 06/19/2006 50.00 013875491 07/18/2006 20.00 1,761.67 127874 08/25/2006 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1141479 O8/1512006 279.47 1137127 08/09/2006 76 79 1139522 08/16/2006 60.25 1140274 08/14/2006 41.83 1138044 08/10/2006 38.61 496.95 127875 08/25I2006 000247 TERENCE FIBICH 072606 07/26/2006 23.90 23.90 127876 08/25/2006 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 082206 08/22/2006 45.00 45.00 127877 OS/25/2006 003590 SERENA FLOYD 082206 08/22/2006 45.00 45.00 127878 08/25/2006 000262 FRANK'S LOCK& KEY, INC 23750 08/09/2006 24.45 23733 O8/08/2006 13.14 37.59 127879 08/25/2006 005079 DONNA FREEMAN 081606 08/16/2006 30.00 30.00 127880 08/25/2006 004825 FLAVA GALBREATH 082206 08/22I2006 54.00 54.00 127881 08/25/2006 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 61176 08/23I2006 106.39 61179 08/18/2006 14.48 120.87 127882 08/25/2006 001676 RUSS HARRAH 081606 08/16/2006 165.00 165.00 127883 08/25/2006 004025 EDDIE HARRIS 082206 08/22/2006 36.00 36.00 127884 08/25/2006 000928 HI-TECH EMERGENCY INC 115235 08/11/2006 98.04 98.04 127885 08/25/2006 000339 INTERSTATE SALES 1695 08/15/2006 154.26 154.26 127886 08/25/2006 005725 INTL ASSOC OF ARSON INV 081806 08I18I2006 75.00 75.00 127887 08/25/2006 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 9041 08/17I2006 27.94 z7.94 127888 08/25/2006 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 188652 08/17/2006 101.73 101.73 127889 08/25/2006 003949 KERN'S PAPER CONNECTIO 18171 08/11/2006 347.49 Page: 9 apckHist Check History Listing Page: �o 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 18184 08/11/2006 260.62 608.11 127890 08/25/2006 005715 NYD KRAUSHAAD 081606 08J16I2006 30.00 30.00 127891 08/25/2006 004845 JOHN LARSON 082206 08/22I2006 54.00 54.00 127892 08125/2006 005716 LINE X OF SANTA MARIA LLc 3764 08/15I2006 495.44 3767 08/15/2006 449.44 944 88 127893 08/25/2006 005511 CHRIS LINTNER 082206 08/22/2006 60.00 60.00 127894 08/25/2006 001136 DOUG LINTNER 082206 08/22/2006 162.00 162.00 127895 08/25/2006 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOC 082106 08/21/2006 15.00 15.00 127896 08/25/2006 005717 CHRIS MATWEEFF 081606 08/16/2006 29.00 29.00 127897 08/25/2006 000419 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE 0015121 OS/15/2006 267.23 0015068 08/10/2006 154.43 421.66 127898 08/25/2006 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, I 112809 08/14/2006 63.16 97188 08/16/2006 20.83 96510 08/10/2006 10.92 96425 08/10/2006 10.70 98073 08/22/2006 8.01 97391 08/17/2006 5.89 97335 08/17/2006 4.69 124.20 127899 08/25/2006 000430 MIRACLE REC EQUIPMENT� 646701 07/31/2006 5,117.61 5,117.61 127900 08125/2006 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS170431 08/11/2006 61.92 FOCS170550 08/15/2006 3z.22 94.14 127901 08/25/2006 005718 STEVE NAILOR 081606 08/16/2006 30.00 30.00 127902 08/25/2006 005650 NAPA AUTO PARTS 74092 08/03/2006 61.63 61.63 127903 08/25/2006 002174 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KN( 198796 08/04/2006 4,628.61 4,628.61 127904 08/25/2006 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 347227285-001 08/04/2006 242.28 Z42.Z$ 127905 08/25/2006 001886 OFFICEMAX-HSBC BUS.SOI 02288J1981 07/17/2006 34.30 34.30 Page: 10 apckHist Check History Listing Page: 11 08/2812006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127906 08/25/2006 000481 PACIFIC GAS& ELECTRIC C 8/11-620835 08/11l2006 216.44 i 8/11-7812966 08/11/2006 16.06 232.50 � 127907 08/25/2006 000489 DOUG PERRIN 082106 08/21/2006 15.00 15.00 � 127908 08/25/2006 001697 PET PICK-UPS 29462 08/08/2006 1,158.07 1,158.07 127909 08/25/2006 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 577516 09/01/2006 327.00 327.00 127910 08/25/2006 005719 ELLEN PITROWSKI 081606 08/16/2006 30.00 30.00 127911 08/25/2006 005720 CLAUDIA PLASCENCIA 081706 08/17/2006 11.02 11.02 127912 08/25/2006 000516 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, I� 1041881N 07/31/2006 124.21 1039121N 07/27/2006 986� 222.82 127913 08/25/2006 002792 PULITZER C COAST NEWSP 116985 08/24/2006 24.00 24.00 127914 08/25/2006 003031 ROBERTSON SUPPLY 6244 08/22/2006 36.47 36.47 127915 08/25/2006 004833 STEVE ROMO 082206 08/22/2006 54.00 54.00 127916 08/25I2006 000536 GREG ROSE 082206 08/22/2006 54.00 54.00 127917 08/25/2006 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 082206 08/22/2006 90.00 90.00 127918 08/25/2006 004365 DANIEL RUIZ 082206 08/22/2006 37.50 37.50 127919 OS/25/2006 000575 SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC 537712 07131/2006 140.28 140.28 127920 08/25/2006 000578 ANN SARMIENTO 082206 08/22/2006 70.00 70.00 127921 08/25I2006 003108 SBC/MCI T5098213 05/11/2006 37.25 37.25 127922 08/25/2006 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 082206 08/22/2006 113.00 113.00 127923 08/25/2006 000587 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIBUTC CFN94879 07/31l2006 52.05 CFN95256 08/15/2006 9 3$ 61.43 127924 08/25/2006 005721 SHEPARD EYE CENTER 081606 08/16I2006 58.00 58.00 127925 08/25/2006 000548 SLOCO DATA, INC 25842 08/10/2006 75.00 75.00 127926 08/25/2006 004860 TAMMY SMITH 082206 08/22/2006 45.00 45.00 Page: 11 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12 08/28/2006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bankcode: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 127927 08/25/2006 003343 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 23V/13423385 07/19/2006 95.24 95.24 127928 08/25/2006 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 156776 08122/2006 13.41 13.41 127929 08/25/2006 000609 BOB SPEAR 082206 08/22/2006 54.00 54.00 127930 08/25/2006 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY& SIG� 49956 08/12/2006 246.68 49957 08/17/2006 157.66 404.34 127931 08/25/2006 000616 STERLING COMMUNICATIOI 21989 08/14/2006 48.00 48.00 127932 08/25/2006 005722 MARTHA TREVINO 081606 08/16/2006 29.00 29.00 127933 08/25/2006 002468 THE TRIBUNE 2674840 08/21/2006 171.00 2513416 08/21/2006 171.00 342.00 127934 08/25/2006 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 244989 08/14/2006 398.97 245094 08/15/2006 105.61 504.58 127935 08125/2006 004201 UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY 081606 08/16/2006 73.38 73.38 127936 08/25/2006 000666 UNITED RENTALS NORTHW 58587740-001 08/15/2006 55.00 55.00 127937 08/25/2006 000678 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 15340 08/10/2006 240.00 240.00 127938 08/25/2006 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2062982932 08/04/2006 114 31 2063946737 08/18/2006 49.93 2063776672 08/18/2006 37.48 2064175252 08/18/2006 32.49 234.21 127939 08/25/2006 005724 MELLISSA WHITE 081606 08116/2006 60.00 60.00 127940 OS/25/2006 005723 SALLY WHITKAMP 081606 08/16/2006 29.00 29.00 127941 08/25l2006 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COP PW 2005-01 08/16/2006 9,306.00 9,306.00 127942 08/25/2006 004897 WOOD RODGERS 48283 08/14/2006 9,068.75 9,068.75 127943 08/25/2006 004548 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP 10421 05/03/2006 1,932.00 1,932.00 boa Total: 158,106.42 Page: 12 apCkHist CheCk HlstOry Listing Page: 13 08/2812006 9:12AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 177 checks in this report Total Checks: 158,106.42 Page: 13 Attachment 2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 07/28/06 -08/10106 , 08/18/06 FUND 010 379,726.60 5101 Salaries Full time 203,788.40 FUND 220 16,382.11 5102 Salaries Part-Time- PPT 21,372.42 � FUND 284 - 5103 Salaries Part-Time-TPT 17,469.76 FUND 612 8,000.89 5105 Salaries OverTime 11,848.04 � FUND 640 19,762.48 5107 Salaries Standby 383.27 423,872.08 5108 Holiday Pay 1,182.60 5109 Sick Pay 2,890.89 5110 AnnualLeave Buyback - 5111 Vacation Buyback 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 16,334.27 5114 Comp Pay 5,883.10 5115 Annual Leave Pay 5,640.19 5121 PERS Retirement 72,114.86 , 5122 Social Security 19,968.04 5123 PARS Retirement 508.98 5126 State Disabiliry Ins. 1,135.34 5127 Deferred Compensation 775.00 5131 Health Insurance 34,493.39 5132 Dentallnsurance 4,331.88 5133 Vision Insurance 983.11 � 5134 Life Insurance 579.33 5135 Long Term Disability 974.16 5143 Uniform Allowance 200.00 5144 Car Allowance 500.00 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 240.05 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00 423,872.08 lI i I 8.b. � pRRO�� O C � INCOflPOqATEO 2 MEMORANDUM U m * JULY 10. 1911 * C9��FORN�P . TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT WITH WOHLFORD CONSULTING FOR A FULL COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Wohiford Consulting to conduct a full cost of services (user fee) study and appropriate an additional $2,000 from the General Fund. FUNDING: Council approved the appropriation of$33,000 requested in the Budget Update report at the July 25th Council meeting for this project. An additional appropriation of $2,000 is being requested due to an error in not including the consultanYs direct expenses in the Budget Update report. DISCUSSION: The City completed a full cost of services (user fee) study in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. At that time, operating fees, where appropriate, were set at 100% of cost. The study was performed in order to shift the burden of paying for specifia governmental services from the general public to specific recipients of the services. The underlying assumption is that for services benefiting individuals, and not the community as a whole, those individuals should pay for the cost of some or all of the services. Each year, the operating fees are adjusted by the January Consumer Price Index (CPI) and presented to the City Council for approval. During the 2005-2007 Bi-Annual Budget process, an analysis was prepared to determine if the revenue generated from operating fees was keeping pace with the actual costs incurred by the City. It was determined that while fees had increased by approximately 15%, costs have increased from 22% to 72%. At the June 14, 2005 Council meeting, staff recommended that operating fees be increased by an additional 5% based on the analysis. Council approved this increase and recommended that a comprehensive operating fee study be conducted within the next two years. In addition, the study will assist the City in developing a master fee schedule that can be easily referred to and updated on a regular basis. As a result of the Municipal Code Update, the City has been systematically replacing references to specific fee amounts CITY COUNCIL AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR A FULL COST OF SERVICES STUDY SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 � from the Municipal Code with provisions that enable the City Council to establish fee amounts by resolution. This enables ongoing adjustments to be accomplished on a more systematic basis when a comprehensive fee schedule can be achieved. A request for proposals (RFP) for an operating (user) fee and rate study was mailed out on January 4, 2006. Four firms received the request for proposals, with two responses received by the January 31, 2006 deadline. The responses were evaluated and ranked by the Financial Services and Administrative Services departments. Upon completion i of the review, the firm of Wohlford Consulting was selected to perform the study. This firm was selected because of its hands on approach and level of service. A cost of service study will identify the current costs that the City incurs to provide ' services to the community. Identifying the costs is the first step in determining the appropriate fee and/or the appropriate subsidy for each service provided to the public. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to contract with Wohlford Consulting for the cost of services study at a maximum cost of $35,000. The agreement is subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council are as follows: — Accept staffs recommendation and award contract to Wohlford Consulting; — Revise staff recommendation and award bid to another consultant, or — Provide direction to staff regarding City Council alternatives. Attachment(s): 1. Agreement for Consultant Services 2. Request for Proposal for Operating (User) Fee and Rate Study 3. Proposal from Wohlford Consulting I ' AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of September 18, 2006, between I WOHLFORD CONSULTING ("ConsultanY'), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation ("City"). in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on September 18, 2006 and shall remain and continue in effect until September 18, 2007, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perForm the tasks described and comply with all terms and provisions set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION City's Finance Director shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. Chad Wohlford shall represent Consultant in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT The City agrees to pay the Consultant in accordance with the payment rates and , terms set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) The City or Consultant may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the other party at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides othenvise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such Page 1 of 14 I suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. (b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 5. 7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events: � (a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; � (b) Sale of ConsultanPs business; or (c) Assignment of this Agreement by Consultant without the consent of City. (d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1. 8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT , (a) The ConsultanYs failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the perFormance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the ConsultanYs control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. (b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant , fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Consultant shall: (a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement; (b) Keep itself reasonably informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those ; Page 2 of 14 engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials used in ConsultanYs performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this Agreement; (c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above; (d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions of this Agreement. (e) The City, and its officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section. 10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS (a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that directly relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. (b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents first prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement, except for ConsultanYs proprietary computer models; shall become the sole property of the City and may be . used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, at the ConsultanYs office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. Page 3 of 14 11. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnification for Professional Liabilitv. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for ConsultanYs Services, to the fullest extent permitted by � law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereofl in the perFormance of professional services under this agreement. (b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liabilitv. Other than in the pertormance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of Consultant. (c) General Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the perFormance of this agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section. 12. INSURANCE Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT (a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent Consultant. The personnel perForming the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under ConsultanYs exclusive direction and control. Page 4 of 14 Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of ConsultanYs officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. (b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with perFormance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liabie for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 14. UNDUE INFLUENCE Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity. 15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES No member, o�cer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authoriry over or responsibilities with respect to the project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the project performed under this Agreement. 16. RELEASE OF INFORMATIONICONFLICTS OF INTEREST (a) All information gained by Consultant in perFormance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subContractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work perFormed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. Page 5 of 14 (b) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, I employees, agents, or subContractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 17. NOTICES Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in . the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice: To City: City of Arroyo Grande Angela Kraetsch 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 To Consultant: Wohlford Consulting Chad Wohlford 372 Florin Road, #293 Sacramento, CA 95831 18. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the pertormance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, without the prior written consent of the City. 19. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with jurisdiction over the City of Arroyo Grande. Page 6 of 14 i 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. � 21. TIME ; City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement. I 22. CONTENTS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL ; Consultant is bound by the contents of this Agreement and the contents of the proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit "E", attached hereto and incorporated , herein by this reference. In the event of conflict, the requirements of this Agreement � shall take precedence over those contained in the ConsultanYs proposals. 23. CONSTRUCTION ' The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement ; or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience and reference only, and a�e not intended to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate. � 24. AMENDMENTS ' Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinp and shall be made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement. � 25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the perFormance of its obligations hereunder. Page 7 of 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CONSULTANT By: By: Tony Ferrara, Mayor I Its: ' Attest: (Title) i i Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk Approved As To Form: ' Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney i ; Page 8 of 14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant will perForm the scope of services described in the proposal submitted by the Consultant (Exhibit E) dated January 31, 2006, and summarized herein. The Consultant shall review and analyze the fees and rates described in ConsultanYs proposal, to identify the full costs of services, including all cross department cost impacts, and all readily available departmental and citywide overhead costs. In addition, the Consultant will identify and report on all current fee and rate levels that are lower than total cost recovery, and advise the City regarding the necessary and appropriate rate of recovery for all fees by type of fee. The Consultant will provide the City with potential alternative fee structures to ensure the City can adequately align fee levels with total costs, as well as provide the City with all related data needed to adequately set fees for both existing and potential new fees and/or fee structures. The Consultant will participate in a presentation to select City staff and City Council. The firm will collect and document comments and concerns from City staff and Council members. Page 9 of 14 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE _...___.__ __,.__�_�_.�_,..._ _..__ E'- I � Component� jPro'ect Com onent: fee � Pro�ect Planning and Control ( incl�ed -- �.._ _ _�.. .� Quality Assurance Processes � mcluded * � , _ � _._. �_ Communication Plan/Presentations �;mcluded ' � .._ _ _ Report and Documentation included � _. �......_ _, _ . Expenses i $ 2,200 ' ' y - - -- - � _. . .. ;User Fee Study: ; _ ' � Bwldin� f 8,1501 � _____ _ � i NeighborhoodServices __�1 2,450 j � __ � �Fire � 5,850 i , __._. __._ fi. ____._ , � Public Works (Engineermy)� _� 5m550 � , � Commundy Development(Planning) _�_, 5,700 � �._._ _ _ _. .. _ ., t Police ; i 4 980 i ,.._ _...__._ ,_._.�� G User Fee Study Total. ; � $ _34,880 ; Billinp Milestones The following payment milestones are proposed by the Consultant: __.._._. .. _ ----- __ _ ...___r_ _ . _, i # Milestone Description ' j Project% I � ( iProject Kick-off presentation, 1�j j , �1 �Completion_oflntialinterviews_____ ; __. 20% _ _ � i �Fee lnventory Developed; besign of � Analytical Model; Delivery of Data I � I ± 2 �Collection Worksheets � 20% � � �Initial Drafts of Fee Study Results i t-'-'--'"__._� 3 Dehvered � � 20% � --- __ __ _.__._ ' 4 Final Fee Study Results Delivered ; j 15% W' �___., , �5 (Draft Report Dehvered , � 15% E 6 Final Report Delivered i E 5% j � ., . _._...__._ ___...__ ..._: 7 Presentation Developed ��;� � 2,5% _vj 8�Presenfation of Results �� ��' ���2.5%� ; � .__... �. .._.._._ __.._ �,_ � 'Total j � 100% � Page 10 of 14 EXHIBIT C INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the requiremenfs set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultanf acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given /oss, will be available to City. Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance: Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 inciuding symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultanf owns no vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability poiicy described above. if Consultant or ConsultanYs employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designated to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work perFormed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on behalf of' the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement. Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are admitted carriers in the state Califomia and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a minimum financial size Vll. Page 11 of 14 � General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant. Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Consultant: 1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all Consultants, and subContractors to do likewise. 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Consultant, or ConsultanYs employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Consultants and subContractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any Consultant or subcontractor. � 6. All cbverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increase benefit to City. Consultant shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant, at City option. Page 12 of 14 8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation. 9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance i coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subContractor, is intended to apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or , self insurance available to City. 10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subContractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subContractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it will not allow any Consultant, subContractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If ConsultanYs existing coverage includes a deductible in excess of $1,000 or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. 12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increase benefit to City. 13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirements in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or Page 13 of 14 terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. 16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from ConsultanYs insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to � the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration of the coverages. I17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit ; the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents. 18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, ; and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive. 19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. i 20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Section. 21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by i any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or , Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. Page 14 of 14 Exhibit D CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL OPERATING (USER) FEE AND RATE STUDY I. PROPOSALINTENT It is the intent of the City of Arroyo Grande to create a pre-qualified pool of consultants ' specializing in Operating (User) Fee and Rate Studies for local governments from which the City shall choose. II. BACKGROUND The City of Arroyo Grande is a full-service ciry, which currently comprises 5.45 square miles and serves 16,582 residents. It is located on the Central Coast of California midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The City provides a full range of services, including police and fire. protection; the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and other infrastructure; and recreational activities and cultural events. Certain sanitation services are provided through the Water and Sewer Funds, which function as a Public Works Department of the City. III. SCOPE OF WORK The City seeks assistance in updating the existing Operating (User) Fee and Rate Study in order to assess appropriate fees and rates to recover the total costs of providing related services. The contracted firm shall review all existing fees and rates under all Municipal Codes, analyze fee- related services pertaining to the operations of all City departments, and identify the full costs of services, including all cross department cost impacts, and all departmental and citywide overhead costs. In addition, the contracted firm will identify and report on all current fee and rate levels that are lower than total cost recovery, perform detailed fee, cost, and benchmarking analysis, and determine the necessary and appropriate rate of recovery for all fees by type of fee. The firm will provide the City with proposed alternative fee structures to ensure the City can adequately align fee levels with total costs, as well as provide the City with all related data needed to adequately set fees for both existing and potential new fees and/or fee structures. The firm shall conduct a comprehensive review of the City's fee and rate structures with the goal of establishing a consistent and objectively based fee and rate structure that meets the needs of the City and it's citizenry. As part of this project, a calculation of the costs of providing current levels of City services is required. The firm will draft a comprehensive operating (user) fee and rate study and participate in the presentation to select City staff and City Council. The firm will collect and document comments and concerns from City staff and Council members. IV. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT Firms desiring to respond shall make their proposals brief and concise, yet with sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation. Each proposal shall include as a minimum the following information in this format: A. Introduction Present an introduction to the proposal describing the firm's understanding of the desired work. Include a detailed description of the methods by which the consultant intends to perform the work set forth in the Scope of Services. B. Oualifications Include a brief description of the firm's background, experience with similar projects, and resumes of key personnel proposed to work on the project. C. Work Plan �' Provide a tentative schedule by phase, key task, and proposed compensation for I mmpleting the work. This schedule, as modified to be acceptable to the City, will be used as an Exhibit to the Agreement between the City and the successful consultant. , D. Costs ' Submit a cost proposal, which includes a performance and cost schedule for all services � necessary to complete this project. The proposal should specify the major components, the cost breakdown by major component or phase, and the expected time of completion for each component based on the scope of services outlined in the proposal. The proposal should include, a total proposed, "not to exceed" cosks of the services, including a fee and rate schedule describing all charges and hourly rates for services. Cost will not be the ! deciding factor in making the selection. E. References List former clients for whom similar or comparable services have been performed. Include the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the appropriate contact person. ' V. SELECTION PROCESS � A review committee will make recommendation to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board ' of Directors for award of the contract. An oral interview by the panel may be requested. Proposals will be evaluated and rated based upon the following criteria: A. Relative experience and qualifications , B. Technical merits of the proposal C. Ability of proposed approach to meet the needs of the City , D. Cost Effectiveness VI. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Proposals Due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 31, 2006 Interviews (if requested) . . . . . . . . . . . February 8— February 10, 2006 Select Consultant . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 13, 2006 Finalize Contrad . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 23, 2006 City Council Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . February 28, 2006 Effective Date of Contract . . . . . . . . . . March 1, 2006 , VII. SUBMITTAL , A. Submit a total of 4 copies to: Angela Kraetsch Director of Financial Services P.O. Box 550 214 E. Branch Street ', Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 , 2 I , B. Show the following information on the outside of the package: . Firm's name and address • Operating (User) Fee and Rate Study Proposal � C. The proposal must be received at the above address by the closing date and time. Firms j mailing or shipping their proposals must allow sufficient delivery time to ensure timely , receipt of their proposals by the time specified. Late proposals will not be accepted. D. Closing Date: All proposals must be received by Tuesdav, ]anuarv 31, 2006 at 5•00 o.m. ' E. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for any or no reason. F. For more information, please contact Angela Kraetsch at 805-473-5432. i ' VIII. LIABILITY INSURANCE Prior to the begmning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Contractor will maintain insurance in confo�mance with the requiremenfs set forth be%w. Contrado� will use eristing , mverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the �equirements set forth here, Contractor agrees to amend, supplement o� endorse the e�risting cove�age to do so. Contrador acknowledges that the insurance cove�age and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance p�oceeds available to City in excess of the limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given/oss, wi/l be auailable to City. Contrador shall p�ovide the fol%wing types and amounts of insurance: ; A. Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial , General Liability" policy from CG 00 Ol or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be paid � in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one � insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. B. Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 Ol including symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Contractor owns no vehicles, this requirement may be ' satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy described above. If Contractor or Contractor's employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, ' Contrador shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. C. Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease. D. Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary), if used to meet limit requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention for liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be provided on , a "pay on behalf" basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross liability exclusion 3 r I � iprecluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to City for injury to employees of Contrador, subcontradors or others involved in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of City following receipt of proof of insurance as required herein. I E. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a i policy form coverage specifically designated to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Contractor and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less i than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on behalf of" the , insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. The policy i retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement. i F. Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are ! admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a minimum financial size VII. ' G. General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Contractor. Contractor ' and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Contractor: 1. Contractor agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds, City, its officials ' employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Contractor also agrees to require all Contradors, and subcontractors to do likewise. 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall , prohibit Contractor, or Contractor's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Contractoc agrees to waive subrogation rights against ' City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Contractors and subcontractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing mntained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any Contractor or subcontractor. 6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Contractor shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Contractor's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or 4 prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to , obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be i charged to and promptly paid by Contractor or deducted from sums due Contractor, at City option. 8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of ' any cancellation of coverage. Contractor agrees to require its insurer to modify � such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the � insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any ' party will "endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the � requirements of the certificate: � 9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage • required to be provided by Contractor or any subcontradors, is intended to apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or ' self insurance available to City. 10. Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor. Contractor agrees � to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring , that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 11. Contractor agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or ' dedudibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it will not allow any Contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Contractor's existing coverage includes a dedudible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the Contractor, which may include reduction or elimination of the dedudible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. 12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and lypes of insurance required by giving the Contractor ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change resulks in substantial additional cost to the Contractor, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increase benefit to City. 13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 14. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirements in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 5 15. Contractor will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. 16. Contractor shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Contractor's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration of the coverages. 17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Contractor under this agreement. Contractor expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents. 18: Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all- inclusive. 19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. 20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Section. 21. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any parry involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contrador for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 22. Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Contractor arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such ciaim or claims if they are likely to involve City. 6 , Exhibit E � WOHLFORD CONSULTING January 31, 2006 Angela Kraetsch � Director of Financial Services � P.O. Box 550 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Re: Proposal for a Full Cost of Services Study Dear Ms. Kraetsch: I am very pleased to provide you with this proposal to partner with the Ciry of Arroyo Grande to perform a Full Cost of Service (User Fee) Study. My business is dedicated to helping cities improve their understanding and recovery of costs, and I sincerely believe that our superior study approach and consultant experience will best help you achieve your goals. The fact that you issued a Request for Proposals is a clear indication that you already appreciate the benefits of these studies. Consequently, I wrote this proposal with a focus on the true advantages of having your study done by Wohlford Consulting. Advantages of Wohlford Consulting Wohlford Consulting brings tremendous skill and experience to this engagement. But more importantly, our study approach ensures a clear focus on the needs of each City and the City as a whole. You can rest assured that we will accomplish yozm goals in a professional manner--with quality always as a top priority. The advantages of working with Wohlford Consulting include: Partnership: The City will experience a real partnership with Wohlford consulting. We focus on your needs and ensure that it is easy to work with us, with painless contracting, consistent staffing, easy communication, no bureaucracy, and a friendly approach. Experience: The right kind of experience is critical. The consultant who will perform all of your study has over 18 years of relevant experience, including direct employment as a government employee. Speed: The longer it takes to complete your study, the later you can start collecting new revenue. "Slow" will cost you money. We are set up to work quickly, with no extra decision layers, bureaucratic limitations, or unmanageable workloads to affect your study. 372 Florin Road, #293 (916) 205-7050 Sacramento, CA 95831 Fax: (916) 393-6801 www.woh Ifordconsu Iting.com City ofArroyo Grande Proposal for a Cost of Services Study Integrity: The credibility that comes from an honest and transparent study will help you implement the results, weather criticism, and protect your reputation (and ours). As basic personal and professional values, Wohlford Consulting has an absolute commitment to honesty and integrity. Value: A User Fee Study can bring the City significantly more new revenue than the cost of the study. We help you maximize the value of the study by performing superior work with a robust scope of services and by taking advantage of our lower cost structure that does not need to recover the excessive overhead or profit margins of the lazger firms. Our project fees include more service and higher quality than comparable fees from other firms. Support: Our contribution to your success does not end when the report is bound and delivered. We use our experience and communication skills to help you understand, predict, and address the questions and concems of your City Council, City staff, interest groups, and the public�ven after the project is done. Quality: None of the other advantages matter if the overall quality of the project experience is inadequate. Wohlford Consulting, above all else, is extraordinarily devoted to quality. Our Commitment Since we specialize in cost studies, we fully understand what is necessary to complete the requested study to the City's satisfaction. The City of Arroyo Grande will experience an effective professional approach and receive high-quality results from this study and from Wohlford Consulting. We firmly commit to complete the proposed study in the most timely and efficient manner possible at the proposed cost. Thank You Thank you for the opportunity to propose our services to you. I look forward to talking with you more about how Wohlford Consulting can help you achieve the City's goals through this project. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have questions or need clarification of the proposal. Sincerely, / '2.V` 1 ' Chad Wohlford Principal Consult t WOHLFORD CONSULTING 2 Ianuary 31,2006 �'y CITY OF � Ciry of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Services Study Table of Contents PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 1 STUDY APPROACH AND FEATURES 3 Partnership with the City of Arroyo Grande......................................................3 QualityControl......................................................................................................3 CommunicationPlan.............................................................................................4 Methodologiesand Work Plan .............................................................................4 ProjectStaffing Plan..............................................................................................7 ProjectSchedule.....................................................................................................7 SCOPE OF SERVICES 9 Specific Project Deliverables.................................................................................9 Departments and Service Areas Included in the User Fee Study....................15 ,, Cost-Based Building Fees: CABS Approach.....................................................19 Other Services Available.....................................................................................20 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 21 Values and Commitment (Founding Principles)...............................................21 Industryand Subject Knowledge.......................................................................22 Consultant Experience and Qualifications: Chad Wohlford, MPPA.............24 ClientReferences .................................................................................................27 CosT PROrosnL 29 CostSummary......................................................................................................29 ProjectBudget and Cost Detail ..........................................................................29 Cost Flexibility and Control................................................................................31 EasyContracting..................................................................................................32 CONCLUSION 33 APPENDICES Appendices A. Specific Work Plan WOHLFORD CONSULTING i ]anuary 31,2006 j�GT� �4�;��; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study PROJECT UNDERSTANDING In your never-ending quest to manage resources wisely and keep up with service demands, the City of Arroyo Grande needs a variety of tools to make sure that you have the best information and the best resources to make good decisions, fairly and legitimately maximize revenues, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the departments, the City, and the public. You already recognize that a User Fee Study is the most cost-effective way to understand your total cost of services and identify potential fee changes and revenue impacts—usually leading to significant revenue increases. For Wohlford Consulting, a User Fee Study is more accurately named a Full Cost of Services Study, since the scope of services, study process, information, results and quality we provide exceed the usual output of the typical User Fee Study. Our proposed approach will The City'S needs are more than meet the needs and requirements expressed in pal'amount to Wohlford the City's Request for Proposals. Consulting. We first seek to fully understand your Ofren, a Full Cost of Service or User Fee Study is thought goals before we initiate to be simply a tooi to raise revenues. This is, of course, the project tasks. the most common perception of industry groups and the public, and revenue enhancement is often the primary goal of our clients. However, a Cost of Service study is truly much more than just a revenue tool. This type of cost study can also become a management tool, with a variety of information and perspectives that will help you better understand your operations and their financial circumstances. The study process, consultant input, and results have a variety of important other outcomes, since it can also: • Calculate specific fee subsidies and overall revenue impacts of current and potential fees; • Identify new fees, cost recovery strategies, and other revenue opportunities for the City; • Fairly and appropriately distribute indirect and overhead costs; • Clearly identify the cost of administrative activities to customer departments and programs; • Create an enhanced internal understanding of administrative programs and support activities; • Allow the City to compaze its costs with neighboring jurisdictions; • Quantify productivity and staffing shortages; • Measure the distribution of staff effort of specific positions to individual tasks and service areas, which can help managers more effectively prioritize work tasks; • Ensure that the City's fees aze consistent with state laws and interpretations; WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 1 of 33 January 31,2006 �:GTV OF ��a;;�� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study • Make your fees strongly defensible to challenges from the public, special interest groups, your Council, and the courts; and • Foster a better understanding of workflow and staff involvement in specific services and activities. The City likely has a variety of motivations for considering a User Fee Study, and the top priority may change regularly. The special experience of Wohlford Consulting affords us a unique perspective that helps us know your general environment well. Nevertheless, we will work closely with the City to achieve a better understanding of your specific circumstances and adapt our approach and toois to best meet your needs and expectations. Because of our flexibility and commitment to your goals, the City of Anoyo Grande will have a superior study experience and receive results of exceptional quality. Our proposed approach will more than meet the needs and requirements expressed by the City. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 2 of 33 January 3l,2006 �=�� ��;,;�`%; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study STUDY APPROACH AND FEATURES The City will benefit from the proven approach and quality-based methodologies employed by Wohlford Consulting to perform our studies. The professional analysis of costs and related data, along with a serious attention to detail, results in a top quality product and results that you can be proud to share with your City Council, other Depar[ments, the public, and your neighboring counties and cities. The key features of our approach are described below: Partnership with the City of Arroyo Grande One word summarizes our overall approach: PARTNERSHIP. The City of Arroyo Grande can engage a consultant with over 18 years of experience in government cost and operations and many dozens of client organizations. This consultant is a solid expert in the field of government user fees with a strong perspective backed by years of professional work. Nevertheless, we never let our experience or expertise get in the way of making sure that your study fits you. We understand that the best techniques aze insufficient, maybe even counterproductive, if they are not �yohlford Consulting adapted to the individual circumstances of each client. We goes beyond the will not apply a cookie-cutter approach or assume that we standard and employs already know"what is besY' for you. industry-exceeding We will listen to you and work with you in a close approaches and partnership to ensure that we understand your goals and the techniques. unique circumstances in the City. Nobody knows more about Arroyo Grande than the City staff, and we wi(1 take full advantage of your knowledge and perspective. Together we will make a great team. This partnership forces us to focus each step in the study process to the ultimate goal of ineeting the needs of the City. With your constant involvement, we will be continually reminded of our commitment to you, and you will form a better understanding of your study. Quality Control A cost analysis study is a "GIGO"� process. All study components are interrelated, so bad data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be flawed. A flawed study will be embarrassing to us both and may not be implemented. A flawed study will cause us to do unnecessary additional work. We want to avoid all of these situations and the resultant damage to our 'Garbage in,garbage out(bad inputs equal bad outputs) WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 3 of 33 January 31,2006 �:GTY OF ��- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study reputations. To avoid accuracy problems and other quality flaws, Wohlford Consulting employs a rigorous Quality.Control process. Our Quality Control measures are designed to ensure that we have covered all of the issues, appropriately accounted for positions and resources in the models, and factored all other data fairly and accurately in the study. The elements of our Quality Control process include: ✓ Clear Instructions ✓ FTE Balancing ✓ Process Checklists ✓ Revenue Balancing ✓ Reasonableness Tests and ✓ Internal and External Reviews Validation - ✓ Comparative Analysis ✓ Challenge and Questioning ✓ Cross-Checking Every critical step in our study process includes a Quality Control check. Communication Plan In some ways, effective communication of the results and methods is as critical as the cost calculations themselves. Fortunately, we have tremendous experience that enables us to know how to talk with City departments, Councilmembers, interest groups, and the public, as well as understand their different (and sometimes contradictory) issues, concerns, and questions. Starting with this proposal, Wohlford Consulting consistently strives to provide the most meaningful and accurate information to you as possible. Our proven communication techniques and skills will help the study to be successful. Without a clear understanding of the study, it is unlikely that staff, management, or the City Council will support and adopt the study. Consequently, we have proposed two formal presentations as part of our study. In addition, we will conduct working meetings, briefings, and regular discussions with key contacts to ensure that good information flows regularly. You will find that our communication abilities and commitment are key components of this study that will heip us achieve your goals. _ Methodologies and Work Plans The City of Anoyo Grande deserves a study that is objective, efficient, effective, quality-driven, goal-oriented, and understandable. Most importantly, however, it should be defensible. None of the positive attribute of this study will matter if the City and its critics cannot be satisfied with the accuracy and integrity of the study. To ensure the best possible outcomes for the City of Arroyo Grande, Wohlford Consulting exceeds the "industry standazd" approach and methods, by enhancing them with superior techniques, skill, research, and perspective. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 4 of 33 January 31,2006 i ci r oc �, r �f�`��i City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Stud User Fee Study Aporoach The methodology to evaluate user fees is deceptively simple in concept. We utilize a "unit cost build-up" approach that seeks to identify the "fully loaded" cost for each unit of service (fee activity). This approach is superior (more accurate and defensible) to the "top down approach" used by many other firms (divide the total cost of services by the number of fees), since it is not dependent upon fluctuating activity levels or other unrelated factors to calculate a unit fee. As a further enhancement, our approach is also a form of Activity-Based Costing that has been simplified and customized for fee study purposes, which helps to avoid the confusion, project delays, and other common problems with the unnecessarily complex industrial ABC systems available. As a "full cosY' analysis, Wohlford Consulting will attempt to incorporate all legitimate costs into the study, including Citywide overhead or contributions of effort between departments and divisions. In addition to the cost analysis outcomes, and as desired by the City, the detailed ABC approach utilized by Wohlford Consulting can identify workload patterns and help to highlight tazgets of opportunity for improvement or further investigation. We constantly seek to improve our processes to enhance efficiency, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality outcomes. Through the years oF performing and continuously improving these types of studies, Wohlford Consulting has developed an approach and work plan that facilitates a successful study. Part of this approach is to customize each baseline project step and subtask to best fit your individual circumstances, priorities, and needs. Furthermore, we will identify new and unique issues in Arroyo Grande City that will warrant special attention. In that light, the City should consider the foliowing list simply as a general outline that addresses the basic elements of the study: WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 5 of 33 January 31,2006 GTY OF � �`��•'�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Work Plan Out[ine 1. Establish the inventory of fee services (cunent and potential) 2. Identify the staff positions that work on each fee service 3. Calculate the direct productive hourly rate for each position 4. Determine the time necessary for each position to perform fee tasks 5. Calculate the direct cost of the staff time for each fee 6. Distribute indirect and overhead costs to each fee 7. Sub-allocate supporting activities to fee services 8. Perform quality control processes (constant) 9. Calculate revenue impacts 10. Perform the "gap analysis" (unit and total subsidies) 11. Perform review processes 12. Consider Recommendations 13. Document and present results As part of the process, we will solicit and evaluate a variety of data from City staff, as well as request a series of review steps from them. In anticipation of contract approval, in order to enhance timeliness, we will submit an advance data request list. The anticipated contributions by City staff include: • Budget and other cost data • Staffing structures • Direct and indirect work hours (billable/non-billable) • Time data and/or estimates to complete work tasks • Activity statistics (fee volumes) and current fee levels • Review of draft results and other documentation • Information and characterizations of existing internal issues, personalities, and policies As you can imagine, "the devil is in the details" of a User Fee Study. The specific work plan for this project represents a detailed expansion of the summary methodology described above. Each of these steps is a significant undertaking with many potential delays, inefficiencies, enors, annoyances, sidetracks, and other serious pitfalls. Our job as the consultant is to facilitate the entire process to your success. We will , employ our experience and expertise to identify, prevent, and resolve problems and process issues; facilitate data collection and devise alternative techniques when needed; foster communication and decision- making; and keep the study progressing. Appendix A provides a more complete description of the proposed steps and individual tasks of the study. In summary, the City can expect an WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 6 of 33 lanuary 31,2006 C TY OF Y�(. 1 �,p�`�;:;�'�,- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study expert, highest-quality, and top-tier work approach and process for its study. Software Wohlford Consulting performs all studies using common commercially- available software packages, such as Microsoft Excel. This approach allows our clients to more readily understand the processes we follow, participate more fully in the development of results, and have a higher level of confidence in the technical outcomes and results. This approach also enhances simplicity and flexibility, and it facilitates the ease of future updates. Should the City request the actual technical models for future use by City staff, the requirements (and cost) for software training, new software products, updates and licensing, or other extra support, would be minimized. Project Staffing Plan The only consultant assigned to this project will be Chad Wohlford, MPPA. Mr. Wohlford will personally complete all technical and project management tasks related to this study. He has evaluated government costs and operations for over 18 years, including seven years as a consultant and state director for a large national consulting firm. Mr. Wohlford specializes in Cost of Service studies, and his work has been cited in the second edition of the seminal building fee text, Establishing Building Permit Fees (Bouse, 2005), published by the International Codes Council. A subsequent section of this proposal will describe Mr. Wohlford's experience and qualifications in greater detail. The assignment of a single consultant to conduct all project activities is a great advantage to the City. This superior staffing format will ensure a consistent and stable approach, methodology, and style across all departments, divisions, tasks, and other aspects of the study. The City does not need to worry about communication breakdowns, inefficiencies, time defays, "trainee" errors, consultant "reassignment," or other problems that arise when multiple consultants of vazying experience and skill work on the same project, which is often the case with larger firms and profit-motivated "team" approaches. In addition, the person who presents the results to the departments, City Council, or the public, will be the same person who conducted the analysis, thus enhancing the credibility of the study and the quality of the presentations. Ultimately, Arroyo Grande can rest assured that you will have only the highest quality and most experienced consultant working on everything. Project Schedule Wohlford Consulting is committed to timely completion of the study to meet the objectives of the City. Under normal circumstances, the City of Arroyo Grande WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 7 of 33 January 31,2006 GTY OG � � ���;:,;;��; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study could expect final results from this study in approximately three to four months, depending on the City's commitment to timely completion and staff responsiveness. Specific task schedules and hours estimates are not practical (and potentially misleading) until the City and the consultant have had the opportunity to discuss the process, final scope of services, data availability, staff commitments, and other related issues. If desired, at the outset of the study, we will work with the City to devise and diagram a specific project schedule. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 8 of 33 January 31,2006 ��CITY OG ����; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Arroyo Grande would most benefit from a project "scope of services" that addresses the basic needs of the City, plus something extrn to ensure success. From our experience, we generally know the tasks and deliverabies that are necessary to achieve your goa(s in an efficient and effective fashion. At the same time, we understand that City funds to pay for consultants are limited. Consequently, we devised a scope of services that will accomplish your goals in the most cost-effective To ensure success, we manner. This balance is important for the City to will adapt the "scope of realize the full value of the study. seivices"to match the needs and objectives of The proposed scope of services reflects our current Arroyo Grande. understanding of the needs of the City and the availability of necessazy data. At the beginning of the project, we will work with the City to refine this scope of services to best meet your objectives. Specific Project Deliverables The general scope of services for this project includes a Cost Allocation Plan and a User Fee Study. Both studies involve the determination and distribution of the full costs for services performed by the City. However, we included several other "deliverables" to ensure that the City's needs aze fully met. For this proposed study, Wohlford Consulting will complete and deliver the following items and information to the City of Arroyo Grande: Summary List of Project Deliverables ✓ User Fee Study ✓ Presentations ✓ City Documentation Review ✓ Orientation and ✓ Reasonableness Review Training ✓ Summary Report ✓ Policy Consultation ✓ Electronic Copies of Results ✓ Intangibles ✓ On-Site Meetin s ✓ Post-Project Support These deliverables are described below: User Fee Studv Wohlford Consulting will gather relevant data and use our proprietary analytical model(s) to calculate the full unit cost of user fee services. If unit data is not available or feasible, we will determine the cost-recovery performance of program areas and identify potential fee changes accordingly. If activity volume data is available, we will also determine WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 9 of 33 January 31,2006 :'yt,GTY Of ����- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study the potential revenue impacts of current and recommended fee levels. If desired, we will work with the City to establish recommended fee levels. We will deliver a package of detailed worksheets that demonstrate the cost components for each fee calculation, as well as summary documentation of the unit costs and overall results. The City will receive electronic versions (e.g., Excel worksheets) of the final fee results to facilitate future analysis and distribution. Review of Existine City Documentation Wohlford Consulting will review documentation or studies previously developed by the City (e.g., Cost Allocation Plan, Cost Recovery Policy) and comment on any identified deficiencies or potential improvements. Reasonableness Review It is our firm belief that honesty from your consultant is important at al( stages of the project�specially in the proposal. Furthermore, facilitating cleaz and realistic expectations is a critical part of this honesty. Some clients seek an evaluation of fee "reasonableness," based upon a notion of "best practices." Through our QC processes, Wohlford Consulting will help you develop confidence in the reasonableness of the City's fees and enhance your existing understanding of the related concepts, including what is realistic, meaningful, and specific to the City of Arroyo Grande. Our intention in this section is to summarize to the City the realistic possibilities and limitations of this type of analysis, in order to ensure that you have the best available information. In our experience, the notion of "reasonableness" is a function of many different definitions and assumptions. The most basic consideration is whether the reasonableness standazd applies to the cost of the service or to the fee charged--which can be two entirely different issues. . The reasonableness of a fee is largely a policy matter afrer cost has been established, since each individual's perspective influences his definition of "reasonableness." For example, whether a particular fee is considered reasonable certainly depends on if you are the person paying the fee or a disinterested party. Concepts of subsidization are also important to consider—particulazly when the potential fee payer is making a personal profit off of the actions of the City (e.g., private developers). Political considerations, jurisdictiona] comparisons, economic sympathy, desired incentives and disincentives, and historical trends may also play a part in the determination of fee reasonableness. Wohlford Consulting can outline these issues with City leadership and the Council. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 10 of 33 lanuary 31,2006 �arr av �,��� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study A cost of service study is initially intended to establish the true cost of providing individual services. In fact, the most common standard for this analysis, if one follows the Califomia Government Code, is that the fees can be no greater than the "estimated reasonable cosY' of providing the service for which a fee is charged. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "best practice" or specific "reasonableness" definition or stani3ard for providing individual services—and, by extension, knowing the best universal cost level. In our experience with dozens of jurisdictions, the only commonality is difference. Despite some claims, attempts to create a standard through rough statistical analysis of past data are problematic, at best, and imply a level of accuracy and meaningfulness that just does not exist. The cost components, service structures, staffing arrangements, services levels, overhead levels, and many other factors vary widely (and legitimately) among even neighboring jurisdictions. A high-quality cost of service study will employ quality control measures to ensure that the analysis identifies the most accurate and reasonable costs for the City's current operations. Such a study may also incorporate various operational and staffing changes into the analysis, in order to develop the costs for planned or altemate scenarios. This level of analysis may be sufficient to meet the City's current needs. However, to the extent that the City de£ines "reasonableness" as including an evaluation of the most efficient and effective operational practices, a cost of service study is not sufficient. A true "best practices" evaluation and determination of cost "reasonableness" based upon an idealized approach almost always requires a more robust management study, including meaningful observations of those practices, operational reviews, comprehensive line staff interviews, concept definition processes, and a wider scope of investigation and analysis. This type of analysis is really not feasible or economical given the time requirements and other indications given by the City in the RFP. Anything short of this full analysis would lack credibility, utility, and relevance. Conclusions based upon an insufficient study would be irresponsible and contrary to the interests of the City. As part of our study,.we would be glad to discuss these issues at greater length with the City to help you strategize the most beneficial approach to meet the City's needs. Summary Report Wohlford Consulting will produce a report to describe and document our general approach, methodologies, related issues, and study results for the User Fee Study. We will provide a reasonable number of copies of the WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page l I of 33 lanuary 31,2006 CTY OG �� �,���'y�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Stud report, along with a reproducible version and electronic file for further internal distribution by the City. Electronic Copies of Results Wohlford Consulting will provide electronic copies of the results for the Cost of Service (User Fee) Study to the City. - On-Site Meetines Communication between City management/staff and the consultant is critical to success of the study. Consequently, Wohlford Consulting assumes that 2-3 on-site visits, with multiple meetings during each visit, will be necessary. During these on-site meetings, the City and the consultant will discuss expectations and City issues, assign data collection tasks, collect data, review work in progress, examine results, plan strategy for analysis and implementation, and address other issues and tasks as necessary. In order to minimize disruptions and the impact on staff workload, we will conduct the remainder of the work with the City through email, phone, fas, mail, and other media. Presentations As part of our "Communication Plan," Wohlford Consu(ting will produce two formal presentations, following discussions with the City to determine the most appropriate audiences and best timing. These presentations may include: 1. Kick-off and Orientation: We will meet with all managers and staff involved in the study to explain the project approach, processes, expectations, and potential outcomes. This is an opportunity for all of us to start the project with a mutual understanding and commitment. 2. City Council Workshop: We will present the study to the City Council and/or key staff to ensure that they fully understand the methodology, philosophy, findings, and/or recommendations that the City may ask them to consider and approve. 3. Development Community Workshop: We can present the study methodology and approach (and results) to representatives from the potential fee payers (e.g., BIA, developers, etc.). This presentation will allow the participants to better understand and WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 12 of 33 January 31,2006 � K^GT� �'- City of Arroyo Grande 9tv.�.K�?';,1�' Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study challenge the study before it gets to the City Council or otherwise becomes final. The City can designate the point in the project when this presentation should occur (e.g., draft, final results, recommendations, etc.), as well as the audience (e.g., full Council, subcommittee, special public meeting, normal Council meeting). City staff will help us focus this presentation appropriately to best conform to the nature of the audience and the objectives of the City. In addition to the factual findings of the study, this presentation can include a discussion of general fee issues, acknowledgement and defense of potential challenges, discussion of comparative factors, future considerations, and a number of other factors that are known to the consultant from our professional experience. To give the City of Arroyo Grande greater flexibility and cost-control, and to minimize the baseline fixed project fee, we limited the number of presentations in this proposal. Depending on the outcomes of the study, the relative involvement of critics and other interested parties in your community, and other factors, the City may recognize the need for additional presentations. Potential audiences for other presentations include: ✓ Chamber of Commerce ✓ Building Industry Association ✓ Local Development Community ✓ Citizens Ad Hoc Committees ✓ City Council Subcommittee or Follow-up Meetings ✓ Additional Staff or City Council Meetings Wohlford Consulting would be pleased discuss the addition of these meetings. We can use our experience from other jurisdictions to help you determine the most effective approaches and understand the potential issues that may arise during these meetings. Generally, the "formal" presentations involve a projected PowerPoint display concunent with prepared comments and discussion from the consultant at an organized meeting. Questions and challenges are always welcomed and addressed fully. We can use our experience from other jurisdictions to help you determine the most effective approaches and understand the potential issues that may arise during these meetings. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 13 of 33 January 31,2006 �'y'^.QT�. �`��� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study We recommend that the City provide at least one presentation, and ideally two, to the local development community prior to the development of final results. These presentations give the interested parties opportunities to understand the study concepts and methodologies, have input into the process, and see the resuits before approval. By giving your constituencies these opportunities, it allows the City and the consultant to address questions and criticisms before the Council hearing. It also builds credibility with potential critics and often garners support from them—or at least eliminates opposition. Orientation and TraininQ Wohlford Consulting will ensure that the City of Anoyo Grande receives a quality product. However, the long-term success of the project also depends upon the ability of City staff to continue to understand, use, and explain the study methodologies and results after we are gone. Consequently, as part of our study process, we spend a considerable amount of time working with City staff to explain what we are doing and how the analysis works. We are committed to helping everyone involved to fully understand the study and its surrounding issues. Oftentimes, it almost seems as if certain client staff inembers become trained fee analysts. This training process not only ensures the future success of the project, but it also facilitates effective data collection and the City's intemal review of the results. It is important to note, however, that this training is not a substitute for our continual support and involvement with the City. Therefore, even after the study is completed and the invoice paid, Wohlford Consulting will remain available to you for questions about the study. Policv Consultation Wohlford consulting endeavors to provide the City with more than just a series of worksheets and a report at the end of the study. With this partnership, our goal is to help you through the myriad issues that come to light during the course of this type of study (and afterwards). We want to encourage you to mine our experience to help you reach solutions that benefit your City and your public. Discussion of significant issues will occur on a regulaz basis during the course of the study, but we can also schedule more focused discussions on topics such as: • Fee recommendations • Common criticisms and challenges • Public po(icy and impact • Conceptual background and history • Implementation strategies • Existing litigation and challenges • Communication approaches • Future fee and study updates WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 14 of 33 ]anuary 31,2006 �f GT� �,��`��'�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Intan ig bles The true value of a user fee consultant is not in our ability to perform mathematics, develop spreadsheets, or gather data. We are most helpful when we can use our experience, expertise, and perspective to help you solve problems and accomplish your objectives. To this end, our studies include more than just the documents and calculated results that we provide as deliverables. During the course of this study, we will provide the appropriate City representatives with advice intended to help you best achieve your cunent and future objectives. As desired by the City, we can discuss implementation strategies and altematives, future steps, common questions and complaints, public policy considerations, economic considerations, legal considerations, how to address criticism and support the study, other analysis needed, and update techniques. A study from Wohlford Consulting also includes a communication plan, quality control process, and other project management tools and practices to ensure the quality and success of our project. These measures may be completely invisible to the City of Arroyo Grande, but they are a large part of our commitment to the City's success. Post-Proiect Support Wohlford Consulting believes in long-term relationships with our clients. After the project is complete, we will remain available to the City for questions and information about the study and related issues. We want to be your first resource for cost-related information. Departments and Service Areas Included in the User Fee Study As an advantage to the City of Arroyo Grande, we propose to focus this study on the City Departments that have the most cost-effective opportunities for revenue enhancement. From our review of the cunent City organizational structure, we have identified the most likely candidates for a meaningful analysis. These include: • Building and Fire Department • Community Development o Building& Life Safety o Planning o Neighborhood Services . Police o Fire . Other Fee Areas • Public Works • Parks, Recreation, and o Engineering Facilities o tional WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 15 of 33 January 31,2006 Y�(qTY OF �'�~ -' City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study The remainder of this section describes the scope of services and approach for each of these service azeas. BuildinQ & Life Safetv The City of Arroyo Grande has a choice for the analysis of Building fees. If the City prefers to utilize the "valuation-based" approach, we will establish the overall cost recovery performance of the City's current fee schedule applied to building values and calcu(ate potential modifications to the fees. However, Wohlford Consulting aiso offers a unit-cost-based analysis of Building fees (which is a particulaz expertise of our practice). This approach identifies the full cost (plan check and inspection) for various occupancies (at various sizes and construction types), miscellaneous items, and MPE's. At the City's discretion, we would be pleased to provide either approach. We would also be glad to discuss the pros and cons of each approach in great detail with you. Neighborhood Services Following our initial project discussions with City staff, we will be able to specify the cost-recovery approach we will use for Code Enforcement. If the division operates as a traditional code enforcement unit, it is most likely that we will distribute certain costs to other divisions. We may also identify specific fees, if appropriate. The final altemative we select will depend on the operating nature ofthe division, other funding sources, fine activity, organizational structure, and the input of division staff. Fire The analysis of Fire fees will follow our standard approach, which is to calculate the unit cost of each fee service. (Building-related fire fees will follow the same approach used for Building and Life Safety.) For deposit- based fees (i.e., direct time charges), we will establish productive hourly rates and potential changes to deposit levels. In addition, we will calculate the cost of certain non-fee services; in order to distribute that cost to other divisions/services/departments or to help the department better understand its overall costs. Public Works fEnQineerine) The analysis of Engineering user fees will follow our standard approach, which is to calculate the unit cost of each fee service. For deposit-based fees (i.e., direct time charges), we will establish productive hourly rates and potential changes to deposit levels. For valuation-based fees, we will establish the cost recovery performance within the particular fee area and calculate potential charges to the percentages applied to calculate the fees. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 16 of 33 January 31,2006 �� �,f;����; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study In addition, we will calculate the cost of certain non-fee services; in order to identify the distribution of that cost to other divisions / services / departments or to help the programs better understand their overall costs. Communitv Development (Plannin¢) The analysis of Planning fees will follow our standard approach, which is to calculate the unit cost of each fee service. For deposit-based fees (i.e., direct time charges), we will establish productive hourly rates and potential changes to deposit levels. In addition, we will calculate the cost of certain non-fee services; in order to distribute that cost to other , divisions/services/departments or to help the department better understand its overall costs. Police The analysis of Police fees will follow our standard approach, which is to calculate the unit cost of each fee service. In addition, we will calculate the cost of certain non-fee services; in order to distribute that cost to other divisions / services / departments or to help the department better understand its overall costs. Other Fee Areas The City's RFP referred to fees in all City departments, but subsequent discussion with the City indicated that the City's expectations aze more limited. The departments and divisions listed in this proposal are the most likely to have fees that aze reasonably analyzed and cost-effective. However, the City may have other individual fees administered or staffed by departments not specified in the scope of services. Since the normal review of fees requires the complete analysis of the major operating units that contain the related services, it usually is not cost-effective to review every General Fund operation in support of a few fees. In some instances, we may be able to calculate these fees through information gathered in the Cost Allocation Plan or extrapolated from another departmenYs fee analysis. Alternatively, we may use existing or similar staff labor rates and new time estimates to establish these basic cost levels and associated fees. The City may also identify new fee areas subsequent to the analysis provided by Wohlford Consulting. City staff involvement in the process, as well as other information provided by us, will help the City determine some of its own fees in the future. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 17 of 33 lanuary 31,2006 fl,qT� `�i'- City of Arroyo Grande �t��"`�`'� Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Parks, Recreation, and Facilities From initial discussions with the City, it appeazs that the programs from the Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Department wiil have very limited or no involvement in this study. In my experience, recreation programs are normaily the least cost-effective fee areas to study, since fees are ofren set a market levels and do not rely upon the full cost basis. Consequently, we have not included the evaluation of these fees as part of the base study. However, you may find it beneficial to evaluate the costs of Recreation services, including facility rentals, as part of this study, in order to better understand the full costs and provide a variety of management information. Wohlford Consulting would be pleased to discuss the addition of this area to the analysis. Our standard unit cost approach relies upon the detailed analysis of specific time estimates, salaries and benefits, expenditures, and overhead costs. For most recreation programs and facility rentals, the underlying data aze not available or vary widely, leaving the unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, mazket factors and policy concems (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence recreation fee levels more than other types of services. With these general constraints, and in order to maximize the utility of this analysis, we adapt different methodologies for recreation and facility use fee calculations. For recreation and park services, programs, and some rentals, we utilize a cost-revenue analysis approach that establishes the cost recovery performance of the department at vazious sub-levels (e.g., divisions, programs). By developing results at this level, we can identify program-wide potential fee changes that will satisfy the cost-recovery goals of the department. For facility rentals, we can establish specific.use rates and costs in order to determine the hourly cost of using (renting) facility space—by a variety of unit measures. Project Limitations To maintain the focus of the study, enhance the City's understanding, and provide a reasonable fixed fee proposal, it is obviously necessazy for us to define the limits to the scope of the study. This proposal describes the deliverables and service areas we intend to cover. We aze flexible in our approach and will modify the study as much as possible to meet the needs of the City. However, to avoid confusion and conflicting expectations, it is important to note the key exclusions of this study, which include: taxes, levies, fines, and punitive charges; utility rates and service charges, impact fees; public transit fares, parking rates, or tolls; internal service rates, allocations, and charges; public records fees; fees set by external authorities (e.g., state law/regulation, other agencies); fees set by contract (e.g., animal control, police/sherif�; WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 18 of 33 January 3],2006 �CITY OF �,� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study equipment, facility, and infrastructure use or impact rates; contract charges to other agencies; services without discernable time data or cost factors; negotiations with cognizant agency(ies); audit and/or litigation support (beyond general questions); and/or on-site visits following the conclusion of the study. During our research for the development of this proposal, we encountered some inconsistency in the use of organizational (department and division) names within City information sources. Our use of any incorrect names simply reflects our current uncertainty regarding the names and is not an attempt to otherwise limit the study. Our intent is to provide a full-scope study that covers the program areas we listed—regardless of their "official" names. Please feel free to contact us for clarification. As a "full cosY' analysis, Wohlford Consulting will attempt to incorporate all City costs into the study, including Citywide overhead or contributions of effort from other departments and divisions. In some cases, the Arroyo Grande will need to provide this secondary cost information to us, since our cost analysis is limited to the City Departments described in this proposal. Cost-Based Building Fees: CABS Approach Over the past decade, building plan check and inspection fees have been the most controversial category of local government fees in Califomia and some other Western states, with several lawsuits against cities and counties by developers and builders. The crux of the California lawsuits (one of which was recently heard by the California Supreme Court) is that the current valuation-based building fee approach creates overchazges and is not in compliance with California law. The basis for this azgument is Government Code Section 66014, which states that "...fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is chazged..." The California Attorney General and an appellate judge opined that the valuation approach does not comply with the standard created by the law. Given this standard, Wohlford Consulting has developed a cost analysis approach that calculates building fees at a unit cost level. Our Cost Analysis of Building Services (CABS) approach determines the estimated reasonable cost to provide individual services to fee-payers. To ease the transition to a new approach, we normally maintain the occupancy structure and nomenclature used by ICBO/ICC, but we can structure the cost analysis to sepazately consider plan checks and inspection services for construction of new occupancies, miscellaneous structures and features, and mechanical, plumbing, and electrical items. The cost is established for units of square footage, individual items, or size ranges— depending on available data and the most appropriate and effective structure to meet the needs of the City. We can also account for variances in type of construction (fire rating) for new occupancies. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 19 of 33 January 31,2006 �_GT� ����-�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study The CABS method differs from the other analytical methods primarily in its structure and format. CABS employs the same level of quality control, conceptual defensibility, and professional rigor as the other methods. The analysis factors the time necessary for staff to complete the services and their productive hourly rates. All legitimate and reasonable costs are included in the analysis to ensure that we capture the full cost for the services. The CABS approach is very flexible, and we will customize it to match the business practices and other needs of the City. You will have significant and meaningful input into the structure of the analysis and, by extension, the resultant cost (potential fee) schedules. The conceptual basis behind CABS is extremely defensible and has proved convincing to existing and potential critics of building fees. Other Services Available At the request of the City, we would be pleased to provide optional additional services and products, such as: • Cost Analysis Software Training • Analysis of Other Departments/Divisions/Programs • Fee Surveys and Comparisons • Full Cost and A-87 Limited Cost Allocation Plans • Scenario Analysis • Activity-Based Costing • Performance Measures • Process Improvement and Reengineering • Cost Analysis Software License • Additional Meetings or Presentations • Additional Analytical Models (more than one per division) WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 20 of 33 January 31,2006 �cirv ov ��- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Wohlford Consulting is exceptionally qualified to provide these services to the City, and we look forwazd to the chance to demonstrate our service ethic and commitment to quality work. This section of the proposal describes our background and experience. Values and Commitment (Founding Principles) Wohlford Consulting was founded in early 2005 by Chad Wohlford, MPPA, who left a key position in a major national Customer Service = government consulting firm to start an independent consulting practice focused on the needs of local government agencies. Quality The practice is entirely owned by Mr. Wohlford, which ensures Timeliness that all actions of the practice adhere to his standards of Communication excellence. Integrity We founded Wohlford Consulting in order to provide high-quality, responsive, and client-centered consulting services to local government agencies. As a smaller practice, we focus on the needs of our clients--without extemal pressures to achieve specified financial results or other objectives contrary to the best interests of our clients. At the same time, we enjoy the stability that comes from a long-term focus on quality and service, rather than quarterly corporate profits. We maintain a core belief that democracy is most effective and responsive at the local level. Citizens have individual access and influence at the local level that is not present at other levels of government. While sometimes problematic for officials that must respond to unreasonable (and sometimes downright strange) inputs from the public, the process works best at the local level. In whatever way possible, Wohlford Consulting is committed to serving our clients well, and by extension the citizens our clients represent. We are proud of our contributions. In all aspects of our day-to-day work practices, we adhere to principles of Qualiry and Ethical consulting: Personal and Professional Integrity and Honesty Fairness and Propriery Technical and Procedural Accuracy Workload Control Client-Centric Focus Customer Service WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 21 of 33 January 31,2006 GTY OF �� ����- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Industry and Subject Knowledge Wohlford Consulting is very knowledgeable about the cost of service industry and the issues facing govemment agencies that attempt to address their fees. Our understanding comes from a variety of experiences and initiatives, as described further in this section. "Inside" Govemment Experience The principal consultant for Wohlford Consulting was a dedicated govemment employee for 12 years before becoming a private consultant serving government agencies. This experience established an "insider's" perspective on government services and a sincere respect for the employees and the services they perform. We oppose the gross misconception that government and its employees are inherently inefficient, ineffective, unconcerned, or incompetent. At the same time, we have also dealt with the challenges and obstacles ofren found in government agencies. This reality-based perspective permits us to recognize and work effectively within the unique circumstances and environment found in govemment agencies. Industrv Advancement As an established private cost analyst and practice leader, our principal consultant advanced the field of user fee analysis. Through creativity, continual research, and testing, he established new standards and tactics for cost of service analysis. He also institutionalized the inclusion of other allowable costs into user fees to enhance the cost recovery performance of local government. Our influence is indicated by our work cited in the second edition of the seminal building fee text, Establishing BuildinQ Permit Fees (Bouse, 2005), published by the Intemational Codes Council. Technical Knowled¢e We know which costs can be included in user fees and which costs must be excluded. Different fee azeas have different restrictions. We know how to recover Code Enforcement and General Plan Update costs in fees. We know how to establish surcharges for technology upgrades and fund reserves. We know when only A-87 Cost Allocation Plan costs are allowed rather than the Full Cost. Allocation Plan costs, as well as when neither is allowed. Some fees can include only specific categories of cost, and others have specific exclusions. This technical knowledge will help the City of Anoyo Grande maximize its cost- recovery performance, while avoiding successful challenges to its study. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 22 of 33 January 31,2006 ��crt� ���'�i City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Continuine Reseazch We conduct frequent research into the legal basis and limitations for user fees. We understand the underlying authority (e.g. Califomia Government Code) and various interpretations (e.g., Attorney General's Opinions) of that authority, including judicial determinations. This knowledge is particularly important for building fee studies, where litigation over the past few years has influenced the industry. In some instances, a study or input by our principal consultant has prevented lawsuits from occurring or progressing. Knowledee of Critics Wohlford Consulting has sought to understand the potential criticisms of user fees and the related studies. With this information, we can develop studies that are, in some ways, "inoculated" from chalienge. From our participation in City Council, Board of Supervisors, and other public meetings where others are encouraged to question the studies, we have gained insight into the areas of potential challenge. We hold frequent discussions with fee critics and plaintiffs, such as the Paladin Group (Richard McCarthy), to understand the principles and concerns of the most frequent and virulent opponents. Special Expertise in Building Fees The cost-based (non-valuation) analysis of building and safety fees is a specialty practice with few qualified practitioners. The principal consultant of Wohlford Consulting may be the most experienced expert on these fees in the Western U.S. He has significantly advanced this category of analysis, with unique techniques, softwaze, and approaches, and has been designated an expert witness for trial. He is also familiar with current litigation and other issues in this area. We can help you select the best approach for your City to take in this controversial area. Credibilitv and Stabilitv While Wohlford Consulting is less than a year old, the proposed consultant is an established presence in the cost analysis industry. The practice is well-funded and maintains a full complement of professional insurance, including GeneialBusiness Liability and Professional Liability (errors and omission) at levels that will meet or exceed the City's requirements. In addition, the smaller size of Wohlford Consulting actually lends greater stability to individual projects, since the common practice of lazger firms to "reassign" consultants due to workload or diminishing project profitability will not happen with Wohlford Consulting. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 23 of 33 January 31,2006 �GTV OF ���,,.�`�--�'e.:,.�' City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Stud Consultant Experience and'Qualifications: Chad Wohlford, MPPA Every consulting firm, large or small, is simply a collection of the staff consultants who work for it. The key to determining the potential success of a project is to understand the quality of the consultant that will work directly on your project. The years of experience of the consultant matters far more than the years the firm has been in business. The consultant assigned to this project will be Chad Wohlford. Mr. Wohlford will personally complete all technical and project management tasks related to this study, including the interviews, meetings, data collection, analytical work, documentation, and presentations. The single consultant arrangement is important for your study, since even the most basic incoming data often tells a story to the experienced consultant, who can redirect the effort or adjust the analysis to accommodate the nuances of the circumstances. As a cost-saving measure to offset high overhead and enhance profit mazgins, large and medium consulting firms typically assign junior level staff to perform most tasks—sometimes under the supervision of a senior consultant, and sometimes not. This situation may seem to indicate a higher level of resources, but it is really just a matter of quantity over quality. Chad Wohlford has evaluated government costs and operations for over 18 years, including seven yeazs as a consultant and state director for a large national consulting firm. Mr. Wohlford specializes in cost analysis, with particular expertise in the cost-based analysis of building fees, and he has evaluated at least 30 functional areas for over 50 cities, counties, districts, and states. Mr. Wohlford's experience and background is described in greater detail below: Consulting Experience Mr. Wohlford is the founder and principal consultant for Wohlford Consulting (est. 2005). He specializes in cost of service analysis, user fee development, cost allocation, and operations improvement and other management studies. In addition to a general expertise in cost analysis, he has developed a particular expertise and reputation in the critical area of cost-based analysis of building and safety fees, including designation as an "expert witness" in the field and references in a published building fee text. Prior to founding Wohlford Consulting, Mr. Wohlford worked for seven years as a consultant, project manager, and state director for Maximus, a large, national, publicly traded, consulting firm. At MaYimus, Mr. Wohlford was the Director of Cost Services in California/Nevada, where WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 24 of 33 January 31,2006 C TY OF � ��'�:yo�-�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study he performed a variety of cost and management studies and managed all aspects of the practice. He developed or enhanced the primary cost of service analysis techniques, processes, tools, protocols, and software used by the firm in the West and propagated to other states. He also trained and mentored many of the remaining fee study consultants. It is important to note that, even as management responsibilities increased, Mr. Wohlford continued to maintain a high workload of direct project services for clients. Mr. Wohlford's contribution to each consulting engagement is a rare combination of significant technical experience, effective project management, and strong communication skills. He has managed and conducted a wide variety of cost analysis studies for government clients. He is a detail-oriented and hands-on consultant and project manager who excels in communicating with clients. Mr. Wohlford has worked on many cost plan, operational analysis; user fee, and other cost of service analysis studies. Some of his past ciients include: Chad Wohiford's Sample Client List Cities: Crties: Counties: • Banning • Pasadena • Butte County • Benicia • Paso Robles • EI Dorado County • Chico • Pleasanton • Merced County • Citrus Heights • Rancho Cucamonga • Napa County ' • Clovis • Red Bluff • Orange Counry • Covina • San Diego • Placer County • EI Cerrito • San Francisco • Sacramento Counry • ElSegundo • San Leandro • San Diego Counry • Half Moon Bay • Santa Barbara • San Mateo County • Hawthome • Santa Maria • Yolo County • Hercules • Santa Rosa • Yuba County • Irvine • Temecula • La Palma • Carson City,NV States/Special Districts/Other: • Livermore • Henderson,NV • Livingston • Los Alamos,NM • State of Califomia • Martinez • Missoula,MT • Califomia State University • Morgan Hill • Spokane,WA • Rincon Valley FPD • Novato • Trophy Club,TX • South Bay Regional Consortia • Oceanside • West Jordan,UT • Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District Bold=Cost-based building fee studies Mr. Wohlford has conducted studies in the following azeas/functions of government: WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 25 of 33 January 31,2006 l�G� '�.s'- City of Arroyo Grande �FS"9'°���� Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Areas of Experience ✓ Administration ✓ Library ✓ Agriculture Commissioner ✓ Mental Health ✓ Animal Control ✓ Parking ✓ Building and Safety ✓ Planning ✓ Child Support ✓ Police/Sheriff ✓ Clerk ✓ Port Operations ✓ Code Enforcement ✓ Probation ✓ Dispatch f✓ Public Health ✓ Engineering ✓ Public Works ✓ Environmen[al Health ✓ Records ✓ Facility Rentals ✓ Recreation and Parks ✓ Fire ✓ Revenue Recovery ✓ Human/Social Services ✓ Support Services ✓ Jails ✓ Transportation Direct Govemment Experience Mr. Wohlford has worked or consulted for government agencies since 1986. In particular, his experience from the "inside" of government operations has allowed him to become very knowledgeable in the functions, environment, and financing of various local government disciplines. His 12 years of intemal government employment(and general roles) included: • Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services • Department Budget Officer($200M+) • Department Contracts Officer(500+) • Senior Administrative Analyst • Sacramento County Parking Enterprise • County Parking Manager • Sacramento County Department of General Services • Depadment Consulting Analyst • Sacramento County DepaRment of Health • CMISP Liaison and Analyst • City of San Luis Obispo • Human Relations and Rent Control Commission Staff • State of California—Califomia Conservation Corps • Human Development Coordinator Program Director • U.S. Department of Commerce—International Trade Administration • Management Analyst WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 26 of 33 January 31,2006 Y�(GT� �� City of Arroyo Grande �f`�"`�`�''� Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Education Mr. Wohlford received a Master of Public Policy and Administration degree from California State University, Sacramento, and a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science / Public Administration / Psychology at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Client References The impressions of past clients of the proposed consultant are the best indicator of what you can expect from us for your study. The proposed consultant, Chad Wohlford, has served over 50 different jurisdictions (some for multiple projects). The contact information for each one would be too unwieldy to present here. However, we encourage you to contact any of our past clients, so we would be pleased to provide you with more comprehensive contact information at your request. For your convenience, we provided a selected tist of references below: Selected Projects with Wohlford Consultine: Client Contact T e of Stud City of Livermore . Special Events Fee Study(recent Evan Levy engagement) Financial Services Manager . Citywide Cost of Service Study 1052 S. Livermore Avenue (prior engagement with former Livermore,CA 94550 firm) (925)393-5163 esle ci.livermore.ca.us City of Chico • Development Services Cost of Tony Baptiste Service Study Community Dev. Dir. • Cost-Based Building Fee Study 411 Main Street (recent engagements) Chico, CA 95927 (530) 879-6501 tba tist ci.chico.ca.us' City of Novato • Citywide Cost of Service Study Gwen Wynne (current engagement) Finance Director 75 Rowland Way, #200 Novato, CA 94945 (415) 899-8912 nne ci.novato.ca.us WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 27 of 33 January 31,2006 c rv ov i�`' � ��- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Client Contact T e of Stud County of Sacramento • Environmental Health Fee Study Mel Knight • Environmental Management Work Environmental Management Dir. Plan Update 8475 Jackson Road, Suite 200 (curcent engagements) Sacramento, CA 95826 (916) 875-8444 kni htm saccoun .net City of Morgan Hill • Cost Allocation Plan Chu Thai (current engagement) Budget Manager 17555 Peak Avenue � Morgan Hill, CA 95037 (408)779-7238 chu.thai mor anhill.ca. ov Selected Projects with Former ConsultinQ Firm: Client Contact T e of Stud Ciry of Martinez • Citywide Cost of Services Study Michael Chandler • Cost Allocation Plan(PM) Management Analyst 525 Henrietta Street Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 372-3517 mchandler ci ofmartinez.or City of Henderson,Nevada • Cost Allocation Plan(PM) ' Michael Bouse • Development Services Cost Director of Building and Safety Study 240 Water Street Henderson,NV 89009 (702)267-3611 Michael.Bouse ci ofhenderson.com City of San Diego • Development Services Cost Dan Culp Smdy Sr. Management Analyst 1222 First Avenue(MS 401) San Diego, CA 92101 (619)446-5261 dcul sandie o. ov City of La Palma • Cost Allocation Plan Tami Piscotty • Cityv✓ide Cost of Services Study Asst. City Manager/City Clerk 7882 Walker Street La Palma, CA 90623 (714) 690-3310 tami ci ofla alma.or WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 28 of 33 lanuary 31,2006 CITY OF �,`��� . - City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Stud COST PROPOSAL Wohiford Consulting endeavors to provide value to the City of Anoyo Grande, as we set our rates and task fees to ensure the cost-benefit ratio is disproportionately skewed toward the benefit the City wiil receive. Our cost structure reflects the experience of our staff, quality of the work we provide, our ability to work quickly, and the lower overhead structure that a smaller practice permits. The blend of all of these factors allows us a competitive fee that still addresses all of the needs of the City. Given our lower cost structure, our rates aze designed to provide for greater service and quality, and a more robust scope of services with fewer"add-ons," for the same project fees as competing firms. Cost Summary Wohlford Consulting proposes to provide this study for the fixed professional fee of $32,680 for the Full Cost of Services Study, plus $2,200 in fixed expenses. This fee represents all of the deliverables and work tasks described in the proposal. The City of Anoyo Grande will not incur any The average Cost of additional chazges (e.g., overhead, printing, travel) unless Service Sfudy they are related to services requested by the City outside reCOVels 5-10 times the contracted scope of service. the study cost within Project Budget and Cost Detail the first year of implemenfation. Task Cost Detail The following table shows the fee for each component of the proposed project. If the City wishes to remove specific tasks from the study, we can adjust the cost accordingly, but the various permutations of these costs are too numerous to display here. In addition, there are various "fixed" costs that are distributed through the other tasks and need to be accounted for in the final project fees. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 29 of 33 lanuary 31,2006 G Y OF � �ry��'�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Project Cost Summary Table Project Component Component Fee Pro'ect Mana emenh Pro'ect Plannin and Control Included * uali Assurance Processes Included * Communication Plan/Presentations Included * Re ort and pocumentation Included * Ex enses $ 2,200 User Fee Stud : Buildin $ 8,150 Nei hborhood Services $ 2,450 Fire $ 5,850 Public Works En ineerin ) $ 5,550 Communi Develo ment(Plannin $ 5,700 Police $ 4,980 User Fee Stud Total: $ 32,680 ' The cost for Project Management tasks has been factored into the individual project components. Biliing Milestones We propose payment at the following "billing milestones:" # Milestone Descri tion Pro'ect % 1 Project Kick-off Presentation, Completion of Initial 20% Interviews 2 Fee Inventory Developed; Design of Analytical 20% Model; Delive of Data Collection Worksheets 3 Initial Drafts of Fee Study Results Delivered 20% 4 Final Fee Study Results De(ivered 15% 5 Draft Report Delivered 15% 6 Final Report Delivered 5% 7 Presentation Developed 2.5% 8 Presentation of Results 2.5% Total: 100% As the customization and the flow of the project warrants, we may complete certain elements of the study in a different order than the billing milestones may indicate. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 30 of 33 January 31,2006 ��i.GTY OG �s�- City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Cost Flexibility and Control Cost Adjustments at the Citv's Request The proposed cost reflects our expectations of the work necessary to complete the proposed scope of services to the satisfaction of the City. We would be pleased to revise the project price and scope to better re�lect the needs and/or resource availability of the City, as well as to foster enhanced comparisons ("apples to apples') with competing proposals. If the City wishes to engage us for services not included in the proposed scope of services, we can establish mutually agreeable fixed fees or use the standard hourly rate of$150, plus expenses. Other Cost Issues It is in the best interests of the City of Arroyo Grande and Wohlford Consulting to manage this project within 1he proposed budget. As a fixed fee project, we must maintain the scope of service, expected level of responsiveness, and assumed tasks at the proposed level to ensure a fair deal. Wohlford Consulting does not "nickel and dime" our clients with supplemental fees and hidden costs. In fact, extra service is the norm. At the same time, we need to protect the integrity of the fixed fee structure and maintain some limits. Should the City enact significant delays (one month cumulative), require excessive on-site meetings, require excessive drafts of documentation, or otherwise consume disproportionate resources from us, we will quantify the additional cost and request additional compensation from the City. Of course, we will not hold the City responsible for delays or additional work caused by Wohlford Consulting. Furthermore, whenever practical, we will give the City advance notice of the potential for additional cost, in order for the City to make an informed decision whether to proceed with its request. A request for additional compensation is very rare, but may be necessary to protect our ability to provide the necessary services to the City. It is important to note that the City has primary control over most potential project overages. For example, the most common causes for additional on-site visits are the inability of the client to stay within agreed-upon timeframes (excessive delays cause people to forget their tasks), lack of participation by key staff in eazlier meetings, client staffing changes in the middle of the study, and lack of management involvement. Whatever the outcome of our financial agreements, we believe that you will find tremendous value in the work that you receive from us. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 31 of 33 January 31,2006 �GT� �,��:.�e;�;'�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Easy Contracting Wohlford Consulting aspires to establish an honest, mutualiy-beneficial, and long-term professional partnership with Arroyo Grande. To this end, we are flexible with our contracting and do not seek to include overly restrictive clauses or other language that may be detrimental to our clients. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 32 of 33 January 31,2006 GTY OF � `��•'- City of Arroyo Grande �r��""�''� Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study CONCLUSION We appreciate this opportunity to propose our services to the City of Arroyo Grande. We hope that you can easily recognize our pride in our accomplishments and ongoing work in this proposal. We also hope you are able to call all of our references to get an enhanced picture of our skills, approach, and personal nature that makes a project with Wohlford Consulting a pleasant and rewarding experience. Wohlford Consulting is prepared to begin this project immediately upon contract execution. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions about Wohlford Consulting, our proposal, or this type of study in general. We would be glad to help. Thank you again for reviewing our proposal. We look forward to serving you. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Page 33 of 33 lanuary 31,2006 , icrv ov �.. ���� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study APPENDIX A: SPECIFIC WORK PLAN WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 1 of 8 January 31,2006 UTY OF � ����%; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study Appendix A: Specific Work Plan We constantly seek to improve our processes to enhance efficiency, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality outcomes. Through the years of performing and continuously improving these types of studies, Wohlford Consulting has developed an approach and work plan that facilitates a successful study. Part of this approach is to customize each baseline project step and subtask to best fit your individual circumstances, priorities, and needs. Furthermore, we will identify new and unique issues in Arroyo Grande that will warrant special attention. In that light, the City should consider the following discussion simply as a general outline that addresses the basic elements of the study. USER FEE STUDY PROJECT TASKS Task 1: Project Preparation In advance of our first on-site meetings or individual discussions with City departments, Wohlford Consulting will take steps to prepare adequately for the upcoming study. These steps include: • Identify the City's central "project manager" for the study. • Distribute an "Initial Data RequesY' letter to the City's project manager that lists the documents and materials needed in advance, as well as documentation and data anticipated during the course of the study. This request will give the City more time to collect the information and reduce the overall workload and pressure of last- minute requests. • Review existing fee schedules, budget materials, organization charts, personnel lists, and other relevant City documents to gain an understanding of the City's structure and financial environment. • Schedule the kick-off ineeting and initial individual interviews. • Establish the initial customized design of the analytical models and supporting data collection worksheets. • Finalize a contract with the City to ensure clear mutual expectations and project parameters. Task 2: Project Initiation and Re-Focus First impressions are lasting, so we want to make sure your project starts out right. At the outset, we will start the communication process to establish a clear mutual understanding of the project and its expected outcomes, benefits, and limitations. The specific steps in this task include: WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 2 of 8 January 31,2006 arr os '•� y`1``��� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study • Clarify the scope of services, focus, and goals of the study with the primary City representative(s). • Refine and finalize the study features to fit revised expectations or other factors revealed since the proposal. • Identify key departmenUdivision contacts. • Determine relevant primary and secondary issues (litigation, internal politics, historical, personnel, etc.) that may affect the processes or outcomes of the study or its acceptance. • Conduct the formal "Kick Off' meeting with all involved managers and staff who will be involved or make decisions related to the User Fee Study. This meeting wili allow the consultant to present the overall picture of the study, with its conceptual and practical basis, as well as describe the expectations for the consultant and City staff. Task 3: Establish Service/Fee List Structure and Contents The first direct project task is to establish the fee services that will be subject to this analysis. This task forms the skeleton for all future data collection efforts and calculations, as it creates the list of fees for which we will develop the costs. The specific steps in this task include: • Review existing fee schedules for each department. • Meet with representatives of each department to: o Provide an overview of the project; o Discuss their individual goals and objectives for the study; o Review the conceptual, legal, practical, and technical bases for the study; o Gather staff ideas, wish lists, problems, and other feedback related to their fee structures; o Better understand the business processes of each department; o Suggest other potential fee opportunities; and o Discuss potential alternative fee structures/approaches. • Identify gaps in the current fee schedule to ensure that the City has the opportunity to select fees for each eligible service. • Revise the structure of existing and/or new fees to best reflect the operating environment, customer needs, and business processes of the City. • Identify opportunities to simplify the structures and administration of fees to improve efficiency and customer relations. Task 4: Identify and Collect Elemental Cost and Supporting Data As part of our initial interviews with department representatives, the consultant will begin to gather the data necessary to populate our analytical models and conduct the cost analysis. First, we will need to WOHLFORD CON3ULTING Appendix A: Page 3 of 8 7anuary 31,2006 ,1'y�.CIT� �,�_�.;��-�; City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study identify the types of data needed, the source of each data type, and the need for alternate arrangements (in the event that a traditional data resource is unavailable/impractical). The types of data necessary for this study may include: • Budgeted expenditures • Actual expenditures • Staffing levels and assignments • Salaries and benefits • Overhead costs and allocations (e.g., CAP distributions) • Shared vs. direct cost distributions • Unbudgeted, but anticipated, costs • Cunent fees and rates • Annual volumes/activity levels • Overtime cost and patterns Most of this information will come from City documents, as confirmed by City staf£ City staff will be the source of almost all base data included in this study—either by providing the documentation or by directly indicating estimates or first-hand knowledge. Task 5: Collect Time and Other Cost Distribution Data The basic concept of this User Fee Study is to establish the time necessary to perform each service and calculate the cost of that time. In order to accomplish this simple task, there aze a series of complex subtasks that the consultant and City staff need to perform to capture the appropriate time data, including: • Identify the individual staff positions that work on each fee service; • Review existing time studies or data for accuracy and utility; . Develop data collection worksheets to gather time data from City staff relevant to their efforts on individual fee services, as well as administrative and non-fee activities; • Train staff on the appropriate and accurate estimation of time for inclusion in the study; • Determine (estimate) the time necessazy to perform each fee-related service; • Work with staff to develop categories and levels of direct and indirect work hours; and • Establish available work hours to facilitate the calculation of "productive hourly rates." For almost all of these subtasks, the consultant will work closely with department staff. It is critical for all involved parties to understand the WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 4 of 8 lanuary 31,2006 ^^QT�. �,��y✓� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study data and its purposes, be confident in the accuracy of the data, and have enough"ownership" in the data to support and defend the results. Task 6: Populate Analyticat Models and Develop Draft Results Once the basic cost and time data elements are available, Wohlford Consulting will incorporate this data into our analytical models to calculate the preliminary resuits. The consultant and the computer models will perform the following steps: • Populate (data entry) all of the collected data elements into the models; • Run the models to calculate the direct productive hourly rates for each position and the total direct labor cost for each fee; • Distribute indirect and overhead costs to each fee; • Sub-allocate supporting activities to fee services; • Activate indicators of common data problems; • Review results and correct all possible initial problems; and • Document remaining deficiencies and establish the plan for correction. Task 7: Quality Control Process: Validate Draft Results Although the Qualiry Control Process is presented as a single task in the middle of this work plan, the steps in this process are actually continually applied throughout all of the tasks in this study to ensure the highest level or accuracy and understanding as possible. Our QC steps include: • Clear and comprehensive initial and ongoing instructions to staff; • Constant availability for staff to review instructions with the consultant; • Reasonableness reviews; • Experiential checks and comparisons; • Data and results cross-checks and balancing: o FTE/productive hours, o Revenues, o Expenditures, e Critical review by City staff and management; and • Consultant challenge and questioning. Task 8: Conduct Revenue and "Gap" (Subsidy) Analyses Using the calculated costs for each service and the activity volumes provided by the City, we can estimate the potential annual revenue impacts of the City's current fee levels vs. the full cost of services or WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 5 of 8 January 31,2006 _`.',�_GT� . �,�;�'�, City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study recommended fee levels. In effect, we can show the difference between what you would coilect under your current fee structure/levels, versus what you could collect under a new fee structure/levels following the analysis. If desired by the City, our analytical models will automatically calculate these differences for the individual unit fees and the annual revenues. Task 9: Communicate and Review Draft Results with the City Once the dra8 results are available and Wohlford Consulting is satisfied that they aze reasonably valid (or at least the problems are known quantities), we will deliver and review the detailed results with City project representatives (department and project manager). This review has two primary purposes: 1. Give department managers and the City an initial understanding of the magnitude of the results to spur discussion of future implementation and necessary revision; and 2. Identify remaining issues and task assignments to encourage and facilitate project completion. Task 10: Conduct Quality Loop (Review Iterations) Once the City has had an opportunity to review the draft results, we will enter the iterative review phase of the study. After each review, the consultant and/or the City will identify necessary changes (data ar format) and provide other feedback. The consultant will make the changes and re- submit the results for review again. Each iteration is expected to advance the progress of the study towazds completion, enhance mutual trust in the study and its results, and perfect the quality of the analysis. After a couple of these feedback-revision loops, we will establish the final results. Task 11: Finalize Fee Study Results and City Approval After completing the fuli review process, Wohlford Consulting will finalize the fee results and deliver the resultant documentation to the City. At this point, we will solicit final official approval/sign-off from the City. This step is necessary to satisfy a deliverable and milestone requirement, as well as to allow us to progress to the final documentation and presentation stages of the study. Task 12: Administer Fee Comparisons (if included in scope of services) We will work with the City to select the candidates for comparison, as well as the targeted fees. We will conduct our solicitation of fee data from WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 6 of 8 January 31,2006 p(,GT� �,��� City of Arroyo Grande Proposal for a Full Cost of Service Study other jurisdictions through website reseazch, phone calls, email, and other approaches necessary to accomplish this task. If responsiveness is inadequate, we may request assistance from the City to contact coileague staff to encourage participation. Following the collection of the data, we will document the results, which normally consists of a matrix of fees with side-by-side comparisons. The City will have the opportunity to review the drafr results and influence the final format of the documentation, inciuding whether it is incorporated in to the final report. Task 13: Discuss City Strategic Approaches Wohlford consulting endeavors to provide the City with more than just a series of worksheets and a report at the end of the study. With this partnership, our goal is to help you through the myriad issues that come to light during the course of this type of study (and afrerwards). We want to encourage you to mine our experience to help you reach solutions that benefit your City and your public. To this end, we would be glad to discuss any and all related issues with you. Some suggestions include: • Fee recommendations • Implementation strategies • Communication approaches • Common criticisms and challenges • Conceptual background and history • Existing litigation and challenges • Future fee updates • Future study updates Discussion of these and other issues will likely occur on a regular basis during the course of the study, but we can also schedule more focused discussions, as needed. Task 14: Communicate Final Results with the City As a true partnership, we will have frequent contact and discussions throughout the project. As a result, the City will have intimate knowledge of its fee service costs well prior to the study's ultimate conclusion. Nevertheless, in order to formalize the study itself and the results, Wohlford Consulting must deliver the final product in a professional package. We will communicate the process and results of the study in two principal deliverables: 1. Written Report: This report will document the approach, methodologies, and findings of the study in a format, style, and level of detail that will be suitable for sharing with your City WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 7 of 8 January 31,2006 �c�rr oF City of Arroyo Grande ��5� Pro osal for a Full Cost of Service Stud Council and the public. We will provide drafts for review and comment by the City prior to finalization and delivery. 2. Presentation: We will prepaze and deliver a formal PowerPoint presentation to the City Council, and other presentations as specified in the scope of services. The purpose of the presentation is to help the Council and the public understand the context and details of the study and its results, in order to make informed decisions. This presentation will include the conceptual background for user fees, other related issues, our methodologies, study limits, and the results in vazious arrays. The City will have an opportunity to influence the scope, format, content, and direction of the presentation. Task 15: Project Closeout and the Future The end of the project (and even the final invoice payment) is not the end of our partnership. First of all, Wohlford Consulting will fulfill any outstanding responsibilities to ensure the City's continued success, such as answering your remaining questions and providing critical files and documentation to support your ongoing efforts. Most importantly, we will remain a resource for you to contact in the future with questions or research needs. WOHLFORD CONSULTING Appendix A: Page 8 of 8 January 3I,2006 8.c. � MINUTES � REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL � TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006 I COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA �1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Jim Dickens, Ed Arnold, Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Guthrie and Mayor Tony Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Steve Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Chief of Police Tony Aeilts, Assistant City Engineer Mike Linn, Contract Engineer Craig Campbell, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dan Hernandez, ? Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, and Director of Community Development ! Rob Strong. � 3. FLAG SALUTE Madeline Poulin and Anne McCracken, representing Arroyo Grande Valley Kiwanis Club, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Robert Underwood, First United Methodist Church, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. , Council Member Dickens moved, Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Susan Flores, E. Branch Street, expressed concern regarding the delay of projects going through Planning Commission review. She asked how long it should take for a project to be processed and requested that something be done to streamline the development review process. Marsheila DeVan, Alder Street, expressed concern regarding the mass and scale of the proposed expansion of Alder House on Alder Street and its potential negative impact on the residential neighborhood as it relates to parking, traffic, tree removal and other environmental concerns. She stated the project should be scaled down to blend in with the neighborhood. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item to do so at this time. There were no public comments. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 2 Council Member Costello moved, and Council Member Dickens seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.h., with the recommended courses of action. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None � ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period July 16, 2006 through July 31, 2006. 8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meetings of July 11 and 25, 2006, the Regular City Council Meeting of July 11, 2006 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of July 25, 2006, as submitted. 8.c. Consideration of Authorization to Reject Claim Filed Against the City — Claimant: Plycon Van Lines. Action: Rejected claim. , 8.d. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle — Parks Maintenance. Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2006 '/< ton Ford pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of$19,576.45. 8.e. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Parks Division Vehicle — Soto Sports Complex. � Action: Authorized staff to purchase a new 2006 Ford Ranger pick up truck from Mullahey Ford in the amount of$13,124.46. 8.f. Consideration of Compensation Adjustments for Part-Time Employees. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3942 approving a 3°/a Cost of Living (COLA) adjustment for all part-time employees for FY 2006-07 effective July 28, 2006. 8.g. Consideration of Change in Council Appointments to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) and the San Luis Obispo Economic , Vitality Corporation (EVC). Action: Approved appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie to the San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC); and the appointment of Council Member Arnold to the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). 8.h. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Public Improvements and Easements for Tract 2506 Located at 325 Alder Street, Constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3943 accepting the public improvements and easements for Tract 2506 located at 325 Alder Street, constructed by Mal-Hun, LLC. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004 & Planned Unit . . Development Case No. 04-001, Applicant — DB & M Properties, LLC, Location — 415 East Branch Street (Continued from June 14, 2005 Council Meeting). Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 3 Associate Pianner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an addendum to a certified EIR and a proposal for a commercial retail, office and residential project located in the Village of Arroyo Grande (Creekside Mixed-Use Center), take tentative action on the project and direct staff to return with a supporting resolution. Associate Planner Heffernon responded to questions from Council regarding the design of the residential units; circulation, parking, and turning radius issues within the project area; location of the loading dock; partial ; relinquishment of an access easement along Le Point Street; impervious surfaces on site and impacts to drainage issues; proposed street improvements associated with the project; and whether speed calming devices on Le Point is feasible. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. I Joe Boud, Joseph Boud &Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant stating that he believed they ; have incorporated all of the previous comments received into the project. He also responded to questions from Council regarding the design of residential unit Plan A; the proposed density (meets City standards); parking (no loss of parking; additional parking provided); landscaping improvements; turning radius (meets City standards); impervious surface as it relates to drainage (calculation of area was provided from the Final Environmental Impact Report); noted that to increase the width of Crown Terrace would impact the amount of retaining wall work, length of the driveways accessing the residential development, widening would not be required for fire access, and issues concerning the existing slope of the street; commented on the width of Le Point Street right-of-way as it relates to future extension; addressed the grading plan as it relates to residential building elevation and 100-year flood; addressed employee parking for the commercial development; noted that speed humps on Le Point Street may not be necessary as the Crown Hill/Crown Terrace intersection is proposed to be reconfigured and stop signs installed; noted that condition of approval #82 was requested to be modified to eliminate improvements on the north side of Le Point Street; noted that the easterly access easement from the adjacent property was the biggest concern and noted that an access easement had been acquired which should address ingress and egress issues; noted that a left turn pocket and ADA striping and ramps would be installed at the E. Branch StreeUCrown Hill intersection; confirmed that a 25-foot creek easement I has been provided which would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and � would have no public access; addressed concerns regarding the scale of the commercial project � and displayed design compatibility exhibits; reviewed elements of redesigned project; addressed certain mitigation measures included in the project to address lighting issues; noted that the existing traffic level of service will be unchanged; and commented on tree replacement provisions included j in the project. Further discussion ensued regarding the grading plan for the project as it relates to � the project being located in a flood zone, and further discussion ensued regarding improvements at the intersection of Crown Terrace and'Le Point Street. Winton Tullis, Allen Street resident and Village business owner, expressed concerns about any reduction in the retail portion of the project; requested that driveway access and parking during construction be maintained; requested dust mitigation measures during construction; and requested that the waterline crossing the property be maintained during construction. ,i Earl Balqeman, Le Point Street, referred to the proposed project model provided by the applicant , and requested a break in order to allow the public to view the model. i� � I I t Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday,August 8, 2006 Page 4 Mayor Ferrara called a break at 8:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Earl Balaeman, Le Point Street, expressed concern about access issues on Crown Terrace; stated that the trees along Crown Terrace should be spared; referred to the intersection at Highway 227 and Crown Terrace and stated it is dangerous to have four driveways and three parking spaces in this area; favored the installation of speed humps on Le Point Street; expressed concern with design of garages over the residences; stated the project was too dense; and expressed concern ' with pedestrian safety. Kristen Barneich, co-chair of the Tree Guild, expressed concern over the proposed removal of 75 trees and noted that trees around the perimeter of the project could be saved to provide a visual buffer between the residential and commercial uses. She asked the Council to preserve the existing, mature trees. Bill McCann, Crown Hill, expressed concern about traffic impacts on E. Branch Street at the corners of Crown Hill and Crown Terrace and requested that the intersection be designed to address issues. He suggested that methods be explored to encourage tra�c to enter the project on E. Branch Street. He further expressed concern about backing out of driveways onto Crown Terrace and stated that Crown Terrace should be widened. Camav Arad, Allen Street resident and Village business owner, stated that the proposed project design is not the best for the Village at this time and submitted a petition for the record (on file i� the . Administrative Services Department) which states that "Any new structures in the Village and specifically the Creekside Project at 415 E. Branch, should enhance the quaint charm of a vintage western town at the turn of the century. Strict architectural review and detailed descriptions of roof lines, landscaping, materials should be cohesive with the local landmarks such as the Barn and the Loomis House." She also addressed issues relating to impervious surfaces, and referred to the , proposed model as it relates to the scale of the project and expressed concern that the proposed commercial building blocks views of the green Victorian house adjacent to the proposed project. Barbara Freel, Le Point Street, asked that the proposed island not block access to her landscaping. She also expressed concern about light pollution from the project due to installation of additional streetlights along Crown Terrace and,the north side of Le Point Street. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. Joe Boud, Joseph Boud &Associates, responded to public comments regarding the flood zone as it relates to the elevation of the building floors; the change in size of the retail area of the existing Loomis Barn and existing business would require full compliance with Uniform Building Codes; noted that construction activities are,addressed in the mitigation monitoring measures as it relates to noise, hours of operation, and dust control; clarified issues regarding street widths; noted the residential area density calculation was provided by an electronic calculation from their civil engineers and believes it is accurate; addressed mitigation measures for tree protection, removal, and screening; referred to traffic on Crown Hill and noted that traffic counts are not based on an event, the level of service is based on hourly traffic counts in a 24-hour day; noted that the parking area is a Class 2 base and is considered an impervious surface; stated that the design of the commercial building was made clear through pre-application meetings with the ARC, the community, the Chamber of Commerce, the downtown merchants, the Planning Commission and the Council and the applicant was directed to utilize an agrarian form of architecture; noted that � ' further commercial development on the site was restricted due to existing buildings on the property; Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday,August 8, 2006 Page 5 addressed landscaping issues; and noted that the street lights were required by the City's Development Code and agreed to reduce the number of street lights if the City would allow it. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: — Applicant has met most of concerns, especially regarding connection between the existing use and the proposed uses; — Expressed concern with the size and scale of the proposed commercial use and noted that he had requested story poles be placed to determine visual impacts; — Thought this was an appropriate project for the site; however, scale and traffic flow are key issues; — Would not want to see the existing business impacted during construction; — Left hand turn from Crown Hill into site may need some restrictions; — Speed humps are needed on Le Point Street to discourage cut-through traffic; — Need clarification regarding street lighting on Crown Terrace to ensure lighting is contained to the street; — Explore possibility of transplanting existing trees to save mature trees, or consider 48"-60" box trees instead of 24" box trees. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: — Clarified that width of Crown Terrace would consist of two 12' travel lanes and a 5' sidewalk; — Agreed that some trees should be saved if possible; 70 is too many to remove; — Lighting should not be intrusive to the existing residential areas; — Cannot support restriction of the available retail space in the existing structure; can support converting the existing residential structures to commercial use; — Noted that the final design is subject to ARC approval. Council Member Dickens provided the following comments: — Not enough information about impervious surfaces provided: had many unanswered questions regarding impervious surfaces and related drainage impacts on the site; — Flooding issue still a concern which has not been resolved; — Too many outstanding issues with proposed project; preferred original commercial project and did not support the larger residential in this area; does not support this project as proposed for this site; — Project location is not downtown urban core; property is in Historic Village; — Objected to size and scale of the three story commercial building which dwarfs the existing barn; should be two-story; There are land use conflicts between commercial and residential uses, and residential and open space; — Concerned about lack of fencing; — Access to private property needs to be addressed; — Concerned about removal of 70+ mature trees; — Does not support project as proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: — Asked for clarification regarding restriction on existing retail use; ' Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday,August 8, 2006 Page 6 — Commented on the impervious surfaces: asked what is there now versus what is proposed and whether staff had reviewed the issue; — Recognized that Le Point Street is residential in nature and thinks that the street should not be widened; — Existing trees were placed to shield an industrial use; would support saving some of the trees, however, would not need to save all the trees as it would create a visual block between the two residential neighborhoods; — Asked questions about liability issues as it relates to potential flooding; — Noted that commercial uses generate far more traffic intensity than residential uses; believes that the residential component provides a transitional area into the single family residential area; — Supported the proposed layout of the project; , — Noted that access from E. Branch is a key element of the project; — Proposed traffic improvements will mitigate some of the existing traffic issues; — Concerned about the size of the proposed commercial building; suggested reducing the height or changing the faCade of the building; — The Class 2 impervious surface issue is critical; needs to be further reviewed; — Favored more specific lighting standards. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: Referred to previous concerns expressed from 2005 public hearing regarding the size, scale, and intensity of the commercial building; the need to soften the look of the commercial building, and to provide a more horizontal structure rather than vertical; — Acknowledged that the need for western access to the site had been fulfilled; — Acknowledged that the creek setback requirement had been fulfilled; — Noted that the drainage issue (impervious surface) needs to be further studied; — Commented on the appropriateness of the proposed agrarian architectural style; — Observed that live/work units do not function well in this type of area; — Residential units would help reduce traffic because of projecYs close proximity to Village services; — Tree issue is large concern; does not favor tree removal; — Traffic circulation issues need to be addressed; speed humps and/or signage are important to ' prevent cut-through traffic at Le Point and Crown Terrace; — Left turn pocket at Crown Hill is problematic; suggested a "keep clear" lane and additional street markings; — Light pollution is a concern; acknowledged that new street lighting points down and does not project into residential windows; requested clarification regarding authority for placement; — Flooding issue needs to be further researched through FEMA guidelines; — Suggested that the applicanUarchitect research similar style condominiums with garage above living area built on hillside in Pismo Beach as it relates to leaking, water damage, etc.; — Need to reach balance point; spoke of goal to preserve existing structures and appreciates efforts to develop a project; — Housing will be an asset to the City; — Can make adjustments to create a project to compliment the City. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Boud commented on the Class 2 base (impervious surface) issue and stated it only relates back to whether or not the pervious surface or an impervious surface area would demand the need for a drainage retention basin. He noted that because the property is in the flood zone, it is somewhat irrelevant whether it is pervious or impervious. Council Member Arnold clarified that there appeared to be some ability to transplant some of the trees and suggested that a tree survey be completed in order to determine the status of the trees and to include the Tree Guild in that process. He also referred to the proposed height of the retail building and suggested that the applicant consider an alternative design that steps the top floors back from the street. Mayor Ferrara suggested directing staff to facilitate the issue concerning the impervious surfaces, along with the applicant, and also that staff facilitate the involvement of the Tree Guild concerning the issue of the trees. , Council Member Arnold moved to continue the item to a date uncertain, Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Dickens ABSENT: None 9.b. Consideration of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update. � Assistant City Engineer Linn presented an overview of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update, noting that the Drainage Master Plan was originally approved on November 9, 1999, it assesses adequacy of existing infrastructure, provides a financial tool for funding current and future improvements, and determines a schedule for maintenance projects. He noted the Plan includes major components, such as a review of the area drainage patterns, a review of the City's major creeks and flood plain management programs, identifies drainage policy zones, drainage basin policies, best management practices for improvement of storm water quality, identification of drainage problems in the City, and proposed projects to correct City drainage problems. He then introduced Contract Engineer Campbell to present the Newsom Springs project. Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect interest in the Dixson Ranch, as it relates to the Newsom Springs project, and said he would need to recuse himself. He expressed concern with due process as it relates to proper notification, inadequate information presented to the Council and the public, and significant material that was not provided to the Council and the public in a timely fashion. He stated that staff was recommending that information be presented specifically with regard to Newsom Springs and that the public notice only referred to a public hearing concerning the Drainage Master Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission had specifically requested that staff notify all individuals that are affected by the Newsom Springs project, and that had not been done. He stated it was inappropriate to move forvvard and discuss anything regarding Newsom Springs until proper notification is made. Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 8, 2006 Page 8 Council Member Dickens moved that the City Council direct staff to bring back a specific public hearing regarding the Newsom Springs Drainage project as a separate item and notify the public. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of the motion as it relates to accepting public comment on the Drainage Master Plan, which includes the Newsom Springs project as a component of the Master Plan. Clarification was also provided that the recommendation for the Drainage Master Plan was to approve distribution of the document for a 60-day review period. Council Member Dickens clarified that it was his intent to recommend moving forward with staff recommendations A & B (to authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day public review period and authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Master Plan Update in accordance with CEQA) but to exclude recommendation C (authorize staff to perform an environmental review of the Newsom Springs drainage project in accordance with CEQA). Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Arnold ABSENT: None Council Member Dickens recused himself and stepped down from the dais. Mayor Ferrara invited public comments on the Newsom Springs Drainage project. Nanci Parker, Vard Loomis Lane, stated she could hold her comments until a specific public hearing is scheduled for the Newsom Springs Drainage project. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Dickens returned to the dais. Contract Engineer Campbell presented the staff report on the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update and gave an overview of Drainage Zones A, B, and C in the City, drainage policies, projects completed, new projects that have been identified, and recommended the Council authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day public review period, and authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public hearing. Council Member Dickens acknowledged the Drainage Master Plan (Plan) as an outstanding planning tool to identify projects throughout the City. He referred to page 45 in the Plan where it discusses the Pacific Coast Christian School earth ditch and noted there was a reference to Arroyo Linda Crossroads. He inquired whether the solution to this particular drainage problem deals with upstream development within Arroyo Linda Crossroads; and inquired whether this was still a viable proposal that would be considered in the near future. He suggested renaming the area. He also referred to a photo on page 41 and noted the drainage ditch was incorrectly identified. He Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday,August 8, 2006 Page 9 suggested that the document be further reviewed to be brought up to date and supported distributing the Plan for a 60-day public review period. Council Member Costello referred to Site 27 in the Plan and asked questions of staff concerning , liability issues related to flooding. Council Member Costello supported moving forward and distributing the Plan for a 60-day public review period. Council Member Amold pointed out that the Plan demonstrates the need for drainage improvements and justifies the ballot measure requesting a sales tax increase to provide funding � mechanisms to accomplish these types of projects. IMayor Pro Tem Guthrie supported the recommendation to distribute the Plan for a 60-day public review period. Mayor Ferrara stated that with corrections that were noted earlier regarding the photographs, he could support distributing the Plan for public review. He commented that the Plan was easy to read as it provided pictures, descriptions, solutions, and funding mechanisms required for each project. Council Member Costello moved to authorize the distribution of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update for 60-day public review'period; and authorize staff to perform environmental review of the draft 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed on the foliowing roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. � 11. NEW BUSINESS None. I 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS a) Request to place consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, Planned Unit Development 04-002, and Neighborhood Plan 04-001 (Cherry Creek project) on a future City Council agenda for consideration along with consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the environmental determination (GUTHRIE/ARNOLD) Council Member Arnold noted he and Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie had met with the developers of the project to better understand the status of the project and had agreed that it would be worthwhile for I this item to be brought forth to the Council for discussion. He explained his understanding that the ' Planning Commission had basically recommended denial of the project by requiring an EIR for the ' project. He noted that if the Council �eviews the project and determines that an EIR is not required, Minutes: City Council Meeting Tuesday,August 8, 2006 Page 10 then it would not make sense to send it back to the Planning Commission. He noted that the project would come forth to the Council at some point, so for the sake of timing and workload, he recommended the project be scheduled on a future Council meeting agenda. Following brief discussion, the Council unanimously concurred to bring this item forward to the City Council for consideration. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS � Colleen Martin, Olive Street, stated she was seeking clarification and a decision on the intent for Agenda Item 12.a., whether the Council is proposing an Agenda item deciding the environmental tool or the entire Cherry Creek project review. She referred to the minutes of the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting where they approved a motion recommending that a full ! environmental impact report (EIR) be done on the project. She stated that sixteen months passed and the project was placed on the Planning Commission agenda on July 18, 2006 to rehash the environmental review. She expressed concern as to why the March 2005 EIR recommendation was not forwarded to the Council at that time. She said that now it appears that the applicant is using the time length the proposed project has been in the development pipeline as an excuse to expedite the project. She noted that the applicant has delayed the project, and the Planning Commission has not yet reviewed any project details. She concluded by stating the Planning Commission has voted twice to recommend an EIR and also to have the project returned to them for review, including the Neighborhood Plan, the geology and soils, and development standards, and requested that the Council continue to follow the development review process and send the project back to the Planning Commission once it has determined how it will proceed with environmental review. 17. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk � (Approved at CC Mtg ) I I __ _ " " _"_.__ _ _ _ I __ E pRROVp ���■ � c? � MICORVORATEO 92 V O m # .a�r �o. io�� * c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM � TO: CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/CITY CLERK ��/„� -fn�� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE BIENNIAL REVIEW DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: 1) the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Arroyo Grande's Conflict of Interest Code, including an amended Appendix of Designated Positions and Appendix of Disclosure Categories; and 2) the RDA Board of Directors receive and file the 2006 Redevelopment Agency Conflict of Interest Biennial Notice. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The California Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code ("Code"). The Code designates positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests and assigns disclosure categories specifying the types of financial interests to be reported. Further, the Code contains specific provisions setting forth any circumstances. under which designated positions or categories of designated positions must disqualify themselves from making, participating in the making, or using their official position to influence the making of any decision. Positions mandated by State law to file disclosure statements and not required to be listed in the Code include Mayors, Members of the City Council, candidates for City offices, Members of the Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Treasurer. In 1987, the City adopted the State's standard Conflict of Interest Code by reference which, along with the Appendix of Designated Positions and the Appendix of Disclosure Categories, constitute the City of Arroyo Grande Conflict of Interest Code. CITY COUNCIL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE REVIEW SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 Under the Political Reform Act, local agencies are required to review their Conflict of Interest Code biennially to determine whether the Code is accurate, or if revision is needed due to organizational changes, including the creation of new positions, position title changes, and/or relevant changes in the duties assigned to existing positions. Once the determination has been made, a notice must be submitted to the code reviewing body (the Council) no later than October 1 of even-numbered years. A revision to the City's Conflict of Interest Appendix of Designated Positions is required at this time due to position changes that have been approved by the Council since the Code was last updated. These changes need to be reflected in the City's Conflict of Interest Code to ensure that it is current. Changes made to the City's Appendix of Designated Positions include the following: 1. Add the position of Assistant Engineer. 2. Add the position of Senior Engineer. 3. Add the position of Historic Resources Committee Member. The Conflict of Interest Code for the Redevelopment Agency does not require any amendments at this time; therefore, staff recommends the Board of Directors receive this information and authorize the filing of this memorandum as the official Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency Conflict of Interest Biennial Notice. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the City Council/Board of Director's consideration: • Adopt the attached resolution and file the Biennial Notice; • Modify as appropriate and adopt the resolution and file the Biennial Notice; or • Provide direction to staff. U:\DATA\Ag end a Reports&Resos\confl ictintereststaffrep2006.doc RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE � INCLUDING AN AMENDED APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND APPENDIX OF DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (California Government Code Sections 81000 et seq.,) requires that governmental entities in the State of California adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, in 1987 the City of Arroyo Grande adopted a standardized Conflict of Interest Code, incorporating by reference the terms of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 18730 et seq., which contain the terms of a Standard Conflict of Interest Code; an Appendix of Designated Positions listing employees, officials, and consultants who make or participate in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on their financial interests, and an Appendix of Disclosure Categories assigned to the Designated Positions; and WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires every local agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code biennially to determine if it is accurate and up-to-date or, to make amendments to the code when necessitated by changed circumstances; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to make the following changes to the Appendix of Designated Positions in the City's Conflict of Interest Code: 1. Add the position of Assistant Engineer. 2. Add the position of Senior Engineer. 3. Add the position of Historic Resources Committee Member. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the attached Appendices, marked Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", respectively, both of which are incorporated herein by this reference, accurately set forth those positions which should be designated and categories of financial interests which should be disclosed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the amendments to the City's Conflict of Interest Code as follows: 1. The City's "Appendix of Designated Positions" is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The City's "Appendix of Disclosure Categories", attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, is approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 3776 adopted September 14, 2004. RESOLUTION NO. _ PAGE 2 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _day of September, 2006. RESOLUTION NO. _ PAGE 3 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 California Code of , Regulations Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code. It can be incor orated b reference and ma be amended b the Fair Political P Y Y Y ' Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference, an along with the attached Appendices in which members and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Arroyo Grande. Pursuant to Section 4(A) of the standard code, designated employees shall file statements of economic interests with the City of Arroyo Grande. Upon receipt of the statements of the designated employees, the City Clerk shall retain the originals and make them available for public inspection. EXHIBIT "A" APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS The following positions entail the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on financial interests: Desiqnated Position:2 Disclosure Cateqorv: Director of Public Works 1 Assistant City Engineer 1 Associate Engineer 1 Assistant Engineer 2 Senior Engineer 2 Public Works Inspector 2 Director of Building and Fire 1 Fire Division Chief 2 Building Official 1 Building and Fire Safety Inspector 1 Police Chief 1 Police Commander 2 Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities 1 Director of Financial Services 1 Accounting Supervisor 1 Director of Administrative Services 1 Human Resources Manager 2 Director of Community Development 1 Associate Planner 1 Assistant Planner 1 Neighborhood Services Coordinator 1 City Clerk 1 Executive Assistant-City Administration 2 Assistant City Attorney 1 Traffic Commission Member 1 Parks and Recreation Commission Member 1 Senior Advisory Commission Member 1 Architectural Review Commission Member 1 Downtown Parking Advisory Board Member 1 Historic Resources Committee Member 1 Consultants3 1 Exempt Officials° 1 2 In the event that State law or regulations regarding the filing of Conflict of Interest Statements should be amended, this Exhibit shall be changed to include the designated position and category of each official as required by said amendment. 3 Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitations. The City manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a "designated position", is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and this is not required to full comply with the disclosure requirement described in this Section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultanYs dutues and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection by the City Clerk in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. ° Exempt Officials include the Mayor, Members of the City Council, candidates for City offices, Members of the Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Treasurer who are all otherwise required to file disclosure statements pursuant to State Law. EXHIBIT "B" APPENDIX OF DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES Desiqnated Persons in Cateqorv "1" Must Report: All investments, interests in real property, income, and any business entity in which the person is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management. These financial interests are reportable only if located within and subject to the jurisdiction of the City, or if the business entity is doing business or planning to do business in an area subject to the jurisdiction of the City, or has done business within an area subject to the jurisdiction of the City at any time during the two years prior to the filing of the statement. Desiqnated Persons in Cateqorv "2" Much Report" a) All investments in real property located within or subject to the jurisdiction of the City. b) Investments in any business entity which within the last two years has contracted or in the future foreseeably may contract with the City. c) Income from any source which within the last two years has contracted or in the future foreseeably may contract with the City. d) His or her status as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holder of a position of management in any business entity which within the last two years has contracted or in the future foreseeably may contract with the City. 8.e. � pRROYO ° ��A � INCOflPORATED 9.= o ,°� MEMORANDUM # JULV 10. 1011 * C9�/FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY FIBICH, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS (SCBA) TEST EQUIPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the purchase of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) test equipment. FUNDING: A budget carry-over in the amount of $13,000 was made from FY 2005-06. This amount was a result of budget savings and is intended to pay for the purchase of the diagnostic equipment needed to test the DepartmenYs self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). DISCUSSION: In 2002, the City entered into a 5-year lease-purchase agreement with Municipal Finance Corporation to lease-purchase 30 Interspiro Self Contained Breathing Apparatus, spare bottles, and masks. Currently, several of our Department members are technically qualified to perform OSHA, NIOSH, and NFPA mandated maintenance and repair on the SCBA. The Fire DepartmenYs current test equipment is over 18 years old. Due to the age of this equipment, it is no longer possible to totally verify proper performance or to perform all levels of repair. In order to perForm testing and repair of this SCBA equipment it is necessary to purchase the manufacturer recommended, current technology test equipment. The equipment that the manufacturer of the Department's SCBA has specified is an ensemble that consists of the PosiChek tester, associated software, and a laptop computer through which the diagnostics are inputted and analyzed. The PosiChek automatically determines the operational fitness of a SCBA by means of a series of dynamic tests and functional checks. The PosiChek test quantitatively determines whether the current performance of a SCBA meets NIOSH and NFPA requirements. This test equipment will ensure that breathing apparatus which requires maintenance will be identified and taken out of service in a timely manner. This equipment is being purchased from Bauer Compressors, Inc., the sole distributor of the testing equipment that is compatible with our Interspiro SCBA. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS (SCBA) TEST EQUIPMENT SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: -Approve staffs recommendation; - Do not approve staff's recommendation; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or - Provide direction to staff. 8.f. � pRROy� � c� � INCORPORATED 92 U � m � JUIY 10. IBN * c4��FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MEGAN MEIER, PLANNING INTERN SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION (TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06-003) FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-004; 1220 FARROLL AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution, approving a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004. FUNDING: No fiscal impact DISCUSSION: Coastal Christian School has been operating within the City of Arroyo Grande since August of 1989. For the past ten years, the school has been in the process of relocating to a site outside of the City of Arroyo Grande. Relocation efforts have been delayed due to annexation issues related to the project. The City Council approved Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004 on November 11, 2003 and authorized the continued use of temporary classrooms with specific conditions of approval related to safety and length of occupancy. These conditions included the installation of two fire hydrants and annual time extensions. At this time, all conditions of approval have been met and the first time extension was granted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Extensions of time may be granted only if it is found that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare. On August 15, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending the City Council approve Time Extension 06-003 for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004. " CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION (TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 06-003) FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-004; 1220 FARROLL AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 ' PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: — Adopt the attached resolution approving the time extension of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance; — Modify as appropriate and adopt the attached resolution; — Continue the item and direct staff to prepare an alternative resolution to deny the extension; — Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Letter from applicant requesting a Time Extension RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-004; 1220 FARROLL AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY COASTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered a request for a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004 for the operation of temporary classrooms, applied for by Coastal Christian School; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande approved a Resolution recommending the City Council approve a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study and deliberation, that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande approves of a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit " A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004 shall expire on August 19, 2006. On motion of Council Member seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 12`h day of September, 2006. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE20F3 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 OF 3 EXHIBIT "A" , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ' TIME EXTENSION 05-002 GENERAL C�NDITIONS I This approval authorizes a one-year time extension for Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004, which was originally approved by the City Council on August 19, 2003;and allows the continued operation of temporary classrooms. 1. 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. 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 Time Extension , 06-003, Amended Conditional Use Permit 03-004, Amended Conditional Use Permit 89-459 and the Conditional Use Permit 89-459. , 4. This Time Extension shall automatically expire on August 19, 2006. The applicant may apply for two additional time extensions, pursuant to Development Code Section 16.12.140. 5. The project shall comply with State requirements for occupancy limits and accessibility. 8.g. E pRROy� � cp � INCONFOR�TEO y2 U m * .��. �o. ,a„ ,� MEMORANDUM P 4��FORN\ TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S TRAVEL POLICY DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the recommended new travel policy. FUNDING: There is no direct fiscal impact projected from this policy. However, it will enable the City to more efficiently manage travel expenses. DISCUSSION: On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger approved Assembly Bill 1234. In addition to ethics training requirements, it also establishes restrictions on travel expense reimbursement for legislative body members. Most significantly, it restricts reimbursement to actual expenses, which requires the City to amend its existing practice of providing per diem reimbursements. � As a result, staff felt this would be an appropriate time to perform a thorough review and update to the City's travel policy. While Assembly Bill 1234 requirements only apply to the legislative body, it is recommended that the City's travel policy be consistent for all employees and officials. Travel policies from a number of jurisdictions were studied. Based on the results, the attached recommended travel policy was drafted. One of the purposes of surveying policies from other cities was to determine a standard for meal reimbursement limits. Policies identifying specific limits were found to include a range of amounts. However, it was also found that a number of policies include limits established by the U.S. General Services Administration, which is recommended in the attached proposed policy. Doing so provides three advantages. First, it is an objective outside source based on research for actual meal costs and is used by many jurisdictions throughout the country. Second, it is automatically updated on an annual �I basis. Third, it is a more fair method of determining amounts because it is based on geographic area so reimbursements are higher for cities that are more expensive. i S:�Administration\CITT MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Travel Policy Staff Report 9.12.06.doc i _ _ _ _ - I CITY COUNCIL ETHICS POLICY SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 The proposed new policy also includes more detail on allowable expenses than has been identified in the past. This will help provide a higher level of consistency in application of the policy and will reduce questions regarding appropriate travel practices. Lastly, AB 1234 requires Council Members to make an oral report on conferences and meetings attended, which is included in the policy. Staff would recommend this be covered under normal monthly City Council reports during regular meetings. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: ; - Approve proposed changes to the City's travel policy; � - Make changes as desired and approve the proposed travel policy; - Request additional research and/or information; - Provide other direction to staff. Attachments: � 1. Proposed Travel Policy I f ; i ' CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES POLICY #: A-012 SUBJECT: TRAVEL ISSUED: 10/1/06 i EFFECTIVE: 10/1/06 CANCELLATION DATE: N/A SUPERSEDES: 11/1/03 ' POLICY: It is the City's policy to authorize City employees and officials for travel outside the City in order to participate in regional meetings, training and conference activities for professional development and to represent the City's interests. However, it is the City's policy to manage travel expenses in an efficient manner and to limit such expenses to matters that are necessary and provide a direct benefit to the City. The City shall reimburse travel expenses directly related to travel on approved City business. All costs incurred for travel- related expenses are subject to budgeted amounts and this policy is applicable to all City employees, elected officials and appointed officials. Travel expense reimbursements are tax-free. PROCEDURE: 1. Authorized Travel City funds, equipment, supplies, titles and staff time must only be used for authorized Cit business. Ex enses incurred in connection with the followin t es Y P 9 Yp of activities generally constitute authorized expenses, as long as the other requirements of this policy are met: A. Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national government on City adopted policy positions; B. Attending educational seminars designed to improve skill and information levels; C. A conference or organized educational activity relating to topics important to City policy and operations; D. Attending meetings involving activities and/or decisions important to the City's interests; POLICY#: A-012 TRAVEL PAGE 2 • E. Preparing research for City projects and/or implementing City approved ' strategies. ' 2. Authorization and Cash Advances , A. Travel on City business shall be claimed on an itemized basis. Employees i and officials attending a conference, training or out of town meeting shall ' itemize all daily expenses. Funds can still be advanced. However, the employee or official must itemize all expenses and may be eligible for additional reimbursement or need to refund some of the cash advance to the City. Receipts should be kept and submitted on all expenses. B. Whenever possible, conference and training should be specified during the budget process. C. On all travel on City business that exceeds $200 or involves a cash advance, , regardless of whether it is a one-day conference or involves overnight travel, a Travel Request and Expense Report form (Exhibit A) must be submitted. I Travel authorizations should detail all expenses associated with a trip. This would include, but not be limited to, meals, lodging, registration fees, air ' fare/mileage reimbursement, and estimated car rental. Travel authorizations and accompanying Travel Request and Expense Form require approval of the Department Director or his/her designee. Out-of-state travel or travel which exceeds the DepartmenYs budget allocation for travel must be approved by the City Manager. D. Travel authorizations should be submitted a minimum of 10, business days prior to the scheduled travel for approval and within 10 business days following the travel for reimbursement. E. All individuals traveling on City business who are not City employees (i.e., Planning Commission, Traffic Commission), where the total cost of the travel exceeds $100, must have the prior approval of the City Council. In cases where prior approval at a Council meeting is not possible due to a last-minute necessity, the City Manager will make the determination. F. Police Department personnel attending P.O.S.T. training courses will be allocated the per diem rate currently approved by P.O.S.T. � POLICY #: A-012 , TRAVEL i PAGE 3 ; 3. Reimbursable Expenditures I � A. Registration I The City shall pay for or reimburse primary registration costs for authorized training and conferences. The City shall not reimburse costs for additional optional social and entertainment conference activities offered. The City shall not reimburse conference registration costs for family and friends accompanying the employee or official. B. Transportation 1. All air travel on City business shall be on coach and tickets purchased through the Enhanced Local Government Airfare Program whenever possible. This program entitles member agencies to reduced airFares i through the State of California YCAL rating agreement and also provides rental car and hotel reservations. Reservations can only be made through the City's authorized Travel Agency and with participating airlines. 2. In cases where air travel would be the normal means of transportation on City business, an employee or official may drive one's personal vehicle with the permission of the Department Director. Costs shall be reimbursed at the City Council established per mile rate. In no case shall the cost of mileage exceed the cost of coach air travel to the conference or training. 3. An employee may leave from home for a meeting, conference, training session, etc. However, the mileage reimbursement for travel from home to the conference, etc., shall not exceed what would normally be the mileage reimbursement for travel from employee's work site to the conference. 4. Use of City vehicles may be authorized for travel on City business outside the local area when this method of transportation can be demonstrated as the most economical means available. There shall be no reimbursement for transportation when a City-owned vehicle is used. Any out-of-pocket expenses incurred in operating the vehicle, such as gasoline, shall be reimbursed if receipts are provided. 5. Carpooling is encouraged when more than one employee or official are attending the same event or activity. 6. Rental rates that are equal or less than those available through the State of California's website (www.catravelsmart.com/default.htm) shall be considered the most economical and reasonable for purposes POLICY #: A-012 TRAVEL PAGE 4 of reimbursement under this policy. The most economical car make and models sufficient to meet the needs of the travel shall be utilized. � 7. Taxi, bus and shuttle fares may be reimbursed, including a 10% � gratuity per fare when applicable, when the cost of such fares is equal I or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or � when such transportation is necessary for time efficiency. � C. Lodging 1. Lodging expenses at the single room rate will be reimbursed or paid for when travel on official City business reasonably requires an overnight stay. 2. If such lodging is in connection with a conference, lodging expenses shall not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor if such rates are available at the time of booking. 3. Employees and officials shall request government rates when available. 4. Gratuities of $1 per night for hotel maids shall be reimbursed and $1 per bag for bellhops when necessary. 5. Lodging incidental costs that are not listed as reimbursable expenses in this policy shall not be reimbursed. D. Meals 1. Meals shall be reimbursed at actual cost not to exceed the U.S. Government Per Diem Schedule for the specific geographic area, as stated on the U.S. General Services Administration web site (www.gsa.gov), which shall include tax and a 15% gratuity. 2. To determine the maximum reimbursement amount for each meal, access www.casa.qov and take the following steps: a. Access the per diem rates table b. Identify the M&IE rate for the area where the travel will take place. c. Access the Meals and Incidental Expense table and apply the M&IE rate to identify the specific limit for each meal. 3. Limits are per individual meal. Amounts from more than one meal cannot be combined for reimbursement at a higher amount. POLICY #: A-012 TRAVEL PAGE 5 4. Alcohol and personal bar expenses are not reimbursable. E. Parking 1. Parking fees shall be reimbursed at the actual cost, including a $2 � gratuity for valet parking when necessary. I2. Parking fees at hotels and conference sites will be predetermined whenever possible and included in the employee's travel expenses. ' When parking costs cannot be predetermined, employees will be ! reimbursed for any required parking fees. 3. Long-term parking shall be used for any airport parking for travel exceeding 24 hours. F. Communications ; 1. Employees and officials shall be reimbursed for actual telephone, fax � and internet access occurred on City business. 2. Telephone bills should identify which calls were made on City � business. 3. If travel requires an overnight stay, the cost of one telephone call per day up to 10 minutes shall be reimbursed. 4. Staff needing internet access for City related business while on City travel and/or training may purchase high speed internet access from the employee's place of lodging if available at the City's expense. � Determination of the need for internet access shall require approval of the Department Director. Internet access paid for by the City shall be subject to the provisions of the City's Information Service Policy (A- 016). G. Other Expenses for which City officials receive reimbursement from another agency are not reimbursable. No costs associated with family members and friends accompanying an employee or official shall be reimbursed. 4. Follow-Up Council Members shall make an oral report on the meeting or conference. Written reports of the highlights of a conference or training program may also be required for employees at the discretion of the City Manager or applicable Department Director, POLICY #: A-012 TRAVEL PAGE 6 particularly when other individuals in the organization could benefit from such '; information. ; 5. Audits of Expense Reports All expenses are subject to verification of compliance with this policy. ! 6. Exceptions Questions or interpretation of exceptions to the above must be clarified and/or approved by the City Manager in advance of the proposed travel. Steven Adams ' City Manager i � �I � I I CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EXHIBIT A TRAVEL REQUEST AND EXPENSE REPORT POLICY A-012 FORM "T" FOR TRAVEL ; Partl - TRAVELREQUEST INSTRUCTIONS: Before trip, prepare Part I about trip and obtain proper authorizing signatures. Prepare ' Part II on estimated expenses, listing checks to be issued in advance in Part I. Send completed form to Accounts Payable. � 1. Name & Title of Requester 2. Date of Request 5. Date of Trip 3. Conference or Meeting: 6. Est. cost of Trip 4. Location 7. Account Number 8. Was travel included in the Department budget? Yes No 9. Signature of Requester Department Approval City Manager Approval ADVANCE PAYMENTS REQUESTED Date Req'd AMOUNT CHECK NO. Pa able to: ISSUED (Request by Employee for Per Diem on last line) Total Repuested PART II - EXPENSE REPORT IINSTRUCTIONS: Complete Part II, attaching receipts for transportation, registration, lodging. Submit to , Finance Department, along with any reimbursement due the City. After approval by the City Manager, any balance due traveler will be issued by Accounts Payable. Expense Categories City Car ( ) Private Car- Mileage Paid ( ) Rail ( ) Private Car- Credit Card Only ( ) ESTIMATE Air ( ) FINAL COSTS Transportation Garage, and/or Parking Lodging (Room charges & taxes only) Registration Fees Meals Other (Please Itemize) TOTALEXPENSES Less: Total Advanced I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT and credit card payments STATEMENT OF MY EXPENDITURES Bala�ce Due Employee/City Audited By Employee Date Department Director Approval Check or Receipt No. City Manager Approval _ RULES FOR TRAVEL EXPENSE ALLOWANCES AND ROUTING I 1. Describe travel and obtain authorizing signatures. Complete Estimated Expense Detail in Part II, and indicate in Part I any advance checks to be issued and dates needed. 2. Indicate on Part II the method of travel. Private autos may be used with Department Director approval for mileage reimbursement. If you elect to take your own car, you should take a City credit card for gasoline; ( mileage will not be reimbursed. Check one of these sections under"Private Car". i � 3. Obtain Department Director approval. ' 4. Attach copy of registration form to Travel Request. Retain original registration form as checks will be returned to departments for mailing, in case of last minute changes. 5. Out-of-State travel or travel which exceeds the DepaRment budget allocation for travel must be approved by the City Manager. 6. Send completed request to Financial Services. 7. When travel is complete, traveler will complete Part II and attach all required receipts within 10 days of travel, obtain department approval and return completed form to Financial Services. If advances exceeded actual expenses, include money due City. i 8. A copy will be returned to the department, following audit. � 9. The City will pay for the following expenses for approved travel and training: ' . Registration . Hotel room rates and applicable taxes � . Mileage or transportation costs p • Garage and/or parking fees � • Meals , . Telephone calls to home, uo to 10 minutes aer dav (cannot be averaged) • Tips to waiters, bell hops, baggage handlers 10. Meals shall be reimbursed at actual cost not to exceed the U.S. Government Per Diem Schedule for the specific geographic area. Amounts from more than one meal cannot be combined. To identify amounts for specific meals: • Access the U.S. General Services Administration web site at www.qsa.qov. . Access the per diem rates table. • Identify the M&IE rate for the area where travel will occur. • Access the Meals and Incidental Expense table and apply the M&IE rate to identify the specific limit for each meal. � 11. The City will not qav for personal entertainment, i.e., movies, alcoholic beverages, sightseeing, etc. ; All check requests should be on the appropriate Travel Request - Form "T". E pRROYQ ���■ � CP � INCORVORATED 9z ti u � ° m � JULY �o, ,a„ , MEMORANDUM c4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER 7� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITYWIDE ETHICS POLICY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution establishing a citywide ethics policy for City employees, elected officials and appointed officials. FUNDING: It is estimated that the cost impact of this policy will not exceed over $2,000 in any given year, which can be paid from the City's training fund. DISCUSSION: On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger approved Assembly Bill 1234, which requires local agency officials to receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to his or her public service every two years. Concurrently, the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities has been encouraging cities to adopt an ethics policy and a growing number of cities in the state have done so. In addition, and probably most importantly, the City of Arroyo Grande's value statements emphasize the highest level of ethical standards from all employees and officials. As a result, staff reviewed copies of ethics policies from a number of agencies and drafted the attached proposed policy. The contents of the proposed policy are fairly consistent with those adopted by other jurisdictions. The only area that differs significantly is that the majority of policies reviewed apply only to elected and appointed officials. Staff proposes that the policy apply not only to elected and appointed officials, but to all employees as well. By doing so, it provides an opportunity to further emphasize to employees the City's commitment to high ethical standards established in the City's value statements and provides guidelines clarifying what is involved in meeting these standards. The draft policy has been reviewed by the executive team, as well as representatives from each of the employee unions. Comments have been incorporated and no concerns were identified. S:�P.dministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Ethics Policy Staff Report 9.12.06.doc CITY COUNCIL ETHICS POLICY SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 As required by State law, the proposed policy sets forth requirements for ongoing training. Given the logistical difficulties in scheduling training that meet everyone's availability, it is recommended that options be provided. Options provided include training provided by the League of California Cities, the Central Coast Employment Relations Consortium, on-line training resources offered by the California Department of Justice, on-line training offered by the Institute for Local Government, or any future ' training contracted directly by the City or provided by the City Attorney. Most of the options are available at no cost except training contracted directly by the City. On-line training provided by the Institute for Local Government involves a $25 fee for certification. It is recommended that Department Directors meet the training requirements every two years as required for elected and appointed officials. Every three years is proposed for all other employees, which will be more feasible given the logistics and costs involved. It is likely that staff may contract for a specific course for employees so it can be designed to address ethical scenarios involving a variety of positions, which may be ' somewhat different than those covered in training for elected and appointed officials. As such, it is not proposed that employee training necessarily be designed to meet the requirements of AB 1234. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: ' - Approve the Resolution establishing the proposed policy; - Make changes as desired and approve the Resolution; - Approve the Resolution, but request staff to modify training options allowed and/or offered; - Approve the training options, but do not approve the Resolution establishing the policy; - Provide other direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Proposed Ethics Policy RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING AN ETHICS POLICY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHEREAS, City employees, as with elected officials, are in a position of public trust ' and have an obligation to do their jobs in the spirit of public service; and WHEREAS, the City's value statements include a commitment to high ethical standards; and WHEREAS, as such, all employees, elected and appointed officials should conduct themselves in an ethical manner, both on and off the job, and in a manner that does not present the appearance of a conflict of interest; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger approved Assembly Bill 1234, which requires all local agency officials to receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to his or her public service every two years; and WHEREAS, a growing number of cities in the State have either adopted an ethics policy or are in the process of developing one at the encouragement of the League of California Cities Board of Directors; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby establishes and adopts an Ethics Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", for all City employees, elected officials and appointed officials. 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 , 2006. RESOWTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY r _ __- _ _ I il CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE , POLICY #: A-030 SUBJECT: ETHICAL STANDARDS ISSUED: 10/1/06 EFFECTIVE: 10/1/06 CANCELLATION DATE: N/A � SUPERSEDES: New � f ' POLICY: ' It shall be the City's policy to have fair, ethical and accountable local government, which has earned the public's confidence for its integrity. To do this requires that public officials be independent, impartial and responsible in their judgement and actions to the ; people. City employees are also in a position of public trust and have an obligation to , do their jobs in the spirit of public service. As such, it is the City's policy that City officials and employees conduct themselves in an ethical manner, both on and off the r job, and in a manner that does not present the appearance of a conflict of interest. PROCEDURE: � A. Act in the Public Interest Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest be their primary concern, officials and employees shall work for the common good of the people of Arroyo Grande and not for any private or personal political or financial business interest. Officials and employees shall assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions. B. Comqiv with the Law Officials and employees shall comply with all federal, state and local laws in the performance of their duties. These laws include, but are not limited to, the Constitutions of the United States of America and State of California; the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and other City resolutions and policies. i � C. Personal Conduct � The conduct of officials and employees must be above reproach and avoid the appearance of any impropriety. Officials and employees shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other officials, employees or the public. Officials and employees shall conduct their official and private affairs so as not to give the impression that they POLICY#: A-030 ETHICAL STANDARDS PAGE 2 can be improperly influenced in the perFormance of their duties. Officials and I employees will make impartial decisions, free of bribes, unlawful gifts, narrow ' political interests and be truthful in what they say and do. � D. Use of Public Resources � Officials and employees shall not use public resources that are not available to '� the public in general for private gain or personal purposes. Officials and employees shall use their titles and City letterhead for official City business �; related purposes only. I ! E. Respect for Established Processes and Procedures I Officials and employees shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council, City Manager and boards and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, ' meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff. I F. Conduct of Public Meetinas ! Officials and employees shall prepare themselves for public issues, listen ' courteously and attentively to all public discussions, and focus on the business at ! hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers, making personal f comments not germane to the business of the body, or otherwise interFering with � the orderly conduct of ineetings. i i ; G. Decisions Based on Merit � Officials and employees shall base their decisions on the merits and substance i of the matter at hand rather than on unrelated considerations. i H. Conflict of Interest To assure independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, officials and employees shall not use their o�cial positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship that may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. In accordance with the law, officials and designated employees shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and gifts. They shall also abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where conflicts may exist. However, this does not preclude the right of any individual to participate in deliberations as a member of the general public. I. Gifts and Favors Officials and employees shall not take any special advantage of services or ', opportunities for personal gain by virtue of their public office that are not available POLICY #: A-030 ETHICAL STANDARDS PAGE 3 to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits that might compromise their independence of judgement or action or give the appearance of being compromised. I J. Confidentialitv Officials and employees shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning litigation, personnel, property, or other affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor � use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests. � K. Advocacv Officials and employees shall represent o�cial policies and positions of the City to the best of their ability when designated for this purpose. When representing individual opinions and positions, officials and employees shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City of Arroyo Grande, nor will they allow the inference that they do. L. Roles of Officials and Emplovees ' Officials and employees shall respect and adhere to the Council-Manager ' structure of government as outlined in the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. In this structure, the City Council determines policies of the City with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, boards and commissions, and staff. Elected and appointed officials shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or professional duties of City staff. City employees shall not take actions that establish or conflict with policy decisions reserved for the City Council's authority. In order to maintain the value of the independent advice of boards and commissions, the City Council shall also refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of board and commission proceedings. M. Travel To effectively conserve City resources, officials and employees shall attempt to use the most reasonable, economical and cost efficient means of travel related expenditures when conducting City business for which the City may reimburse them. N. Positive Work Place Environment Officials and employees shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Officials and employees shall be committed to the organization's value statements, which serve as the overall guideline to how officials and employees treat each other and the customers the City serves. POLICY #: A-030 ETHICAL STANDARDS PAGE 4 O. Implementation Officials and employees have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and adhered to and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of its government. Therefore, the following measures shall be taken on an ongoing basis to inform and reinforce the ethical standards of conduct described in this policy and procedure: 1: Ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientation for newly elected and appointed officials, board members and commission members, and employees. 2. Ethics training shall be required every two years for all elected officials, board members and commissioners, and department directors. Training shall be required every three years for all other City employees. Those required to complete training shall have the option of attending and/or participating in programs provided by: a. League of California Cities b. Central Coast Employment Relations Consortium c. Institute for Local Government d. State of California Department of Justice e. Special training programs contracted directly by the City or provided by the City Attomey 3. Each individual shall obtain and provide to the City Clerk a certificate of completion. 4. The Mayor and chairs of boards and commissions have the responsibility to intervene when actions of fellow officials appear to be in violation of the Citys Ethics Policy are brought to their attention. If the Mayor or chairperson is the subject of the complaint, the Mayor Pro Tem or vice chairperson shall be responsible. Employees may be subject to disciplinary action when conduct does not comply with these ethical standards. Employees are expected to secure the advice from their department director or City Manager when in doubt about the meaning or application of any conduct requirement applying to their specific situation. Steven Adams City Manager ,r - _ f� E pRROYQ ���■ � c? FM/CORGOR�TEO 92 ° ^ MEMORANDUM � .,�. ,o. ,•„ * c4��FORN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER� BY: MARY BASSETT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTA��� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REPLACEMENT OF COPIER SYSTEMS FOR CITY ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the purchase of two rebuilt copier systems (Panasonic DP-6010) from Superior Quality Copiers, Inc. for City Administration and the Community Development Department and appropriate funds in the amount of $3,217.50 from the Unappropriated General Fund balance. FUNDING: The total cost for the two rebuilt copier systems (Panasonic DP 6010) is $3,217.50 and will require appropriation from the Unappropriated General Fund balance. DISCUSSION: Superior Quality Copiers, Inc. contacted City Administration with information about two (2) rebuilt copier systems (Panasonic DP-6010) which they have offered to the City at a considerable reduced cost. The current copier in City Administration is over nine (9) years old with over three million copies logged, and the copier in Community Development is experiencing numerous breakdowns and is also approximately nine (9) years old. Under the City's current City Administrative Policy C-006, copy machines should be scheduled for replacement after five (5) years of service. After determining these acquired rebuilt copiers were less than two years old with minimum usage, Superior Quality Copiers offered these systems to the City because of its long history of , maintenance contracts and purchasing of copier systems through Superior. The City, in turn, will contract for maintenance with Superior Quality Copiers for the rebuilt copier systems in City Administration and Community Development over the next three years. The City independently inspected the copiers and determined their condition to be satisfactory. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REPLACEMENT OF COPY MACHINES FOR CITY ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 The City has utilized Superior Quality Copiers over the past 25(+) years and has found their service to be excellent, including responsiveness to maintenance requests. The Police Department purchased the same copier system last year at a cost of $10,051.47. Currently, the City has copier systems from Superior ' Quality Copiers in Administration, Community Development, Fire Department, Building Department, Public Works, and the Police Department. Additionally, Superior Quality Copiers has stated it will take the current annual maintenance contract in City Administration and Community Development, which has been paid by the City, and transfer the contracts to the new Panasonic DP-6010 copier system for City Administration and Community Development. ALTERNATIVES: � The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: , • Approve staffs recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; . Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or . Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. City Administrative Policy C-006 ATTACHMENT1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES POLICY#: C-006 SUBJECT: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR REPLACEMENT OF STANDARD ' ISSUED: 04/01/99 EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVE: 04/01/99 CANCELLATION DATE: N/A SUPERSEDES: 09/01/97 OLIC : Equipment is currently capitalized if the value of the item at the time of purchase exceeds $500. Replacement of capital equipment must be authorized by the City Council. Criteria for evaluating when replacement should occur is listed below. The recommendation for replacement should be a composite evaluation utilizing the criteria listed coupled with the actual condition of the equipment. PROCEDURE: CRITERIA FOR A REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT A. General criteria: The following criteria will be used when requesting replacement of capital equipment or other designated equipment. 1. Condition of the equipment 2. Age of equipment 3. Maintenance history of the equipment B. Specific criteria: 1. Age — Standardized estimated useful life. which may varv depending on auali#y and usaae. a. Personal Computers —five years b. Calculators —five years c. Typewriters —eight years d. Chairs—five years e. Desks —fifteen years f. Fax Machines—five years g. Copiers—five years Revised: April 1, 1999 i POLICY#: C-006 PAGE 2 h. Tables —fifteen years i. Files Cabinets—fifteen years j. Autos-Light Trucks—five years and/or 80,000 miles k. Police Emergency (Patrol) Vehicles — three years and/or 100,000 miles 2. Maintenance Historv a. Recommendation by maintenance personnel that equipment is not economically repairable or able to be updated (as in computers). ' 3. Condition a. Hazardous or dangerous for the employee to use b. Broken parts that are not adequately repairable c. Chipped, marked, or damaged veneers, laminates, or exterior that is not repairable d. No longer able to function in accord with its intended use due to damage, age, or altered requirements I�laua L. f�u,�`—� ROBERT L. HUNT CITY MANAGER - 9.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item: CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS. Proposed expenditure of State funds for law enforcement services provided in the FY 2006-07 State Budget, $100,000 being the City of Arroyo Grande's approximate allocation. Under the (COPS) Program, funding is allocated to local law enforcement agencies to enhance delivery of services. These funds must be used to augment and/or enhance local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant existing budgeted funds. The law requires that the funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police will develop his requests pursuant to the criteria contained in the law and will be presenting those requests for consideration. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information relating to these items is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande Police Department at 473-5120. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Weti ore City Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, September 1, 2006 � pRROYp � . � � . o �,p � '"°°"°°""�E° yz MEMORANDUM c., �°, � JULY 10. 1911 * � . . .. c4�iFOaN�P TO: CITY COUNCIL� /8- FROM: TONY AEILT$, CHIEF OF POLICE ' SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF. USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: - It is recommended, after conducting a public hearing and making any modifications, the City Council approve the expenditure of$100,000 as authorized by the State for ., law enforcement services under. the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. In addition, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the expenditure of $101 ,563 carried over from the City's FY 2005-06 COPS Program. FUNDING: There is no General Fund impact. This expenditure involves $100,000 received by . the City under the COPS Program in FY 2006-07 and $101 ,563 carried over from the FY 2005-06 COPS Program. DISCUSSION: The FY 2006-07 State Budget continiaes funding for the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Under this program, funding is allocated to local law enforcement for the delivery of services. These funds must be used to augment local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant existing funding for such services. As in the past, the declared intent of the Governor and Legislature is to continue COPS as a multi-year program. However, a new appropriation to fund the program will be required each succeeding fiscal year. The law requires that these funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from the Chief of Police. The City Council must consider these requests separate and apart from the proposed law enforcement allocations from the General Fund. Additionally, the City must establish a separate interest bearing fund (Fund 271) to record the receipt and expenditures of monies received pursuant to this program. The enabling legislation requires that the City conduct a public hearing in September of each year to consider requests from the Chief of Police. The funds are scheduled to be transferred this month from the State to the San Luis Obispo County Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF), which is administered by the County of San Luis Obispo. The County SLESF Oversight CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS ` SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 Committee is scheduled to meet to review the requests from the cities in the County on September 21 , 2006. This review, which is required by law, is to ensure that the use of the COPS funds comply with the requirements and restrictions set forth in State law. Upon approval of the City's expenditure plan for this year's COPS funds by the County SLESF OversighY Committee, the County Auditor-Controller will forward the designated funds to the City. The allocation for the City of Arroyo Grande is $100,000. From FY 2000-01 through FY 2004-05, the City Council authorized the COPS funding to be used for the funding of a Police SergeanYs position and the upgrade of two (2) Police Officer positions to Senior Police Officers. Due to time restrictions for the use of these funds, as part of the FY 2005-06 City Budget process, the City Council authorized the transfer of these personnel expenses to the General Fund Budget. Beginning with FY 2005-06, the Police Chief recommended utilizing the COPS allocation over the next five (5) to six (6) years for the replacement and enhancement of the Police DepartmenYs base station radio communications system. The current system was purchased in FY 1986-87 and is approaching 19 years in age. Our communications maintenance contractor has notified the City that the manufacturer will no longer support elements of the current system with replacement components. The outside estimates for a new system and installation are approximately $507,000. The acquisition of the new system is proposed to be in 2 phases, including replacement of the unsupported equipment (console and base transmitter) during FY 2006-07 with planning to replace repeaters and supporting equipment in a subsequent year. The Chief of Police is recommending the $100,000 allocation for FY 2006-07 be designated to be used to further fund the replacement radio communications system. As presented earlier in this discussion, the COPS Program is a permanent program in the State Budget. However, a new appropriation to fund the program is required each year as part of the State's annual budget process. Staff will return at a later date for City Council authorization to proceed with the actual base station radio communication system replacement and enhancement program. At this time, the City Council is being asked to approve the Police Chief's recommendation to designate the FY 2006-07 COPS allocation of $100,000 for this program. It will be necessary for the Chief of Police to return to the City Council in September of each succeeding fiscal year during this program for authorization to utilize that year's COPS funding for the program. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE O F STATE2006-07 CITIZENS OPTION F.OR PUBLIC SAFETY �COPS� FUNDS SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PAG E 3 Effective January 1 , 2001 , State law was amended to require that COPS funds must be spent or encumbered within a two year period or returned to the State Controller's Office (based on the State fiscal year). There is $101,563 left over in the COPS fund from FY 2005-06 which has not been encumbered. These funds must be encumbered by June 30, 2007. These funds were allocated during FY 2005-06 to the communications system replacement fund and are planned to be encumbered during FY 2006-07 for the first phase of the communication system replacement and enhancement program. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the Chief of Police's recommendation to utilize the FY 2006-07 COPS funds to be used as part of a multi-year program for the replacement and enhancement of the Police DepartmenYs base radio communications equipment; - Modify as appropriate and approve the recommendation of the Chief of Police; or - Do not approve the Chief of Police's recommendations. l 9.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ; CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item: CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013 FOR A PROPOSED WIRELESS FACILITY LOCATED AT 300 RESERVOIR ROAD (CITY RESERVOIR NO. 1), APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS; AND CONSIDERATION OF LAND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC DBA CINGULAR WIRELESS. The Council will consider a Conditional Use Permit and Land Lease Agreement for use of eight hundred square feet of property located at 300 Reservoir Road for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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. Information relating to this item is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 473-5420. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. � c�'iillQ/L�— Kelly We o� , City Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, September 1, 2006 � p,RROY� ° �P ' F INCORPORRTEO 92 U m � JULY 10, tBit * , c9(/FORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM CARMEL CITY ATTORNEY � ROB STRONG I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR � BY: j���t'I, KELLY HEFFERNON � �� ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: 1. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013 FOR A PROPOSED WIRELESS FACILITY LOCATED AT 300 RESERVOIR ROAD (CITY RESERVOIR NO. 1), APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS; AND 2. CONSIDERATION OF LAND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC dba CINGULAR WIRELESS DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 05-013 (the "CUP"). It is further recommended that, if the CUP is approved, the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Land Lease Agreement between the City and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, dba Cingular Wireless for use of eight hundred (800) square feet of property located at 300 Reservoir Road, Arroyo Grande, California (the "Reservoir 1 Site"). Because the Lease Agreement cannot be executed without the land use approval, staff recommends that the CUP be considered first. If the CUP is approved, then final action will be consideration of the Lease Agreement. i FUNDING: If the CUP and Land Lease Agreement are approved, Cingular Wireless will pay the City rent of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per month. Rent is increased each year by an amount equal to four percent (4% of the rent for the previous year). Additionally, Cingular Wireless will pay a one-time administrative review and processing fee of two thousand dollars ($2,000). � ' CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CUP 05-013 PAGE 2 PROJECT LOCATION: _ ,. ; ' , i. " ����J .. . '�T� . . . � : ...�. . .. 4. �.� . � �p4rh . ' t ��.P'nN�t&Ati � � mi ' � , ��.._ a,� a'"°'; , ' t �'�:. `, ' '4. �or.. . .; . '` '. � -' a �. ! 1�. ` .o" , a�°' . , .._ „ . ., ,�-- � . -�wa�' , CW • �,, ,,;, ,_ '�.,.._._ , ,.'�� .:`�Pd� . . . i5R . �, _ _. 1 1. •' 2� �� y.>.. 4 . " � ..r , ., qO � �� i. � , S + . (�r� / . l, t �V,�pc:MrMr na '; .�a� J� 'i �, q ' ' 1.,, � i � ��,,.�, , � �9aad�0g. i < _..ry�,tON M'.� s ` �ti� _ -_� . � �. � �_•. ... . DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit - Proiect Description The project site is owned by the City and is located at the end of Reservoir Road on top of a knoll. Existing on the property is the City's recently retrofitted water tank (City Reservoir No. 1) surrounded with a chain link fence and a variety of native and non- native vegetation, including several mature pine and oak trees. Surrounding the site is the Methodist Camp to the east, residential development to the north and west, and a church and school to the south. Proposed are twelve (12) panel antennas divided equally into three (3) sectors on top of a thirty-five foot (35') tall monopine located immediately adjacent to the new water tank perimeter road. The monopine will include a dense array of branches with varying lengths, and the needle coloration will match the surrounding vegetation. The antennas measure a maximum of 72.0" high x 10.0" wide x 4.0" deep. The applicant also proposes nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab. The existing chain link fence would be relocated to enclose the cabinets (see Attachment 1 for more details of project description). The City Council will consider both the land use approval and lease agreement for this project. The purpose of this facility is to provide linkage to existing Cingular Wireless facilities within the San Luis Obispo County network, allowing cell phone coverage along U.S. Highway 101 between West Branch Street and Brisco Road, and to the surrounding residential neighborhood and Village Area. Currently, Cingular Wireless is experiencing , CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CUP OS-013 PAGE 3 coverage and capacity problems within these areas (see Attachment 2 for coverage , plots). The proposed height of the monopine (35') is necessary to send and receive signals. It is expected that routine maintenance and inspection of the facility will occur on a monthly basis during normal working hours. Cingular Wireless also requires 24- hour access to the facility to ensure that technical support is immediately available if and when necessary. The applicant has indicated that co-location of another telecommunications carrier on the monopine at the proposed 35' height is feasible. Visual impacts Because the water tank site contains several mature pine trees, the proposed monopine will blend with surrounding vegetation. The 35' height of the monopine is consistent with existing trees on the project site. The equipment cabinets will be gray to match the I water tank and screened with a six-foot (6') high fence with green vinyl slats. Mitigation measures have been added as follows to ensure that the tree and antennas are camouflaged: 1. The needle coloration of the monopine will match the surrounding pine trees of the project site; 2. Simulated bark will be placed on the monopine from the ground to the top of the tree; 3. There shall be a heavy branch count and the antennas shall be screened with branches. (The contractor can place antenna socks over the antennas that have pine needles interwoven into them, eliminating the `rectangular' shape and helping the antennas to blend with existing pine needles of the � branches). 4. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan for fast growing shrubs and trees to screen the monopine and water tank. The additional landscaping shall be limited to filling in the existing vegetation "gap" immediately surrounding the monopine. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Committee, Community Development Department, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department and Public Works Department. ' Alternative Site Analvsis ' Prior to submitting the current application, the applicant investigated locating a facility at 260 Station Way (Village Promenade). However, the radio frequency (RF) engineers determined that this site would not provide the best coverage along Highway 101 and was too close to the Cingular site at St. Barnabas Church. Cingular then learned that conduits were placed within the perimeter road at City Reservoir No. 1 specifically to allow for telecommunication facilities. Given that the City had already anticipated a telecommunications facility at this location and that the site meets the coverage criteria, Cingular did not feel the need to explore other alternatives. CITY COUNCIL , SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CUP 05-013 PAGE 4 Planninq Commission Consideration The Planning Commission considered this project on June 20, 2006 and August 15, 2006 and recommended approval to the City Council after considering various site alternatives presented by the applicant (see Attachments 3 and 4 for Meeting Minutes). The applicant analyzed the following two sites as potential alternatives to the Reservoir No. 1 site: 1. Arrovo Grande Seventh-dav Adventist Church located at 240 Vernon Street. The applicant investigated this alternative after eliminating the Village Promenade site as a viable location. The monopine would be installed next to the church/administration offices, but would need to be 75' to 80' tall. No formal contact was made with the church because the City informed the applicant that the Reservoir No. 1 site had already been stubbed out for telecom facilities in anticipation of some future cellular telecommunications service. 2. Camp Arrovo Grande (Methodist Churchl located at 250 Wesley Street. This site was analyzed after the June 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant had discussions with the property owner and City to determine the feasibility of the site. The Methodist Church submitted a proposal at this location (80' tall monopine) that the Planning Commission considered in July of 2001. The project was not supported by the Commission and was continued to a date uncertain. Given the strong opposition from surrounding residents and lack of support from decision makers, the project was abandoned. Cingular's proposal at the Methodist Camp site would vary in height (50' to 75') depending on the exact location (see Attachment 5 for photo simulations). After considering the above site alternatives, the Reservoir 1 site remains the preferred site alternative given its ability to send signals at a lower height and its distance from existing residences as compared to alternative sites. Although the Reservoir No. 1 site is stubbed out on the northern side of the property, the applicanYs design parameters dictate that the monopine be located on the southern side of the property in order to further mitigate impacts to adjacent residences. Conduit will be run from the existing stub outs to the preferred location on the south side of the property. Staff Advisorv Committee (SAC) The SAC reviewed the proposed project on December 15, 2005. Issues discussed included conformance with building and fire codes, need for a security vault, future co- location of other telecommunication facilities, and matching the color of the cabinets with the water tank (see Attachment 6 for Meeting Notes). Architectural Review Committee (ARC) The ARC considered the project on May 1, 2006 and discussed alternatives to the monopine, color matching of the pine needles with existing pine trees on the project CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CUP OS-013 PAGE 5 site, and visual impacts of the proposed tree height (see Attachment 7 for meeting notes). The ARC recommended approval of the project as proposed. Telecommunication Facilities Sitinq Requirements On November 27, 2001 the City Council adopted "Telecommunication Facilities Siting and Permit Submittal Requirements" (Attachment 8). Per these requirements, the applicant has submitted information regarding the technology, radio frequency exposure, collocation, visual impacts and site capacity of the proposed facility. This information is provided in Attachments 1 and 2 (project description and coverage plots), Attachment 9 (letter of justification), Attachment 10 (prevailing exposure standards), Attachment 11 (location of habitable structures within 500 feet of the proposed facility — eight total), and Attachment 12 (photo simulations of the proposed monopine). Telecommunications Act of 1996 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was adopted to deregulate and restructure the communications industry, which in turn has created a tremendous growth of cellular and personal communications technologies and service providers. To date, the City has signed lease agreements with Cellular One, Sprint, Cingular Wireless, Nextel and Verizon for facilities located at City Reservoirs No. 2 and No. 4, and at the Soto Sports Complex. The 1996 Act contains provisions concerning the development of personal wireless communication facilities. Section 704 of the 1996 Act places certain limitations on local governments while preserving local zoning authority. Specifically, Section 704 states , that a local government shall: 1. Not discriminate ainong providers of functionally equivalent services. 2. Not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless seroices. 3. Act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is filed. 4. Put any decision to deny a personal wireless service facility into writing and support such decision by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 5. Not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC Guidelines for such emissions. Lease Aqreement Cingular Wireless has expressed an interest in leasing a portion of the Reservoir 1 Site to establish a communication facility. After negotiations, the parties drafted the attached Land Lease Agreement ("Lease") for an approximate 800 square foot portion of the Reservoir 1 site property located at 300 Reservoir Road, Arroyo Grande, CA (see Attachment 13). The proposed term of the Lease is for five (5) years with four (4) � additional five (5) year extensions. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CUP 05-013 PAGE 6 Prior to construction of any improvements of the proposed Lease site, Cingular Wireless will be required to obtain all necessary permits and comply with all applicable conditions for its proposed facility. , PUBLIC COMMENTS A public notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project, and a public notice was placed in the Tribune. Staff has not received any written communication to date. 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. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a negative declaration with mitigation measures for the Council's consideration (see Initial Study, Attachment 14). ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve Planning Commission's recommendation; - Do not approve Planning Commission's recommendation; - Modify Planning Commission's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Project Description 2. Coverage Plots 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2006 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2006 5. Alternative Site Photo Simulations 6. Staff Advisory Committee meeting notes of December 15, 2005 7. Architectural Review Committee meeting notes of May 1, 2006 8. Telecommunication Facilities Siting and Permit Submittal Requirements 9. Letter of Justification 10. Prevailing Exposure Standards 11. Location of habitable structures within 500 feet of the proposed facility 12. Photo Simulations of proposed monopine 13. Land Lease Agreement 14. Initial Study S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\CUP\OS-013 Cingular-Res 1\CC rpt.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO Gl2ANDE APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS, LOCATED AT 300 RESERVOIR ROAD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande considered ! Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013 on June 20, 2006 and August 15, 2006, filed by Cingular Wireless, to install telecommunication antennas on a thirty-five foot (35') tall monopine and nine (9) outdoor equipment cabinets and recommended approval of the project, including adoption of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and � WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013, filed by Cingular Wireless, to install telecommunication antennas on a thirty-five foot (35')tall monopine and nine (9) outdoor equipment cabinets; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this application in accordance with 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: Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.16.050 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. In addition, the facility will operate in full compliance with all state and federal regulations including the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The installation of the facility will not result in any material changes to the character of the immediate neighborhood or local community. , RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is � proposed. The facility is not located within a predominantly residential neighborhood, and the stealth design of the structure will camouflage the antennas. 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. The telecommunication facility will be unstaffed, have no impact on circulation systems, and will generate no noise, odor, smoke or any other adverse impacts to adjacent land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On a 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 12�' day of September 2006. I RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: , TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY �I RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013 CINGULAR WIRELESS 300 RESERVOIR ROAD [:OMM INITY D V 'OPM NT DEPARTMENT N RA ONDITIONS , This approval authorizes the installation of telecommunication antennas on a thirty-five , foot (35')tall monopine and nine (9) outdoor equipment cabinets. 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. 05-013. 3. This application shall automatically expire one year after approval 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. 4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to ' the City Council at the meeting of September 12, 2006 and marked Exhibits "B-1 through B-4". �i 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 attorneys 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. 6. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday. 7. Development shall conform to the Public Facility (PF) zoning requirements except � as otherwise approved. ' RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 8. The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning, or other FCC required seals or signage. 9. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of the wireless facility shall be screened from public view. 10. The applicant shall design all facilities as to allow future co-location at the site. The operator shall cooperate with any subsequent applicants for wireless communications facilities in the vicinity with regard to possible co-location on the monopine. 11. The applicant shall obtain a lease agreement with the City prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, and shall comply with all terms of the lease agreement. BLIILDINC & FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of all California Building and Fire Codes, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 13. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. 14. Prior to Occupancy, the applicant must provide an approved "security key vaulY', per Building and Fire Department guidelines. 15. Any review costs generated by outside consultants, shall be paid by the applicant. 16. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 17. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with State mandate. Pl16LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GENERAL IMPROVEMENT RE�UIREMENTS 18. 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. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 The following Public Works Department conditions of approval are to be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. Zero Conflict with Citv's Communication - Prior to issuanCe of building permit, the applicant shall perform a radio frequency study to determine possible conflicts with the City's communication system, and to develop alternatives to eliminate any such conflicts. Prior to activation of the proposed Cellular system, the applicant shall perform a live radio test to ensure that there is no unanticipated interference with the City's radio system. If the proposed system does interfere with the operation of the City's communication system, the proposed system shall remain inactive until such time that the proposed system can be made to cause zero interference. 20. The applicant shall install a multi-lock system on both access gates to the reservoir. 21. The applicant shall replace any new landscaping installed as part of the Reservoir No. 1 Replacement Project that is displaced as a result of this construction. 22. The applicant shall slope the cabinet pads to drain to the asphalt road surrounding the reservoir. 23. The applicant shall design all facilities as to allow future co-location at the site. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 MITIGATION MEASl1RES 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 by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. Mitigation Measures: MITI -.ATION M AS 1R S• Construction Phase Emissions The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM,o) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading shall list the following regulations: MM 5.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 5.2 — 5.6) shall be followed during construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone number of such person(s) shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance and finished grading of the area. MM 5.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airborne 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 shall be used whenever possible. MM 5.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. MM 5.4: 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. MM 5.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surFace at the construction site. MM 5.6: Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 MM 5.7: To mitigate the diesel PM generated during the construction phase, all construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications. The measures below (MM 5.8 — 5.10) shall be clearly identified in the project bid specifications so the contractors bidding on the project can include the purchase and installation costs in their bids. MM 5.8: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air Resources Board (ARB) motor vehicle diesel fuel. MM 5.9: To the maximum extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment shall meet the ARB's 1996 certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. MM 5.10: Unless otherwise approved by APCD, the developer shall install catalytic diesel particulate filters or Diesel oxidation catalyst on two (2) pieces of construction equipment involved in primary earth moving and construction activities and projected to generate the greatest emissions. APCD staff shall be included in the selection of candidate equipment along with a representative of the contractor. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept., and Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit and during construction MM 10.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday. There shall be no construction activities on Sundays. Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. MM 10.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least 300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor. MM 10.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During construction RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 MM 13.1: The needle coloration of the monopine shall match the surrounding pine trees of the project site. The applicant shall submit pine needle samples of the monopine for verification of accurate color. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.2: The prnject plans shall show simulated bark placed on the monopole from the ground to the top of the tree. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit � MM 13.3: The project plans shall show a heavy branch count and the antennas screened with branches. Socks made of cloth material and interwoven with pine needles shall be placed over the antennas. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.4: The project plans shall show the equipment cabinets in a gray color to match the water tank and screened by a 6' tall chain link fence with green vinyl slats. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.5: The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan for fast growing shrubs and trees to screen the monopine and water tank. The additional landscaping shall be limited to filling in the existing vegetation "gap" immediately surrounding the monopine. Tree species selected should not exceed 30' in height to avoid interference with antenna transmissions. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Committee, Community Development Dept., Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept. and Public Works Dept. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; Parks, Recreation & Facilities Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit EXHIBIT B-� ;�� r J �Q�� �$�� � E g "�� 3 � � � ��� � F � - � � � � � � � � � . -m.--- � _ � • � ��� � ISi� ��� 4 � � � � � � 8Ea' `�����_______������� t3�� k � � ���� � �� �,,�--$-- I I I 1 I I I������ .,,,,�. . � `sar i ;�� �� g4�� � � ` � II ` I1 s �--+��3 lltlt . � � � �— � � II II � - �� � � 11IIIllltll=I� � � y^ e Sc t c i6,����:�� S'f� � � ��e � � �;i� t���1tq��� td � m ��� �� � � ; � �� � �6$� ° � � � � � ����i�°� �$������ � � � $ " N "..� 'Q � � �� � E� �B; �� ,� ' r`� � �, � � � ��;, � a�, � - � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � �.� � �E�� � � s .� s � � � � �i�$ � ��..�$ � 1 ��o �� i�' W —1� � 3�� � � ���i �� �z r '' � k � R � L EXHIBtT B—Z — � . r , 1 ���� � � s6l tbis�'t a 11 � /� �b ��E`�� s r § � ► ����'� ;� �� J'r . � �1[E��� 4 99 ( vun+ona � __ t�� �� �� � � z R � � �e� ;� �e� � 'g` 4 . �� ��7i n� �'� 1 � � ��i � , `� '� , , � ' e � \{ � � E ; ,, i �r, � i; � � ��i �� ,��� � � � �� � � � 1� r� . �. ��. � q �, �., � °' .� �k� 3 �� . � , � � �,4�r.,} �y��:. � '��� � \, ' � 'b� � ',h t ; ; ., � �, �� , i ti •,� �� `;,, �E � . _ '� '"� � �' �� t � \ �r. 1 , ' � �� �1 `� �� {�� g � � � l£ � �s � � �'� � � �� � �� lq � � �` � �\ S . � ' � 1i ; n - �� �F�`� \ . S � � ���` ',\�` 'X` ' `\ � ,r r:, � ' ,`�+~��� q`\\\ C�� ( ' \ ee �`�� l � t \�' t ii� _TA.. � q q �fi ;'�� �j `� ��� Q ��*c�� � i � � �`22 � � �, �s� �'� I �� �� r � �g� �, � � � ... �� , � � �f116�� � � „ a. .��;. t },. - � h t. r. q ._•F� � kr �y � �+�i ' '� � 'x'"�,.,'1:)�C%������'w"s *-'"/x2 .Ir r ,VM�,q 3 ' '`��;'dt�' �" v�a` '�.N,}_�+y�� L,,; 'h . t� tY � � ` i '_ �� i �J i� �'Yg � _ � s ``� . - ,�� � 4F . . ��`� 5 . ... ; � � t � � � �° h ��yr. # � '�`¢ .'�%��.k. ar:'�' � •4 4� _ tj � � ,,���#%��'_i��.� � � "`' 1 ���' �` - �A ^ ± �, � . � �t� � . �y ` 4 � ' �s'��. e ^��i: °z�. � 4 ' �°� e � *� t�,� � ��*a�� t $ t ! �� '°�¢§� 1�� � �� i� r � � J � � � � � �� , � � EXHIBIT � r s � t ' N �8�, � , ��{J�iiii��� ..�ia.� i ti� � y � � ����j�/%� 1 -l{ `\ \\ bt N�f` 5t� ,� `� %i�lJ� � � 1��(!� i� , � �\ � ���N! � 14� I � `� �� �j� �i i ' ` � "`� \\ �'� � '�� � 1111�`�;>>� �"/ \�"`r'�� 1 � � '� � 1 ) 1l ��+,^,,\ 1 ��, f ������ r � � { 1 t �.. .e.i„ --••_ 1 1 j � � =�hy' i _� /t� _♦ t � .... _+-' _...-� r+-� � V � � F � � � � f �h� � A '� �@���! '1� �1. r• ■� `�Ie � " 4 �W � ` "� 1 �` � �' ' ��1� �� j ' �1! s ' x � , ►, � ; w��► : � ; �� g � 9��� � � R��g � �;%��� s � � • ��� § � es ��� i�t � � � ! �� '°�: � � � �� �� � � C� � �� � � � a 7 L � _ ; -�- ATTACHMENT 1 �� X cingu.lar i ra,sing the oar-..i11" Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 300 Reservoir Road, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Project Description Introduction Cingulaz Wireless is a registered public utility, licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As a public utility, Cingulaz Wireless is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless communication services throughout California. Cingular is the second lazgest wireless company in the United States and is dedicated to providing customers with wireless teehnology designed to enrich their lives. Cingular's vision is to simplify the wireless experience for its consumer and business customers by offering easy-to-understand, affordable rate plans and excellent customer service. Cingulaz is bringing next-generation wireless data products - from corporate e-mail to downloadable ringtones - to customers nationwide through its advanced networks. Efforts are currently undenvay in San Luis Obispo County to establish the required infrastructure. Cingular Wireless has retained the services of SRES, to facilitate the land use entitlement process. SRES is currently seeking the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment, use, and maintenance of a wireless telecommunications facility at 300 Reservoir Road, Arroyo Grande, CA. The project site is located on existing City reservoir site that is zoned for public facilities. (See Aerial Photo) , � �� �� �i.� -���'i? �'V"�::54 r'; ' `��� y"' � ^� ��'-�', S�� �s .,: f� )^y t 4 is.�R � �����_i} `i �"� P } �f � 4F ' ���.,�' � . . .�,�>. �� � ' ,� � '�''�'^,- ' � � � `�'�,-�. ��� �i a� �r'�-: t'- �� , � _�q 'i'_'-� - � �� � 4 � —`'�. , '+ ..;'�t-�^ �'s _- � ] `I��� �� k '��� ;z � 'Tnt� 1Rm� � '4k � ' �I .��C �, --�.� r .. -. �. � . ei O�Q @r6!/y �' :�. : EICO�OS d iOV � YiUf W RRO!�R 9L. ' � �_ � _ .* -� °a ,a,' , - : . '�i� � •� ,I � ��� I �, ;��.�r.:�:, ' < ��,. ���=�z"����� ._ - ,.�� � �� .. .' a. ' , .. ' i; I ,�'. as � II I d : � �I .�,��i • � • - 300 Reservair Road,Arroyo 6rande, LA Cingu/ar Wireless i i Background Cingular serves more than 23 million voice and data customers across the United States. A leader in mobile voice and data communications, Cingulaz is the only U.S. wireless carrier to offer Rollover, the wireless plan that lets customers keep their unused monthly minutes. Cingulaz provides cellulaz/PCS service in 43 of the top 50 markets nationwide, and provides corporate e-mail and other advanced data services through its GPRS, EDGE, and Mobitex packet data networks. Wireless communications will continue to change the future of telecommunications with easy-to-use, lightweight and highly mobile communications devices including: portable telephones, computers and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). Wireless communications will provide voice, e-mail and Intemet access capabilities for customer's communications needs virtually anywhere and at any time. THe wireless network being developed by Cingular Wireless differs from typical cellulaz networks in that it uses state of the art digital technology instead of analog systems, which have been in use since the eazly 1980's. The benefits include call privacy and security, improved voice quality, and an expanded menu of affordable products and services for personal and professional communications needs. The Cingulaz Wireless network will eventually feature a locator device that will connect 911 calls to local police and fire departments. In the event of an emergency, specially equipped emergency vehicles will be able to identify a customer's location once a call is received. Project Overview The Cingulaz Wireless is proposing the following: • Install total of twelve (12) antennae, divided equally into three (3) sectors, to be located on top of a 30-foot tall monopine. The antennas measure a maximum of 72.0" high x 10.0" wide x 4.0" deep. The monopine will utilize the highest branch density available, use branches of varying length, and match needle coloration to the surrounding vegetation. . Install nine (9) equipment cabinets on a proposed concrete slab foundation. • Install GPS/E911 antennas within proposed equipment azea. • Install coaxial cable frotn equipment cabinets to monopine to be located within fenced lease azea. • Install power and telco cables in existing conduit from points of contact at the bottom of Reservoir Road. Utilities will be run in underground conduit from stub out points to equipment azea. Once constructed and operational, the communications facility will provide 24-hour service to customers seven (7) days a week. Apart from initial construction activity, a 300 Reservair Raad,Arroyo 6rande, CA Cingu/ar WireMss Cingulaz Wireless technician on a periodic basis will service the facility. It is reasonable to expect that routine maintenance/inspection of the facility will occur once a month during normal working hours. Beyond this intermittent service, Cingulac Wireless requires 24-hour access to the facility to ensure that technical support is immediately available if and when warranted. Overview of Coverage Objective(s) The proposed facility to provide an integral link in Cingular Wireless existing and proposed San Luis Obispo County network and designed to provide coverage along Highway 101 between Branch Street and Brisco Road. The site will also provide coverage to the surrounding residential neighborhood and downtown Arroyo Grande. At present, Cingulaz is experiencing coverage problems as well as capacity problems within the surrounding azea as shown on the attached RF propagation maps. Overview of Site Design/Location Criteria The network of Cingular Wireless cell sites throughout the region is "location dependent," meaning that there is a necessary and logical interrelationship between each proposed site. Eliminating or relocating a single cell site can lead to gaps in the system and prohibit Cingular Wireless from providing uninterrupted or reliable service to customers in a defined coverage area. Further, the elimination or relocation of a cell site will most often have a "domino" effect on other cell site locations and necessitate significant design changes or modifications to the network. In identifying the proposed location, Cingulaz Wireless' network deployment personnel have selected a site that not only meets the technical objectives of RF engineering, but concurrently provides the best siting option with regard to other key criteria that include, but are not limited to: accessibility, utility connections, zoning compatibility, liability and risk assessment, site acquisition, maintenance and construction costs. Alternative Site Analysis The site development team and Cingulaz's RF engineers worked diligently to secure a site that would suit all the team's objectives. We initially submitted an application for a site at 260 Station Way in the downtown core. However, the RF engineers determined that this site would not provide ideal coverage along Highway 101 and was too close to the site proposed at St. Barnabas Church. Subsequently, we looked at providing coverage at a higher location. Once it was discovered that the City-owned reservoir was already stubbed out for a telecommunications facility, no other alternatives were explored. RF propagation studies confirmed that the site was suitable from an RF engineering standpoint. Leasing and zoning teams were also satisfied given that the City of Arroyo Grande anticipated a site at this location. 300 Ruervoir Raad,Arroyo 6rartde,CA � Cirtgulor Wire/ess Site Development Standards and General Plan The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed facility will not create unusual noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed use is consistent with this finding in that: 1. The proposed equipment associated with the telecommunication structure operates quietly or virtually noise free. 2. The equipment does not emit fumes, smoke, or odors that could be considered objectionable. 3. The telecommunications facility is unmanned and only requires periodic maintenance, which equates to approximately one trip per month. The proposed communication facility will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety and the general welfare. The proposed use is consistent with this finding in that: Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan or other land use plans, the location of wireless telecommunications facilities are based on technical requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, alignment with neighboring sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Accordingly, wireless telecommunicalion facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc. proving to be compatible in a11 locations. The existing land uses in the azea aze: Open Space/Institutional to the South; Residential to the North; Institutional (ball field)to the West; and Open Space to the East (see enclosed aerial photos). The proposed facility at the subject location will be unmanned, have no impact on circulation systems, and generate no noise, odor, smoke, or any other adverse impacts to adjacent land uses. The proposed facility will allow commuters and residents withirrthe coverage azea wireless access to the rapidly expanding communications infiastructure by providing voice and data transmission services not currently available. The installation of antenna sectors and transmission equipment will not result in any material changes to the character of the local community. This proposed wireless telecommunications facility will operate in full compliance with all state and federal regulations including the Telecommunications Act of 1996. System Description . Cingulaz Wireless uses a variety of robust and advanced digital technologies to offer you the most choices to meet your individual needs. We use both TDMA and GSM networks in various parts of the country to deliver high qualiTy digital voice, messaging and data 300 Ruerroi�RaaQ Arroyro 6rande,CA Cingu/ar Wirelus products, and Cingular also operates a nationwide Mobitex nerivork delivering packet switched data and messaging service to customers across the country. GSM is the fastest growing wireless telecommunications technology in the world today, and is currently the world's dominant standard. TDMA is the time tested U.S. digital standazd. In fact, Cingulaz's Atlanta TDMA network debuted in the 1996 Summer Olympic Games when it flawlessly handled more than 100 million additional minutes of wireless usage during peak calling periods. Mobitex is the defacto industry standard for wireless data communications with networks operating in 22 countries. It is a packet-switched radio technology that provides always on instant two-way messaging and data delivery. Our core network covers 93 percent of the urban business population in the U.S. The Cingulaz Wireless Mobitex nerivork has been optimized to provide the best in-building coverage and best device battery life available in the industry. When it comes to technology, Cingular is always looking towazd the future. We have already launched trials of the next generation of wireless and voice data networks in some of our GSM mazkets. These GPRS packet networks can carry voice and data at speeds of up to 115kbps. 3G, or the third generation of wireless is just azound the comer, and Cingulaz is leading the way. You will find more information about GSM at GSMWorld and GSMAlliance. For information about TDMA and other wireless technologies, visit CTIA. And, to leam more about Mobitex, visit the Mobitex Operators Association site. Transmit and Receive Transmit power is adjusted to provide adequate coverage and typically is within the range of 100-500 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per sector. Mobile units transmit at 1870-1885 MHz and receive at 1950-1965 MHz. Regulating Agencies Cingulaz is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and is authorized to operate in the frequencies established for PCS operators. Cingular's wireless telecommunication facilities operate at the lowest possible power levels and aze well below established standazds used by the FCC for safe human exposure to radio ' frequency electromagnetic fields. These standards have been tested and proved safe by the American National standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 1. The proposed communications facility will operate in full compliance with the U.S. standazds for radiofrequency emissions as published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANSI was developed by the committee composed of 125 scientists from universities, non-profit laboratories and Federal Health Laboratories (FDA, NIOSH, EPA): 13: aze from the industry and consultants to the 3A0 Reservoir Road,Arroyv 6rom'e,CA Cingukr Wirelus industry: and 15% are from the military and other federal agencies. In 1992, the ANSI established, as a public safety standazd, a maximum exposure level to radiofrequency emissions of 1000 microwatts per centimeter squared (1,000 uW/cm2). 2. The radiofrequency emissions emitted by the proposed Cingulaz Wireless facility will fall within the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum which transmits non-ionizing electromagnetic emissions, at the low levels associated with this type of wireless technology, aze not hannful to living cells. Among the items which result in non- ionizing electromagnetic emissions aze radios, television broadcasts, CB radios, microwave ovens, and a variety of common security systems. Conversely, items which transmit ionizing electromagnetic emissions include ultraviolet light, medical x- rays and gamma rays. 3. Data currently available on the effects of electromagnetic transmission on public health indicate that there is no likelihood of negative impacts to public health and safety. Project Benefits The proposed project will provide the following community benefits. • Altemative emergency response communications for police, fire, paramedics and other emergency services. • Better voice and reception quality through use of the all-digital technology. • Higher security and privacy for telephone users. • More affordable service due to increased competition in the market area. 30i0 Reservoir Road,Arroyro 6mnde, CA Linguhr Wireless � [ . ti"- �E k. 'qvY��,� s ✓,�^;` . t r f ,: 41 ri� r� d . h � '� � 1+� ? ��ry �F �� ; i. i r \ 1 i; � �� x /'� �.. �� /�� . •, � �� � l � e ' � r' + � i � � f.� 4 ��I i f y \ �: �'`, � � � ' ` � r •.t`� �: � ; �- -�' k '� �.._ �. / �, � , . , � � ,� . � t � ,� , , , s :•,� �r ��I ti s , . � ', ' , ``¢ry,� � n��� -L '�, ,�, ` ' + ' �� �' � � � �b��+�i� ��`� -r �� `�„'y�� �*�i�Y . �c� �". _ � f` 'ti � � '��� �4 F �qn A`"�i,� n yri+y,� .,� "'�+.� ' n � � - � � � .� � i�p r'� "'vtql -� w x,✓�e y l�r e�Yu�•.� ^�`y. __ � � } _ s ! .�.l .. y'�! �ji4 ��4"� s y'7 J v'� � � 1 :1 Y ti � � � � �� "�� ��f , x 7 .Fr'�',ra"�'y 1 � I� , � . r /�: �'"�1.Y 4 y I..+ �"W � 4 Y - / Y �� 4 3 4 � � �`i`��'`7y; t7n+w.�1 `�`'-�'�.°y` � t ,.�`� � tvy '� �`7 1�ff s` "� ! r� j'n�s,� �""� � �";�y�+ a r t . P�i `�, h \ 1 1 �.y. .)t ,�v u� �m°,� w�x �,�� {�y .�..w � � L.�fi-4 �,x� f i }�f� . 4 M! �,�ww^.. a 5 "x.. , d �'� it i "��,.� r5� ��: f ,, , ` t�r k�"'� ��{ S1 n. � �z, 1 1 't; Sr �,Y� r ��q�3 ti ti.y.it��t'�,uF `�` ,.o. � y .g.,�t,;�j,''h+S.�1�� � � - � � ia � d a dt� �'`� � � � y �i a "' a' 'x�'. r4 ,�P x��ak+"�_�'"k�a`� \ �. � � � • � �� kFk�S?� �l ?i r> C ��"s��.�,�i M ��F r��tar \�_. �Jl� 4 1 � i - �� �I i j�.�'a4'�� r "� 3`���� � � ' � . '� . y,C+ t � � � � � 7 � � . � . .. : r X,� �'i 4e :5 r� � "c'�'��' �i���y��: �.� � ��' ' ' � � ". � `'� s,� j ��jy'+, °� {�;ta p"p4 � . ��`-f^�,��k�'t��7� e�y�'r ,� f � s � � ' .�' 'r"' �S1` 1� �a{�'l• �� �f ��Fy A�4�P�4w��; pk'{`�h�iq K {-4�5��. x �yV'Y �t�t�µ� .fV ~y "- ��' � � '; �., � . we�'` ` �E ua..r { sh ��r t a q s G�Y:�y'1t*"'^mq"+r . 7 �� 3 �� m7ye�w�YF�}� ' � _-� + �` Y` S�.. r�k+ � �ami ii �s � IfJ �� � J �,�ql C C'� t+ 'k"f'f + t*' r"^„'y-- ' � 1 !� �� �� P } t"t 5 r� �1^ . � �'�' 9' �s c'�.s g;*� � ' ''° �"��;'¢4`2•' �� ��35 '��"'� $ tr ��F �Irt,G�t r.�s•��S��A!� F�tV ��+",r�� ��p, � r tA ''�;- a� .� .� � a �u � �°� ��x�k��ia � a � f}:�a I .s�nf�F�H„t'.�.��ri4�� ?y'�t 4���s�`�+�. fi"�3y�W.q�,r��'"* . A..,� &� ` 3 ,u �{�` � F 2 4 "Y rT�n qm +� x �'�' 1'„�� '�` .�5e T .r e :, k s'�'�`�sT. v�"�,+«7hP^^b �CM� i�Fl �huy t� �i� °��4���t � `�it� qvµ��+^J�J�� � r F�, � �1 i5(Jl r yrn"` � g9p;" p� ;sk`�7"� s "w'ze '3Sb ,w � ^'k� � ��� � ��,;��Y 7.,,,� �r: .u�v,�S..E�t,"`IE��tz'sM1 w�s..,��i:w �*,p+� `5 �,''� \ r.. � n ,yy, 'p� y 0�� �� y+��• 4�➢+v�-n p�l �� � ./1��a�Y � . . � "' aa iv',, P, .h A � f f Y �..!"^Cv �h ,yre a �, { .� , y�5 2 T 4T� 4� � x �� f � F � R ^f� ¢ � �,�! ��� y1 I! 1�$�A.$ M`rv9"Nj}^�r�l k h �{ � y V ' ��s!'��+��'���� r � � ���dca`s� � �� ' ������u� fi�.`��crs. �� ey '� � +t�� . . y p m � 1''.�'�yvY3�' -+�.. �'*��'�.'+�°j 7t.�ry,r"�+�,?� q(y, �t x�„,..�wyrJ���p� �anJt�.a*'�k�y ...-. 4_ � La U ��. � �}, A'.� �"�'*1 . r y S '�v��'��1`�51���+�� �+ ���� C� �4'p+^�=wi"`+� i . �'.. � <r'u� 9 . t 1�'lR'm^r�'�. � % tl `�$�� �G� i 'S� ', k k e "a n � � . � � � ,� i T`+ ,�,�{� ���t� " �i��,a`�$.��-��`�{��� 4 , ,�'.',L� � �: TM����� � 4� � �"`r.. � µ F� `�t �4 �Y� �r ,.�'*�. ra�a ;.n� y�&ad�`k'*���' {SY .�' 1 �� 4' ��� � w ' . � 1 � . n i 'k 5y���" k�. �4 1�,k w S.� },s ,��(� � �� � �������� �� ����£��p��� � � ���� 6���� FN jr h � x 4n , "u� x /,� � � � �V� b /�� l�P�r�t�JJ# � F°*SR�b�3�jX��ty� �H/ f . q '^". .'J btFf 3 � • � • a �, �Y o� .y^r 2 atf � �y r,�4 rjrt t ��s�::.�lY " :!� S�i , . �w� �!� -r -' t`�����+ru"�a s�mz a� f a� N r,� �"� y>. ,� � � t s.S,�uiar` FF °r g��,'`�" i4��,'`�vu°`�+ ' ��d `ka� � t`4 w i�.• � �ns J Z'�'�F> ��4�' y� 4SFk4 ui i'�t� �� n� '.'f r �S1x�k� ..rt �'�Zi"T frv� _ Y� . a z a � �, x� .� h �.StS�p:i A't � t�:`5�� �d-t p p, � �a i'r ^Y`��lY` �"r ti � ,i„� r p+ t J q ��} , ,zil"�/.�a� y aj, p.(� � ° g � d f>' t ��� � e « ��` 4 } ` " ' �g{� " E _ ^.,�. '' � ��=`,���� � � � ' � • � � " � , .._ �` �. � � � :. ' ''; -', _;� � .:, � � �� . � , t w '" —r �z�t ��"i ,• `" �,. � � 5�xr'k� a r ati"+ � yr� � ^� e -. :i .: �t � s . 6 y f t t �s.�J � .� ) : ' J Y f �' 1: S-��• 4, ,f�'a�. . ..� t Y� r l. ( . �) � c a ���' n'� �,. , s, .. . � : .: • �, � ,+� u,yir.- ���� � i '. 3 �V/ �� � ,�'. fi M1 r � . �� - c.r r. ` , � „ti � ;' " ,, +�= , ` � 1 �-1, t �l � � tj � .� � = i > �r �� U � _ � 1 �': .�> '�~ � �\ f � � � :�2 r ��� .. ` t `, ,. ���, \m i p �� i. ♦ r � � Z .� ��:/ `����M�..�� 1 e � �y x ' / � � \ ��.,1 ` � / ,�ef� � � �` r { � - I .' � . ; e f� r . ., � l ! : �,3.� ��.�� � r � � `� ,' v� '�!I: �, � ,: ; '} ` �} ,\ ��\� �, ` � ��„�r� � + 1 � � � � �r� `� � f , � , ' � ",' ' 1 „'"�.^ ,� � k'�' fr � .. �,fiat�q �. �� f.� _ � -f �.� ��y� � ���� '� � ��� �,,��`9"' f �kk*'�� � .' e� ( �' I � '^4.� ,� �� ���a � tb�t` �a'�4."'mY ��^� � i 'M1 s .����x�i"je9��i'� � .aPSV�fQ � � ,�.°7�' C., �� � \ � � 4� s�� � � 6Yxr> '�,it S N"k� 3 s � 3;V � � �'i,t�� FSfs'��"'�.inS��� � �+�� ��,��.y�r'����i t �� , . ,,,,,--, -C�% s ` 4...",��,C,g� E��3.y°a `r}'''�" '�y^ �h`,Y � a'S�tL�' 'IPt, �++ �, /„i' e � �� ... �` ar,e k E 4 t�.`� ."�({A`HA..c in ��ii A �'i � t. ' + w �EAMf h� `...� �.�4" � fr� s� �✓" '"+.��s' Y� d it� k . f i � rt,V�"' nY�k�'�K ir v,�a f < P��T � �vt� ' � r�n 4'7 �l�j5 '�i"�E_"t,i 't2Y r"5r'� �r tt. �?�.ti .F7'& ;� ?��.r 1� �a�,,��y 1 . ����,�` P���t��df . �,p,' �t�.l�i u'M'�s�1 �y���i�'�,�y a`yPyyq� � � �.� ° s �i � z`p� 4{�� 1 �'� �r��� ��d,�� 1'�'is"`�i�',�',�+� �� � � ���y���� �`3�,='�" � � n, �r �fi _ � ' � .t ���'i'Fka " dik $�t, ���.� vS �Nin'�'eH .� . i�� � 2 �. ���, i .y� n s � ,� ���m.�„p, ,��w, n'r�a�i r xt cjty �f x.�'�,�,,F�`` `� p y ? t a+ �d j �F h �t� �'aF 6 '�" Se � jv� �1 iFt� c{. 1 <{1 YS�' :}�4"'^� 4!X r,�f�Af��, lN,�• S£ kAd i�rt S�[� /l � 'n 'P U2S�� � t� .. ��r� �p 3z F �^��i+ +�w4 '` � �'.i»"�e,�.a",4,,,,r�.fi� +' x��d� �6�s . i �� � ,. ,'��' '+.dy r"'L � Y�r $. Y }� d�t -� � � :. a �°� Sw� r `3 5 t ��X n'�� i .#� ft "�M1�'9" �` .�1�s�e �ts y ; .,+ � �' / �.�,�*'� ? 'v a 4-`h,?� �i*�,� �1r ����+•�.ri S��"�, ,.ax'� �,,,`cv p ....-w'`�, �:" ;'§'g,S,'�E�,I�.Y . : 'r, -. �'�r— J+x34 , 3p�� � fF��/ M1 '� Y j„y �5��Ra�tp�a .�.i ��1,�.r.� J--•—�' �t,�. +xt ., y .������ '� r as��'i�^��'t'-'�s1� '7 f�R � �2.'������� �:�2�3�`"��+.����� �Ki7u tiy?t,i(f - � }T j.2+'�! 1 �' iili ,.%4' f�� ..?'u 2�*'fa.a:At � ' ;r t� ��,f�? �rvt yq}� `� �'iilh,�"+ '�'" d;5iyt � u� „+ es'�,rt., tia, it��..r3' r �c, .��� ,��� a ,,iK. .:bTi^) H,X'}� y, R�1�`y �'�(u.'�� x��p � .o�c�Lp�JS�""�". � �l.-il �%� , � � al . � i .G.,.A. T+e�''Y..�'�"� ri�`ti��1 �-ih' "„`+rvw. <tr � �i.�Y��zy�� 4.�'.�>�i77^^4' ��f� ��rl'7,��"i.n .. �� r �� � "-h +. � w� �""�,.^'��s.' jkr+�t '8"�P`&� rh�-,.�i r^v � �"�i��y`i�.r, ,,��[?'�Y ^ v ��i ri � '}�{..a�A� ; � ����s ry �,'�L 4 lY�. 'v�k �'�� ,���1�� �i.'F � a . i�'P C.,4j��P:±i g �r�l §�4 h 'r4��„� � 5 �.. "R�' ��� J� �u: ., ..�,� � °rs�-�'^�Y'..,',�sa,�- 'i$L 'TiJ� � s.�°�t�'� ��'it��r.�-u�'it,`k��s+`rxs}�R,yr��,.tif�' '�\ . s'� $ . 1.� I.." X� 3 � t i k x� 1 , � L�� 1�_ � � �� . ;rC �`KT�R�j S''� i� +1 T��� ��� �^Yi�1 . '� :ir`, �tr w f!�` �e� 4iJ ir'`S<,�w'�La���Tfi.� ��F�.s�'�'' '��� �'��f4r'�'�tf'r 'tx'�� i� y'�,�`"wri+� , yv* Y�.V � �F� �t!. � ���.. � � �r � ��x Y ' s�:+�� nr��k�`�er v i,ia'�'# � a� `C,„ �+r"��.� .,�4 �rro� �. . � r � �,*; h?:s. t�'F�r�n����a��,����*� �u.���»f.m�# s}�e�'4l �th�.tu �t�t1aY,� �,`�� � �1''�.EL `,�fl���t�'e� . � � ,�« fv a c ..� ;�� ,:i .�i1 s jy,�''`W�`*t�' ��� »r .�..r"'�„'�+.�� r�.`� �6. �a�uiz, �t+"�.:�'7e�xvs���4��s�-���`... x ���, i:... 1 i 4 M �. 1 � F S t � J �n�iSK t i�, �N t'}'�i�.i$` vVr im�'41. E in+v! q .x T ... " �tL�'n���4 .�. �jv��r�c ;j 'i,�E�z�`�.'�fi�i�,�Yi�'4 i�y�h a ��' ,�"�,�$e�.�W�T�..�"o��r'i� ., �"� n, rs*a:3 �'i'� � i' 'k.4��>c I ia. r � l� �n r r i �; ,r.a �S � . � w x r� %{..*�c� � ' 3 a.F'� � ti� c r 4�aL � �.iY�`' �Sy r � .+ 4S y���•�w'`Y ts� � �• �; .,�A i'��'(3 L���.n� L� ia.t5�4 f�r �a t>y��� kj+��..�n�J�d'�e°N� 'dV�y 'FY"u.�h}`.t,s`7�1'�"'di�s+i��3�y�tn}����S'S��^ '��`"� � 1. �i M x��.�f��' v� 1� 5'}� ����c.pH ;�'?y! �l �°tr��°n'q� �s� 1 .�T"{�ti! z�rm:^yyy."`°'" � t�„�f1 '� '. �� '� � ..y����p�.;� j p 4.:�< �.�' ay�u�� �t,�^�a�l���..��-� aF6�,?���3�'ft�sk`{.�yS t{."u,w 1+�;�, �+�v�=V��S `«s��'ry�b�"�`��vT +� R g"r",`5.. 9 ^lri+tlk 'h�. 1'. ! 4 f y. �3 �'^� } ���p� c"x!'�.b-"�'� q S m �w7 ttfC.�Vy��v > Y��. itA � ��ti �} JY f��' �y�j�i.�;.� ez °���2'+��d � � L� _ '�u--�,�.,�k Y.��� �li�' � H Fz� �.ti� �Wi��.y r�Vy3«S �C 4 4 �5.����'""i',���"Ci. G fa''�� i.k���"'2�} a '�' � " �n � #^b� �r Y C`� 9 E a�. 4� +. �5� rb�.�' �-^�' fL.r'� t .k�`3.�� a A f ,t ,. � Lo-F-� tL NN, 4y �" n S Y �'�,�[y,.y.,.���� � .3 x • y��y`�, ar.,�r q< <q � �} v�4"w x �'N^vtba�i � f. Y �r��-a' a�, �i����ih,,�5 L�z �� Is��� c "�.?°iYa�'fk,',3�pF'i�.ti,W ;d5. A � / o�,u � 'Y a� ��-.�5> ��� 3t� 4` 7 3,a.��d�1� �Y!r� �r�s� �Yc�C �y � • � C o}S+^ p.�, Y� r�j� t 1 A� � ��45 ��'V 4 . T �"1"��"�`i".��F � Hi .�� s"„3[�}�r.u�' .Yi77r'''�h'3 \ F f T` �K �'�` L z �r �- { n d�.> >�y x �"'d�f�r J �.� �tt tiyRwtil'. `�'� x"Jt1 .t �^t � i}, Y" ♦ 7 s i x L nrm{ti-E1 e1��f a �4iu�.1� Ft.�j S,�$+ift p��� � � , } � l �. y� . � J �c � F�� �v�� �.,. �a N �rg„a� ,� y��,�,"�?�'r �z, ..� _,} r c�,.z� ��� ." ': "1p}� > � N r , r � s ��i � ��u.., �m� � �ai�� �ncv� �����+q�`�'�� ��d�.,ti Ly��l�z �1�b t�^°c"�',?b�.iGY'C �.�' �s�.r'�'i���' r1��7�., A. ,: t ,��i� 4 a r{ +c f � d'v n� � t d y.'�yr � t¢ f e rxt . 5 1;us'�k ri`w° � i � 4 1 7 r x ; � z i L �m '+�"!' Fyh '' h �*h �f '� '�' i t ,�5'� A 5 . �<5s >if � a �t� r Ay ��,n��'�"+� t�,�a-r�d � ��._r+� r > .�^�' �1f , �_� L14�� �:� 4 . � , x . �.\ • � a �A. � � a.v.�'L�'i� x..,x r 1���e'^ 7 '+ 'Y�h,.. e �.. '� �rvi'S� � ' � f,, l i .r^ ca`a'� '�.:i- ai'r:'�. Y.� �t r ., xi y , rc yv � -'�� 3� �y � i :l� �� °'n V:' i SM x=• � v�s i � � � �i � 2 �}�r�,�a,,i� �§> �` t° � fi: �".c v`.: � .i� �``. tR � }t"Yt � H �-S" ' j �t. J � i � � • � • i � '� s �, ti � r r: �. - � n:.4YU't aw*�'t'� ATTACHMENT3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 2Q 2006 Chair Fellows stated he shares the Commission's concerns (except Commissioner Browns') regarding the erosion of the creek on the south east corner of parcel 3 and the City needs to look at this before we can go fonvard. Commissioner Brown asked staff to answer some issues that had come up: � • The creek bank issue re the Garing & Taylor report: he would lik o see some discussion in the staff report on the rate of change of the ero 'on between the time of the report and the present time, to see if it is a real roblem in terms of the amount of slippage. � • Discussion on the sewer easement re the comments ma e by Mr. Deidrichsen.. � • Could staff recommend an idea to solve the issue of creek bank slippage that � would be acceptable to Fish & Game? Commissioner Brown made a motion, seco by Commissioner Ray, to continue consideration of the vesting parcel map, inor exception, and viewshed review to a date uncertain. Mr. Strong advised the Commi ion that the public hearing should be reopened to consider new information and ntinue to a date uncertain. Commissioner Brown a ed to include this in his motion and in addition include a request for some disc ion with the City Attorney on the new information received from Mr. Landsma cifically, that the City could be held liable if the project is approved. The m on was approved on the following roll call vote: AY . Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker and Chair Fellows N ES: None BSENT: Commissioner Tait B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION — 300 RESERVOIR ROAD Rob Strong, Community Development Director, presented the staff report prepared by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, for review of a proposed unmanned wireless communications facility consisting of 12-panel antennas mounted on a 35' tall monopine ; structure and installation of nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab along the ' water tank perimeter road, above Old Ranch Road adjoining the Methodist Camp. Staff � recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. In reply to a question from Commission Brown, Mr. Strong clarified that the monopine is at the south east side of the reservoir not on the west side closest to residents. In reply to questions from Commissioner Ray, Mr. Strong said he was not aware of the amount of revenue the lease agreement would bring to the City and referred this question to the applicant; if approved this site could be available for an additional carrier or carriers. �. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chair Fellows commented that if approved this proposal for a monopine would not be precedent setting as we already have one at a reservoir in Arroyo Grande Chair Fellows opened the pubic hearing for public comment. Tricia Knight, representative for Cingular Wireless, gave an overview of the proposal and stated that the site at the church school was considered, but it would have to be a much taller antenna as it is lower in elevation; in addition, during the undergrounding of Reservoir 1, utilities were actually stubbed up for a telecommunication facility to eventually be installed; the closest residence is 380 feet away; the EMF standards are met (it is 4 to 6 feet from the antennas); a 35 feet monopine was required to allow a natural progression for the top of the pine; the facility is not readily visible from residents located immediately adjacent to the City property along Old Ranch Road and Mecedes Lane; this site was the most logical choice for them to meet coverage objectives. Commissioner Parker asked Ms. Knight what "not readily visible" meant, as residents on Old Ranch Road and Mecedes Lane had written letters complaining about the close proximity to their residences. Ms. Knight stated that "readily visible" meant that approximately the top 15 feet of the monopine would be visible. Commissioner Ray stated that she had concern with the cumulative effect of the exposure of this tower. Ms. Knight stated they are required to prove cumulatively that they are within the FCC Guidelines for radio frequency emissions, but there are grounds re the visual esthetics to decide against approval of an antenna. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Strong clarified that after consultation with the City Attorney he verified that the City cannot regulate on the basis of health impacts as long as the facility is in compliance with the FCC and asked that testimony relating to this not come from either the Commission or the public. Don O'Day, 317 Old Ranch Road, stated if this is approved it will be very difficult to stop any others telecommunication from coming into the City; we will have a monopine forest; the City has not landscaped around the Reservoir as promised; esthetics needs to be considered; this is another attack on their neighborhood. Pamela Hurd, 361 Old Ranch Road, stated there had been a tremendous amount of noise and dust when the reservoir was installed and asked what the noise level will be and who will take care of the dust; the road is very close to her home; how long will it take for the installation to be in place if this is approved. Alan Stevenson 341 Old Ranch Road, stated his house is the closest to the tower; the exposure becomes greater with every tower added; how many years will it be before we find out that the exposure is not what we thought it was; do we really know what will happen in a decade? PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chair Fellows closed the hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • There is an aesthetic issue with this - there is nothing around it that is this height and it will stand out. . • The applicants have stated that they are getting better coverage than expected so they could look for alternate sites that would camouphlage better; she would like them to do this. Brown: • The applicants have only looked at one other option for site location, and he would like to see more options brought forward and especially some private options; he would like to see some discussion of the Methodist campsite which would provide them with much needed revenue and give the camouflage required. • When the City originally subbed the site they may have been thinking of something connected to the tank, not a monopine with no true camouflage around it. • He did not think they have proven their case esthetically. Parker: • Concern with the public comment that states that the City has not put in the foliage around the water tower. • The monopine would be okay if it were mitigated with more pines so we could ask Cingular to do this. • After looking at this site she did not think that Old Ranch Road residents have visual of this monopine. • She could recommend this to the City Council as long as the mitigation is in place. Chair Fellows advised that he believes the Commission is treading on thin ice in their discussion regarding the health effects; he then read from the Telecommunication Act of 1996 stating the following areas of concern: • We shall not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless facilities: Most of us have cell phones and yef we are saying "not in my backyard". . A local government shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable time. So we cannot de/ay it for very long. • We shali put any decision to deny a personal wireless service facility into writing and support such substantial evidence into written record. In his opinion, we cannot do this as we do not have the evidence. • The local government shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC Guidelines for such emissions. He believes there is no such evidence that there would be any danger from this facility. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 . The existing monopine is fairly well camouflaged and he believes this one would be too. • The cell towers need to be somewhere high and this is not close to residential neighborhoods; cell phones are here to stay. Commissioner Brown asked if they have an obligation to approve this because other cell towers have been approved in the City and again stated that all options have not been considered; he urged the Commission to consider that they do have the authority to make a decision on this issue. Commission Ray stated that she would like to see other options considered and if not she could agree with the mitigations requested by Commissioner Parker to camouflage. Commissioner Brown stated concern that the mitigation may take a long time as trees take a long time to mature and asked — could we live with this. Chair Fellows stated that the other options have been explored and Cingular wants to close the gap - other sites may not do this. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue to a date certain to allow time for further discussion between the applicant and staff regarding both public and private locations that meet the applicanYs need and the community's desire to have the most aesthetically pleasing site available. Mr. Strong asked Ms. Knight how long it would take to evaluate alternative locations in the vicinity and also to consider a design alternative, such as a variable height of antenna for difference coverage that would lower the height of the monopine. The next available date certain for reconsideration would be August 15, 2006. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray and Parker NOES: Chair Fellows ABSENT: Commissioner Tait 10:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. C�' mmissioner Brown made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. and to nsi e .A, Administrative Approvals tonight (due to time constraints on some of these), but continue Item II.C. - Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06- 004 & Tentative Parcel o. 06- 3 to the special meeting of July 13, 2006; Commissioner Parker seconded the moti Commissioner Ray expressed concern that Mr. Vasque 'ects have had to be continued several times at prior meetings. i , ' PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 4 MINUTES I AUGUST 15, 2006 � II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION — 300 RESERVOIR ROAD (Continued from 06-20-06 meeting) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued review of a wireless communications facility consisting of 12-panel antennas mounted on a 35' tall monopine structure and installation of nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab along the water tank perimeter road, above Old Ranch Road adjoining the Methodist Camp. Ms. Heffernon explained that the applicant had been asked to submit a landscape plan showing fast growing plants and trees for screening the monopine (mitigation measure). The types of trees would have to be less than 35 feet tall so as not to interfere with transmission. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the conditional use permit to City Council. Staff answered Commission questions. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comments. Gorden Bell, applicant, answered Commission questions, described the prior cell site locations previously considered, and stated reasons why Reservoir No. 1 was the best choice for location of their wireless communications facility. The Methodist Camp was looked at as a possible alternative site, but co-location would not be possible at this site. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. Commission comments: Tait: • There should not be any visual problem, especially at the proposed height. • MM 13.2 should be revised to state "that the bark be extended the length of the monopine. • This facility is needed and it will be placed at an appropriate location. Parker: • She suggested language be added, under aesthetics, to clarify on the regular checklist that the screening can and will be mitigated by the planting of landscaping (to address neighborhood concerns). • This is the best site for the monopine structure as this is the least obtrusive of all the sites available. • MM 13.5: There should be fast growing trees around the monopine and the water tank to screen the impact to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Brown: • He understands the concerns of the neighbors in terms of the height. • The Economic Development Element of the General Plan requires the City to do what they can to encourage businesses in the community to become successful. The City is missing an opportunity to keep the Methodist Camp in the black and keep this beautiful site from turning into development. The information provided by the applicant on the alternative sites is old. IPLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2006 � Ray: • Her prior concerns have been addressed regarding whether enough sites have been looked at. • Given the major differences in monopine height and the possibility of having co- location at this site, it is the best choice compared to the alternative site locations. Fellows: • The proposed site is the furthest away from any domicile, not near any school or church. • It will only be 35 feet tall. • He is okay with it. Commissioner Ray made a motion to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013. Commissioner Parker requested the following be included in the motion: 1. MM 13.5 - Fast growing trees around the monopine and fhe water fank to screen the impact. 2. Keep the height of the monopine at thirty-five feet to enable possible co-location in the future. 3. The changes on the Mitigation Negative Declaration should also be included under aesthetics, regarding possible incompatible use and change of visual character, that can and will be mitigated. 4. MM 13.2: Should to state: "the plans shall show simulated bark placed on the total length of the monopine". Commissioner Ray agreed to include the four items in the motion. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 06-2009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013, APPLIED FOR BY CINGULAR WIRELESS, LOCATED AT 300 RESERVOIR ROAD The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Brown ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 15th day of August 2006. � � • • • • � • . • • • � � ' , - . — + �` -w „ .. � '.. ,',:t' " wFF.�ra ;��' " -.. . 4 �..: ' ' +-.. ' •' "- a#, ' �''.� t • :;�,aR^'M s�•,. �, � -.. �.!*�. �:V . -'Sr .. �c,.` � , i �.. �� � a�,'.d3 zr; '�". 1R`,¢ � � �: •N� .p �.�q l�, � A � _�� � � . ;° . �� s' ^�d.�aQ'4 • . �, . , .' rl�. ". �y� ��� . ����. "� µF� � �f ;.. �t • 1�,� �'� � 5 „�"Y a r� ' ?� i� � .., �" �, � � y ��e r �� t f. ' � " '�3�„ �, � . '��j� �r`�� � � ,,# <� .r ' ` .•' � ' , 'h' • e�f � '•y � �' � � ����� � T p . t d B � v � k r`�.. '�'0 . ;1 V� �' } �.��� �, e i� y,0" 5,��� -+y,. .,,� ' �� ,f",' �" � d' �.. �`` . � a�, � , �� .'� � �; � �t. . f ... ' ,y �� �• . � � .... �.,_ . . �' . k • . ^+ ` +fii � ' , -.�i . "4' ,y . .�. �. — �, � �� . q� ` ^� , . x: -,� �', s �r r m� t, i ' o � � . 8a... y sti L ��.�° , � ., � ° pa � � . n. ". 3 � �(.9 �j�� ,. „ ¢�OGh Rd ,,�� ��- � '"� �'!! ti �b� t+ e1± s y ��'� 4 C �r� S .� �f��P �� �1^S' M �� O� �. 4 k�. � ��I�1� . v � n � � eist �i' � "� ,.4�+95�.."I �� ..- ��� �'�"i� t'. � � TOG507 �. � , � w�` ` ilton � � 4 � � � �P � Y�� ��_ � � 5 ""`'Sr E �{, � ' _ l I�`, �,*y � k� , � � . . .. ,. • � �� � , f � �� a ,'�. � 5�, w+�.. e ,.> �" `�'�� ._ `° ..���r�- St ��2008 N ivteq ����yr e��° _ , � � ' . � �� ~ � 4� .:�" ' �- '��':. 0200 ur p T ehnalople� ' � ." � �• ". ` � ' ; °.. ��'��. ....� - imepe �2 06 DI Itel61o6�^ =� ,. . '* µ � rr:. Po�nte,r,�35.O7B2"'I7 N f2D�34'64�73:,W, ete v�22 fta,,. S1ie�1�Oj��� j� (�',�<.400% �Eye eit 3612if Photo Showing Potential Locations � Relative Height Proposals from Traific Way r � ; � ExistiuU Proposal-35 feet Idr.thndist r awp-Woiild be lu heigltt.m:ry be reAnceA � visilrle L om suu ouudiuy Chwcti,5chool � by5feetoiso fdethodistCamp-LOCNeJ iesideucestotlieuoitli AnernatNe- aAjace�rt to exisliug anA tlie east,would neeJ To be located aJjace�M to �esiAences,belYnJ oak n ees, app�ox.65-75 feet to"see" adminkhurchlxilding- ueed50-55feetto"see"ovPi overReservoiiHillio 75-80Tee1needeAto tieesanAbacktoHighway Hi��l�w�ry 101 � clear existinfl trees anA 101 3 i�rto Aow�OOwn a�ea "see"back iirto Aow�rtow��atea - �,- i •_ ' r I }` _ � V. i � _ �'s � r �� � _ �..� , .-. . y .; ...�:.. : ' �. y' a f r. ` A � mna�fi��.N'R» • :. � an �.y �.. i�� ```�- Y@�;�c+�p-,ba;-s' , d" `�v�:fiT' , �" ���;: z"; = .',ic . ��,.. ..« . , u .., ,.� . . . .�_ ,�,,.. � ����,� � . _,� I Photo Showing Potential Locations � Relative Height I Proposals from Rodeo Drive ,:�,��,���,���,,,,� Anei u.nNe- Tn Le located oJ�.lceirtlo � aAwi�vchurch b�ulAing- 75-801eetneeAedto �.ieii���dist�-amu-w„idd be deai existiu9 t�ees anA visiLle O om sm i onudin�� ..see"back Gqo �lowitlowu d�ea �esidences to t0e north auAthe east.woulA need I.�etl�„disi cawp-�oc.ned .l�l�lt ox.65-75 Teet t0"SP,P." d���dCeid tu exisllOtJ nvei Reservoii Hilltn �esiJences.beluudoakt�ees, ExistiugPioVosal-351ee� Wqlrw.lY'��'� ueed 50-55 feet to°see'over � iu helplrt,miy be reAUwd � ', n ees aud Uack to Hiqliw.ry bY 5 feei o� so 101 8 iuto dnwutuWli aiea '. -W, � � � � ' r .sH' . 4'Ef. � ..,•_ I '�4 �,.�,� w�,� .i�� .�� � . + * 1 }� rK • 4, � ' .... . . . �;..�, � . ���,�y�j�_� ..,m ...... `.'�X��+T4Yf:�§�:.�r t. . � <Y.u.. .:a . . __� _ ...., � . �. . � � ., : p , . - lw+�a�t�tyq . '�. �-. �� . �. , . � wc"'" . _ ,�,ti" �IF�, �.,a. � . . "�i' � A- y �l�,,a , � ,* N . .. .. . � � ' �. � .ti. e a' d ,;. ; -�;,.,�- ,�� . .. `+ "Y•x... ..� :4. ... , `. f ATTACHMENT6 I I � pRROYO ° �P � INCONPOH�TED 92 I ° ° NOTES - ` ` � JULY 10. 19H * oq `P STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC) <�FORN DECEMBER 15, 2005 1:30 P.M. STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Community Development Director; Chief Building Official; Fire Chief; Police Commander; Public Works Director. ROLL CALL: Victor Devens, Public Works; Rob Strong, Community Development Director; Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner; Johnathan Hurst, Building Official APPROVAL OF NOTES: The notes of December 1, 2005 were amended then approved. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: — Public may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda. PROJECTS: II. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — CINGULAR WIRELESS; LOCATION —300 RESERVOIR ROAD. Project Planner— Kelly Heffernon. Description: Review of proposed unmanned wireless communications facility consisting of 12-panel antennas mounted on a 30' tall monopine structure and installation of nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab along the water tank perimeter road, above Old Ranch Road adjoining the Methodist Camp. /ssues: Community Development . Need to negotiate lease agreement (applicant may be required to help pay for cost of improving access road and installation of conduits). . Cabinets should be painted gray to match/blend with the water tank. Building and Fire . Conform to building and fire codes. . Fire Lanes needed. . Security Key vault required. Public Works Department . Zero Conflict with City's Communication — Prior to issuance of building permit; perform MS study to determine possible conflicts with the City's communication system, and to develop alternatives to eliminate any such conflicts. Prior to activation of the proposed Cellular system, perform a live radio test to ensure no unanticipated interterence with the City's radio system. If proposed system does interfere with the operation of the City's communication system, the proposed system shall remain inactive, until such time that the proposed system can be made to cause zero interference. NOTES DECEMBER 15, 2005 PAGE 2 . The applicant shall install a multi-lock system on both access gates to the reservoir. . The applicant shall replace any new landscaping installed as part of the Reservoir No. 1 Replacement Project that is displaced as a result of this construction. . The applicant shall slope the cabinet pads to drain to the asphalt road surrounding the reservoir. . The applicant shall design all facilities as to allow future co-location at the site. s. TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 05-004; APPLICANT – S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST, INC.; LOCATION - PARKSIDE, TRACT 2310-2. Project Planner – Kelly Heffernon. Description: Review of a request for a one-year time extension for Tract 2310-2 (expired November 25, 2005). ' /ssues: Community Development . Phase I has recorded—Time Extension is for Phase II. . 16 out of 65 units affordable—this complies with most current affordable housing requirements. . No additional conditions required. IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/STAFF COMMENTS: i� CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE SAC RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: VI. ADJOURNMENT: i � , ARC NOTES i MAY 1, 2oos � ATTACHMENT 7 i PAGE 2 i I� ) B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-013; APPLICANT — Cingular Wireless; REPRESENTATIVE — Gordon Bell; LOCATION — 300 Reservoir Rd. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report. Gordon Bell, SRES representative, spoke in support of the project, noting the monopine would only be seen from Downtown, as the water tank blocks the view from the other side. The simulation is done by taking the digital photo of the site with a 25' pole and scaling the tree from there. ARC had the following comments and questions: • ARC discussed alternatives like just doing a pole with antennas. • Color matching of faux pine needles with existing pine trees on project site is very important. . Is there a minimum distance from residential zones? Yes, and that is met. • Mr. Scherquist expressed concern about the height and views of the monopine. Amy Miltenberger moved and Michael Peachey seconded recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission for CUP 05-013 with conditions described in SAC notes: Motion approved: 3-1 voice vote; Gary Scherquist dissenting. (Chair Hoag arrived at 3:15 p.m.) C. ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT CASE NO. 06-010 and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CASE NO. 06-001; APPLICANT — Buttons N Bows (Eddie EI-Helou); REPRESENTATIVE — Robin McDonald, Avila Sign and Design; LOCATION — 122 E. Branch Street. Intern Brian Soland presented the staff report. Eddie EI-Helou, business owner, spoke in support of the project. ARC had the following comments and questions: • They were concerned that the size was larger than the sign code allows. • The sign seems "busy" — changing the.stripes to a solid color would help. • Ms. Barneich expressed concern that it didn't fit the Village Design Guidelines and didn't fit with the historic feel to the Village. Warren Hoag moved and Amy Miltenberger seconded recommendation of approval to the Community Development Director for ASP 06-010 and CDBG 06-001 with the following changes: • The background shall be a solid color instead of stripes. • The size of the sign shall be reduced to fit completely inside an "imaginary box" measuring 34 square feet. Motion approved: 4/1 voice vote; Kristen Barneich dissenting. , ATTACHMENT 8 i CIt�/ Of ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 2001 A��o o G��nde Resolution No. 3569 Y _ �°�� ,; TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES SITING and PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS I. SITING REQUIREMENTS The following requirements are intended to assist telecommunication service providers and the community in understanding the City's standards and permit process for such facilities. The goal is to balance the needs of wireless communication providers, the regulatory functions of the City, the rights guaranteed by the federal government, and the potential impacts upon the community and neighboring property owners in the design and siting of telecommunication facilities. A. General Requirements: 1. Telecommunication facilities shall avoid any unreasonable interference with views from neighboring properties. 2. No monopoles or towers shall be installed on top of an exposed ridgeline or prominent slope when alternative sites are available. 3. Telecommunication facilities shall be painted color(s) that are most compatible with their surroundings. 4. Innovative design shall be used whenever the screening potential for the site is low. For example, designing structures that are compatible with surrounding architecture, or appear as a natural environmental feature, could help mitigate the visual impact of a facility. 5. Telecommunication facilities are discouraged on any property with a Residential land use designation. 6. The City lists the placement of facilities in the following preferential order: Telecommunication Facilities Sfting Requiremenfs and Checklist, November 2001 Page 1 � _ _ __— ._ . _ '_._ __ — a. Side-mount antenna on existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.) when integrated� into the existing structure, completely hidden from public view or painted and blended to match existing structures; b. Within or on existing signs to be completely hidden from public view; c. Atop existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.) with appropriate visual/architectural screening to be completely hidden from public view; d. Alternative tower structures (or stealth structures), such as man- made trees, clock towers, flagpoles, steeples, false chimneys, etc., that camouflage or conceal the presence of antennas. e. Existing monopoles, existing electric transmission towers, and existing lattice towers; f. New locations. 7. The City encourages co-location of telecommunication facilities, but only if it results in a lesservisual impact. B. Requirements for Buildinq Mounted Antennas: i 1. Building mounted antennas and all other equipment shall be in scale and architecturally integrated with the building design in such a manner as to be visually unobtrusive. 2. Colors and materials shall match the existing building. � 3. All equipment shall be screened from public view. 4. Building mounted antennas and all other equipment shall avoid any unreasonable interterence with views from neighboring properties. C. Requirements for Monopoles and Towers: 1. Monopoles and towers may be considered only when the applicant reasonably demonstrates that the proposed facility cannot be placed on an existing building or structure. 2. Substantial landscaping or other screening stiould be provided to visually buffer any adjoining residential uses from the potential visual impacts of the facility. Landscape screening should be designed to achieve its desired appearance in a reasonable period of time. Telecommunication Facilities Siting Requirements and Checklist, November 2001 Page 2 3. For monopoles or towers proposed within 300 feet of residentially zoned property, the facility should be set back at least 50 feet or the height of the facility, whichever is greater. Otherwise, the standard setback for the applicable zoning district shall apply. II. PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Any new telecommunication facility proposed within the City of Arroyo Grande is subject to review and approval through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The applicant shall submit the following additional items and information (unless waived by the Community Development Director based on written justification provided by the applicant) along with the standard CUP application materials. The following list of requirements will be used to check your application for completeness after it is submitted. If your application is not complete, a copy of this list, and/or the CUP checklist, will be returned to you with additional requirements noted. A. Site Information: Submit a site plan, Assessor's Parcel Map(s), or a recent aerial photo that clearly illustrates the following information: 1 . The lease area of the proposed project. 2. The lease areas of all other facilities on the parcel where the proposed facility is located. 3. Property boundaries of the site and the legal lot. 4. Location of all habitable structures within 500 feet of the proposed facility with the distance from the proposed antenna facility to the closest structure clearly marked. B. Technoloqv Information: 1 . A written description of the type of technology and type of consumer services the carrier will provide to its customers. 2. An explanation of site selection (reason the site was chosen over alternative sites). 3. An explanation of the need for the proposed height, strength and direction of signal, and type of antenna proposed (i.e., panel, whip, dish). Also include a description of all accessory structures/equipment requested as a part of the proposed antenna facility. 4. Detailed engineering calculations for foundation wind loads. C. RF Exposure Information: The City of Arroyo Grande requires the same information submitted to the FCC regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions with any application to establish a new or expand an existing communication facility. If the application pertains to co- location, or to an additional facility on a parcel, a cumulative emissions report for the site is required. The City of Arroyo Grande requires the information pursuant to its responsibility, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine cumulative environmental impacts for all permitted projects. Telecommunication Facilities Siting Requirements and Checklist, November 2001 Page 3 1 . Provide copies of documents submitted to the FCC, including environmental impact information, showing that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively (if appropriate), is in compliance with FCC adopted standards for RF emissions for the facility type (i.e., PCS, Cellular, Earth Satellite Facilities). Include a one-page summary in simple, easy to read terms, demonstrating said compliance. D. Co-Location Information: Co-location is defined as the coincident placement of telecommunication carriers' antennas on the same tower or antenna-mounting structure. The principal benefit from co-location is that fewer towers are needed to serve a given area, thereby reducing the overall visual impact of towers on a community. The City encourages the co-location between carriers, or the use of existing towers wherever possible to discourage the unnecessary proliferation of towers. The City also encourages the design of new towers which allow for future co- location whenever feasible. Applicants proposing to site the antenna(s) must demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to locate the antennas(s) on existing structures. 1. If not co-located, provide information pertaining to the feasibility of joint- use antenna facilities, and discuss the reasons why such joint use is not a viable option or alternative to a new facility site. This includes written notification of refusal of the existing structure owner to lease space on the structure. Include information on lack of existing towers in the area, topography, frequency or signal interference, line of site problems, and available land zoning restrictions as applicable, E. Visual Impact Information: The following information provides staff with criteria for determining the significance of project visual impacts for CEQA purposes. 1. Submit a preliminary environmental review with special emphasis placed upon the nature and extent of visual and aesthetic impacts. 2. Submit photo mock-ups or digital computer representations of the project site "before" and "after" installation. Physical samples of facility materials and/or a three-dimensional model may also be required. Show the proposed tower, antenna(s), equipment shelters, and any landscaping or screening proposed to lessen the visual impact of the project. 3. Submit information regarding the location of existing towers of the same, imil y desi n as the ro osal facilit located within 100 miles of Arro 0 or s a g p p y, Y Grande for viewing purposes. 4. If the project site is located within '/2 mile of a public road, residence, public park, public hiking trail, or private easement open to the public, or if visible from such areas, show the proposed project site from multiple vantage points. Multip/e viewpoints will require an index map and key for identification. Telecommunication Facilities Siting Requirements and Checklist, November 2001 Page 4 5. Provide a sample of the proposed color of the tower in the form of a minimum one square foot paint sample, and explain the reasons why that color is best for the location proposed. 6. Describe the type of landscaping proposed to screen the facility to the maximum extent feasible, or the reasons why landscaping is not necessary or feasible. 7. Proposed communication facilities should not be sited on ridgelines or hilltops when alternative sites are available. If a ridgeline location is proposed, submit written justification to the Community Development Director. If no alternative site exists, the communications facility must be located to minimize silhouetting on the ridgeline and must blend with the surrounding environment to decrease visibility from off site. 8. At the time of permit renewal, any major modification to the existing permit, or change-out of major equipment, the permit site and existing equipment shall be reviewed for consistency with changes in technology that could substantially lessen visual impacts. If the Community Development Director determines that a change in technology would substantially lessen the visual impacts of the facility, or if they would result in a substantial benefit to the public, the permitee may be required to make those changes. 9. If there is a change of lessee, information regarding the type of technology that will be used by the new lessee shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) days of that change. If the transfer would require any changes to the facilities approved in the original CUP, an Amended Conditional Use Permit application must be submitted. The new lessee shall use the most current technology available if it would substantially lessen visual impacts of the site, and if it would result in a substantial benefit to the public. 10. Describe if the proposed facility is intended to be a "Coverage" or "Capacity" site. F. Antenna/Site Capacitv Information: 1. Submit information on the total antenna capacity for the proposed antenna tower and any other structures for the proposed project. This information may be used for future co-location of antennas from other companies. 2. There shall be a maximum of two towers per assessor's parcel or , developed site. Telecommunication Facilities Siting Requirements and Checklist, November 2001 Page 5 ' � ATTACHMENT9 �c cingu.lar \ ra�sing the bar•.�dl' Letter of Justification 1. The proposed conditiona[use wil!not be detrimental to the public health, safety or weljare, nor be materia!!y injurious to property or imp�ovements in the vicinity; Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan or other land use plans, the location of wireless telecommunications facilities are based on technical requirements which include service azea, geographical elevations, alignment with neighboring sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Accordingly, wireless telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc. proving to be compatible in all locations. The proposed facility at the subject location will not be detrimental to the chazacter of development in the neighborhood for the following reasons. It will be unstaffed, have no impact on circulation systems, and generate no noise, odor, smoke, or any other adverse impacts to adjacent land uses. The proposed facility will allow commuters and residents within the coverage azea wireless access to the rapidly expanding communications infrastructure by providing voice and data transmission services not currently available. The installation of antenna sectors and transmission equipment will not result in any material changes to the chazacter of the local community. This proposed wireless telecommunications facility will operate in full compliance with all state and federal regulations including the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 2. The proposed conditiona[ use is compatib[e with existing and juture uses to the eactent those are known, and wil!comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance...; ' Since their introduction, wireless telecommunications systems have proven to be an invaluable communications tool in the event of emergencies (traffic accidents, fires, etc.) and natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc.) where normal land line communications aze often disrupted, overlooked, or inaccessible during and after an event has occurred. This service and similaz technology aze utilized by numerous governmental and quasi-govemmental agencies that provide emergency service. Wireless telecommunications systems, including cellulaz telephones, have also proven to be invaluable tools in business communications and everyday personal use. In this sense, wireless telecommunications system networks aze desirable in the interest of public convenience, health, safety, and welfaze, and thus are proper in relation to the development of the community. The proposed project will/does not incur automobile use nor pedestrian access. 300 Reserwir Road,Arroyo dmnde,CA Cingular Wire%ss 3. If the proposed Conditional Use Permit afjects land located within the coastal zone, the proposed conditional use will comply with the provisions ojthe land use plan of the Certified Loca!Coasta[Program This project is not located within the coastal zone. 4. Based upon information available at the time of approval, adequate uti[ities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities exist or will be provided to serve the proposed use. This project will have adequate utilities provided to it by the existing building that it will be located on. 3A0 Reservoir Road,Arroyo 6mrtde,CA Cingu/ar Wire/ess I � � �ATTACHMENT 10 ; Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. VN0197-03) 300 Reservoir Road •Arroyo Grande, California Statement of Hammett 8 Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingular Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. VN0197-03) proposed to be located at 300 Reservoir Road in Arroyo Grande, Califomia, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for fieid strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age,gender, size,or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Anprox Freau� Occuoational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cmz Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 3�300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called"radios" or "channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless sigials created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coalcial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services,the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so aze installed � HAMMETT&EDISON,INC. S CONSULTINGENCWEERS CG19703570 snN eanNC�sco Page 1 of 3 Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. VN0197-03) 300 Reservoir Road •Arroyo Grande, Califomia at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies,reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse squaze law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Cingular, including drawings by Omni Design Group, Inc., dated October 25, 2005, it is proposed to mount twelve Andrew Model DBXLH6565A directional dualband antennas on a new 35-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree, to be constructed at 300 Reservoir Road in Arroyo Grande. The antennas would be mounted in three groups of four at an effective height of about 33 feet above ground and would be oriented toward 0°T, 140°T, and 280°T, to provide service in all directions. The ma�cimum effective radiated power in any direction would be 400 watts, representing two PCS channels operating simultaneously at 200 watts each; there are proposed no transmissions at cellular frequencies. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby. Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the proposed Cingular operation is calculated to be 0.0013 mW/cmz, which is 0.13% of the applicable public Iunit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at the second-floor elevation of the closest building' is 0.21% of the public exposure limit the maximum level at the second floor of the closest residencet is 0.049% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. �' Located approximately 225 fee[away,based on aerial photos from Terraserver. t Located approximately 535 fee[away,based on aerial photos from Terraserver. HAMMETT&EDISON,INC. ti CONSULTWGENGINEERS CG19703570 SAN FRANCISCO Page 2 of 3 Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. VN0197-03) 300 Reservoir Road •Arroyo Grande, Califomia No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they aze to be mounted on a tall pole, tfie Cingulaz antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Cingulaz will,as an FCC licensee,take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is requ'ued near the antennas themselves. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Cingulaz Wireless at 300 Reservoir Road in Arroyo Grande, Califomia; will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore,will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The lughest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is`�much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. � Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding Califomia Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676,which expire on June 30, 200Z This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own laiowledge except, where noted,when data has been supplied by others,which data he believes to be correct. Q E _ P� � ��,'3" E-t3oae ��� , • '- • � n M-20878 William F. Ha , P.E. December 13,2005 � �'�07 * 'r!',q ��p�P�� ��F CA HAMMETT&EDISON;INC. CG19703570 � CONSULTING ENG[NEERS . . snN FxnNC�sco � � � Page 3 of 3 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,"published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed)up to five times more restrictive: Frequenc� Electromaenetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable Elec[ric Magne[ic Equivalent Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Densiry I (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) � 03— 134 614 6!4 L63 1.63 I00 100 L34— 3.0 614 813.8/j L63 2.l9/f I00 180/f 3.0— 30 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.l9/f 900/f 180/� 30— 300 61.4 17.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300— 1,500 3.54�f 1.59ff �f/106 fj/238 f/300 j/lS00 I,500— 100,000 I37 67.4 0364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 � Occupational Exposure 100 PCS � �y�� 10 �� Cell o � 3 � FM w Q £ 1 � � �� � �' f ♦ � � 0.1 / Public Ex osure 0.1 1 10 100 103 10° 105 Frequency(MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However,neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hauunett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangulaz grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT&EDISON,INC. FCC Guidelines V CONSULTWGENGINHERS SAN FRANCISCO , F1gUiC I RFR.CALC�' Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required(1996 Telecom Act)the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and aze intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,regardless of age,gender, size, or health. Higher levels aze allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 2 I 1) D >� 2) D>Sh 3) D > 1.6�, where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and �, = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the neaz field zone about an individual RF source: 0.1 x P power density S = 1� x n x D xnh ' in mW/cm2, where OBH, = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the faz field of an individual RF source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFFZ x ERP power density S = , in mW/cm2, 4x tcx Dz where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation,and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of ' power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven tenain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT&EDISON,INC. �e TM CONSULTNIG ENGINEERS Methodology SANFRANCISCO Figure 2 ��� ��,nd :.( '�ffi ek°:.f%�. � w����. �FS.. €..r�. .�-:�id.�.� "^ea.,u �� K t �( � �: � �[i �t° kn � vt 1'.. � - ��� _ � R ��'� �f' � 4�� � I ., m yu �,,v.� ..,�y� � , � �' � r t;��°$��r�°� z � � � � �Po � Y E � £-� �a k a �' t�m.d; �h�'�j�.�.� '� r� I� � -'nr�' . � t `,�'� � u P �� `*�re: ��a �� . r a , �l�v� t ;'� �,„�, ' '� : u�t° . � � e Fs'caalen CAr �� 'n� Mp � ��'r-fi: i �t�i�� � ° rt���I'*a,�''"`"d�"'w?� �� s� +�"' �,�Zy� '� �� �� . y ,� � , . � %� tr:' , �,¢ ��*e � � ��s �'��� a- � � Fy�+ ' � �`m'�v� �5 �rt a ���r '"E�;3`} �s � k°'°kr'��$ ���F xtu�W�a�-saa''��9�' �€� �4 � � ��i��.. *;'".�4#�� f i' . �",: ,#� ; �..,t �� � t'7� .,°" '$� � � ��'#p �!. �{�'� �{��('��+���y ,��� ���� � �,��•�� � � � �� � i��i� 'w � �fi � � r � � " � ka ""�4"I ,�.'t i:��+ �h k?�`��^ d°� °S..'� �.�A '� �. � � � . : Y r`� � '� r 2 �? � * '�� � . � ;!a' ' � ^�. FP' °�'� � � ��'�'j!..�'��F � �� t� � � ���. �{ .x � ��� ,�a � �� ��`�r�ir F <. � # �-4� �,�,x��i�o ��� � F,� a� r i �5: �d r . 'j�. ,,�,�' � + � `4 � �"�. v. �Fr � � v. �dR g y a : . f Y � ,� yY°,�I�4� �.x' 4 } . f} �t�.Y �B�i.d �� � � �`�� uw y�'t� ✓p v r° . ,b °. � �v.,�,,!�� .�,�..9�� ¢ '�� 7+7i ��:�� ,k �.a.�t P� Q°�� y �.. � � �k � 3 �. �r�. � � v �„-a..,"��� �� � ,�= ,�i 5 s„x �,.� ,�i�� Y ��' ���2x�°.}+.;� �-�,.'� ������`�. 4 �;��� ��,� �� ���r�� ! r� � r � F 4�� u Y �. � � �.� � �' ,�y, �. 9a� "� � � t i r�.�.,r � -. ' � � .:.� r f e �n�r � �''��`�''z �u� � �'�5� �t�i r ���r`" : � r't d' '�v�' �� � .�s�`p£��.� �#���ka � ; � t -�`r t� y, ' �: a @�� �ti » J g k' � ,`�ts �i� �,�uF 3*� :aE 'ra 1# �P' ° Yr A�,i w �� �'a+ � ,�., �, p � � � ' � �� r z �,d h { ��." t� ,� J 4�,"�yn�?- � �4$ �i ?; �' E . . ..ixf�.�-, � y .� '� �adiY '�i 1� ,� w����,� � �.. ��i�;e � m�a �3 E �'� � . k i .�. .i� y � � �, {. � ° �4v .r2" i .�. � s�;*d`= � . i: �a� '� � '�'� i � ` �?� � � t`�" r� �-f =zs+ y i Y d;! �i , .�4v�'' � �r �, . ¢ �?eh.���`��,'�� ��! N `� `�" v. F� P � i�'#' " lti a � �.x'��: ! '��r �"�a� . � x �I i� s ?.� � v d M ar .a " -�r „�� i � '� �v�F �� � , es <r ��!Al4h���� ��i�� � � � ���� �' . ���"„�,w, �..� }..�8 ' +E � r 3 "` ��� a�'� � .. � 4 � ' * ��`- ��� _ �` � � �o- ,� . Eu - "� a � ��� I� «= b ,+ E� � � ys8� "'+ rv �Y ; � � � �+."."'�. �t C` �' "� ` � ''ae��"'' "� ,,y � � � 4� i a � -.:, -� 't'z w�� � � o ��'. �_ "�` � 4 4 �t � � ,M, p,. ,� �5�"'' „� h s q{j61��F' � i ��C . , � !S'.� � , ,s 'Ps,k�s,fy�� t�- �'1° �" �'�^ 'w„„w..y� �Y t����,�� ��� ���������i�� �� 1 "�`�rf � �4�.. '�k� � ,�€�,.q`��'� `' ' .�I 3 ei R 3- � �� �:: j-' "'����c�"�TM=.�, �' b �3 .-�y.,; �'JABt��Ch� f :;s�x�$,.�`� �"� °"�.-we �� � �4 '��i �.i n'- �" �, . ��."�^«� �: . �. �� rsy 4 � '�F 9 .0 a �v ��� ° � . a" .a �. � '^.. �� �. .} � �'��� o- 4. a F�r, ��i�'� �' � :. € v �� �y : �m.�, T . .a n�y�,. �g '�� � x `� .��`".,,A t'�.y � � .t rn ,�ke,y �,.�+ y ;'�? � �' i��^ aa s� xi � '�9 . + � ,� � «tae � °4����`x !. � `h �. "+*a- � '! r t� � If ,. e= * ��'b t �d.r'�,���sL C�f� �9t : r2 i.� � r ^w.y"°my.} �� a4 ��'za.F� � � `� �� �.. � �•- n .� " ': •"�, .: ,�+" Y " �°w.°"w, w, "o . � s 4 fyt A„Vft .i K•s�.% 6` ,.Jt�r° '� � : "'*,�� r�t xu.�-`i ;�`e;§ 3 � '°� � � � d� t� �d s G' �` . k�'�' �k" �� '�{ 4 ���,�4 � � � , �,.a � E Z9Q6 Na�ir�q °°�+k,G, ��� ,�� ����-� ak�° '4j°-�^�E�yfl,Al r } � 2� �+ �, w�9,0�� , �j5"'* °'� "„"1 � �'� 5�°�� � •qryti + 9� b �� w l }� H" � :rP� f =�3 U �L �,�t"`�� r �,s�+ a � a� �.y . .,�A �-��%!" Inta})e �5 �C10&.DfglletC'i`4tte �,t �'"' ""m. � ...,, c ���� � . ` ' � #'�h '�..,.,�� � �€��`� �.. ;'� � �� ,.� �' �� �, ,b��+ ' .. �E *r . �x r# ; {�'yu�., � � . P6iCitef 36 09.�26 OT `f'� �z1�0, 35i02+83_�W ��.UINV 2Q0'{f ''�r. $ItBUiillli 90CN°t �: "' ��E Ei��ti1„',r. 31t78 ft .'�. 1.�� a_�_.. .�__... �e.��. . _ �._ _ . ,.__ � ...._ _..__,..... � '� � .w,. �._ .�s II�IIIIIIIC�._�__�.a,�,.�...y..Y,� _. .� ��_ ,. . . . . . . . , - , :, , ��, ��°:.��<: ��.�� � r�'`. % t , -,:;;.;;��..:: e' ' + - �.* �,;:ya `Y �"'u� t _ f � y 'T v ro;''i , r 4 , i; �!"j„ i' 7�"'" . ��" �' i `�.,� �� ' �+ r�'�`s �. � � l i �;n Y^ r �a � ( � r -w �i �' � 5�, 1' � ..'9 � Xi�rp tir " - x y�7 � r��u'>>` *$�r i�aS� r��.. . n � ,�ep � -. . �m^ r � t _ �+� �► -o s y'r. - ,, ,re, rr r j ;� -eC-�. ,''�r,d�'� ; 4 �' ' �i t ..� � � � � � ' � ` • '" � �"�X D' �N'. 1' a)�. � �ae �A�� , � - - {�Y�t ^��-_-, r �t � � iT�Y�, fi ti{^�� ' � f �r� _""'^�/t r� � , _ a� _d..,bu _ �a„�7!',x�'JsN1�' r �"LM:�: „i!"..�C�"��+�G`}`.., __�x. -Z q�'' ,�vY� t� t < , x. ���, t`�»� sa.`,l,A�y � �� �a f . . i � � � i.i �c r�`�d ��'�`'�t�� Y . r� �- -t tn z *.. a 1, - ,�, X �`" � 5 s r�� � ?� �K > f�``�� �'� i 7 J%o fT'�f�� � �' i�� � `��4�� � � � � -r t° "�7 1 .!i > v d . � a�. 1 � .w ! . � � A , � 9 �� r r '�'�y '�rr✓ 4 1,�.7 �L a ,�,�' _; �r�L .cr� �� �,_ y e. . , � ,,, 1 . .. ,, ��. 'S� ; �t .r � .r. �'n 't � ,.,, � �: :'� y : �� �,;^ � 4'�/[ql 3 siw w J r � i . : ci } "Yr' , ✓ � h. , i�)'. ( '� C'tj! ' L �.. h �� ir� Jp `i ' . � � '�� a e ,r ' °'4n "Jr l ,� �N i � �I '..r.t. R �"'�i: : �'- .W�S I � "�� � _� [ v.�rtr ;�.k- r � - �1 �y . " -. ..�w„���y,� ' I�� Y -or� .. vs ;. �f � i ��` �. e °: t°� � + r�"'�2. � : �j , •} � . � ✓1/�' � 3 s� M�O� N .� �j� � J � S:"�' '�`i 3 q�y,y� �f4 4 1 g . t -* S 1 �q �L� J �+. ;a� I: � �`w w.,y sad;ev�'�'F�z ..k�' ��Stx+�:y�' �t �.r, r ., r w c^ ' ,. � � s . � � ; icn1L2 ;z'�� F �C z � ttF � �' ���.� � � � "ti � r��:. �`� x � �� � � L ( � V �.�, � � � ; C � XYL • �p^k(.� ���5 1 f` '- I Q � � 'S' �_�. .� ��t'L� .Y`:• 1 / �'� lHrti' 1� . � . �, � � � j + .. i *f ' y-.:..r. � s';. y % � . �;,e�� � - �— .. �I. �,: J :. . . . . . . . .�, :.:. . . . . '- - • '• • � , - . . �. . s.. .� _ ��� , '... r '. �; _ � ..__� �. ., �� . - •�. i , Y t .�� �, ::; , . , ..r^a+^^; ,aAt" .1� """' r ; P ';'.z ,. ' �S � �.�m i .Z3ir°,�N xu e 3�ix uy. I Pr���-d ; z, h�.�;� } � ,�.,� � • r��'J... � � L ,n y 5 .N ,-t.'�i.�iro°,:Gh.l���� { , �.���e�°�"a'�'..�.. .�CisIG.�.,.�a:i�:�a ��� ,�, F� � �. i �����y..�(� lt�1kE..0r� gxiyy�t> ��Ps��.- '.a�-¢....e..':.�• .M � FbS4Y`$3',._.._m.�.ti':iC'_":�.iu.G�Sfe:' 1� rlt.' :.J�t:%• � • • • � ll � • � � • � • • �• ti�'f$��.�� ° �.>. r� ��� .'. '��� � r �. � � �� ,�5"',:r ��tiY � i S°h � � �� �� �� ���A. t� n ����+1+4��I ��f/ � 4-' x y , �^ �,uj � � u! ,�2f`�` .,���ti'�'.r'r f� -. . ry ( `�'4 ��$Ay4+�J'^� A , � �`,> � �r�y'�; .- d' :, . .� Y , � t �,� !� A7 r ��'� �, .�".s'��a fi ;.! � , .', u` � � � -/ � �`.�y ��'�f'17 f ��' .'�'A ��J'.� '" w ° ' y �j P F ° , m �.' � t�� �j�� n r ,P t;, �a �. � ki"� +i y r �l� �'.. � „^� J \e �'�}r��� 1..�t � �� y°X.� .•�. w; ���� �� �r�� � ;�,�� r Y�Y t,tq �'a r �,�r,y�'�����'�,� h t r �'�jr � � � � �y �M Y� � � m � � � •Y'•�ti�rr�W'���'��• ` ��� �. -l4 � �= � �"� �y.� � � � � ��+u 4 3 w . � [ }?�ta i+._p �54i'+ It �+ `� � Ld m�''3�. . 1 Y Y ..�,y�✓���rA� ��M�, � j��I.il� y'� •������'* „/4� � .��_��3t�, ���;����������': �R � Ys�rk� s � 'A.' -�'l � 5� '.rs�M)v^.+���� ) �y' Y� y�YJ II I':v � : 1 f f �" � �y�� Rl[41' 1 ' [ ✓f {} ���.." �� '.��' F ! ♦'Y�L��'! Ll(1.�1'�lr 1 .,�+ � .(j��.'�SVy�'W ��::1 A�Y r 5: F ,�' I �• �� f � �.� w�����;.�� ✓ �s�vrl��� ♦ w' I .r '�j � !�c � . . jc F1� .�`� � � S � r �t�4�. � ��i: � t � �.l �� .y '' It r .fi J7! �.,y�,,;�,.y` yy�4 .-� t r',�"y � M�� 1.1 ' . �/ L A�� �� #�frYf���lF � � A '� , ���, %} ..���Y �(•41�it^i`. P �w� y.� � t7�-1 I -;1`t ,t•�. c y 1, '�,,. s�Y �'�3'�♦ �.�".":✓. :.�.. c 3'.., �� � `N'c x:a . �i., � .l�r"�. : .IC�� �� . ��,� � Jf �y r�l �' - �� Y ���*� �� ��� � : �l Y "� �. �.fI .n ? • ` � �1" �'y'i.6�.N 4 �f� r�� 'i M 4�T • � i: { 4�. 4 i Y a w-4 +r a ; ��e .. t +� {: z .. � '�,: e �v i�" y r � . ' �; �. \r .F r" r��� K�' f � �Ar r�yY �-�� 1 '�i z Vi ' • � �'�f � . � � ,.j"� `'� . . t k�� ����� �4�~'�� � ��,L �.w ♦ �„ .. �a N��+t� � \ > � i �� �+� s ' r� � ' .t t A v '/�1� k , u «.- e� w , �' � �.,,,�r J .,/ .'�MR�' � � � � ��:;� �� ��+v'ry��"* ,� �,< ,s� '�` ��' ^ , ..er.i .. Y r4 �W9�(� r'i��� �5� �� i�� �f. °(. �f 4 � ��� L � ♦ 1 �"/ , 1' Y (' { y r 1'" ; ! 1 � �K 1�, l, . �h ..� �l j � ha d � ` �t{L' ����v � ! y' v ;r tp�` . � kF t_ AS '• s„A � 1�` • ��'M ,'T R' i. �., ,I 'r �� R1 N � �! r w , � �✓' ��_ �'".�"G. °J'i! ., '� �} aE 4 ���{ � �!{��'��,y!A �4W:w� �; , . � ' i : o� y ,ey, �-t'� ��r�R•oXry'�i��'T��'�4s.'�r ,.� 2fT p.ae �d�s`+� ... �i"... � � ��� � A }Y� �� ���y°y�y'Y' i'�� � . +i;���• �t i '7�L �«. w ?^t�.,s',. o-,i�., y�A��v� � AL /6' �? y .�: t •t,,� -t ,f' / . "'�` "�' �~ t i Y'I/� :� �� � rr. a,�pq v�,� �t"' �,J�isF �,a ar�'i T.l..,a� �`or'"� � .vi• i' �.,� }•� . �. 4 y�:. �� Y' ,�, .�Y ^4��� � ��ri � 7� �"�t� � ,;y,�a y ^�� � �'� s .-� �-�'��� � '7 / 1 " "i T 'A ;��� (,�y�j .�� .� �iC. � ��?e�, .,,� .,�t ` , ' ��s ,'�.`��. ..�,�; •�4 ,i�F� t;; `..A , � ls }�,.. r�i �' ! �� 7 '` ! a, f �';. O .f' S u. -0 L 7a+�M � �. �";� ��h� s a !. r' �� ;�a'�`,'fi�'� .. <}�r !t � ^!� � i ���{�„ f� .. � � •- t r!�.�r,� �'�:1.� � � ���'y� ir lapy .rt tf F w aC '� l'� $Nlr xA`� %n.� 1rt � � � �.�} � i .. ti w`. � ' � y�M:4 A f^, d••. � y .. � � I_, � � J'n f'M1�• �, d � ' I �w . .�/� 5 •� � #`_ : M�, t� I y{ s��"� ��� � �T` :.. y"� r v .'r � � *y�a �.. �' ',. ,�r ♦ ,, � ��R4 �.rj n',�b.',R�., � ` N� .. b � � + • a s S� r� • •`� � r.' . r � � � � � £' �4 !\..���J « ' 'T'I .nv�"+'S s � �i �- �M �� \�'. ✓,� ' . �. ��- , � kw � f � '�a'�'� '.,�.�. r. � '. , ,%�, Jw��1x * ` �! ; , .,r. x��� . • , `.�1'� �.at' �'�S'- '� l � _� --w•..� :��'j L,� �[� �4 �7 .ra . a � � y( .. f' `��� '.{ � .. �- • " � ' � � � �_��..�` vr.. � ti C . .��' �. `�, � za �,� �� , ,.. ' � y..I�C / � �'�� :� . '� �. Lri.r r -i :, • , . ,. -1,��.]���� ��� M � , •� Proposeia - h , t ,� ��.� ��:��,�.�g.v ._5� . � � .. , . � � . . . �� _-_�.. _ �_..� �. . ___ ___ _ _ . „ . . , :� �� '���.t�s� +sr�sm.-n�r-mw�r�i iv ur .zcr•.: ^�f;Y r / ` :�. ���. ' � 1 1 • • • • �� ���" j�, t H� ; r�`�'�,�'' '�... � � ���o ,.'�': � f � t�� � � . ..� �'� ��-�>"y" 'Ci N•� � ;;�e ��`� .`-► ' � x�� �,. 'ir ° '^# .s' ` 1 t ' . �,��":% . �i . . r � �+ q -.t a. , o A . Q- - '� Az d �� �� � � �° a4x °^�; � � �,� �. , �Y.� �'� �vt� �J t � 7: w �, �- �. � ` F r OQ'roc,� y ✓'x� i���' ~ � .y� • J ,i�,�,�,�,.�o��C. "�i.r� �,.�M ':!`-. a,�4''+� .{ � ° +�� . , = R� w ` �. 'l�f'. F ` v��++ �„ � �" ..1'� n . y.p, iY :J � :: �i � • 4Y�� � ��,£� �� :. l J�y� IL�f v t.�. ` i s = 1 � � :: � � � +Vk�a�a+ �� �y' ��v `y/y .�' s � ,' � n � � � 1+*kF�� .`�� ' ;'�yS.F , � �. �ry.�y � \'�, ��`_„t.�, sl l �i ,�, �tY��v�� � �j, l�'P �s . � ���� �$! � �► ��, � ,,�/ ��a '�'�` � �'�': � TM � bs � �p� `� .� �,. -�l rn- � r �C �' r + <� ��° �v � ,yc ,4+ ��r C�.• F ����.4� �' '� l �'3yy41.'.!1 ! 6 4 � �y�p� � `,� � x �� y� `��•� '��. mN ��l `i�" , � .�� i ��., ���, p. u ���� ..t��chmon�lDr ya.' ', y Y S :��� 4 ` ' t + . P � t . .. ��-. a �., `..�`"��u,° t`e. � ` �1'a�.Y ,. � �+ ; yD��S�_° t � s,,�4St�°�'t . �{m' �' � '�; . �', a ti ����^ � i \ / N ",J ( �: �YI- v n YY1'� � �. 4S"� .,,� � �� � �� �� r+.. '��. WI11on �' � tw � ; v ..: y � �.r �o�'+ �• � F '- .� ' m � wr : ' #+°�` �( h Y '�(1� � tS y�Y . ,� �il �1 �..� s. r �.� ` ♦r!_ 6��,�1�'\� �f n�"n y a . 1�+� s� �+_— �,, s�"�, . t .; ,''°� J> , k �<,:., o� �y �' W Bra�cM1 * � ,�. �p� '.>� � ��" �r t�y:ix�.{{.r���I�, e\m !' �� �,.� ��. a � ^�� Y ^ .'. S N f ryry�. �' �� � •h- � `� �' � �� � - ���: ��'r'.,�+"•-,�,�--.. '�.... �`�, l� !`Y' 1�;.� �. �� J�� yV- f . : �♦\� j� nx r o , �, M es ' �� � "`'.����� 5�010��� + r" <<'�•� . • i-w- .� . �♦ )' :� „"_ �� s � (Y' T ,_� �'+ • >f� Si ✓ .�. � y� .��ds"' 1,. , W . °� .( � �� �,�, . � ro', �'" r �e,���y� +.�s.. ''..\ Y' .. R9 ;M1snF ,(t `� .�� � � �LV �+j: �S � /'y ': .. '1�. f ♦ �, . .' �xN": �'� �/�'� '"Y.TYin � '$ � d :, ^r �t.� h �Tw ♦��. �.4�y�., w . .y� �d. (>.; ��.��v � �t � `" . �6"'�:0. ���`� A r ��� �; � a. Qoo�e ��:;. � '. a ti S � f ' \ Y�'.FFr t �"y r � � r�'�� �� + ��: � ��f�F d0.`ir�iL'j�V„�q�,�i_�� �":a �p A�'y �. ��r r�, + f^ .. � ,?1 y `1'�� � � �4+ t' ("' x ' � :. � i .,, 'yr:, .. i �S� Q ♦ 'kt�,M�r j sr . ., ya irN � � Y �' � u ; �H � �'V•, � ��� � �YW � � � 7' �� i,�Yl� � e d�4�SF t. . , �r F„� �q.. . �►.,s'� .i ` �1't1` �, ,, "r „ �r„ r ,✓�y'�j - b 1 �' � �1"� t . �. � ;: ( � �� t1 �r . �" x�^�y[J'�y"� ¢+. :.. 1� �� �:. � S .�.. E r � c '� � - ,� f'`fiJr�� �r���, / �. � � ' � '�` ����-,�� .� 1:. #al`� �# 47'�Rr s, � '^ �A,��1' �{y%I�L��rYJ �� � � t��s � ' � h ` � �l .�' ����,'N � � ' v� ����' ���•?' vr * d`,� °`"ey �.A ��,• ���� ����r,�R�T ��. f t , �1� � ` ' q,,` �:� t a�� � ��� *�,1 f��,+r�: • � � ' �/' �f'. ;;., ,z ! � . �r, � r �,\y��{'d I'�� , ,,.`f ,� W ,E ��� � �: ; 9��3005�TnIeAlles ♦,� i.,\ ��'A 't:a�J���,\��. �•'. � k' Imape S 2005yDlgile101obe''t\ ':: j�' �� + , �� t a k�\�� � �` �: h.� ,� t� . ; ..,r � , ; ;; ' � '� "� �,� °���� , • " (Polmni�35'.072113 W::120 3C4704 W ,,, , Slreaming1111111111���40% , ., . ,_tii � cY`� '� Eyn atl',,. 299311 VN0197-03 Hwy ]Ol &Grand Ave. ' ATTACHMENT13 LAND LEASE AGREEMENT This Agreement, made this day of 2006 beriveen the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation of the State of California, with its mailing address located at P. O. Box 550, 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, Califomia 93421, Tax ID#95-6000-668, hereinafter designated LESSOR and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, having a mailing address of 6100 Atlantic Boulevazd,Norcross, GA 30071 , hereinafter designated LESSEE. The LESSOR and LESSEE are at times collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Parties" oi individually as the "Party" 1. PREMISES. LESSOR is the owner of that certain parcel of property (the entirety of LESSOR'S property is referred to hereinafter as the Property), located at 300 Reservoir Road„ Anoyo Grande, California, 93421, which property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, also known as assessor's parcel number 007-011-003 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE a portion of the Property, which portion is more particulazly described as a thirteen foot (13') by sixty foot (60')parcel containing eight hundred (800) square feet, as described below, together with the non-exclusive right for ingress and egress, seven (7) days a week twenty- four (24) hours a day, on foot or motor vehicle, including trucks, and for the installation and maintenance of utility wires, cables, and conduits, under, a twelve (12') foot wide right-of-way extending from the nearest public right-of-way, at West Branch Street, and running to the demised premises, said demised premises and right-of-way (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Premises") for access being substantially as described herein in E�chibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereo£ In the event any public utility is unable to use the aforementioned right-of-way, the LESSOR hereby agrees to grant an additional right-of-way to either the LESSEE or to the public utility at no cost to the LESSEE. 2. SURVEY. LESSOR also hereby grants to LESSEE the right to survey the Property and the Premises, and said survey shall then become Exhibit "C" which shall be attached hereto and Made a part hereof, and shall control in the event of boundary and access discrepancies beriveen it and Exhibit "B". Cost for such work shall be borne by the LESSEE. 3. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by both parties, provided, however, the initial term shall be for five (5) years and shall commence on the Commencement Date (as hereinafter defined). The Commencement Date is defined as the first (lst) day of the month following the date this Agreement is executed by the parties or the first (lst) day of the month following the date LESSEE is granted a building permit by the governmental agency charged with issuing such permits, whichever event occurs last This Agreement shall automatically be extended for four (4) additional five (5) year terms unless the . LESSEE terminates it at the end of the then current term by giving the LESSOR written notice of the intent to terminate at least six (6) months prior to the end of-the then current term. 4. ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS. If at the end of the fourth (4th) five (5) year extension term this Agreement has not been terminated by either party by giving to the other written notice of an intention to terminate ii at least six (6) months prior to the end of such term, this Agreement shall continue in force upon the same covenants, terms and conditions for a further term of five 1 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. (5) years and for five (5) yeaz terms thereafter until terminated by either Parry by giving to the other written notice of its intention to so terminate at least six (6) months prior to the end of suchterm. 5. RENT. (a) Within thirty (30) business days of the Commencement Date, and on the first day of each month thereafter, LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR Two Thousand and No/100 dollars ($2000.00) per month ("renY'). Rent for any fractional month at the beginning or at the end of the Term or Renewal Term shall be prorated. Rent shall be payable to LESSOR at City of Arroyo Grande, P.O, Box 550, 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421; Attention: Financial Services Director. (b) During the term hereof, LESSEE shall have the right to sublet all or a portion of the Premises, upon notice to LESSOR, to any designated wireless communication provider, provided such sublease is subject to the provisions of this Agreement. LESSOR, shall be entitled to additional monthly rent from any such sublessee pursuant to the terms and provisions of Paragraph 17 of this Agreement, (c) Rent shall be increased on each anniversary of the Commencement Date by an amount equal to four percent (4%) of the rent for the previous yeaz during the initial term and all extension terms. (d) Rent payments made after the fifteenth (15th) day of any month will be considered delinquent, and shall accrue interest at the rate often percent (10%) per annum on that delinquent amount until LESSEE'S account is paid to current If the fifteenth (15th) day of the month is on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then LESSEE has until the next business day for the payment to be received by LESSOR. (e) Within thirty (30) days of the full execution of this Agreement, LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR as additional consideration a one time administrative fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for City transactional costs associated with preparation and processing of this Agreement. 6. USE: GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS. LESSEE shall use the Premises for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a telecommunication site and all necessary appurtenances. A security fence consisting of chain link construction or similar but comparable construction may be placed azound the perimeter of the Premises at the discretion of LESSEE (not including the access easement). All improvements shall be at LESSEE'S expense and the installation of all improvements shall be at the discretion and option of the LESSEE subject to site design approval by LESSOR, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. LESSEE shall have the right to replace, repair, add or otherwise modify its equipment or any portion thereof, whether the equipment is specified or not on any exhibit attached hereto, during the term of this Agreement LESSEE will maintain the Premises in a good condition, reasonable wear and teaz excepted. LESSOR wi►I maintain the Property, but excluding the Premises, in good condition, reasonable weaz and teaz excepted It is understood and agreed that LESSEE'S ability to use the Premises is contingent upon its obtaining after the execution date of this Agreement all of the certificates, permits and other approvals (collectively the "Governmental Approvals") that may be required by any Federal, State or Local authorities as well as satisfactory soil boring tests which will permit LESSEE use of the Premises as set forth above. LESSOR shall cooperate with LESSEE in its effort to obtain such approvals and shall take no action which would adversely affect the status of the Property with respect to the proposed use by LESSEE. In the event that any of Govemmental Approvals should be finally rejected or any Governmental Approval issued to LESSEE is canceled, expires, lapses, or is otherwise withdrawn or terminated by govemmental authority, or soil boring tests are found to 2 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. be unsatisfactory so that LESSEE in its sole discretion will be unable to use the Premises for its intended purposes, or the LESSEE determines that the Premises is no longer technically compatible for its intended use, LESSEE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement Notice of the LESSEE'S exercise of its right to terminate shall be given to LESSOR in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be effective upon the mailing of such notice by the LESSEE. All rentals paid to said termination date shall be retained by the LESSOR. Upon such termination, this Agreement shall be of no further force or effect except to the extent of the representations, warranties and indemnities made by each party to the other hereunder. Otherwise, all the Parties shall have no further obligations including the payment of money, to each other. 7. TAXES. LESSEE shall pay any personal property taxes assessed on, or any portion of such taxes amibutable to, LESSEE' s communications faciliTy or use and occupancy of the Property. LESSOR shall pay when due all real property taxes and all other fees and assessments attributable to the Property. LESSEE shall pay, as additional rent, any increase in real property taxes levied against the Property which is amibutable to LESSEE' s use of the Property upon production of documentary proof of such increase to LESSEE. In the event one party fails to comply with the requirement to pay taxes or any other legal requirement and that noncompliance interferes with the other party's rights under this Agreement, the compliant party will have the right after ten (10) days written notice to the noncompliant party to takes steps necessary to effect compliance. All costs and expenses incurred by the compliant party in effecting compliance will be either charged to the LESSEE, in the event the LESSEE is the noncompliant party, or offset against me Rent in the event the LESSOR is the noncompliant PattY• 8. INDEMNITY; INSiJI2ANCE; (a)Indemnitv. This Agreement is made upon the express wndition that LESSEE shall indemnify, defend, keep and save harmless LESSOR, and its directors, officers, agents and employees against any and all suits, claims or actions, and any losses, costs or damages including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of any injury or injuries to, or death or deaths of, persons or damage to property that may occur, or that may be alleged to have occurred, from any cause or causes whatsoever, in any way resulting from LESSEE'S use or occupancy of the Premises during the term of this Agreement, including any extension term or during any holdover tenancy thereof, except to the extent caused by the proven negligence or willful misconduct of LESSOR, its directors, officers, agents and employees. (b) Insurance. (i) Worker's Compensation. LESSEE shall procure and maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any extension term and any holdover tenancy thereof Workers' Compensation Insurance in conformance with the laws of the State of California and Federal laws where applicable as well as Employers' Liability Insurance in an amount not less than One Million Dollazs ($1,000,000)per accident or disease. (ii) Bodily Injury, Death and Property Damage Liabiliry Insurance. LESSEE shall also procure and maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any extension term and any holdover tenancy thereof, comprehensive `broad form General Public Liability Insurance (including automobile operation) covering LESSEE and LESSOR for any liability arising out of the use of, or occurring in, on, or about the Premises. The policy(ies) shall include coverage for all vehicles, licensed or unlicensed, or off the Premises, used by or on behalf of LESSEE or Sublessee during the 3 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. term of this Agreement or holdover tenancy thereof The policy(ies) shall be subject to a limit for each occurrence of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) naming as an additional insured, in connection with LESSEE'S activities, LESSOR, its officers, employees, and agents. The Insurer(s) shall agree that its policy(ies) is Primary insurance and that it shall be liable for the full amount of any loss up to and including the total limit of liability without right of contribution from any other insurance covering LESSOR. Inclusion of LESSOR as an additional insured shall not in any way affect ts rights with respect to any claim, demand, suit, or judgment made, brought, or recovered against LESSEE. Said policy shall protect LESSEE and LESSOR in the same manner as though a separate policy had been issued to each; but nothing in said policy shall operate to increase the Insurer's liability as set forth in the policy beyond the amount or amounts shown or to which the insurer would have been liable if only one interest had been named as an insured. (iii) fire and Extended Coverage Insurance. LESSEE shall maintain a policy of standard fire and extended coverage insurance on its improvements to the Premises. Upon commencement of the initial term, LESSEE shall provide LESSOR with Certificates of Insurance, with provisions stating that coverage shall not be reduced, suspended or cancelled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to LESSOR. 9 ANNUAL TERMINATION. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, and provided LESSEE is not in default hereunder and shall have paid all rents and sums due and payable to the LESSOR by LESSEE, LESSEE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon the annual anniversary of this Agreement provided that six (6) months prior notice is given the LESSOR. 10. INTERFERENCE. LESSOR agrees that LESSOR and/or any other tenants of the Properry who currently have or in the future take possession of the Property will be permitted to install only such radio equipment that is of the type and frequency, which will not cause measurable interference to the existing equipment of the LESSEE. (a) LESSEE shall construct, maintain and operate the Premises and improvements thereon in such a manner that will not cause interference to LESSOR including, but not limited to, LESSOR'S re-broadcaster for its fire, police and other public safety deparhnents, and other lessees or licensees of the Property. All operations by LESSEE shall be in compliance with all Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") requirements and all applicable laws. (b) Subsequent to LESSEE'S construction, installation and operation of improvements in the Premises, LESSOR shall not permit itself; its lessees or licensees to install new equipment on the Property contiguous thereto owned or controlled by LESSOR, if such equipment will cause interference with LESSEE'S operations. In the event interference occurs, LESSOR agrees to take all reasonable steps necessary to eliminate such interference, in a reasonable time period. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event LESSOR fails to comply with this paragraph, LESSEE'S sole remedy is to terminate this Agreement. 11. REMOVAL UPON TERMINATION. LESSEE, upon termination of the Agreement, shall, within ninety (90) days, remove its building(s), antenna installation(s) (except footings), fixtures arid all personal property and otherwise restore the Premises to its original condition, reasonable wear and teaz and casualty excepted. LESSOR agrees and acknowledges that all of the equipment, fixtures and personal property of the LESSEE shall remain the personal property of the 4 VN0197-43 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. LESSEE and the LESSEE shatl have the right to remove the same, whether or not said items are considered fixtures and attachments to reat properiy under applicabie law. If such time for removal causes LESSEE to remain on the Premises after termination of this Agreement, LESSEE shall pay rent at the then existing monthly cate or on the existing monthly pro-rata basis if based upon a longer payment term, untii such time as the removai of the building, antenna structure, fixtures and all personal property are completed. 12. RIGHTS UPON SALE. Shoutd the LESSOR, at anytime during the term of this Agreement, decide to sell ail or any part of the Property to a purchaser other than LESSEE, such sale shall be under and subject to this Agreement and LESSEE'5 rights hereunder, and any sala by the LE5SOR of the portion of this Pioperty underlying the right-of-way herein granted shall be under and subject to the right of the LESSEE in and to such right-of-way. 13. QUIET ENJOYMENT: LESSOR covenants that LESSEE, on payin$ the rent and performing the covenants shall peaceably and quietly have,hold and enjoy the Premises. 14. TITLE. LESSOR covenants that LESSOR is seized of good and sufficient titte and interest to the Property and has full authority to enter into and execute this Agreement LESSOR further covanants that there are no other tiens, judgments or irnpedimerns of title on the Property or affecting LESSOR'S title to the same and that there aze no covenants, easements ar restrictions which prevent the use of the Premises by the LESSEE as set forth above. I5. INTEGRATION: It is agreed and understood that this Agreement contains ail agreements, promises and understandings between the LESSOR and LESSEE and that no verbai or orai agreements, promises or understandings shall be binding upon either the LESSOR or LESSEE in any dispute, controvarsy or proceeding at law, and any addition, vaziation or rnodification to this Agreement shalt be void and ineffective uniess made in writing and signed by the Parties. In the event any provision of the Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, such findin� shall not affect the validity and enforceabitity of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. The failure of either Party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any of its rights under the Agreement shali not waive such rights and such Parry shall have the right to enforce such rights at any time and take such action as may be lawfui and authorized under this Agreement, either in law or in equity. 16. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement and the performance thereof shalt be governed, interpreted, construed, and regulated by the laws of the State in which the Property is located. 17. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement may be sold, assigned ar transferred by the LESSEE without any approval or consent of the LESSOR to the LESSEE'S principal, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principal; to any entity which acquiras atl or substantially all of LESSEE'S assets n the market defined by the Federat Communicarions Commission in which the Properiy is located by reason of a merger, acquisition or other business reorganization; or to any entiiy which acquires or receives an interest in the majority of comrnunication towers of the LESSEE in the market defined by the Fedarai Comrnunications Commission in which the Property is located. As to other parties,this Agreement may not be soid, assigned or tcansfarred without the written consent of the LESSOR. LESSEE may sub(et the Premises within its sole discretion, upon notice to LESSOR. Any subiease that is entered inta by LESSEE shali be subject to the provisions of this Agreemant including,but not limited to, the provisions for payment of additional monthty rent as stated below, and shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto. In the event LESSEE subleases any portion of the Premises to any parky which is not a 5 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. permitted assignee as described above, in accordance with this Agreement, any renta] paid by any Sublessee(s) shall be divided between the LESSOR and the LESSEE in the following manner, fifly percent (50%) to LESSOR and fifty percent (50%) to LESSEE. Any Sublessee shall be instructed to pay the foregoing percentage amounts directly to the LESSOR and the LESSEE. The LESSEE shall not be responsible to the LESSOR for the collection or payment of rents by the Sublessee to the LESSOR, and the LESSEE shall have no liability to the LESSOR in the event of failure of payment by Sublessee, In this event (i) the LESSEE shall have no liability of any nature to the LESSOR for failure to sublet all or any part of the Premises to any or all potential Sublessee(s), and (ii) at LESSOR'S request, LESSEE will provide LESSOR with a tri-party agreement to be executed by the LESSEE, iPs Sublessee, and LESSOR to confirm direct payment obligation from the Sublessee to the LESSOR and to indicate LESSOR,has been notified of the sublease. It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the foregoing rental percentage amounts shall only apply if the LESSEE is able to accommodate all of Sublessee's facilities within the Premises. If the LESSEE is unable to accommodate any or part of Sublessee's facilities within the Premises, then LESSOR may enter into an agreement with the Sublessee for a portion of the Property that Sublessee requires to locate its facilities. In this event, LESSOR shall receive 100% of the rental, negotiated by the LESSOR and Sublessee, for the portion of Sublessee's _ facilities that are located on the Property outside LESSEE'S Premises. 18. NOTICES. All notices hereunder must be in wtiting and shall be deemed validly given if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested or by commercial courier, provided the courier's regulaz business is delivery service and provided further that it guazantees delivery to the addressee by the end of the next business day following the courier s receipt from the sender, addressed as, follows (or any other address that the Party to be notified may have designated to the sender by like notice. , LESSOR: City Manager, City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550, 214 Ash Street Anoyo Grande, California 93421 LESSEE: Cingular Wireless LLC Attn:Network Real Estate Administration Re: Cingular Wireless Cell Site#VN0197-03 Cell Site Name: Hwy 101 & Grand Avenue 6100 Atlantic Boulevard Norcross, Georgia 30071 With a copy to: Cingular Wireless LLC Attn.: Legal Department Re: Cingular Wireless Cell Site #VN0197-03 Cell Site Name: VN0197-03 15 E Midland Ave. Pazamus,NJ 07652 , Notice shall be effective upon actual receipt or refusal as shown on me receipt obtained pursuant to the foregoing. . . 6 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. 19. SUCCESSORS. This Agreement shall extend to and bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. 20. SUBORDINATION AND NON-DISTURBANCE. At LESSOR'S option, this Agreement shall be subordinate to any mortgage or other security interest by LESSOR which from time to time may encumber all or part of the Property or right-of-way, provided, however, every such mortgage or other security interest shall recognize the validity of this Agreement in the event of a foreclosure of LESSOR'S interest and also LESSEE'S right to remain in occupancy of and have access to the Premises as long as LESSEE is not in default of this Agreement. LESSEE shall execute whatever instruments may reasonably be required to evidence this subordination clause. In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or other security interest, the LESSOR immediately after this Agreement is executed, will obtain and fumish to LESSEE, a non-disturbance agreement for each such mortgage or other security interest in recordable form. In the event the LESSOR defaults in the payment and/or other performance of any mortgage or other security interest encumbering the Property, LESSEE, may, at its sole option and without obligation, cure or correct LESSOR'S default and upon doing so, LESSEE shall be subrogated to any and all rights, titles, liens and equities of die holders of such mortgage or security interest and the LESSEE shall be entitled to deduct and setoff against all rents that may otherwise become due under this Agreement the sums paid by LESSEE to cure or correct such defaults. 21. RECORDING. LESSOR agrees to execute a Memorandum of this Lease Agreement which LESSEE may record with the appropriate Recording Officer. The date set forth in the Memorandum of Lease is for recording purposes only and beazs no reference to commencement of either term or rent payments. 22. DEFAULT. In The event there is a default by the LESSEE with respect to any of the provisions of this Agreement or its obligations under it, including the payment of rent, the LESSOR shall give LESSEE written notice of such default. After receipt of such written notice, the LESSEE shall have fifteen (15) days in which to cure any monetary default and thirty (30) days in which to cure any non-monetary default, provided the LESSEE shall have such extended period as may be required beyond the thirty (30) days if the nature of the cure is such that it reasonably requires more than thirty (30) days and the LESSEE commences the cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter continuously and diligently pursues the cure to completion. The LESSOR may not maintain any action or effect any remedies for default against the LESSEE unless and until the LESSEE has failed to cure the same within the time periods provided in this Pazagraph. 23. ENVIRONMENTAL. LESSOR represents that, to the best of LESSOR'S knowledge, the Premises have not been used for the generation, storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials, hazazdous substances or hazardous wastes. In addition, LESSOR represents that, to the best of LESSOR'S knowledge, no hazardous materials, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, or underground storage tanks are located on or neaz the Premises. LESSEE will not bring onto or store on the Fremises hazazdous materials, hazardous substances or hazardous wastes. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, LESSOR and LESSEE acknowledge that LESSEE may be utilizing and maintaining on the Premises sealed batteries, propane/dieseUgasoline, HVAC system, and a halon/FM200 fire suppression system and that the use and maintenance of such items shall not constitute a violation or breach of this paragraph. LESSEE shall be responsible for and shall indemnify and hold hannless LESSOR from any and all liabilities and damages, including but limited to removal costs, azising out of any environmental damage caused by LESSEE. 7 VN0197-03 Hwy ]Ol &Grand Ave. 24. CASUALTY. In the event of damage by fire or other casually to the Premises that cannot reasonably be expected to be repaired within forty-five (45) days following same or, if the Property is damaged by fue or other casualty so that such damage may reasonably be expected to disrupt LESSEE'S operations at the Premises for more than forty-five (45) days, then LESSEE may at any time following such fire or other casualty, provided LESSOR has not completed the restoration required to permit LESSEE to resume its operation at the Premises, terminate this Lease upon fifteen (15) days written notice to LESSOR. Any such notice of termination shall cause this Lease to expire with the same force and effect as though the date set forth in such notice were the date originally set as the expiration date of this Lease and the Parties shall make an appropriate adjustment, as of such termination date, with respect to payments due to the other under this Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all rents shall abate during the period of repair following such fire or other casualty. 25. CONDEMNATION. In the event of any condemnation of the Property, LESSEE may terminate this Lease upon fifteen (15) days written notice to LESSOR if such condemnation may reasonably be expected to disrupt LESSEE'S operations at the Premises for more than forty-five (45) days. LESSEE may on its own behalf make a claim in any condemnation proceeding involving the Premises for losses related to the antennas, equipment, its relocation costs and its damages and losses (but not for the loss of its leasehold interest). Any such notice of termination shall cause this Lease to expire with the same force and effect as though the date set forth in such notice were the date originally set as the expiration date of this Lease and the Parties shall make an appropriate adjustment as of such termination date with respect to payments due to the other under this Lease. 26. SUBMISSION OF LEASE. The submission of this Lease for examination does not constitute an offer to lease the Premises and this Lease becomes effective only upon the full execution of this Lease by the Parties. If any provision herein is invalid, it shall be considered deleted from this Lease and shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Lease. Each of the Parties hereto warrants to the other that the person or persons executing this Lease on behalf of such Party has the full right, power and authority to enter into and execute this Lease on such Party's behalf and that no consent from any other person or entity is necessary as a condition precedent to the legal effect of this Lease. 27. APPLICABLE LAWS. LESSEE shall use the Premises as may be required or as permitted by applicable laws, rules and regulations. LESSOR agrees to keep the Property in conformance with all applicable, laws, rules and regulations and agrees to reasonably cooperate with the LESSEE regarding any compliance required by the LESSEE in respect to its use of fee Premises. 28. SURVIVAL. The provisions of the Agreement relating to indemnification from one Party to the other Party shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement Additionally, any provisions of this Agreement which require performance subsequent to the termination or expiration of this Agreement shall also survive such termination or expiration. 29. CAPTIONS. The captions contained in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and are not intended to be part of the Agreement. They shall not affect or be utilized in the construction or interpretation of the Agreement. 8 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be effective as of the last date written below. "LANDLORD" City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal , corporation of the State of California By: Print Name: Its: Date: "TENANT" New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC a Delaw •e limited liabiliry company By: l� Print Name: Its: Date: 9 VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Page_1_of_I_ to the Agreement dated , 2006, by and between City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation, as Landlord, and New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, as Tenant. Landlord owns certain property with an address of 300 Reservoir Road, Arroyo Grande, CA, hereinafter identified as the"Property," legally described as follows: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the City of Arroyo Grande,County of San Luis Obispq State of California,and pazticularly descn'bed as follows,to-wit: Commencing at a point oa the nartherly line of Lot 29 of Harris' Resubdivisians of a part of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra,El Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal,as per map reconded in Book A at Page 63 of Maps, said point of beginning being distant S 29°25' W 54.9 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 29 fram the most westerly corner of a tract of tand conveyed by the Artayo Grande M.E. Church,by deed,to the Coast Side Campmeeting Association,June 19, 1913,and recorded in Book 97,Page 370 of Deeds,and running thence from said point of beginning S 25° 55' E 104.2 feet to a point on the westerly line of said convey�h�act,thence S 7°4�' E 353.6 feet along the westerly line of said canvcyed tract to a point; thence S 64°OS' W 90.0 feet to a point; thence N 25° 55' W 301.94 fcet to a point on tfie northerly line of said Lot 29; theiace N 29°25' E 243.2 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 29 to the point of beginning and being a part of said Lot 29. APN: 007,011,003 io VN0197-03 Hwy 101 &Grand Ave. EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Page_1_of_1_ to the Agreement dated , 2006, by and between City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation of the State of California, as Landlord, and New Cingulaz Wireless, PCS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, as Tenant. Tenant leases a portion of the Property identified as the "Premises." The Premises are described and/or depicted as follows: (�°w�ss� /� \ w A�o � OO�\Y / / N��O� � / i 1 i/' � '� � • � �O�W i pA 10_Ot�1!i � � 1 �rl+��aw� '/ �- �� �� / w°�Oaai�s� �^�� � . i /' � l . /'f> .�O�Y t r' I / / p�11o/ rOOt�1� � / i � Id�ifF � RQ / / / � 0 � ' , � � , . � � . .^��, fi ----� / �. � � • : O � � �—eee eR�s � �� � � ����/ !��at / �/ 117b�iB1'�°i � � �.��_'/ • / __r'' �ar+e� 1�r������__/ i/���� T�-y� ; / ��� �..�.m.. � , ii � pRROyO ° c�P FINCONPORATEO 9Z U m M JULY 10, 1B H * c4t�F��N`P CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 05-013 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, Associate Planner (805) 473-5420 4. Project Location: 300 Reservoir Road - City Reservoir No. 1 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 `� �, � '� � ��. �. .. J;,�,,,�..i ; �, �. . s � . ' � �.�� �`�� � �- � , � 4g< . , , . .. w�.. .. . .:. .. . . . ;2 �` �y 6 '.. Wcxwou "� � .. �, . � � . '"'wetani . ' ��'. . . .. ' .., ... ., .. 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: Cingular Wireless 12900 Park Plaza Drive, 5`" Floor Cerritos, CA 92703 6. General Plan Designation: Community Facility (CF) 7. Zoning: Public Facility (PF) Project Description: Conditional Use Permit to install twelve (12) panel antennas divided equally into three (3) sectors on top of a thirty-five foot (35' ) tall monopine located immediately adjacent to the City' s water tank located off of Reservoir Road (City Reservoir No. 1). The antennas measure a maximum of 72.0" high x 10.0" wide x 4.0" deep. Also proposed are nine (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab screened by a chain link fence with green vinyl slats. 9. Other Agencies whose approval is required (and permits and/or licenses neededl: Federal Communications Commission (FCCI. Initial Study for CUP 05-073(Cingular Wireless) Page 2 of 11 ' 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 Fiave been added to the X project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 effectls) on the environment, but at least one effect 11 has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable Iegal standards, and 2) has been addressed by I' mitigation measures based on the earlier anatysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentialty significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it mu,s�t an,a�l' only th e Cts that remain to be addressed. _=!'2c�- � �13o/a� Signature Date ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invoiving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Geophysical ❑ Hazards � Aesthetics ❑ Water � Noise ❑ Cultural Resources � Air Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Recreation ❑Transportation/Circu lation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No lmpact" answers that are adequately supponed by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses fol%wing each question. A "No ImpacY' question is adequately supported if 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 fault rupture zone). A "No ImpacY' answer should be expiained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards le.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysisl. 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 ImpacY' 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 ImpacY' 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 ImpacY' to a "Less than Significant �mpact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level Imitigation 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 analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 150631c11311D1. 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 ordinancesl. A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the discussion. Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 3 of 11 Potenfia//y Pofenfia/ly Signi�cant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): SigniTicant Un/ess Signi/icant No /mpact Mitigated /mpact /mpacf I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wou/d fhe proposa/.� a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source #Isl: 1,2,3,4� X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (source #Isl: 1,6) X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land , usesl? (source #Isl: 11,12) X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an . established community (including a low-income or minority communityl? Isource #Isl: 2,4,131 ' X II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Wou/d the pioposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (source #Isl: 1,5,11) X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructurel? Isource #Isl: 11,121 X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Isource #Isl: 11,12,131 X III. GEOPHYSICAL: Wauld the proposa/resu/t in ar expose peop/e to potentia/impacfs involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (source #(s1: 5,6) X bl Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? Isource #Is): 5,61 X cl Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? Isource #Is1: 5,61 X d) Landslides or mudslides? (source #Isl: 5,6) X e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Isource #Isl: 121 X f� Subsidence of land? (source #�sl: 5,6) X g) Expansive soils? Isource #Isl: 5,6) X h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source #Isl: 5,6,12,13) X IV. WATER: Wou/dtheproposa/resukin: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? lsource #1s1: 121 X b) Exposure to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (source #1s1: 8) X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (source #Isl: i t l ' X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Isource #Isl: 11,121 X Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 4 of 11 Potentialty PotenGally Significant Less Than ' Issuesland Supportinglnformation SourcesL' Signi�cant Un/ess Signi�cant No � /mpacf Mitigated /mpact /mpact , e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (source #Isl: 11,12) 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 illsl: 11,121 X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Isource #Isl: 11,121 X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #Isl: 11,12) X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (source #Isl: 6) X V. AIR QUALITY: Would Hre praposa/.• a1 Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X Isource #�sl: 7, 10) bl Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (source #Isl: 12,131 X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (source #Isl: 11) X dl Create objectionable odors? (source #Isl: 11,12) X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Isource #(sl: 10) X bl Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipmentl? (source #Isl: 11,12) X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sites? Isource i/Isl: 11,121 X dl Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source M(s1: 3,11,t2) X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (source #(sl: 11,12) X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racksl? (source l/lsl: 1 7,12) X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pioposal result in impacts to: - a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (source Nlsl: 6) X b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage treesl? (source #Is�: 12,13) X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitatl? (source #Isl: 12,13) - X dl Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool�? (source #Isl: 131 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Isource #Isl: 131 X Initial Study for CUP OS-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 5 of 11 VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the pioposal.• a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Isource #Isl: 1, 6) X � b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Isource #Isl: 11,12) X IX. HAZARDS. Would ihe proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances lincluding, but not limited to: oil; pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (source #Isl: 11) X bl Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (source Illsl: 11,12) X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (source #Isl: 11,12) X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (source #Isl: 11,12,13) X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, gress, or trees? (source #Isl: 12,13) X X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in.• a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source #Is1: 1, 11) X b) Exposure of people to severe noise Ievels? (source Jilsl: 11,12) X XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need lor new or altered government services in any of the fol%wing areas: - al Fire Protection? Isource Nls): 6) X b) Police Protection? (source ftlsl: 6) X cl Schools? Isource #(sl: 61 X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (source #Is): 61 X el Other govemmental services? (source #Isl: 6) X XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal resuh in a need for new systems, or substantial alteraYions to the fol%wing utilities: . a) Power or natural gas? (source Jtls�: 11,12� X b) Communications systems? (source 7/Is1: 11,12) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (source klsl: 6) X d) Storm water dreinage? (source #Is): 6) X e) Solid waste disposal? (source Jflsl: 6) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah. a) Introduce a use within a scenic view open to public X view? (source #(sl: 1, 12,13) bl Change the visual character of an area? Isource#Isl: 17,12,13) X c) Create glare or night lighting that may affect X surrounding areas? (source #Isl: 11,12) dl Create an aesthetically incompatible site open to public X view? (source#�s1: 11,12) e) Impact unique geological or physical features? (source X #Isl: 1,11,121 Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 6 of 11 i XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah. a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source #Is): 6, 13) X b) Disturb archaeological resources Isource #Isl: 6, 131 X c) Affect historical resources? Isource #Isl: 6, 13) X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (source #(s1: X 131 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Isource #Is): 12,13) X XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (source ltls): 1, 3) X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Isource #Isl: 1, 51 X XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Ooes the project have the potential to degrede the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the renge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-terni, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considereble? ("Cumulatively 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 that 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 150631c)1311D�. 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 significanY' 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. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 210801c1, 27080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1,21083, 27083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151; Sundsirom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 119881; Leonoff v. Monterey Boaid of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (19901. t Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 7 of 11 miiRr.F i icT; 1'. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (October 2001) 2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map (October 2001) 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 Program EIR (October 2001) 7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan 8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map 9. Ordinance No. 521 (Community Tree Program) 10. San Diego Council of Governments —Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates 11 . Project Description 1 2. Project Plans 13. Site Inspection The project site is 0.69 acres in size and is located at the end of Reservoir Road on top of a knoll. The property is currently used as a reservoir and is owned by the City of Arroyo Grande. Surrounding the site is the Methodist Camp to the east, residential development to the north and west, and a church and school to the south. The site includes a variety of native and non-native vegetation, including several pine and oak trees. Proposed are twelve (12) panel antennas divided equally into three (3) sectors on top of a thirty-five foot (35' ) tall monopine located immediately adjacent to the new water tank perimeter road. The monopine will include a dense array of branches with varying lengths, and the needle coloration will match the surrounding vegetation. The antennas measure a maximum of 72.0" high x 10.0" wide x 4.0" deep. The applicant also proposes ni�e (9) equipment cabinets on a concrete slab. The existing chain link fence would be relocated to enclose the cabinets, and green vinyl slats will be added to further screen the equipment. Fxpil�MlaTIONS TO INITUAL SIUDY CHFCKi icT• I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The General Plan and zoning designations for the site is Public Facility (PF). Telecommunication facilities are not specifically listed as an allowable use in the PF zoning district. However, other uses are conditionally allowed if they are similar to, and no more objectionable than the other uses identified as allowable in the PF district. The City of Arroyo Grande previously made the determination that these types of wireless communication facilities are consistent with the intent of the PF district, and are allowable subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page S of 77 r � � Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact I V. AIR QUALITY Grading and construction of the project would occur over a period of many months. Short-term impacts related to dust generation from site preparation and grading would result in dust generation that could affect adjacent properties. Mitigation measures placed on the project would reduce short- term dust generation during construction of the project to less-than-significant levels. Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less-than- significant level. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM�o) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading shall list the following regulations: MM 5.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 5.2 — 5.6) shall be followed during construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone number of such personls) shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance and finished grading of the area. MM 5.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airborne 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 shall be used whenever possible. MM 5.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. MM 5.4: 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 231 14. MM 5.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. MM 5.6: Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. MM 5.7: To mitigate the diesel PM generated during the construction phase, all construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer' s Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 9 of 11 I specifications. The measures below (MM 5.8 — 5.10) shall be clearly identified in the project bid specifications so the contractors bidding on the project can include the purchase and I', installation costs in their bids. ' MM 5.8: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air Resources Board (ARB) mator vehicle diesel fuel. MM 5.9: To the maximum extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment shall meet the ARB' s 1996 certification,standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. MM 5.70: Unless otherwise approved by APCD, the developer shall install catalytic diesel particulate filters or Diesel oxidation catalyst on two (2) pieces of construction equipment involved in primary earth moving and construction activities and projected to generate the greatest emissions. APCD staff shall be included in the selection of candidate equipment along with a representative of the contractor. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept., and Building & , Fire Dept. Timefreme: Prior to issuance of Building Permit and during construction X. NOISE Existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by vehicular traffic and adjacent church and school operations. The project is expected to generate loud noise during construction that will impact adjacent residences. This is considered a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the below mitigation measures. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: MM 10.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday. There shall be no construction activities on Sundays. Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. MM 10.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to have , mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least 300 feet from occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor. MM 10.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Responsible Party: Develope� Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During construction XIII. AESTHETICS The project site is currently developed with a new water tank, a pump house and chain link fencing. The site is at the end of Reservoir Road on top of a hill and is visible from the Village Area and neighboring properties. The water tank is surrounded by pine trees and other native and Initial Study for CUP 05-013(Cingular Wireless) Page 10 of 71 non-native trees. As part of the project description, the proposed 35' tall monopole would be camouflaged as a pine tree to match existing trees located on the project site. The mitigation measures listed below will reduce the aesthetic impacts of the facility to less than significant. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: MM 13.1: The needle coloration of the monopine shall match the surrounding pine trees of the project site. The applicant shall submit pine needle samples of the monopine for verification of accurate color. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.2: The project plans shall show simulated bark placed on the monopole from the ground to the top of the tree. Responsibie Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.3: The project plans shall show a heavy branch count and the antennas screened with branches. Socks made of cloth material and interwoven with pine needles shall be placed over the antennas. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD � Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.4: The project plans shall show the equipment cabinets in a gray color to match the water tank and screened by a 6' tall chain link fence with green vinyl slats. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.5: The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan for fast growing shrubs and trees to screen the monopine and water tank. The additional landscaping shall be limited to filling in the existing vegetation "gap" immediately surrounding the monopine. Tree species selected should not exceed 30' in height to avoid interference with antenna / transmissions. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural ' Review Committee, Community Development Dept., Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept. and Public Works Dept. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD; Parks, Recreation & Facilities Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit i Initial Study for CUP OS-013 (Cingular Wireless) Page 11 of 71 r \� —_. _. 9.c. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF RUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005A — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, REVISING LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT OMU-D-2.20 WITHIN THE OFFICE MIXED USE DISTRICT. Proposed amendment to modify the current minimum requirements of 75°/a office use, to 50% office use for properties located within the OMU-D-2.20 Design Development District adjacent to the Arroyo �Grande Hospital. The proposal is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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 putilic 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. Information relating to this item is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 473-5420. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. �� Kelly Wett or City Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, September 1, 2006 � pRROyp ° c�A FMCORPORATED 9z V T * JULY 10. 1811 * P 4��FORN� MEMORANDUM TO: .CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOF�S BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER�� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04- 005A - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE, REVISING LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT OMU-D-2.20 WITHIN THE OFFICE MIXED USE DISTRICT DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20. FUNDING No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION Backqround The proposal is an ordinance to provide clarification of land use regulations applicable to Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20 in the vicinity of Arroyo Grande Hospital. Ordinance 557 (Attachment 1), which included specific provisions for the properties shown in Exhibit "A" (of Attachment 1), was approved by the City Council in 2004 as part of a periodic update to the Municipal Code to ensure internal consistency and consistency with the 2001 General Plan concerning the City's mixed use zoning districts. Staff is in the process of bringing forward for review land use and zoning amendments concerning residential districts. During this process, it was determined that the residential/office mix allowed in Design Development Overlay district OMU-D-2.20 needed clarification and potential revision to achieve the concomitant intent of preserving land area for office medical uses in the vicinity of the hospital and providing workforce housing opportunities. Zoning previous to 2004 for the area comprising the Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20 was Office Professional, which alloweii residential uses accessory to office uses. In 2004, the Office Professional district was changed to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) district allowing for more flexibility and density in the vicinity consistent with the 2001 General Plan. The D-2.20 overlay was placed to specify regulations for the Arroyo Grande Hospital property and surrounding parcels. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-OOSA PAGE 2 OF 3 The attached proposed ordinance includes text amendments pursuant to Section 16.08.110.R of the Development Code which incorporates by reference the provisions for Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20. The provisions are shown below with underlined text indicating revised sections. Design Development Overlay District 2.20: Medical Mixed Use Description of Parcels: APNs: 006-39- 044, 046, 047, 048, and 049 (see Zoning Map OMU-D-2.20.) Use Regulations: Mixed use development with �°{� a minimum of 50% of the net buildinq site (or eauivalent area for vertical mixed use proiects as determined bv the Communitv Development Director) shall be develoqed for office use to be compatible with u„�.,;...� r.,,.;�;.;e� o�.,., the anticipated needs for the Arrovo Grande Hospital. Small deviations from the percentaqe allocation mav be determined to be acceptable if they are needed to achieve a logical and coherent site plan. All other uses are as specified in underlying zoning district (OMU). Site Development Criteria: 1. As specified in the underlying zoning district (OMU). 2. Three-story building components allowed only with substantial transitional space and/or lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses. 3. Future hospital redevelopment shall include public transportation improvements (reference development approval CUP 02-006, Planning Commissions Resolutions 03-1839, and 021-1841) 4. Maximum Building Size may exceed the maximum standard of 50,000 square feet specified in underlying zoning district (OMU). Performance Standards: Section 16.48.065 Mixed use developments. Section 16.48.120 Performance Standards. Design Guidelines: none. Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a —D overlay at the time of the 2004 Development Code Update to clarify development standards that pertain to the subject parcels (reference Ordinance 5571. . . Demonstration of proiect compatibiliy with the Arrovo Grande Hospital and/or coordination with a Hospital Facilities Plan must be submitted to the Communitv Develo,oment Director prior to anv use permit approval within the OMU-D-2.20 District. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04005A PAGE 3 OF 3 The primary modification proposed is the ratio of allowed office and residential-potential development. The current requirement of 75% office use was intended to provide for compatible medical offices and/or hospital expansion for the only medical hospital facility in the City. This ratio was advocated by hospital representatives at the time of the 2004 Office Mixed Use district and overlay district creation. Mr. Rick Castro, Arroyo Grande Hospital President, testified at the Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 2006, that the proposed 50/50 ratio of office/residential-potential uses would not hinder future hospital expansion. Planninq Commission The Planning Commission heard the proposal at their August 1, 2006 public hearing along with forthcoming amendments concerning other overlay di§tricts. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment 2). Public Comment On Friday, September 1, 2006, the proposal was noticed with display ads in the Tribune. One letters was received concerning the proposal from Mr. Blankenship (Attachment 3). Mr. Castro spoke in favor of the proposal at the August 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 4). Environmental Determination 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. Based on the review, staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: 1. City Council Ordinance 557 (portion relating to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20) 2. Planning Commission Resolution, August 1, 2006 3. Letterfrom Jason Blankenship dated August 1, 2006 4. Planning Commission Minutes, August 1, 2006 I , � � � I ORDINANCE N0. i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005A), REVISING LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR DESIGN , DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT OMU-D-2.20 WITHINi THE OFFICE MIXED USE DISTRICT '; ; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became effective November 10, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary re'visions to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Zoning Map for consistency, in accordance with Government Code Section 65860; and � WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August� 1, 2006 and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code for the purposes of clarification of standards and balance of uses within the;Office Mixed Use D-2.20 Design Development Overlay District; and ; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered Development Code Amendment;04-005A at a duly noticed public hearing on September 12, 2006, in accordance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and j WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the informatioh and public testimony presented at the public hearings, Planning Commission recommendations, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public' hearing, the following circumstances exist: ; A. The proposed revisions to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20,',incorporated by reference into Title 16, are consistent with the objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan, particularly those prescribed for the Mixed Use land use designations within the land use element. �, i B. The proposed revisions to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20,�incorporated by reference into Title 16, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed revisions to Design Development District OMU-D-2.20„incorporated by reference into Title 16, satisfy the intent of chapter, 16.36 within the Municipal Code and provide for internal consistency; ', D. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 are within the;scope of the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update, and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are less than significant. I I � � ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the Ciry of Arroyo Grande, as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.08.010.R is hereby amended to read as follows: "R. Ordinance relating to a Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20." SECTION 3: Design Development Overlay District OMU-D-2.20 is amended in its entirety as shown in Exhibit "A" and as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 5: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Determination. SECTION 6: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulatetl in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full.text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance: SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)days after its adoption. ' On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: � ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of . ORDINANCE NO. � PAGE 3 ! i �I TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR �; � ; ATTEST: �, � KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK � i APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: I , � ; � ( STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: �� i j � TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ; i, I I I i I , il I , � �� i EXHIBIT A � ; 4 � �vu�n-a-y-u I �r -o-as-0�-w.nx���s-o-�-�v-nx� ; � � � —va��� � G:=, ;£:;;J { —va-s�-a--c— 'j' <, I � �:;:1' � � ,',� � ' .:.i 4 OMU D-2.20 � ,��� �a���� � � � �� �' �� �� -0-0�� ; �'� _ .r�;/ �q , ,/ , �Fa/�—s�' +'� i ��� � � � � EXHIBIT "B" � Design Development Overlay District 2.20: Medical Mixed Use Description of Parcels: APNs: 006-39- 044, 046, 047, 048, and 049 (see Zoning Map OMU-D-2.20.) Use Regulations: Mixed use development with ��°6 a minimum of 50°/a of the net buildinq site (or equivalent area for vertical mixed use proiects as determined bv the Communitv Development Director) shall be developed for office use to be compatible with u„�..;+.,� Cnnili4ie� o�.,.. the anticipated needs for the Arrovo Grande Hospital. Small deviations from the percentape allocation mav be determined to be acceqtable if thev are needed to achieve a loqical and coherent site lan. All other uses are as specified in underlying zoning district (OMU). Site Development Criteria: 1. As specified in the underlying zoning district (OMU). 2. Three-story building components allowed only with substantial transitional space and/or lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses. 3. Future hospital redevelopment shall include public transportation improvements (reference development approval CUP 02-006, Planning Commissions Resolutions 03-1839, and 021-1841) 4. Maximum Building Size may exceed the maximum standard of 50,000 square feet specified in underlying zoning district (OMU). Performance Standards: Section 16.48.065 Mixed use developments. Section 16.48.120 Performance Standards. Design Guidelines: none. Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a —D overlay at the time of the 2004 Development Code Update to clarify development standards that pertain to the subject parcels (reference Ordinance 557). A—kles�ital Demonstration of proiect compatibilitv with the Arrovo Grande Hospital and/or coordination with a Hospital Facilities Plan must be submitted to the Communitv Development Director prior to anv use permit approval within the OMU-D-2.20 District. ' , ATTACHMENT1 � ORDINANCE NO. 5ST AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICTS; AND REZONING THE COMMERCIAL PORTIONS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 AND 1.2 DISTRICTS (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 03- 008) i WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became effective November 9, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and neoessary revisions to the ' Development Code and zoning map for consistency in accordance with Govemment Code Seation 65860; and WHEREAS, the City has a responsibility to assure adherence to the General Plan in meeting the needs and desires of the residents and the community; and , WHEREAS, the City statf held a pubiic workshop on Aprii 7, 2004 to facilitate public oomment and the Planning Commission held duly noUced public hearings on June 15, June 29, July 20 and August 17, 2004, and rec:ommended certain amendmenffi to the Deyelopment Code conceming the Mbced Use land use designaUon for the purposes of Generai Plan consistency and implementation of its goals and policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council has oonsidered Development Code Amendment 03-008 at duly notioed public hearings on September 28, 2004 and October 12, 2004 in acoordance with the Development Code of the City of Artoyo Grande at which time all interested peraons were given the opportunity to be heard; and ' WHEREAS, the City Counal has reviewed ,and considered the iMortnation a�d public testimony presented at the public hea�ings, Planning Commission rec�mmendations, staff reports, and all other iMormation and documents that are pa�t of the public reoorci; and VYHEREAS, the City Counal finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the folbwing circumstances exist: A. The proposed change im m�e and revisions to Title 16 will satisfy Objective LU5-5 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which requires the City to "define di(ferent Mixed Use oveday w oombining designatbns concument with Development Code revision for General Pian consistency to darify albwed, conditionally pertnitted and prohibited uses in each MU subarea',; ,LU5-8 which states that the Mixed Use corridors are to "provide for d'rfferent combinations; configurations and mixtures of commercial, office and residential uses designating the East Grand Avenue, EI Camino Real and Traffic Way cortidors as Mixed Use (MU)'; and other policies under obJectives LU5, LU7, and LU8, and is therefore desirabie to implement the provisions of ihe General Plan. ORDINANCE NO.557 PA(iE 2 B. The proposed change in zone and revisions to Title 16 reflect that both the existing zones and proposed zones are predominan8y commercial and contain historical residential use, and the promotlon of mixed use will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or resuft in an illogical land use pattem. C. The proposed change of mnes and revisions to Title 16 satisfy.Sedion 16.36.010 of the Development Code, whid� states 'It is the purpose of this chapter to provide regulations that implement those goals, objectives and policies, and that are aimed toward the provision of adequate and appropriate oommercial areas within the City'. D. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 are within the scope of the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update, and a Negative Dedaration has been prepared in Accorcfance with CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, as folbws: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. � SEC110N 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sectlon 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as shoNm in Exhibits 'A' and "B" attac�hed hereto and incorporated herein by referenoe. I SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapters, Sections and Tables set foAh ;' hereinbelow are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "C' atFached heret� snd inoorporated herein by this reference: a. Amend Sedion 16.08.010 in its entirety; b. Amend Section 16.24.O10.C; c. Repeal Se�tlon 16.24.010.D.1. ; ! d. Repeal and replace Sectlon 16.36.020A. in its entirety; e. Add Table 16.36.020-A f. Repeal Sedion 16.36.020.D; g. Add Sedions 16.36.020.E, 16.36.020.F, 16.36.020.G., 16.36.020.H. and 16.36.020.1.; h. Amend Section 16.36.030A; i. Repeal Table 16.36.030(A)in its errtlrety and Add new Table 16.36.030-A; j. Repeal Chapter 16.40 and Table 16.40.030-A in their entlrety; k. Add Section 16.52.095: , I. Amend Section 16.56.020.B.; m. Amend Sec�ion 16.56.050; and n. Amend Section 16.58.060. SECTION 4: Artoyo Grande Municipal Code Chapters, Sedions and Tabte(s) set forth hereinbelow are hereby amended as folbws: ORDINANCE NO.557 PAGE 3 a. Repeal Table 16.36.030-A1 in its entlrety; b. Renumber existlng Section 16.36.020.F. to Section 16.36.020.B. and renumber existing Table 16.36.020-D. to Table 16.36.020-B.; c. Renumber exisdng Section 16.36.020.B.to Secdon 16.36.020.C. and renumber e�asting Table 16.36.020-A. to Table 16.36.020-C.; d. Renumber existing Section 16.36.020.C. to Section 16.36.020.D. and renumber existing Table 16.36.020-8.to Table 16.36.020-D.; e. Renumber e�dsting Section 16.36.020.G.to 16.36.020.J.; f. Renumber existing Sadion 16.36.020.H. to 16.36.020.K.; SECTION 5: Upon adoption of this Ordi�ance, the Direc6or of Administrative Servioes shall file a Notioe of Detertnination. SECTION 6: If any section, subsectlon, subdivision, paragraph, serrtence, or clause of ihis OMb�ance or any part tl�ereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decc;ission shaA not affed the validity of the remaining portbn of U�is Ordinanoe or any part thereof. The City Council hereby dedares that it weuk! have passed each seatt�on� subsectlon, subdhrision, paragraph. seMence� or dause tl�ereof� imespective of the fad that any one or mor�e section, subsection� subdivisan, paragraph� sentence.or dause be dedared unconsfilutional. SECTION 7: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in fhe City of Arroyo Grauide at least five (5) days prior b the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinarx;e is to be adopked. A certified oopy af the full text of the proposed Ordinancs shall be posted in the oilice of the Diredor of AdminisUative Servlces/Deputy City Clerk. Within fiReen (15) days after adoption of the Orclinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and egsinst the Ordinance shall be publi$hed again, and the Director of AdminislraWe Services/Deputy City Clerk shall post a certHied oopy of fhe full text of such adopted Ordinanoe. 3ECTION S:This Ordinanoe shall take effec�thirty(30)days after its adoption. On motion by Counal Member Lubin seconded by Council Member Runels, and by the folbwing roll cail vote to wit: AYES: Council MeFnbers Lubin, Runeis, Dickens, Costelb and Mayor Fertara NOES: None ABSENT: None U�e foregoing Ord'u�anoe was adopted this 26�'day of October,2004. ORDINANCE NO. 557 PAGE 4 TONY M. FE , MAYOR ATTEST: � � � r /n��� �6 ' KELLY WETM E, RECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES! EPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: i I STEV ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: U i TIM THY J. AR , CITY ATTORNEY . -.• �+�'`�"'-I I~����I— .,...� ��..� �IIi��►�\►�,l/y �� : , , . - r�� f� ^�s`��� p������e1�qq l�rr` , � . �'��'�����P t.� �Ililr ��4�j ��i����ii���'���1� I�. �� .r'�> ,� . ��♦ �/l� , �� ���1a�'�� ��\�l��lll ��'� ����I • .�► I� ♦ � t i��4Q��, ���-;�',;:,', ; w►���� �� �►� *r r ��t1 � '��' � ♦ � �� , ��I rt1� ��;,t�� ��������� ����t� ��i:����'�►�.(► �►t���� ��� �����!�� •�n�i�i ���I ��v��it i� +i���`�����" o��`��� "�►�� '�= - '. � �..s� R��►������i`` ,���,��```+���`���� � • �O � . � ��1i� �t� ur.,� � :��1D��,t : �,`�1� I (� ,� �Il�o Uti��il �s ��' ` , 4 ��' ; ai��f��►t���' �� \ ��1�`` � �jt,�-+l �� ,: x..,,w�"" ►�A��'a ♦ �,;.,�„ ♦ i f� / ����ft�Ilf��/�.!��.•t:�.+ �ri i�:4� ��0��.,0����`�� __ • 1 � ♦ Z� j • ; ` � .' ♦ i�Illil�'�i'=.=:;,�.s��, � •�hi,:�: '�`��\���<���js;�. , �� � ., .„* ,,,.. �.........,.,. - �+ 111:11i:.�.�� ; , ,,i+ ���'^�;,`` ���'i'. ............. Nli �� � �m1�{����u��1!►1����� y.z \ ' `U11Nf�5 � ����•`����4��0� :.► .. � �� __ " - ,. �11 � . . ♦ �♦ �\ � �� � w �w��O -- A ♦ � ! / I ��.�\ I.. r��� �� ��11011111�{� a\\� ♦ ��i I�,�� :::�i ui■ui� �di if� � �~ ♦ \ ..._ , _`''`� ��`''j`\`.�yy'�,i♦ �lll ����1i ������f ��-ur��� = . .... ._... -�..� a.��_w�� �: � .��.���� �:���o� ���\: ����•��I ��,Q�i%,�� � .. ���� ��O .�o�� ��p� A�,I ��.�. , �:;�.aur�= ■ �.?�� �`�:`"\���`"��� ��'���'����,`�� � r�t��lt; � ��\��`�`��0� � ... `�+`�, �f��� 1;\�� , ���\I� ' � ;� `� !L 1���� �lI!lllf��p��t�) �������/ I,�Ij�`� :��i�♦ u� nn�ui��l�IUq111 �� ��i�tljllll !/qpt!/7! fl � � �a��� �I �IO�� ��l� � .c uuuut .� ��:tl/ftll �ur3�i 'pi=� �ii..� ���� ��j�i�I w muun . _ � .� q /!/ I� m unuu� .i�111�11f11 �� �� ��� :. {) � �l�//��.": � � +� �IItU�� .d umt�nu�x� :.�r�IINI: .� �fl� ���'�ra,� ♦. .. �� �I101__�� _= mn• �u�uu �.n� .— _,,.�' . == unU' unan ������wG �11���i �,11� 1/I{���,�� .�G �� a�U�+� ', -- auw nu�n ���. „u:��� � 1��11 ������ � � � ..o � i= nuu nin... � �.. ���11*. : . ., n�u rau�n�� 'C���■ 1, ,.� A.qIM� r'' �� ��xur nnnti� ..�.,.�;c�— �i, �,��....i U� Slllll ����i== {IIII� ...... .........._;�i� i111:,--;��.�illr.:. .. ;,,,,,,..=1 , . . _ '.,,,,,,. , ��11:'-e .. ���' �w mu0 � �t�� , ff� � �� �" �ut �;1:-:` _ _6`i .-.'� ��`�i �'`a1 �o�:�u=�i: `��� ���1'ui�=n�!fii�{{it ���r �� ■n� �� r.u�:41IJ�� ���w �v> >�i ��„Y�i��«.' -`! C�� u��ni���� ■ 1h. � ..� �.. ��Uwu♦ .� �� �f� � . �OItl1 �� ���.. ���U� i ^ .� +� �� r� • �% \u�l�� � • i ` y ���i���N �U� �.� �1��1�1� �,,,�•p s i \ i �p IUI ,= � - ,�'� .d ----i illllllllll_ �_ =i i�\ � �� ���IOII� -��IIPt� � :��: ' �o ? �� == --'^=� ii%i� �� .ri��I/lt� ��� .� c 'I, '�i:•^ �O��.o'= '� ' ��►�� ���i id{111• 1����,� � e ":`: = i wv�_ •• 1' � O�� �°"nn t 111111�i: �. _ :ae? -: � ��i��:t�����iii:::i �t1�u��n,.. - om�, � IIIIU� u�ni.6%JUUf�Q.. qluu 1 �... i.......-..� ���tl��� ���N�/�\�111�/I�= ��� � �� ��1��1�/�l = :"���aan :� .. •.�v� + -'`�„"�:�tM�: pllnlnu� �. �y.r �\��: CI�auUfs��� : 1 1:t�lw� �`�a7 r r� :�:�� �,�, S\�J►1. �Ii � L�� ..' Nqlmf�1111� ;,�� C', �� =' ' i� �i11� /tla�ir.0 �'..►� :i::i i\i ni ii�ualu/ u1U/tu��\!IN/i�N�w� . � +�..� : OMU-D-2.20 Exhibit "B" ; Design Overlay O-D-2.20 Medical Mixed Use I iDescription of Parceis: APNs: OU6-39- 044, 046, 047, 048 and 049 (see attached i maP�' Use Regulations: Mixed use development with 75% office use compatlbie with Hospital Facilities Plan. All other uses as specified in underlying zoning district(OMU). Ske Development Criterla: 1. As specified in the underlying zoning district, (OMU). Three-story building � components allowed only with substantial transitional space and/or lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses. Future hospital redevelopment shall inGude public transportation improvements (reference development approval CUP 02-006, Planning Commission resoluUons 02- 1839 and 02-1841). � 2. Maximum Building Size may exceed maximum standard of 50,000 square feet spe��d in underlying zoning district (OMU). Performance Standards: Section 16.48.065 Mixed Use developments. Section 16.48.120 PerFormance Standards. � Design Guidelines: none. Additional Information: These parcels were zoned with a —D overlay at the time of the 2004 Development Code update to dariFy development standards that pertain to the subject parceis. A Hospital Facilities Plan must be completed and submitted to the Community Development Depa�tment prior to any use peimit approval within the OMU- D-2.20 Overlay. i � - - t ' "-;-, f��- ,� • ,+�,a , .- � .;; . � �,f. _ :�•. .�,A ,{ �l„; — I,°� ,��i , 4 .f I .:,.,f,e�:r�,�r _t:; : y n..�..,�' .;¢ '�, �;�y ; '�k � � Exhibit C ,a '-� ;i :ix�' � , , �- : :�:,.. � ;:�''':;� :��~ _ .• �... .`.$ '.t`.' S .i : . '.�. �. � . ; � ' . .. � }"�,+t,,� >�,� ,, �;,.�}4n� '*��i , f_` Y . . � ',� :�.!'t� �;����'!a . �h, f- � ;_ '(4!I� �`i;. �:�;; ,�;�,=��.:y, t���i����� n: �' � �.;a��-•:. �,'�;'' w. , ..t �vE..�. �,'; � 'i �;�x;; ' 's;'' :' '<,,,,��;;,. „;, . >,:.. ; .'� ;��;;,, < . `�j :.i,.:" ,�i;}.r.t'rr:. ���'-_�, �•��y,t �,r' 4 . " ' '{$' "s�? .;P [. nJ���r � 1rt�Lf�?... ... ..' �'� �Y f`.� I{I a� s!� '�A ,�:: p ` �"�... � �.;. . y ,; ,..r...... :.4..�di^:���.,n°C $,"�t�j�rf^ .. ',��'i; .; . >..e... �:, -o-;v,;:;:'.'. :_�. ,, , � .. .?�a;i�.' ...t . .(.t, y - .:k'v.pp.`.:°°.; :,':`!.r!, �.. i`�'�� � �"! e .:i .. .. �a ..:Y..�� ' .�� t . '3�....: � : :�i9j"; .,'y' ..:.. 'A .:t'��;,d.,..a�(.. '��'..�' .%�'�.:.'..i!-.`...� '::i � �t �5. . �'." N �',o';._��� .:,r fx,� � .R�' .. _.. .y..,mar....�{ %".'` y .� .;�.: �'rTi'"; - ';°u:u�:_•'., t "�iya� ..:. F..,!';l i � . . . . . . . -.. . . � . . N ' � '�"� � y.. . i� t ' , i: .....;r.��� :': �i "'s:%Y,- '�kc:�y r� �'i.'� �:yt� �d i;�l 1_ •'ii°.. \ eoni,.",', ..:�'; �'•!a�i:..� ,�`i'�w i i' �-, i �. . '. �`re...i�� .;-,:;,x':":., : .� Y;T ,.: . , ",�y n� �:a-�,.. .�;;,i .rytY � �r �� i'� � li. h..t'Y=it°Yµ�'�f , e.i:i Y�i3. �� ln. � �t..� .:''�.- ' ..�y t;`�iM.,Jn' � .r ,j e�$�` , � '�a�� `i. .:, tt.;... � ,: . . , ; . ,i.^... ,,.:Sn�": � ,� � y:a . ... ,.... . '4..ti j . � '.6 '�Y#�i: � ::: }� c'C c� ,!' � �L� ' .:,s.m. � �� ,�� �: �':. ' _.r ; �r,, � �° , ,. OMU-D-220 ��,.:: � � ��:�: '� �=` ° � w v,».�. `:�..:, , �:�.__�_ �-i., ; �� ' '•, g� ; �, „ ' � ,i„ �e.:_:��''' ' ' +�'.�:� ��'�i;� `�_ .��� �"'�,�:< '; • �'' :: . � li�l� u' I »,., �M. . G ��,�. ..0. ..i :.n� . * .. u. �. � ....^,� r t '(�.' d'is .7+, .7:y; * "M{:, at . � : . . �.3i�",�t,� !:.:dr,'��•:� . . .� y� '�Cl;i'I, ry� � , .; . .if" A:.�.iL�.l ',�;�,M :.� ��� ry !�'. ,.i�• >�.r "s },•�� '' ♦ 6r;: . „�s ... �. . t_ 1..,'�i ' Yi ^�ym ... ^'M� :��A;.. .. .�:. '...Eci�j'i �sYr+� _ .. 5 [C'� Ii . ... .�.� "f . ,. . . . .a. ;. �:;"� � AL: .,�:�};�.��,..,.- . .. .? , ,. ,. . 5': A". _ � �., .s.. �l��.x,;p..s;,1:.ra�i:� .� „,.-r:� . .. .::.6 : -m .., , .. . ,...�+. , s+:>. ::,n>�i. +y, . . ..Y:' �..a ... ',r,l.?:i'w`.: ,. � . . ;... ..r�fl .. : .�d�:rc.a..:�,.,..r..` .... .. '.. .i ,..n . : .�j i;:. ..'1 t�/r(:�:ne: .,uS::�:>-: ' �i�;'a.. ..� .:, . ...., .; s :... ' .: �+, ".;:.. •�„».:'. hg �.;y .r �`� .�. ;w?i'�� p.y [�, e,p:'� i.t?ky:±�uy�.q.:. � 'Y �P.: � �'{^.SJc�� ' .. :: i; ��'�+�. � . :'� �� ,i � 2,�u< :Y:i;`',E..�....:;i �•.�.n;;;.a8.. r. ... . f� . �. . : ,nYy: � ' �:d�yx-%Y..�" +e.����;:;,:y"7�7t' . .`k .r.. . ;,. _ �'$�..F.` �^ �� t1:{ .• � �.�. �.+!-'. -iri5' A�R=' "��`?,, :� �^�„:,...'.,'�r+: �' y���k�i:;:,�-:�� „f. � . .� {5 t�. ,d., .� .i' �. ��L;'i�'.,�..r;. ,� ', � . -:i �!'"6� �:+:' ',�z�:i"+':'.N?e'.t�z 't:'�.'"::i:'�'�rt. ��gd;! ,�;;' � ;�A. � ' , �':' j� i =.�t� 9ae..:vy. ��" .. � N }s:bt��„T: �� , C•• 1:"s�'� .! ,,,,��,'„�e7� a w-�, } �rt.#S:a:;''�.� '�i,� V� a �, �� y �';�Fi. , Gi,�`:'�r`ri�:s".:; "�y. K " �E .', t: . .�.� '.t^::' `�•: � bls? n'� .« f..�,. 5�"����:y��"`.:,:v k'�,>�,��." ti}"': ""f :;�ra, ._. 3� � ,��;� ;.... =.�r�-+,�(�...;. . . r.s.-n.•� . .. r'.�. ev g�4�s Y� i .:,z� �. � "'�7n' I.,h: ���' iE .-{� ��"���k✓�'G.si: , -�'I�t�+i.'" ..ti^��°.::`:!) j��• �c,�;�. %. i'.�'�'"F,." Y +y.. �'v. ���;,�'.,�.:y„����.':���z�'.:�.. �'°j c�+� >. ' � ' } • �' "'`�:.�:_,e�p�+'�''-`:�;s::,. !r.t;:�� ' � . � � :� �::.;.�;.;°,`.,:�;?S" ,a i Ai* ��. r�;:i�,. ."/1 �y�.Y , �� .. '1� ��!.3. �. . Mv, ...a� ��"avri.a<4 �..... a�..m...��.i`i Proposed OMU-D-2 . 2� Overlay ATTACHMENT2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-005), MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12, 16.32 & 16.44 TO ENSURE CONSISTANCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan which became effective on October 9, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary revisions from time to time to the Development Code and zoning map for consistency in accordance with Government Code Section 65860; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2006 and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code for the purposes of General Plan consistency and implementation of its goals and policies; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the Planning Commission has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can be made in an affirmative manner: A. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are required to ensure consistency with the objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan, particularly the land use element, and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. B. The proposed change in zone and revisions 4o Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 satisfy the intent of chapters 16.04, 16.12, 16.36, and 16.44, the Municipal Code and provide for internal consistency; D. The proposed change of zones and revisions to Title 16 are within the scope of the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update, and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are less than significant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment 04-005. On a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: . RESOLUTION NO. 02-007 PAGE20F2 AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows (abstain from Design Overlay District 2.2 & 2.3 only) the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1 st day of August 2006. ATTEST: LYN REARDON-SMITH CHUCK FELLOWS, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ATTACHMENT3 ` Centra! Coa�t Real Estate Development Company, inc. 191 A Oak Vark Bivd.,Sie. 10,6rover&ach,CA 93433 (805)4746051,hx (805)4746053 RECEIVE� August 1, 2006 AUG O 1 ZOOG CIT`f OF ARROYO GRANDE City of Arroyo Grande COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT 214 East Branch Street Arroyo�rande Ca, 93421 Re: Development Code Amendment affecting the Fair Oaks Mixed Use Project Item #26 on Planning Commission agenda for August 1, 2006 Dear Planning Commissioners, It is our request that the Development Code Amendment affecting the Fair Oaks.Mixed Use Project be voted on first and separately from all the other Development Code Amendments affecting other parcels. As you know, the Fair Oaks Mixed Use project came before the Planning Commission in early January and was approved. We then went on to the City Council and they continued the project and asked that we make some changes mainly concerning drainage.After that meeting it was suggested by staff that we submit an application for a Development Code Amendment to change the Overlay on the property from 75% Medical Office and 25% Residential,to 50% Medical Office and 50% Residential based on actual land usage.Staff felt that this would clarify some Development Code inconsistencies. It was our opinion that we could have gone straight to Council and obtained an approval, but we didn't want to go against staffs recommendation. It has been almost 7 months now that we have been processing this Development Code Amendment and time is now becoming a factor. We would appreciate it if the Planning Commission would consider _ , voting on our DCA first and separately from the other Development Code Amendments. Respectfully, `/ ✓��Y�� Jason Blankenship Project Manager ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 /� Discussion took place to clarify the process as to how the Council would support the i re uested chan es and whether or not the a licant should redesi n the r ect before , 9 9 PP 9 p�J going to City Council. Mr. Strong advised the Commission that if the applicant mad a�e requested changes before going to Council, they may still be asked to ma�k�urther changes after consideration or it could even be referred back to the Commission. Chair Fellows seconded the motion to adopt: / RESOLUTION NO. 06=2005 � A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING �OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDIf)1 THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE�CLARATION, INSTRUCT THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE O DETERMINATION, AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDME CASE NO. 04-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE O. 04-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 05-006 AND �LOT MERGER CASE NO. 05-001, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED A �265, 279 AND 295 ALDER STREET, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF�ARROYO GRANDE & VICTOR AND JO ANN TOSE (ALDER HOUS� The motion was ap oved by the following roll call vote: AYES: C missioner Parker, Chair Fellows and Commissioner Tait NOES: ommissioner Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Ray The for oing Resolution was adopted this 1S` day of August 2006. 8:0 .m. T Commission took a 10-minute break. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYWIDE (Continued discussion from June 6, 2006) Ms. McClish presented the staff report for consideration of proposed modifications to development standards applicable to the RS, SR, MHP and MFA, residential districts, and for consideration of alternatives for the existing Design Overlay Districts (D-2.2, D- 2.3, D-2.8 & D-2.20), as part of the Development Code Update relating to residential districts for consistency with the 2001 General Plan; public comments would also be received for discussion of forthcoming proposals on other Design Overlay districts PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES � AUGUST 1, 2006 tentatively scheduled for September 5, 2006. In conclusion, Ms. McClish recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a proposed Ordinance making modifications to the Zoning Map and portions of Title 16. Design Overlav District D-2.20 Only a change in the text is being proposed. In 2004 an ordinance was passed to make sure that 75% of a project would be devoted to office use. The Council has recently directed staff to revisit this issue in terms of the percentage of office use to be dedicated for potential medical offices and reduce this to 50%, which would provide adequate expansion or compatibility with future needs of the hospital. Ms. McClish explained that the Commission could vote on each Design Overlay separately and adopt the Resolution (which covers all four Design Overlays) after Commission discussion if it is still applicable. In reply to questions from the Commission, Ms McClish clarified that these changes only effect the requirements of what has to be devoted for office use and what could be available for other uses in the OMU district. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Jason Blankenship, Central Coast Real Estate Development, stated his support of the proposed change. Rick Castro, President of the Arroyo Grande Hospital, stated they are in support of the proposed change. Hearing no further comment Chair Fellows closed the public hearing. The Commission had no further concerns and stated their support of the text change to the D-2.20 Overlay. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to recommend to the City Council approval of the text changes to Design Overlay D-2.20. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Chair Fellows, Commissioners Tait and Parker NOES: None , ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Desicin Overlav District D-2.8 Ms. McClish explained that this area is zoned Rural Residential (RR)and that this design overlay was placed to allow a clustered area of single family homes with a large , PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 � open space area (includes a church); staff is proposing to repeal the overlay and rezone rti n a po 0 of the RR area to single family (SF), consistent with the 2001 General Plan designation and keep the remaining open space as Public Facility (PF) with the open space area included. In reply to a question from Commissioner Parker, Ms. McClish stated the area zoned open space (with a church) does have a dedicated easement for open space recorded on the parcel. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. The Commission had no further concerns. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend approval of the change to Design Overlay district D-2.8 to City Council. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray Desiqn Overlay District RR D-2.3 Ms. McClish stated this neighborhood is in the vicinity of La Barranca north of Tally Ho Chair Fellows excused himself from the discussion due to his residence being in the vicinity of this overlay. Ms. McClish explained that the area that includes the Overlay area D-2.2 & D-2.3 and stated some residences on the west side of James Way are currently zoned RR, but the General Plan classification is low/medium density which is equivalent to the RS zoning district; this is an area where the character of development and the current lot sizes also support the change to RS district; staff is therefore proposing that it be rezoned from RR to RS; the second unit dwelling size standard does differ in each of these districts, 850 sq. ft. versus 1,200 sq. ft. Staff will discuss potential modifications in the upcoming zoning discussions to propose that 1,200 sq. ft. units be allowed on the larger lots in the RS district and 850 sq. ft. on the smaller lots. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Tait made a motion to repeal the overlay and rezone to RS, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend approval of the changes to the Design Overlay District 2.3 to the City Council. � PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 � The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker and Tait , NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker recommending repeal of the Design Overlay District 2.2 and the change in the designated area from RR to RS. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Brown, Parker and Tait NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows Chair Fellows returned to the meeting. Ms. McClish then further discussed revisions contained in Exhibit "A": Appeals 16.12.150 A. - Appeal of Action: Language revised for clarification of this section. � 16.32.020 and 16.32.050: Multi Family Apartment district (MFA) currently 11 dwelling units per acre changed to a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre to provide consistency with the General Plan. The Senior Housing Residential District (SR), is proposed to be renamed to Multi-Family Very High Density (MF-VH) District, to provide consistency with the General Plan and in response to 2003 State law changes. Mobile Home Parks District (MHP): Density change from 6'/z to 12 dwelling per gross acre, also to provide consistency with the General Plan. 16.32.030 A. - Residential Densities for Residential Districts - Proposed language to clarify how density units are counted for multi-family dwelling units in response to the City's Housing Element. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment and hearing none closed it. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to recommend approval of the Resolution to City Council, amending portions of Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, and adopt: L PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 11 MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 06-2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND PORTIONS OF TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-005) MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP AND CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.12, 16.32 & 16.44 TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Parker, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: ' None ABSENT: Commissioner Ray ABSTAIN: Chair Fellows (abstain from Design Overlay District 2.2 & 2.3 only) The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15t day of August 2006. Ms. McClish stated that discussion on this item will continue to the September 5, 2006 meeting. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-002 - BIKE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN; APPLICANT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITYW�E Community Development Director, Rob Strong, presented the staff report,fo�view of a bike and pedestrian plan prepared by Planning Intern, Brian Sola�nd and himself, and the recommendations of Parks and Recreation Commission and�fraffic Commission to amend Circulation/Transportation and Parks & Recre�on Elements of the 2001 General Plan. In conclusion, Mr. Strong recommended the Planning Commission approve the Resolution recommending that City Council adopt the 2006 Bikeway and Pedestrian Enhancement Plan. / Mr. Strong replied to Commission questio�: • The proposed Class 1 bike pa��near Oak Park, north of New Hope church, are currently in the Circulation nd Parks and Recreation Elements, but there is no trail and it is wetland an ould definitely require environmental analysis. • The proposed bike t from La Canada to the future Hidden Oaks School is not a priority at this ti . . The suggesti s from Adam Fukushima, Bicycle Coalition, regarding bicycle violators taking a course in bicycle education in lieu of a fine, could be included in the Bik �Plan . Re ants/Federal funding: Having a bike plan will enable the City to apply for t�tese grants. �Re "The Safe Routes to School Program", most of the priorities listed are routes to school. � i 9.d. � CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE to consider the following item: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — 22 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF.EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (CHERRY CREEK). The Council will consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and residential development project within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed 30-unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Subarea 2 encompasses 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. The City is concurrently processing a Development Code Amendment to change the Residential Rural Zone designation to Medium Density Single Family Residential which is consistent with the 2001 General Plan. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council require an Environmental Impact Report be completed for the project. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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. � Information relating to this item is available by contacting the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 473-5420. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. , � \ Kelly Wet or City Clerk � Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, September 1, 2006 � PRR�yO � c� � INCORPORATED 92 V T � JULY 10. 1011 * c4��F ORN�P MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KELLY HEFFERNON �� � ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04- 007, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04- 002; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — 22 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF NOGUERA COURT AND NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (CHERRY CREEK) DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for residential development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed 30-unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Subarea 2 encompasses 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission recommends that the Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report be completed for the project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental determination. FUNDING: There would be additional City costs associated with landscape maintenance within the c�eek setback area if the City accepts the offer of dedication. There would also be City costs associated with maintenance of drainage facilities. In addition, the City has proposed to pay $280,000 towards the regional portion of the drainage improvements. This funding is available in the Newsom Springs Capital Improvement Project budget. DISCUSSION Background The East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) area is roughly twenty-two (22) acres in size and is generally bounded by a private fifteen-foot (15') wide extension of East Cherry Avenue to the south and Myrtle Street to the north. Surrounding the site is Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east, agricultural land to the east and south, and medium-density single-family residential development to the west on Noguera Street. Existing on the project site are fourteen (14) residences, including the historic Vanderveer residence, and several accessory structures. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 2 According to the 2001 General Plan (LU2-7), this area is subject to a requirement for a Neighbofiood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, Creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. Included with this staff report is a copy of the EVNP and the accompanying technical Appendix. i The EVNP area is currently divided into sixteen (16) parcels under twelve (12) separate ownerships. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this property as Single-Family Residential Medium-Density with a Neighborhood Plan overlay (SF-MD- NP). This is the only area within the City having a Neighborhood Plan designation. The Zoning Map has not been updated to reflect the current land use and therefore is shown as Single-Family Residential Rural (RR). The applicant held several informal neighborhood meetings during the fall of 2003 to gain feedback on various alternative designs for developing the project site and conceptualizing the Neighborhood Plan. Discussions centered on opportunities and constraints of the property, specifically addressing site layout and issues related to circulation, density, and drainage. Alternatives were discussed and narrowed down to a preferred conceptual plan, which was further refined and finally submitted for Pre- Application review. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Pre-Application on March 16, 2004 and March 23, 2004, respectively, and generally provided favorable comments. Concerns focused on the width and composition of the agricultural buffer, drainage, lot size and street width (see Attachments 1 and 2 for meeting minutes). The conceptual design included forty (40) single-family residential lots ranging in size from about 4,000 to 12,000 square feet and arranged in a concentric pattern around a central green space. Included in the design were common landscaped areas, a 100' agricultural buffer with a pedestrian/bike trail, and possible pedestrian linkage to the adjacent school property by way of a bridge over Arroyo Grande Creek (the bridge would be located on City property within the Stanley Street right-of-way). Based on concerns from neighbors of increased traffic from parents using the bridge as a convenient drop off for children attending Paulding Middle School and from the City regarding permitting, construction and maintenance costs, the project plans eliminated reference to a bridge. However, this does not preclude the City from pursuing a pedestrian bridge option now or in the future. The Traffic Commission considered the project on August 16, 2004. Comments focused on the proposed 32-foot width of the streets (see Attachment 3 for Memorandum to Planning Commissioners from Don Spagnolo dated August 18, 2004). The majority of the Traffic Commission expressed concern that the 32-foot width of the streets was too narrow. The project was later revised to include a 36-foot wide internal street. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 72,2006 , CHERRY CREEK , � PAGE 3 { Although not directly related to this project, the City Council also considered an � interpretation of allowable uses within and composition of the Agricultural Buffer overlay � District last fall (see Attachment 4 for meeting minutes). The interpretation was helpful in � guiding the redesign of the project prior to the formal submittal process. Council directed ! staff to allow flexibility regarding the location of the twenty-foot (20') wide landscape strip within the one hundred foot (100') agricultural buffer, with a preference for keeping the landscape strip as far away from agricultural operations as possible. Council further directed staff to not allow any residential uses within the agricultural buffer area, including backyards and garages, and require the buffer area to be maintained by either a) a homeowners association, b) a maintenance district, or c) dedicated to the Ciry. The Planning Commission considered the formal Cherry Creek project on February 1, 2005, March 1, 2005, March 15, 2005, May 16, 2006 and July 18, 2006 and, on a 3-2 � vote, recommended that the City Council require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be completed for the project based on the following issues (see Attachments 5-9 for '� Meeting Minutes): • Drainage, • Environmental impacts to prime soils on subareas 1 and 2, • Creek sensitivities for subareas 1 and 2, . Siltation, and . Pesticide runoff calculations haven't been fully addressed. � The motion also requested that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the recommendation. At the August 8, 2006 City Council meeting under City Council Member Items, the Council unanimously supported the following request placed on the agenda by two Council Members: "Request to place consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Neighborhood Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Development 04-002 (Cherry Creek project) on a future City Council agenda for consideration along with consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the environmental determination." Council Members commented that, for a variety of reasons, including the need to address critical City land use policies and timing related issues, they wanted to have the flexibility to act on the Cherry Creek project as a whole, if deemed appropriate. Staff has been asked whether the Council can consider and render a decision on the project as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that the Planning Commission's formal ' recommendation is limited to a determination that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is i inadequate and an Environmental Impact Report is required. Because of the Planning Commission's determination on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, it would be impossible for the Planning Commission to recommend project approval as each required project approval/entitlement requires a separate finding that there are no significant unmitigated environmental impacts. However, it must be emphasized that � CITY COUNCII SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 4 this is not a black and white issue and a formal Planning Commission recommendation on the project would not be detrimental and could only enhance the process, regardless of the ultimate recommendation. Proiect Description Proposed is a Neighborhood Plan, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to coordinate infrastructure improvements and allow for ultimate development of up to seventy-five (75) new residential lots on the twenty-iwo (22) acre site. The City is concurrently processing a Development Code Amendment to change the Residential Rural (RR) zoning designation to Medium Density Single Family Residential (MD — SFR) consistent with the General Plan. Neiqhborhood Plan Although there are no specific guidelines in the General Plan or Development Code for preparing a Neighborhood Plan, it was City staff's intent in recommending the requirement of a Neighborhood Plan to ensure that utilities, circulation and infrastructure needs would be designed to accommodate future development on the entire 22-are area. As a result, the Neighborhood Plan focuses on general infrastructure improvements for both proposed Subareas, as further described below. The site layout for Subarea 1 has been designed to accommodate development of Subarea 2 by providing access to , water, sewer and other utility facilities for the entire area. In no way does the Neighborhood Plan authorize specific entitlements for Subarea 1 or Subarea 2. Separate environmental and discretionary review will be required for any proposed subdivision or development within the Neighborhood Plan area. The potential for a total of 75 new residential lots (27 in Subarea 1 and 48 in Subarea 2) is estimated for the entire area based on the current Subarea 1 proposal and 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre for Subarea 2. Gross acreage includes unbuildable areas such as the creek � channel, existing riparian vegetation, creek setback, and agricultural buffer. At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant prepared a conceptual design of how Subarea 2 could be subdivided given existing development patterns and environmental constraints. Based on that design (included in the Neighborhood Plan), Subarea 2 could have 26 lots, or 15 additional lots. Once again, the purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is not to determine specific lots. Lot layout for Subarea 2 is conceptual based on the existing pattern of development and environmental constraints. Lot configuration for Subarea 2 will likely change based upon proposals by individual property owners. The purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is to ensure Subarea 1 Iaccommodates maximum buildout of Subarea 2 under the existing General Plan with , regard to infrastructure and circulation. Subareas Development of the 22-acre property is separated in two subareas as follows: Subarea 1 includes nine (9) of the twenty-hvo (22) acres with primary access from an extension of E. Cherry Avenue and secondary access from Myrtle Street. Proposed is a ' thirty (30) lot residential subdivision (27 new lots) in a Planned Unit Development CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 5 configuration with lot sizes ranging from 3,905 to 12,980 square feet (average lot size is 7,100t square feet). Two duet lots are proposed for the affordable units. The proposed density is 3.3 dwelling units per acre; 4.5 dwelling units per acre is allowed per the General Plan. Four (4) parcels totaling 128,309 square feet (2.9 acres) are proposed as open space. The open space parcels include a portion of the creek channel, the 25' creek setback area, landscaping (turf, shrubs, trees), and pedestrian paths intended for passive recreational�use. Sidewalks are provided throughout the development with accent paving at crosswalks. The proposed width for the internal street is thirty-six feet (36') with parking on both sides, and the proposed street width for E. Cherry Avenue is thirty-two feet (32') with parking provided on the north side of the street. A concrete curb and gutter is proposed on the north side of the street with an asphalt curb on the south side. The site plan shows a looped road system with Myrtle Street extended further east. Myrtle Street goes around the historic Vandeveer residence so that it is visible from the public right-of-way. Portions of the 15' wide "Dirt Cherry" are included within the proposed East Cherry Avenue extension in response to neighborhood and Planning Commission comments. Because of the uncertainty regarding fractionalized ownership, including Dirt Cherry as part of the development will likely necessitate the use of eminent domain by the City. Note that the applicant has provided an alternative for the access street to be separate from Dirt Cherry area if preferred by the City. A thirty-foot (30') wide emergency access Ieasement is provided between lots 25 and 26 to serve Subarea 2. Consistent with the City's Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2), a one hundred thirty foot (130') buffer is proposed to separate the divergent residential and agricultural land uses. The buffer extends 130' from the edge of the Dixson Ranch property line to the residential property line and includes a sixty- to eighty-foot (60'-80') wide landscape strip, fencing along the agricultural property, an eight-foot (8') tall masonry wall adjacent to the proposed residential development, and a five-foot (5') wide meandering pedestrian path. The buffer excludes any private property (i.e. residential backyards) as was proposed with the Pre-Application. To minimize "holes" in the Ag buffer, the sound wall that runs along the E. Cherry Avenue frontage behind the vegetation has been extended across the bio-swale (allowing a large gap with culvert at the bottom for drainage tn pass through), and landscaping is proposed within "Dirt Cherry" on the other side of the proposed East Cherry Avenue extension where the two points of access are proposed. The landscape plan has been updated to show additional detail regarding selected plant species based on their buffer perFormance (see sheets L-1.0 and L-3.0). Specific landscape design has also been prepared for the riparian area to include appropriate plant species (see sheet L-2.0). Plant selection for all project areas is based on recommendations from Kevin Merk, a senior Biologist and Botanist with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and David Wolff, the City's consulting biologist. The three 72-inch pipes previously proposed for drainage has been changed to include a longer bioswale (increased from 235' to 480') and culvert at the outfall. No pipes are currently proposed. The landscape plan shall include exclusively native plants in the bioswale area. OutFall details are provided on sheet C-3.0 of the project plans. The top � CITY COUNCIL , SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 6 of bank and creek setback area has been modified at the creek outfall based on the revised grading plan. The architectural style of the residential units will be subject to the Cherry Creek Design Guidelines, included as a separate attachment. These Guidelines were modeled after the City's Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and includes much detail to ensure quality development. (Note that the project site lies outside of the D-2.4 overlay district and therefore is not subject to the City's Design Guidelines for Historic Districts). The objective is to present enough flexibility in design to enable unique development opportunities, yet provide sufficient design criteria to create the desired neighborhood "feel" consistent with the Village Area. Lots 1-7 (adjacent to the Noguera Place subdivision) will be deed restricted to single story residences only. All other residences will adhere to Development Code height requirements (2-stories or 30 feet). The feasibility of a creekside path was explored, but proved to be infeasible given the proximity of existing residences to the creek. However, the proposed development of Subarea 1 includes pedestrian pathways throughout the development that would be accessible to the public and connect the neighborhood to the west with the entire Neighborhood Plan area. Subarea 2 contains thirteen (13) acres with eleven (11) existing residences. If approved, the new medium density zoning (MD-SFR) for the area will allow densities up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre or 48 new residences [(4.5)(13) — 11]. These properties are accessed by a fifteen-foot (15') wide private road that is owned by many individuals, including the owners of the Dixson Ranch. Staff believes it would be in the best interest of future residents of Subarea 2 if East Cherry Avenue were extended to the full width of 32'. The applicant has worked to obtain offers of dedication, but to date has not been able to contact all of the owners of the roadway. Another private access road within Subarea 2 is Lierly Lane, which connects perpendicular to the 15' private extension of East Cherry Avenue beiween the Janowicz and Estes properties. Lierly Lane also has a narrow width (approximately ten feet) and is considered inadequate to serve future development. Upon future subdivision in this area, Lierly Lane would necessitate widening to a minimum of eighteen feet (18') for emergency access purposes. The proposed utilities within Subarea 1 will be sized and extended to adequately service the future development of Subarea 2. Sewer easements would also be provided for future development of Subarea 2, requiring hook up of existing residences on properties located within two hundred and fifty feet (250') of the sewer system within two (2) years. Per Municipal Code Section,13.12.050, "when a public sewer becomes available to a building served by a private sewage disposal system, such building shall be connected to the public sewer within twenty-four (24) months after such public sewer is available, and such private disposal system shall be abandoned as p�ovided in Section 13.12.080, unless an approval is granted by the Council for the continued use of such private sewage disposal system." Water and sewer lines will be extended and connected to existing lines to CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 7 serve both subareas in accordance with City standards. The proposed 8" sewer line to serve Subarea 2 will adequately handle the flow from Subarea 2 at buildout. The 8" sewer line is being extended to PC Railway Place and has an invert at the edge of Subarea 2 of 116.94 feet. The sewer line is approximately 17.5 feet deep in E. Cherry Avenue at the edge of Subareas 1 and 2. All new residences would be subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2) including the proposed 130' wide agricultural buffer and prohibition of new development within the buffer area. Additions to existing residences would be allowed within the buffer area, as long as new dwelling units were not being created. The proposed drainage improvements constructed with development of Subarea 1 are sized to handle drainage for Subarea 2. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for new residences, as per Development Code requirements. Development Code Compliance for Subarea 1 Compliance with Development Code standards, such as lot size, setbacks and architectural style, are determined through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. Deviations from standards are allowed to occur when there are provisions of adequate infrastructure, emergency facilities and access, parking, screening, recreational facilities, and environmental compatibility with adjacent properties. The following table outlines the Planned Unit Development standards for Subarea 1. Because of the single story restriction for Lots 1-7, the applicant is requesting a 5% deviation from lot coverage requirements for these lots, and a 10% deviation for the duet lots. Deviations from setbacks, lot width and lot depth are also requested. Development Code Requirements 1MD=SFR Zonina DistFictl Setbacks: Front: 20' Interior Side: 5' one side, 10' other side Street Side: 15' Rear: 10' 1-sto , 15' 2-sto Minimum Lot Size 7,200 s uare feet Minimum Lot Width 70" Minimum Lot De th 100' Maximum Densit 4.5 dwellin units er acre Maximum Lot Covera e 40% Maximum Hei ht 30' or 2 stories, whichever is less Minimum Distance Between 10' Buildin s CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 8 Proposed Proiect Subarea 1 t°� � � ' t 8� � �M�9� �y� _ �M� °+ Iu h t nsk 'y. S . M,�c �3�. .�}.-� ..�,"'. %A.fMA'M"dh'%. . ,�yp +a�'��t21fl ' PPOpO$@C�� � �� , �u+;� " ,* �, �BSCflpt10O�" � � �i� �It�L; �.a�4x F'k, i5�;���� ��Y � �r fs ��� ,:�y, t i .tMf'i*�ts�k Itiy � 4 Ca 'tE ,! is K� Ek�e+�*k..�� x . 3�f" ` . �e � t . � ��V� . .§pi �"� � r>H!:� .. r ;. ,�.i�i .. .. :°: L.. .. � i.� . .ut . . . � ' . ... . .. .� ,. . . .: . � Setbacks Lots: 1-7 Front- Porch 10' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of orch foundation. Front - 15' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to House street to closest ortion of house foundation. Front - 20' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to Gara e street to closest ortion of the ara e door. Side 5' min. Measured from property line to closest portion of Internal house or ara e foundation. Side (Street) 10' min. Measured from street side property line to the (1 story height closest portion of the foundation of the house or restriction) side of garage. Applies only to corner lots. The street side property line shall be determined as the side with the longer measurement along the street. For example, if a corner lot is 50' x 90', the side along the 90' measurement shall be the street side ard. Rear— House 10' min. Measured from property line to closest portion of or Garage (1 story house or garage foundation. height restriction Lots: 8-23 Front— Porch 10' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of orch foundation. Front- House 15' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to street to closest ortion of house foundation. Front - 20' min. Measured from front property line adjacent to Gara e street to closest ortion of the ara e door. Side 0'—attached Measured from property line to closest portion of (Internal) 5'—.non- house or garage foundation. Attached units shall attached share an internal zero lot line. Non- attached units shall maintain a 5' side setback. Side (Street) 10' min. Measured from street side property line to the closest portion of the foundation of the house or side of ara e. A lies onl to corner lots. Rear— House 15' min. (1 Measured from property line to closest portion of or Garage story) house or garage foundation. 15' minimum rear 25' min (2 setback for the 2-story portion of the house on sto lots 15 and 16. Other Standards all lots : Maximum 3.35 units/acre Based on gross density (30 lots/9.0 acres) Density CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 9 P.rQposetl Project Subarea 1 : r;; ` ` ` � � N � � �. , . :, e ��;..>� .. ,;�� . �:: .��.�... �-. `_ t*' � .�I ��; ,'..,�. ' ` � hltem Proposed �" `'� Descript�on � ,� � ' � , f � � � r �' "'4�i kw.iNr'µ�, �.5.. x E<�,� 'i4�k lt�srFp t � ,�.;.ib°'«k k�:hrc;.::' +..�..: �,� 1��;��.�'F�e� �� my.�N'��.'_�e��;siL;i"'.. • Minimum Lot 5,800 s.f./ 6,000 square feet for detached units and 3,900 Area 3,500 s.f. square feet for units that share an internal zero lot line. Minimum Lot 55'/35' As measured 20' back from the front property Width line. 55' for detached units and 35' feet for units that share an internal zero lot line. Minimum Lot 80'/75' As measured at the approximate center of the lot. Depth 80' for detached units and 75' feet for units that share an internal zero lot line. Maximum Lot 40%/45%/50% Coverage includes all buildings and garage area, Coverage but excludes unenclosed porches, decks, and balconies. 40% coverage for lots 8-14 and 17-30. 45°/a coverage for lots 1-7 that are restricted to 1 story. 50% coverage for lots 15 and 16, which share an internal zero lot line. Planned Unit Development The purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is to "facilitate development of properties designated for residential and commercial uses or planned development in the General Plan and Development Code. This process is used where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more effioient use of land than would be possible through strict application of conventional zone or land use district regulations." (Development Code Section 16.16.060). Therefore, Planned Unit Development applications provide a basis for deviating from other Development Code standards if the proposed project is found to meet these goals, as long as the overall permitted density of the project area is not exceeded. This requirement is specified within the required findings. In particular, since Planned Unit Developments frequently cluster units in order to achieve other design goals, deviations from lot size standards are normally involved. The proposed project is within the maximum density allowable (proposed is 30 units and allowed is 41 units). Section 16.32.050(E) of the Development Code outlines additional pertormance standards for Planned Unit Development projects. Listed below are the specific standards followed by how the project meets or falls short of these standards. 1. When lot sizes less than that permitted by the underlying zoning district are proposed for a subdivision, a Planned Unit Development permit application (Section 16.16.180) shall be submitted concurrently with the subdivision application. (Proposed lot sizes are /ess than 7,200 square feet. Therefore a PUD application has been submitted along with the Tentative Tract Map. Lot size was identified as a concern by neighboring property owners. As a result, CITY COUNCIL i SEPTEMBER12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 10 densify of the proposed project was reduced to increase lot size to be more comparable to the adjacent neighborhood. The average lot size of adjacent properties to fhe west is 7,300 square feet, similar fo the current proposed average lot size of 7,100 square feet for the overall project. The average lot size of adjacent properties to the east is over an acre in size. The project includes larger lots on the east side of the site for better compatibilify). 2. Lot size, lot width, and lot depth for each unit shall be determined through the Planned Unit Development review process. (Proposed lot sizes, lot widths and lot depths are less than the MD-SFR requirements). Development Code Ave. Proposed Re uirement Lot size 7,200 square feet 7,112 s.f. (min. is 3,905 s.f. and max. is 12,980 s.f. Lot width 70' 55' Lot de th 100' 90' 3. Building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district may be reduced or waived for lots created through a Planned Unit Development, provided the lot coverage requirements of the district are met for the project. (The project deviates from setback requirements as shown in fhe table on pages 7-9. The project also deviates from the 40% maximum lot coverage requirement forlots 1- 7 and the duet lots. Lots 1-7 back up to the residences fronting on Noguera Place and are single story as requesfed by the Noguera Place residents. 5ingle story units predictably have greater lot coverage than two-story units. The Planned Unit Development process enables approval of the project despife this deviation in standards in order fo facilitate developmenf where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land fhan would otherwise be possible. In the case of this project, deviation from standards is enabling the applicant to utilize larger than required agricultural buffers, partially resolves regional drainage problems, and fo address other City objectives such as providing creek protection and open space areas). In no case shall the minimum separation between buildings on adjacent lots be less than ten (10) feet or less than required by other state or local laws; excepting, however, for adjacent lots where a common wall is shared in a zero lot line project. (Standard lots meef this requirement; the two duet lots have zero lot line on one side). 4. For zero lot line projects where detached dwelling units are to be constructed upon a lot line, a five-foot maintenance easement shall be provided on the adjacent lot, along, and parallel to, the zero lot line dwelling. The easement shall grant access to the owner of the zero lot line dwelling for purposes of maintaining the zero lot line wall. (The project will be conditioned to provide said easements). I CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 11 5. A Planned Unit Development must meet the following performance standards in order to be approved: a. The project shall be unobtrusive and environmentally compatible with adjacent property. (The project site is located between medium density residential development to the west and low-density residential development to the east. The proposed medium density units will be most compatiBle with the existing neighborhood to the west since that area is already built out. The neighborhood to the east has the potential for infill development up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre under the existing General Plan and proposed zoning. The project will be environmenfally compatible with fhe adjacent Agricultural land with implementation of the 130' wide Ag buffer including a 60'-80' wide landscape strip and masonry wall to separate the two uses). b. The project shall provide all infrastructure necessary to support the project. (Yes). c. The project shall provide adequate emergency facilities and access. (Yes). d. Circulation systems shall be designed to promote smooth-flowing and non- conflicting vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (Access for existing Subarea 2 residences improves with the proposed project. Pedestrian paths are located throughout the project site.). e. The project shall provide adequate and well-landscaped parking and ample ' drainage facilities. (Yes). f. The project shall provide screening, as required, to separate different land ; uses, minimize nuisances to and from adjacent property, and guarantee convenient access to preserved open space. (Yes). � g. A property owners' association and covenants shall be established to ensure that common areas are owned and maintained by Planned Unit Development property owners. (Condition of approval). g. All signs shall be appropriately integrated with the overall architectural theme ', of the development. (Signage not proposed). Ii. Pedestrian/bike paths shall provide safe, convenient routes within the development and link with other systems on the perimeter of the site. Unobstructed visibility shall be provided from and of these paths at intersections. (Sidewalks and pedestrian paths are provided within the development). CITY COUNCIL j SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 12 j. Recreational facilities shall comply with City standards, be made available to residents, and shall be maintained by local property owners. The project shall be designed to group dwellings around common open space and/or recreational features. (The project includes landscaped open space areas with the proposed vegetated swale in the center, along the Cherry Avenue fronfage in the Ag buffer, and adjacent to fhe creek. Where appropriate, meandering pedestrian pathways are included. A homeowners association will maintain all common open space areas. If the City accepts the offer of dedication of the creek bed and 25' creek setback, the City would maintain that area). k. Planned Unit Development design must promote an attractive streetscape and discourage monotonous streets dominated by asphalt, concrete, garages, and cars. (The architectural design of the dwellings will be subject to specific Design Guidelines for Cherry Creek. The intent of the Guidelines is to provide creative and appropriate building design compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. With residential lot sizes ranging from 3,905 to 12,980 square feet, the proposed unit types will vary accordingly. Note fhat design of the duet lots will /ook like one large residence. Fina/ design, colors and materials for a!I new homes will be subject to ARC consideration prior fo issuance of building permit. The project will be conditioned to eitherplace the garages further back from the street than the residentia/ units or provide side loaded garages such that garage doors do not dominate fhe streetscape). I. Open space shall be provided in accordance with Table 16.32.050-C and the following requirements (the project meets PUD open space requirements; this issue is discussed further below): i. The area of each parcel of common open space designed for active recreational purposes shall be of such minimum dimensions as to be functionally usable. (The common open space areas have multiple funcfions, including stormwater filtrafion in the 6ioswales, providing a buffer befween the Agricultura/ and residentia/ uses, and passive recreation. There are no proposed "active"recreational facilities such as a tot lot or formal exercise areas). ii. Common open space parcels shall be located convenient to the dwelling units they are intended to serve. However, because of noise generation, they shall be sited with sensitivity to surrounding development. (Common open space areas are located adjacent to the creek, a/ong the East Cherry Avenue frontage, and through fhe center of the project). � i � CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE13 iii. Developed Common Open Space. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may require the installation of recreational facilities, taking into consideration: (A) The character of the open space land; (B) The estimated age and the recreation needs of persons likely to reside in the development; (C) Proximity, nature and excess capacity of existing municipal recreation facilities; and (D) The cost of the recreational facilities. iv. Undeveloped Common Open Space. As a general principle, undeveloped open space should be left in its natural state. A developer may make certain improvements such as the cutting of trails for walking or jogging, or the provisions of picnic areas, etc. In addition, the Planning Commission and/or City Council (if project is appealed or Council is decision-making body) may require a developer to make other improvements, such as removing dead or diseased trees, thinning trees or other vegetation to encourage more desirable growth, and grading and seeding. (The open space adjacent to the creek will be augmented with native riparian vegetation. MM 4.2 requires that a Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Rep/acement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, "Restoration Plan', be prepared by a qualified /andscape architect and/or restoration biologist for the dedicated open space 25-foot creek setback area). v. The Planning Commission may permit minor deviations from open space standards when it can be determined that: (A) The objectives underlying these standards can be met without strict adherence to them; and/or (B) Because of peculiarities in the tract of land or the facilities proposed, it would be unreasonable to require strict adherence to these standards. vi. Any lands dedicated for open space purposes shall contain appropriate covenants and deed restrictions approved by the city attorney ensuring that: (A) The open space.area will not be further subdivided in the future; (B) The use of the open space will continue in perpetuity for the purpose specified; (C) Appropriate provisions will be made for the maintenance of the open space; and (D) Common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a commercial enterprise admitting the general public at a fee. (This will be a condition of approval). CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 14 vii. The type of ownership of land dedicated for common open space purposes shall be selected by the developer, subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Type of ownership may include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: (A) The City, subject to acceptance by the City Council; (B) Other public jurisdictions or agencies, subject to their acceptance; (C) Quasi-public organizations, subject to their acceptance; (D) Homeowner, condominium or cooperative associations or organizations; or (E) Shared, undivided interest by all property owners in the subdivision. (Proposed is a homeowners associafion, with fhe creek channel and 25' creek setback area fo be irrevocably offered for dedication to the City. The City Council has the authority to either accept or reject the offer of dedication). viii. If the open space is owned and maintained by a homeowner or condominium association, the developer shall file a declaration of ' covenants and restrictions that will govern the association, to be submitted with the Planned Unit Development application. The provisions shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (A) The homeowners association must be established before the homes are sold; (B) Membership must be mandatory for each home buyer and any successive buyer; (C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, not just for a period of years; (D) The association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and the maintenance of recreational and other facilities; (E) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the cost, and the assessment levied by the association can become a lien on the property if allowed in the master deed establishing the homeowners association; and (F) The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed needs. (This will be a condition of approval). Open Space. There are various definitions of open space included in the Development Code, as provided below: CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE15 Open Sqace. "Open space" means land used for recreation, resource protection, amenity, and/or buffers and dedicated, designed or reserved for public or private use. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreation areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded areas, and water courses. Open space shall not be deemed to include driveways, parking lots, or other surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel or areas covered by buildings or accessory structures (except recreational structures). Oqen Space, Common. "Common open space" means open space within a project owned, designed and set aside for use by all occupants of the project or by occupants of a designated portion of the project. Common open space is not dedicated to the public and is owned and maintained by a private organization made up of the open space users. Common open space includes common recreation facilities, open landscaped areas, greenbelts, but excluding pavement or driveway areas, or parkway landscaping within public right-of-way. Open Space. Private. "Private open space" means usable open space which adjoins and is directly accessible to a residential or nonresidential unit; may be reserved for the exclusive use of the residents, owners or lessees of the unit and their visitors, customers, or employees; and which is maintained by a private entity. Private open space includes private patios or balconies and front, rear or side yards on a lot designed for single-family detached or attached housing. Open Space. Public. "Public open space" means open space that is accessible and used by the general public for active or passive recreational purposes or resource protection. Oaen Space, Usable. "Usable open space" means outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground, or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch or terrace, designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping, but excluding parking � facilities, driveways, utility or service areas. The project meets open space requirements by providing an average of over 1,000 square feet of private open space per lot, eliminating the requirement for provision of common open space. Usable open space is also exceeded. Total common open space delineated on the project plans is 92,950 square feet, or 2.13 acres. Since the project is conditioned to irrevocably offer the creek channel and 25' creek setback to the City as public open space, this area has been removed from the common open space calculations (see table below). CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 16 Table 16.32.050-C: Open Space Requirements for Planned Unit Developments _. _ __ __ _ qeneral qeneral qenerel Caet►eFA1 Re uirement Re uirement ' Re uirement R�quiwemen�, _. : .. !Private open 100-224 !! 225-499 I 500-999 !: +1bOq .....'� � !Space (average Pr4�vsed,ave►'age ls s.f. per lot) approxfmate1y4,400?sq.ft.. '' (based ort a 2,4QO sq, f# hoeise ' .: w�th a 400sq ft giarage anii; , A00 sy!:•ft drrvewey) ,_ _ ..'i 'Common Open 35% 30% 10% = d°/ ' ',Space(minimum %' Pro osed i$a roximafel of project area) 9Y,950"sq ft (�/udes Ag buifer,tiiaswele;:walkways,. ; :: '' /anatscape:sfryps and porGon 6f: i area iiea�creek.tiut-not w�thin..:::.; , . J ,, #ha 25'.setback area)_ ; . ---- -----— __. Usable Open 40% 40% 45% 45°� ar 180 000 sa ft � Space (minimum % � Proposed/s approx�mately ; ,: !�of project area) `214,700..sg ft(�nc/udes... .' ' ' cpmmon a.nd prlvafe open ' "'';.;i ! spaca,andieacctutles.pubfPo ;."- __... _ .. ,,... . .- open space).:.,! ; Public Open Space! No PUD No Piopqsetl is dppioximataly ; ; requirement- requiremeM ' S�,6QO sq; fL:.{ihcludes the ` ; dedication is per c�eekChanr�el and 25':'setback:''.'s Development ;:a�eaj. _" ` I Code Section 16.64.060.R. If the City accepts the offer of dedication, the City will be responsible for maintaining the creek setback area. Otherwise, a homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance. The project will be conditioned to show an irrevocable offer to dedicate the streambed and 25' creek setback area to the City on the Final Tract Map. Issues Drainaae. Accommodating regional drainage is proposed by implementing one of the drainage solutions outlined in the Drainage Master Plan and Newsom Springs Drainage Project. The solution includes diverting drainage to Arroyo Grande Creek by installing a 48" drainage pipe along the east side of Branch Mill Road which will drain to a forty foot (40') wide bioswale through box culverts, eventually draining to the creek. This solution also includes eliminating the diversion of runoff through the existing stone culvert on Branch Mill Road. It should be noted that the three 72-inch pipes previously proposed as the regional drainage solution for the project has been changed to include a longer bio-swale and culvert at the outfall. Outfall details are provided on sheet C-3.0 of the project plans and CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE17 shown below. The top of bank and creek setback area have been modified at the creek outfall based on the revised grading plan. �T�CF CPEGN flWK x:�swr� , .�(E�TOPOFCR[CKMNK ��124CLLYBRTT� . ��--118 qlIYERT INVERT � i12.BINOME8TiffCO�EORdN ' 9ox WLVERT.ENb '�BTBTRFAMOM#iE.'� . PROTECTEDTO ]G4x Of1�WMY Nbt1 YYkTER PREVEkT6NM�1�'CE ^� _ 7WlBORO)A 47�i PoP��RAPfiIWfi FROIEGTIIX�I E��� Premous�Su6mittal ' . . .. .. 'Current"Sutirriittal 4�� °` °' . kY ,'_ , , i?4s». . ' ' Combination of vegetated Combination of vegetated channel with channel and three, 72" pipes. box culvert ouffall to the creek. Pipes eliminated and replaced with open channel. Vegetated channel length increased from 235' to 480' to provide additional bio-swale value. Additional detail added to planting plan for channel area. Note: Based on recent comments from David Wolff, City's environmental consultant, the applicant has agreed to adjust the planting plan to use exclusively native plants in the bio-swale area. City Council considered the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project on August 29, 2006 (see Attachment 11 for staff report). Staff was directed to prepare preliminary engineering and environmental review on a comprehensive drainage plan, including, but not limited to, the alignment and alternative proposed by the applicant. If City Council considers and approves the project, staff recommends that final construction documents I for drainage require approval of the Director of Public Works based upon the results of the environmental review for the regional drainage project. At the request of the City, a Flood Channel Preliminary Analysis was prepared by Keith Crowe dated August 31, 2006 to determine if changes to the proposed drainage � CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 18 solution were necessary to accommodate a 100-year flood event (see Attachment 10). The report describes modifications to the drainage ditch, box culverts and modifications proposed or related to the proposal as follows: 1. Lowering the ditch, especially on the upstream end. 2. Changing the cross section of the ditch. 3. Changing the slope of the ditch. 4. Modification of some of the street grades, generally within a foot or two. 5. Modification of some of the lot pad elevations, generally within a foot or two. 6. The proposed box culverts will likely be widened. 7. A small (approximately two foot) retaining wall will probably be needed at the back of lot 17 (with the existing house). 8. The ditch will need to be protected from erosion, most likely with permanent erosion control mats and vegetation. The proposed bioswale for the project is largely in conformance with design standards, with exceptions related to watershed size. The proposed design is expected to provide a significant benefit. Based on the recent hydraulic analyses of the swale, it will have a 4-feet wide bottom and a flat slope of about 0.75 percent. The side slopes are 2:1. The proposed design has many of the aspects called for in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Best Management Practices (BMP) Handbook for New Construction and Redevelopment. The design is described in the handbook as BMP TC-30 Vegetated Swale. The handbook notes that vegetated swales are most effective for small watersheds. Typically these facilities are related to the direct project impacts and the small watershed criteria can be accomplished. In the case of the Cherry Creek project, the direct project impacts for storm water quality are being handled by the proposed inline infiltration system at each storm drain inlet. The proposed bioswale is intended to provide some degree of water quality benefit related to runoff from existing large upstream watersheds. It is expected to provide a benefit during low flow conditions. The slope is quite flat, and with the proposed vegetation, it will have as much detention time as the site allows (comparable to existing). The addition of the proposed vegetation and the maintenance of the swale will provide a capability to slow and infiltrate pollutants in the low flow conditions superior to that of the current non-vegetated and narrower swale. Regarding drainage near the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue extension, it appears that a berm or wall is needed in the right-of-way of these two streets since most of the entrance to the collection ditch for the Cherry Creek drainage system is higher than the overflow to Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue extension. More topographic information is needed to determine the final length of the berm or wall, but based on topographic information available, would be approximately 100-200 feet along Branch Mill Road, and the entire length of the proposed collection ditch for the project. A wall would affect the full-length access to the streets from the � CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE19 adjacent agricultural property, as would a berm, but to a lesser extent. An alternative to a wall or berm would be to re-contour the agricultural field to coincide with the low point of the field with the collection ditch. Prime Soils. The soil of the project site is designated primarily as Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification. The City determined that all Class I and II soils are considered prime soils, as specified in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The project site, as well as most of the Village Area and many other areas within the City, contains prime soils. It has been staff's interpretation that General Plan policies regarding prime soils applied to areas that are zoned Agriculture and that any environmental impact resulting from the conversion of prime soils to a non-agricultural use was evaluated and mitigated at the time the non-agricultural zoning and/or General Plan designation was established. General Plan Policy Ag1-1 states the following: "Designate prime farmland soils that are not predominately committed to non-Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) and/or I Agriculture Preserve (AgP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use." This planning area has been predominantly committed to residential uses since the early 1900's and has been consistently zoned residential since the City established zoning. It should be noted that there has been walnut farming on a portion of Subarea 1 as recently as the mid 1980's. However, staff believes the area can be considered predominantly committed to non-Agricultural development. Further, since the proposed project is consistent with the 2001 General Plan Land Use Map, the proposed density and land use of this project would not result in any impacts to prime soils beyond what was analyzed in the 2001 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Finally, to interpret the agricultural mitigation policy as applied to this project othenvise may create constitutional "nexus" issues for the City. During the past two years, the Planning Commission has struggled with interpreting the prime soils policy issue as it relates to this project. In an attempt to objectively analyze this issue, staff reviewed a document entitled "California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model", which is a point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features. (This Model is referenced in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and is included with the Initial Study as Attachment A). This document was developed specifically to review conversions of agricultural resources for determining the threshold of significance through the CEQA process. In applying the unmodified State LESA Model to the proposed project, the result is an insignificant impact to agricultural resources and therefore mitigation is not required for conversion of prime soils. Notwithstanding the analysis outlined above, the applicant is offering some mitigation to address the prime soils issue. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 20 Aqricultural Resources. Ordinance 550, approved by City Council on December 9, 2003, established farmland preservation requirements and created an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2►, placing a perimeter overlay of one hundred feet (100') around agriculturally zoned properties for the purpose of addressing the agriculture/urban interface. Included in the revised regulations was an amendment to Development Code Section 16.12 regarding right to farm provisions that incorporated regulations for new development proposed adjacent to Agricultural districts. The following is the portion of Ordinance 550 that pertains to Agricultural buffers: CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 72, 2006 CHERRY CREEK ' PAGE 21 16.12.170. Right to farm provisions and farmland preservation. E. Agricultural buffer. 1. In conjunction with General Plan policies outlined in the Agriculture,Conservation and Open Space Element, and specifically Objective AgS,the City has determined that the use of property for agricultural operations is a high priority. To minimize potential conflicts between agriculwral and nonagricultural Iand uses, including the protection of public health,the reduction of noise and odor, and the reduction of risk to farm operations from domestic animal predation,crop theft and damage and complaints from neighboring urban dwellers,all new development adjacent to any designated agricultural district shall be required to provide an agricultural buffer. "DevelopmenP'as used in this section, means subdivision of land, use permits and building permits for new residential units. , 2. The buffer area shall be a minimum of one hundred feet,measured from the edge of the designated agricultural district. Optimally,to achieve a masimum separation, a buffer wider than one hundred feet is encouraged and may be required if it is determined through environmental review under CEQA and/or recommended by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner. A decreased buffer distance may be allowed if it can be demonstrated that a physical buffer exists(e.g. Arroyo Grande Creek)that is adequate and I approved by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissionec 3 Th minim m n h n r f ri I r I ff h . e u o e u d ed oot ag cu tu a bu er area s all be comprised of two components: a twenty-foot wide agricultural landscaped transition azea contiguous to an eighty-foot wide agricultural buffer adjacent to the designated agricultural district. The twenty-foot transition area may include pedestrian access. The combined one hundred foot agricultural buffer shall not qualify as farmland mitigation as required by section 16.12.170.F. ' 4. The following shall be permitted in the one hundred foot agricultural buffer: native plants,tree or hedge rows,roads,drainage channels, storm retention ponds,natural areas such as creeks or , drainage swales, utility corridors, storage, and any use, including agricultural or limited commercial uses, determined by the planning commission to be consistent with the use of the property as an agricultural buffer. No new residential use shall be permitted within the buffer area unless it is determined there would be no other economically viable use of the property. Restoration of a damaged residence within the buffer area may be p�rsued in accordance with Section 16.48.1 ]0. 5. The one hundred foot agricultural buffer shall be established by the developer pursuant to a plan approved by the Community Development Director and the Parks, Recreation and Facilities ' Director. The plan shall include provisions for the use of integrated weed and pest management techniques and soil erosion control. An agreement in the form approved by the city attorney shall be recorded, which shall include the requirements of this section. 16.28.020.Agricultural districts. C. Agricultural preservation overlay(AG-2.2) district.The primary purpose of the AG-2.2 , overlay district is to provide for a mechanism to minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural land uses. This district is to provide for an agricultural buffer transitional area and requires that new development and changes in use require discretionary approvalin accordance with Section 16.12.170.E, CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 22 Bioloqical Impacts and Water Qualitv. A Due Diligence Report was prepared by the Morro Group to study the site and provide findings and recommendations concerning regulatory protection of the creek habitat (the Report is contained in the Technical Appendix). The City subsequently hired a private consultant, David Wolff ' Environmental, to provide additional review and research of the biology and water quality sections of the Initial Study. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were updated to more thoroughly evaluate impacts and provide additional mitigation. Based on detailed water quality sampling and analysis studies conducted for the County of San Luis Obispo Lopez Dam project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), there does not appear to be an existing water quality problem in Arroyo Grande Creek (the Final Draft HCP can be found online at www.slocountvwater.orp under "Lopez Water System"). The baseline water quality surveys conducted for the HCP indicated that , water quality conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable habitat for Steelhead, California red-legged frogs, and other aquatic resources. Impacts related to water quality and biological resources are therefore restricted to those specifically generated by the project. It is not necessary to analyze potential impacts from off-site agricultural runoff since there is no existing water quality problem. The approximate area of impact to the creek area is identified on the project plans and the 25' creek setback and new setback after impact is provided. Most of the Cherry Creek project site is vegetated with remnants of the walnut orchard and annual grasses. Other vegetation includes non-native residential landscaping and native riparian plants. Because the project is adjacent to and incorporates a portion of the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor, it is subject to a variety of mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts to the riparian habitat. The riparian corridor contains Willow, Cottonwood and Sycamore trees with an understory of Blackberry, Poison Oak and native shrubs. Mitigation measures 4.1 and 4.2 require creek protection as follows: MM 4.1: The Final Tract Map sha/l show an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City the creek channel and the twenty-five foot (25) creek setback area measured from top of bank or the outside edge of exisfing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, along fhe Phase 1 property boundary. An open space easement shall also be recorded stipulating thaf no development shall occur within 25'creek setback area. MM 4.2: Riparian Habifat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) shall be prepared by a qualifred landscape architect and/or restoration biologist experienced in native habitat restoration for the dedicated open space 25-foot creek setback area measured from top of bank or the outside edge of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The Restoration Plan shafl include at a minimum a detailed planting plan for the 25-foot sefback area and for all disturbed areas from culvert/outfall construction. The Restoration Plan shall also include at a minimum the number and location of other native trees impacted and location of replacement plantings, CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 23 specific p/ant species palette, a non-native species removal plan, success criteria, a five-year monitoring program, and contingency measures to ensure meeting the success criteria. The Restorafion Plan shall a/so include an erosion control plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas within the 25-foot creek setback and exposed banks. The erosion control seed mix for the riparian setback area shall be composed exclusively of native species." As proposed, the plans do not comply with the above mitigation measures since the creek setback is measured from the top of bank and not from the edge of riparian vegetation. The applicant has indicated that measuring the creek setback from the edge of riparian vegetation would necessitate relocating Myrtle Street in front of the Vandeveer house and possibly losing a couple of lots. The applicant requests that an average setback of 25' be used instead (see Attachment 12 for creek setback exhibit). Although specific surveys have not been conducted to determine the existence of special-status or threatened species within the project area, there are known occurrences of Steelhead, California red-legged frogs, and southwestern pond turtles within Arroyo Grande Creek. The banks of the creek are steep and roughly thirty feet (30') above the creek channel. CEQA Compliance and Streambed Alteration Aqreement Propram. During the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) code requirements for issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement was raised as a CEQA issue. The attached memorandum from the City's project biologist, David Wolff, provides clarification regarding this issue (see Attachment 13). Affordable Housinq The project is subject to the City's affordable housing requirements outlined in the 2003 Housing Element, which requires ten percent (10%) of the units to be restricted to families earning a moderate-income level as defined in the County's Affordable Housing Standards (the vesting map was deemed complete prior to Housing Element adoption with 15% inclusionary affordable housing required). With twenty-seven (27) new units proposed, the project is required to restrict 2.7 units to the moderate-income level. The applicant is proposing to restrict two (2) units to the moderate-income level (lots 15 and 16) and pay the balance (0.7 unit) in affordable housing in-lieu fees. Cultural Resources: A Phase I (surFace) survey was conducted on the site that produced positive results for the presence of a combined historic and prehistoric archaeological site. Specifically, a prehistoric archaeological site is located on the lots on the terrace above Arroyo Grande Creek where marine shellfish were found. A Phase II (subsurface) testing was also conducted on the site that produced positive results for the presence of historic era cultural resources. As mitigation, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities and a final monitoring/mitigation report shall be submitted to the City. The owner of the property CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12,2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 24 containing the Vandeveer stone house is also required to register the residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Transqortation/Circulation/Street Improvements. A Traffic Impact Study was conducted by Higgins and Associates dated July 16, 2004 to study traffic-related impacts resulting from buildout of both subareas (see Technical Appendix). The traffic study was based on buildout of 88 new residential lots, a worst-case scenario that did not take into account the various site constraints for Subarea 2 (e.g. creek channel, riparian vegetation, creek setback, Ag buffer, existing pattern of development). The conclusion of the traffic study was that all studied road segments and intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or better). The project (Subarea 1) as revised with 8 less lots than originally submitted would generate 80 fewer average daily trips, based on the San Diego Council of Governments Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates. However, the project traffic would contribute to the cumulative impact on the City's circulation system and therefore the standard condition of paying the City's Traffic Impact and Signalization Fees applies. The project may also need to include a three- way stop at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road, depending on the approved alignment. If the project does not include "dirt" Cherry, then the intersection alignment would necessitate a three-way stop. At the Planning Commission public hearings, a number of residents expressed concerns regarding the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. A vehicle may experience between 15 and 25 seconds of delay to operate at a level of service "C" for a two-way stop control, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual ("the ' ManuaP'). The traffic study indicated this intersection will operate at an LOS "C° during the PM peak hour at project build out, with an average delay of 18 seconds per vehicle. Per the. Manual, a vehicle may experience between 25 and 35 seconds of delay to operate at an LOS "D" for a two-way stop control. Therefore, each vehicle would need to experience an additional delay of seven seconds before the traffic operation would be considered unacceptable and require mitigation. While the impact of the proposed project on this intersection does not appear to require mitigation under the City's traffic policy, staff does recognize existing conditions as an issue and is studying potential improvements as part of the Traffic Way Streetscape Enhancement Plan. Currently, the potential for improvements depends on available right-of-way width, which is being analyzed. Similarly, the level of service on Myrtle Street is expected to remain at an acceptable LOS "A" with project build out. Therefore, any traffic concerns would involve issues of project design rather than environmental impacts requiring additional environmental review. Partial abandonment of the Myrtle Street right of way is proposed to accommodate the proposed development. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 CHERRY CREEK PAGE 25 PUBLIC COMMENTS A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and a public notice was placed in the Tribune. Staff has received several letters from the public, which are included as Attachment 14. (Note that letters to the Planning Commission from the July 18, 2006 public hearing are also included). 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. Based on the review, staff does not anticipate that this project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a negative declaration with mitigation measures for the Council's consideration (see Initial Study, Attachment 15). The Planning Commission determined on July 18, 2006 that the current Mitigated Negative Declaration is insufficient and recommended to City Council that a full Environmental Impact Report be completed for the project. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are offered for Council's consideration: I', - Take tentative action to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and direct staff to return with an appropriate resolution; - Take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Development Code Amendment, Neighborhood Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development and direct staff to return with the appropriate resolution and ordinance; j - Take tentative action to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and send the Iproject back to Planning Commission for deliberations on the project; - Provide other direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004 2. City Council Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2004 3. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2004 4. Memorandum to Planning Commissioners from Don Spagnolo dated August 18, 2004 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2005 6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2005 7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2005 , 8. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2006 9. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2006 10. Cherry Creek Flood Channel Preliminary Analysis dated August 31, 2006, prepared by Keith Crowe 11. Memorandum from Don Spagnolo to City Council dated August 29, 2006 12. 25' Creek Setback Exhibit 13. Memorandum from David Wolff to Kelly Heffernon dated August 21, 2006 14. Letters from the public regarding the project 15. Initial Study I MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 , B. PRE-APPLICATION CASE NO. 04-004; APPLICANT— DAMIEN MAVIS; LOCATION — 756 MYRTLE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner — Kelly Heffernon. Mr. Strong excused himself due to conflict of interest. Ms. Heffernon gave an overview of the proposed preliminary residential subdivision and "neighborhood plan" for property located off Myrtle Street; bounded by East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street within a Neighborhood Plan designated area; explained the General Plan policy addressing a neighborhood plan; stated there are no specific guidelines or development standards for neighborhood plans and therefore staff has discussed using the specific plans as guidelines; the traffic analysis will be included as part of the Environmental Review for the formal project; in compliance with the newly adopted Agricultural Preservation Overlay District a minimum of 100 foot buffer area must be established that includes a 20 foot wide agricultural transitional landscaped area (can be either on the agricultural side or project side). In conclusion, Ms Heffernon stated the applicant has held three informal neighborhood meetings to gain feedback on various alternative designs for developing the project site and conceptualizing the Neighborhood Plan; compliance with Development Code standards will be determined through the Planned Unit Development process; Village Design Guidelines will be used as the primary architectural style; all the units will be subject to ARC review. Commission Questions: • Brown: Why have we gone from 7200 square feet to the smaller lots? Ms. Heffernon replied that the PUD process allows smaller lots when open space is � proposed, as long as the overall density is not exceeded. The project is within the density requirements. , • Brown: It may be the physical constraints that do not allow bigger lots. • Brown: Was there going to be some kind of public access through the agricultural , buffer? Ms. Heffernon said that is what is being proposed. • Brown: The gate shown next to Lot 1 is to stop people driving into Lot 2? Ms. Heffernon said the applicant would address this. ' • Brown: There is a long history of drainage issues on this property. Victor Devens, explained there were 3-4 options contained in the Drainage Master Plan; the City is looking for two 72" pipes to replace the ditch that currently runs across the property. • Brown: Is there a wall going around this property? Ms Heffernon: there was a request at ARC for fencing that can be seen through along Cherry Ave. Fowler: • Concern that the small lots may not be appropriate for this area. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment. Fred Bauer, introduced Damien Mavis; stated he had asked him for help with neighborhood outreach; the feedback was amazing and all townhall meetings were positive and successful. MINUTES PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 Damien Mavis, representative, explained the site plan and process that evolved to produced their plan; described lot sizes; the gate is for the benefit of lots 1 and 2 sharing drives and their will be no other gates; the 100 ft buffer runs through lots 11, 12,13, 14, 23, 24, 25 & 26, south of the line there would be no habitable structures; he asked for the feedback on project as well as ideas on the mandated inclusionary housing (duplexes were not looked on favorably in the neighborhood discussions). Corner lots were looked at for the inclusionary housing (split with two family homes on them) and would have smaller setbacks, but would have architecture conducive to the neighborhood. Commission Comments & Questions: Brown thanked the applicant for the outreach effort: • Ag. buffers — this is the first major ag. buffer we have dealt with since the 2001 General Plan: How did you determine 100 feet was enough distance? • Density: Is clustering justified? You knew what the constraints of the creek and farmland were and think you need to work within the constraints. How would this project be transitional and in keeping with other neighborhoods (this close to ag. operations)? • Read letter received from property owner; asked why the private 15' dirt drive, not owned by the applicant had been incorporated into the neighborhood plan when no attempt had been made to purchase it? Mr. Mavis agreed that they were aware of this and there is need to address this immediately. • The interconnecting bikeways and walkways - why aren't they closer to the creek? Mr. Mavis explained that this is just a concept extending sidewalk already there and thought the creek side a great idea. • Fence issue? Mr. Mavis: it is shown around the Vanderveer resident in keeping with the house (believes this is code on development of this size to have wall or fence). Commissioner Brown said this would help in terms of a buffer, but it may separate this development from the Village/community. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing to the public. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, representing 20-40 people on Myrtle Street: • The representations on densit made here are for the people who wish to develop the Stillwell property.(high density area). • Green space is taking credit for what is on the creek (not belonging to them). • Traffic issue: do not use Myrtle; maybe time to use Cherry. • I would like more people to know about this proposal. • This is development of prime ag. land. • Jim Dickens is a strong supporter of ag. land and this area adjoins his farm which is prime ag. land; it would be ironic that the City denied the Vanderveen property. Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill, representative of Dixson Ranch preserve, spoke referenceing his letter to the Commission. He stated the forty acre, commercially farmed parcel, is the only designated land within the City that is currently covered under the Williamson Act MINUTES PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION ' MARCH 16, 2004 Contract. In addition, the property is also protected under an agricultural easement into perpetuity, the only such agricultural easement held within City limits and within the State of California. The proximity of this proposed neighborhood plan (NP) to the Dixson Ranch requires special consideration and unique planning techniques to adequately mitigate future land use conflicts and to ensure the long term protection in agricultural resources and , proposed activity. He then stated some options he would like the Commission to consider: . Requiring a buffer distance of at least 150 feet in addition to a minimum of a 30 foot depth of landscaping, planted sufficiently dense and mature to provide aerisol protection within the first year. • The 15 foot private dirt road: The applicant has made no attempt to purchase this but has incorporated it into the NP. He would like the Commission to address this as a condition of approval. • Storm water drainage: He recommended placement of the catch basin to be within the agricultural buffer (GP Policy 1-5.1) • Groundwater recharge: No adverse effects on ag. water supplies. He recommended a retention basin constructed in the middle of the proposed project to act as a groundwater facility and decrease surface water runoff into Arroyo Grande Creek. • He recommended the establishment of a creekside pedestrian/bikepath, possibly linking to a footbridge, providing access to Paulding Middle School. Mike McConville, 529 E. Branch Street: • Not notified of neighborhood meetings. • In developing this project the City could put 227 thru to Cherry Ave. This issue needs to be addressed and asked if it was addressed at the meetings. Victor Devens, stated he had learned from CALTRANS that the Highway 227 realignment is ' no longer being actively considered. Susan Flores, 529 E. Branch, works at the School: . Not invited to neighborhood meetings. • Pedestrian/Bikepath suggestion in the NP would take their immediate school yard. • Walnut trees on the Stillwell Property: Like to see a future plan on preserving these old trees. • Thinks density is too much. • Need to make sure all interested parties are included if other sites are included in a potential plan. Mr. Mavis stated which areas of the site they owned; stated they were committed to resolving the ag. buffer issue. Mr. Mavis then addressed the Commission Questions: • Re concern with the proposal that traffic be directed toward Cherry/Allen Street: We have a traffic study in process. MINUTES PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 • Selling of the lots: It will be marketed primarily as individual lots: We will build a certain number of homes to establish the community and level of quality. The inclusionary housing has yet to be established and they would probably be building these. In reply to a question from Chair Guth�ie on inclusionary housing, Ms. Heffernon stated that at this time it is a 10% requirement, but is still being discussed. In-reply to Chair Guthrie, Mr. Brad Vernon, partner, stated at the neighborhood meetings it was obvious that the only logical access would be Cherry Lane as primary access. Chair Guthrie closed the hearing to public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • Has a big problem with size of lots being smaller than 6,000 sq. ft. • Would not object to seeing a wall along the property line as a buffer. • He commended the applicants for proposing to match the Village guidelines. • It may be a good idea to move the Stillwell house over to the green area, since it currently crosses a couple of lot lines. Fowler: • Liked the concept. • Lots are too small. Brown: • Lots too small; it needs to be transitional or in keeping with the neighborhood. . Assumption that the project buffer should be 100 feet, needs to be justified. • Drainage is still an issue. • Agrees with not using prime ag. soils to provide an inlet (based on GP guidance). • Not against having a wall if it is part of the buffer. • Traffic: Allen Street is a concern. Guthrie: • The higher density and clustering with open space is acceptable. • He has serious concerns with the proposed 100 feet being an adequate buffer. • Landscape screen should take place along the ag. property to have the greatest impact of containing dust and pesticides. • Block wall along ag. property is a possibility-would have to be a smart buffer. • The pedestrian/bicyle path should be developed along the creek side. • Believes a 25% inclusionary housing has to be observed, based on what has occurred in other projects. • Fire access: A secondary access would probably have to be included in the NP for emergency access; concern that Myrtle is closed off, but this could not ever be used for emergency or any other sort of access for the development of the rest of this property. • Have to accept that the zoning is 4.5 du/a and there will be traffic, principally on Cherry. MINUTES PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2004 • Great if a bridge connection was built. Keen: • If people dropped off and picked up their children at such a bridge on Myrtle Street instead of at Crown Hill, could be a disaster in terms of traffic. Would a bridge be worth it? The Commission had no further concerns and they moved for adjournment. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-008; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - CITYWIDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Teresa McClish. This project was not heard by the Commission due to the late hour. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: No discussion. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: No discussion. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: No Discussion. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR APRIL 6. 2004: None. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON-SMITH, JAMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at PC meeting of April 6, 2004 ) ATTACHMENT 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 23, 2004 PAGE 4 Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; supported modifying the language for farm worker housing to be consistent with the Housing Element; and supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs. Mayor Pro Tem Lubin supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs; expressed some concerns regarding farm worker housing; expressed concerns with removing the word "minimize" out of Objective Ag1; and stated that he could support some components of the proposal being presented for approval. Mayor Ferrara supported the Agricultural Support and Enterprise Programs; supported the proposed revision of Objective Ag1 to remove the word "minimize"; expressed concems regarding the provisions for farm worker housing and stated that this issue needed to be more clearly defined; and supported the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program. Council Member Dickens moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-003 TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURAL, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT REVISING OBJECTIVE AG1 RELATING TO CONVERSION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND; POLICY AG311 RELATING TO FARMWORKER HOUSING; AND POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES FOR AG1-3, AG3-5, AND AG36 RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS". Council Member Costello seconded the motion. City Attorney Carmel asked for clarification whether the motion included the approval of the Negative Declaration. Council Member Dickens said yes and amended his motion to adopt the Resolution, as amended,to include the approval of the Negative Declaration. Council Member Costello seconded, and on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 70. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application Review Case No. 04-004; Proposed Residential Subdivision and Neighborhood Plan; East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street; Applicant—Damien Mavis, Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC Council Member Dickens declared an indirect conflict of interest due to his beneficial interest in real property located near the proposed project and stepped down from the dais. Community Development Director Strong declared a conflict of interest due to an option to purchase a portion of the property that is the subject of this proposal and stated he had not and would not be participating in the processing of this application. He stepped down from the staff table. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 23, 2004 PAGE 5 Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council review the project and provide direction and comments to the applicant. Mayor Ferrara invited the applicant to the podium to address the Council. Fred Bauer, Arcoyo Grande, gave an overview of how the project started, discussed ideas for smart growth, explained the efforts made to involve the neighborhood to obtain feedback on proposed development of the property. Eric Justesson, RRM Design Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and gave an overview of a proposed development layout for the property based on the General Plan designation of Neighborhood Plan with medium density. He stated that some of the issues to be addressed as part of the project would be drainage, balanced access to the property from E. Cherry and Myrtle, lot sizes, street widths, a pocket park, access to the creek, respecting the agriculture property to the south, inclusionary housing, and architectural style. Mayor Ferrara invited other members of the public to comment. Carol Hoffmever, representing the Dixson Family Trust, read a letter into the record which requested the Council consider increased buffer distances, increased depth of landscaping; an 8-foot high block wall and a "no-climb"wood fence on the property line; cooperative improvement of the existing 15-foot private driveway; ensuring that prospective property owners are informed of the Right-to-Farm ordinance; investigating the potential for a detention, retention, and/or recharge basin within the proposed project; and ensuring that the drainage deficiencies are resolved. Chuck Fellows, Arroyo Grande, favored a pedestrian bridge across the creek to provide safety for children. Otis Paqe, Arroyo Grande, expressed disappointment that the neighborhood was not speci£cally noticed for this item tonight. He commented that there was no proposal from the applicant for a park or a bridge. He also commented on existing drainage issues and felt that the neighborhood objects to the high density being proposed. He stated that he has no objections to development; however, he had a problem with developing prime agriculture land. Lvnn Titus, Arroyo Grande, expressed concem with the proposed density and commented that the acreage figure was incorrect. She inquired whether anyone had talked to the Lucia Mar Unified School District regarding a bridge and said she did not think they would like it. She asked who would develop and maintain the park, stated there was a lot of poison oak in the area, and inquired whether E. Cherry Avenue would be extended. Jim Guthrie, Arroyo Grande, requested feedback from the Council on the concept of clustering. He also asked how the required agriculture buffer distance would be analyzed and determined. Bill McCann, Arroyo Grande, expressed concemed regarding the buffer zone and stated he was not sure that 100 feet would be enough. He proposed a minimum 150 foot buffer. He also expressed concerns about drainage. WaVne Kinq encouraged the Council to review the comments made regarding the Vanderveen project. Larrv Turner, Arroyo Grande, spoke about drainage and stated he needed assurance that drainage will be addressed properly. He stated that the temporary ditch has stopped the problems. He supported development of the property; however, he would not support two-story homes against Noguera Street. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 23, 2004 PAGE 6 _ Lerov Saruwatari, Arroyo Grande, expressed concerns about the buffer zone and stated that the County imposes 300 feet. He stated that there should be a minimum 150-foot buffer. He also said that the City's Right-to-Farm Ordinance should be disclosed to potential property owners. Ella Honevcutt, Arroyo Grande, stated that buffer zones are there to make good neighbors and urged the Council to ensure that the buffer zone is adequate to protect the homes and the farmers. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council Member Runels stated that the drainage problem must be addressed first and foremost; he would prefer to see larger lots with less density; did not favor two-story homes; stated that a 100-foot buffer was sufficient; and commented that the Dixson Ranch would have to assume some of the mitigation. He did not support the type of large walls being requested by the Dixson , Ranch. Council Member Costello commented on the need to resolve the drainage issue; encouraged the applicant to seek feedback from the Lucia Mar School District regarding the bridge and access issues; supported the concept of smaller lots; liked inclusion of the Village Design Guidelines and Standards; commented that there would be a need to carefully review the buffer zone requirement; and stated that the concerns in the Dixson letter were valid. Mayor Pro Tem Lubin inquired who would build and maintain the bridge and the park; requested clarification on plan #4; asked for clarification on the exact acreage of the property; stated that traffic issues are significant and inquired whether the E. Cherry extension would remain as a dirt road or be paved; favored smaller lots to meet housing goals; expressed concerns regarding the buffer zone distance; commented that the drainage problem must be solved; agreed that no two- ' story homes should be built on the Noguera Street side; agreed that new property owners need to be informed about the City's Right-to-Farm Ordinance; commented that public comments about the parcel being prime agriculture land needed to be addressed; and commented that some of the ideas outlined in the Dixson letter were good; however, he felt that if they desired a no-climb wood fence, it should be built on their property. Mayor Ferrara emphasized the concept of a Neighborhood Plan and commented that the Plan was partly driven by the drainage problem from Newsom Springs. He stated that drainage is the first and foremost concern and that there is a need for additional engineering on a catch basin, a pipe, or a combination of both. He commented on the need for an adequate size buffer zone; addressed the density issue and the need for affordable housing; and favored inclusionary housing in the project. He agreed that the design and placement of any hvo-story homes needed to be considered to accommodate neighborhood privacy. He liked the idea of a bridge but expressed the need to get feedback from Lucia Mar School District; expressed concern regarding pedestrian traffic, however, the benefits of a bridge may outweigh other problems. He favored the development of a pocket park to be maintained by a homeowners association. Mayor Ferrara commented that buffer zones need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis; and there is a need to look at unique site factors to determine adequate buffer size. He requested additional review of the concept drawings submitted by the Dixson Ranch. He commented that the buffer zone requirement may set a precedent for future development. Upon conclusion of Council comments, Mayor Ferrara ensured that the applicant had received sufficient feedback and direction with regard to the proposed project. i o� PRRO�ocP . MEMORANDUM I� ATTACHMENT 3 I , INCOHPORATED 9Z � . N U � � �� / # NlY 10. t9t1 * C9�/FORN�P TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER� SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMISSION COMMENTS ON "SKINNY STREET" PROPOSAL BY RRM DESIGN FOR THE CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION DATE: AUGUST 18, 2004 At the August 16, 2004 Traffic Commission meeting, John Knight, representative with RRM Design Group made a presentation on the Cherry Creek subdivision conceming street widths. He is requesting a design exception to narrow the widths of streets to 32' within the development from the standard 40'width required by City standards and the Vehicle and Highway Code. He presented the proposed parking plan, roadway sections, and fire access paths through the development. The Commissioners provided the following comments: Commissioner Brief Summary Borda Believes the narrowing of the street width may have a traffic calming effect. However, he is against the elimination of parking on one side of the street. Prefers a minimum of a 34' to 36' street width. Rohloff Believes the minimum acceptable width to be 36', consisting of two 8' parking lanes and two 12' driving lanes. Pilkington Expressed concern with fire trucks making turn on 32' wide street. Metcalf Stated that he understands the reasons for wanting to narrow the street widths but he believes that the proposed 32' is too narrow. Believes 34' to be the minimum but prefers the 36' width. Scott Absent I have enclosed a copy of the August 16, 2004 Traffic Commission staff report which explains the positions of the Public Works and Police Departments. C: City Manager Police Chief Correspondence File Street File Attachment: S116/04 Traffic Commission Staff Report � PRROro � cP � INCOAPOFATE� Z � MEMORANDUM u � ° � JULT 10. 1911 y P 4��FORN\ T0: TRAFFIC COMMISSION �� � FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER � i SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF "SKINNY STREET" PROPOSAL BY RRM DESIGN DATE: AUGUST 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Traffic Commission review the enclosed information for the Cherry Creek subdivision concerning street widths and provide comments accordingiy. Public Works wili compile the comments for presentation to the Planning Commission. FUNDING: There are no fiscal impacts at this time. DISCUSSION: The City has received a design for the Cherry Creek development at the former Stillwell property, located at the southwest corner of the Cherry Avenue and Branch Miil Road. The developer is requesting design exceptions to narrow the widths of streets within the development. The design consultant for the project, RRM Design, has prepared several documents for review by the Traffic Commission; "Information Regarding the Circulation in the Cherry Creek Subdivision" (see Attachment No. 1) and a four-page plan set for the subdivision depicting the proposed parking plan, roadway sections, and fire access paths through the development (see Attachment Nos. 2 , and 3). Although there is information concerning the width of streets in other jurisdictions and descriptions of general guidelines, there is no factual engineering data that supports the information. Accident data, information on driver comfort, or accessibility by homeowners has also not been addressed. The Fire Chief believes the emergency access requirements for the development is adequate as the developer will install fire sprinklers in the residential units. The standard plans approved by Council and California Streets and Highway Code Section 1805 establishes the width of residential streets as foilows: 1805. The width of all city streets, except state highways, bridges, alleys, and trails, shall be at least 40 feet, except that the governing body of any cify may, by a resolution passed by a four-fifths vote of its membership, determine that the public convenience and necessify demand the ' acqursifion, construction and maintenance of a sfreet of less than 40 feet and, after such defermination, proceed wrth the acqursition, construction or maintenance of any such street. The width of all private highways and by-roads, excepf bridges, shall be at least 20 feet. This section does not require that the width of city streets established or used as such prror fo September 15, 1935, be increased or diminished. ndard 40 foot width is com osed of two 12 foot lanes of travel with two 8 foot arkin The sta p p g lanes. The City has approved roadways within developments that have widths narrower than 40 feet, examples of which are as foilows: The Hiqhlands — 32 feet wide (two 12 foot travel lanes, one 8 foot parking lanes) The justification for narrowing the road was due to the hiliside topography. The City allowed the exception by the elimination of a parking lane from one side of the street. Berrv Gardens — 36 feet wide (two 10 foot travel lanes, two 8 foot parking lanes) The development was approved as a Planned Unit Development as a specific plan amendment to the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan. All other residential developments are based on the 40 foot roadway standard. Reduced street widths creates traffic congestion during trash pickup and parcel deliveries. These large trucks block both traveled lanes of small street sections. Accident frequency may also be greater for reduced street widths compared to standard 40 foot street widths. It should be noted that the Traffic Commission has reviewed a number of complaints from residents in the Highlands concerning the lack of parking. Public Works has also received a number of complaints from residents in the Berry Gardens development, mostiy concerning parking of vehicles on both sides within the parking lane, that inhibit through traffic movements. Speed limits on city streets are set in accordance with. the regulations of the California Vehicle Code. The "prima fascia" speed limit for the Cherry Creek roadways, which_ are classified as residential streets, will be 25 miles per hour. Drivers on roadways have the right to travel at the "prima fascia" speed. , ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve staff's recommendation; 2. Do not approved staff's recommendation; 3. Modify staff's recommendation; or 4. Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Report - Information Regarding the Circulation in the Cherry Creek Subdivision 2. Cherry Creek Parking Plan 3. Cherry Creek Fire Access Map TRAFFIC COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2004 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 7:00 PM Commissioners present: Larry Rohiof�, Gary Borda, Derril Pilkington, and Scott Metcalf. Commissioner absent: Kirk Scott. Assistant City Engineer Michael Linn; Cornmander Steve Andrews and Traffic Commission Clerk Debbie Weichinger. PUBLIC COMMENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 14, 2004 It was moved by Commissioner Borda, seconded by Commissioner Pilkington and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2004 meeting. CONSIDERATION OF LIGHTED SIGNAGE ON CROWN TERRACE AT LE POINT STREET Mr. Linn said this is a follow up item from the May 17, 2004 Traffic Commission meeting. Mr. Linn stated the Commission requested staff research the p{acement of a lighted waming sign or a flashing warning sign for northbound Crown Terrace to help warn drivers of the oncoming intersection with Le Pont Street. Staff is recommending against the installation of a lighted waming sign on northbound Crown Terrace. Staff indicated that the resident may install her own convex mirror as long as it is on her private property and not within the City's right of way. Mr. Linn further reported that the City is reviewing a proposal for the Creekside development, at the intersection of East Branch and Crown Terrace. Staff will condition the developer to perForm a traffic study for the Crown Terrace and Le Point Terrace intersection to determine potential impacts, which may require the placement of a stop sign at its intersection with Le Point Street. The hearing was opened for public comment: Barbara Freel, 502 May Street, reiterated her concern with backing out of her driveway while vehicles are rounding the curve from northbound Crown Terrace. She did not believe the lighted signs would provide any benefd. Commissioner Pilkington left the podium at 7:10 pm. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to recommend against the instailation of a lighted warning sign on northbound Crown Terrace approximately 1200 feet from its intersection with Le Point Street. However, Ms. Freel may install a convex mirror on her property. Commissioner Pilkington returned to the podium at 7:17 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF "SKINNY STREET" PROPOSAL BY RRM DESIGN John Knight, a representative of RRM Design Group, performed a Power Point presentation on the proposed Cherry Creek subdivision concerning street widths. The developer is requesting a design exception to narrow the widths of streets to 32' within the development from the standard 40' width required by City standards and the Vehicle and Highway Code. He presented the proposed parking plan, roadway sections, and fire access paths through the development. The Commissioners provided the following comments: Commissioner Borda believes the narrowing of the street width may have a traffic calming effect. However, he is against the elimination of parking on one side of the street. He prefers a minimum of a 34' to 36' street width. Commissioner RohlotF believes the minimum acceptabie width to be 36' consisting of two 8' parking lanes and two 10' driving lanes. Commissioner Pilkington expressed concern with fire trucks negotiating turns on 32' wide street. Commissioner Metcalf stated that he understands the reasons for wanting to narrow the street widths but he believes that the proposed 32' is too narrow. He believes 34' to be the minimum but prefers the 36' width. Commander Andrews said the 40' wide street is preferred but 36' would be acceptable. He also said that the Police Department does not want to see parking eliminafed from one side of the street due to enforcement concerns. After discussion, Mr. Linn said that the Commission's comments would be forwarded on to the Planning Commission. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF "NO PARKING" SIGNS AT VIA LAS AGUILAS AND REFUGIO PLACE Mr. Linn said staff received a letter from Fred Chaney of 855 Via Las Aguilas proposing to remove "No Parking" signs along Via Las Aguilas. Mr. Chaney noted, in a phone call that day, that many of the homeowners in the neighborhood expressed that there is not adequate parking in the area. Mr. Linn indicated that staff had perFormed a site visit and determined that the signage and curb markings were in accordance with the original parking plan for the development. Mr. Linn noted, however, that the "No Parking" signs in the cul-de-sacs for Refugio Place and Via Las Aguilas, were not necessary as there is a private roadway that connects the two cul-de-sacs, which allows a secondary access for emergency vehicles. Following confirmation with the Fire Chief, staff recommended removal of the "No Parking" signage within the cul-de-sac bulbs for Refugio Place and Via Las Aguilas. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Metcalf, seconded by Commissioner Borda and unanimously carried that staff remove the "No Parking" signage along the cul-de-sac bulbs of Via Las Aguilas and Refugio Place. REQUEST TO REMOVAL RED CURB AT THE 400 BLOCK OF VISTA DRIVE Mr. Linn said staff received a request from Doug Carmack, 489 Vista Drive stating that "No Parking" signs and red curb were recently placed in the 400 block of Vista Drive. Mr. Linn explained that the Pubiic Works and Police Departments recently compieted a mutual review of parking restrictions in the Highlands area in an effort to ensure consisfent parking enforcement in the area. Staff verified the existing parking restrictions in the area against the parking plan submitted by the developer for the original subdivision approval. Staff then installed the signage and red curb accordingiy to match the original development plans. After a site investigation, staff recommends removal of the 100 lineai feet of existing red curb on the south side of Vista Drive directiy west of its intersection with La Canada. IATTACHMENT 4 � . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 PAGE3 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Repealing, Amending, and Adding Provisions to Titles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the City of Arroyo Grende Municipal Code. Director of Administrative Services Wetmore presented the staff report. She explained that the proposal was the result of a comprehensive departmental review process of the City's Municipal Code and the draft ordinance was the second in a series of clean-up ordinances that repeals provisions determined to be unnecessary, and adds, amends and reorganizes various provisions to provide internal consistency with current City policies and practices. Chief TerBorch responded to questions from Council relating to solicitors and peddlers, overnight camping, and wheeled toys. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public hearing. Following discussion regarding the proposed camping provisions, there was consensus to amend Section 9.22.030 as follows: "Limited overnight camping or overnight occupancy of a recreational vehicle may be permitted for desipnated communitv activities subject to the approval of the chief of police. Such limited overnight canping and/or recreational vehicle use shall be for a maximum of five (5) days:' Additionally, in response to discussion concerning solicitors and peddlers in business areas and the resulting impacts to the flow of tra�c, staff was directed to prepare ai ordinance for the Council's future consideration that would restrict solicitation activities within a certain distance to the entrance of businesses and commercial shopping centers. Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance, as amended (Section 9.22.030), repealing, amending, and adding provisions to Titles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Council Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Lubin, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.b. Consideration of Interpretation of the Agricultural Buffer Provision (Municipal Code Section 16.12.170) Related to Residential Uses Within the Buffer Area. Associate Planner McClish and Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an interpretation of buffer constraints pursuant to Ordinance No. 550. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Anthonv Acevedo, Arroyo Grande, opposed the establishment of agricultural buffers. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 , PAGE 4 Karen Estes, Arroyo Grande, inquired about the legality of the wording in the Public Hearing Notice related to this item and requested an interpretation. City Attorney Carmel explained the intent of the notice and the administrative level review process. Ms. Estes expressed concem regarding the requirement and impact of a buffer on her property. Adam Saruwatari, Arroyo Grande, spoke in favor of agricultural buffers. Steve Ross, Arroyo Grande, referred to discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting regarding expansion of existing residential uses into the buffer zone and requested clarification on what is being recommended for expanding existing residential uses within the buffer zone. Associate Planner McClish explained that the proposed ordinance does not preclude the expansion of existing residential uses into the buffer zone. Carol Hoffmever, representing the Dixson Ranch, stated that the farmers preferred to keep the minimum 20-foot landscape buffer away from the crops. She also stated that residential uses ' such as garages and backyards should not be allowed in the buffer area. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Costello reviewed the intent of the agricultural buffer as defined in Section 16.12.170 of the Municipal Code (Right to Farm provisions). He stated that for new residential development only, not including remodels, he would prefer that garages, storage sheds, and � backyards not be in the buffer zone. He suggested that the 20-foot landscape buffer be as close to the residential area than to agricultural operations as it would be a better screen to the residences. In terms of the buffer maintenance issue, for new projects he supported the suggestion that a maintenance district could be formed. He stated he was open to suggestions as to how the maintenance issue would be affected for existing properties and uses. Council Member Dickens stated he had researched agricultural buffers in a planning guidelines , document published by the Department of Natural Resources, Queensland, Australia, and he ' gave an overview of some principles outlined in the publication regarding agricultural buffers. He referred to the City's existing ordinance that reflects the same principles. He reviewed provisions in the City's existing ordinance which requires a "minimum" 100 foot buffer and that Section 16.12.170.E.2. states that a buffer wider than 100 feet is encouraged. He also commented that Section 16.12.170 also refers to development of new residential "units", not uses. He felt this , clarified the confusion between existing residences and uses of property versus new residential units. He suggested that if an applicant came fonvard proposing less than a 100-foot buffer, that , proposed impacts (noise, drift, odor) be measured on a scientific basis. He further referred to a portion of Policy Ag5-2.2 which provides that"No portion of any new residential structure.....shall be located closer than 100 feet from the site of agricultural operations....and greater distances may tie required...:'. Council Member Dickens stated that based on this policy, new residential , uses are prohibited within the minimum 100-foot buffer. He deTned "storage" as any kind of storage such as community garden storage shed, a water pump shed, a storage shed for maintenance equipment, or a roadside fruit and vegetable stand, as appropriate uses; however, not within the minimum 100 foot buffer. He concluded by stating that flexibility should be used when applying the 20-foot landscape buffer requirement. Council Member Runels opposed agricultural buffers and commented that he lives, works, and deals with these issues. He stated that 100-foot buffers can cause problems in certain areas and can impact development of property. He stated that he considered the requirement of ' buffers as downsizing of property and could not support this issue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 PAGE 5 Mayor Pro Tem Lubin stated that two areas are affected - new and existing development. He stated that interpretation of the buffer zone could result in a financial hardship for both farmers and other property owners/developers. He referred to a letter to the Council received from the Ikedas (on file in the Administrative Services Department) conceming the Japanese Welfare Association's property on E. Cherry Avenue, which could become useless depending on how the 100-foot buffer is applied. He stated that if a 100-foot minimum buffer is required, it needs to be made as compatible as possible for both sides and that means 1) allowing any existing residential structure to be expanded within the 100 foot buffer, 2) that garages and storage sheds are allowed within the 104foot buffer, and 3) that the 2o-foot landscape buffer can be placed anywhere within the buffer. He supported allowing as much use within the buffer as possible within the policy. Mayor Ferrara stated that the principle issue is to manage the urban and farming interface. He referred to at least 15 other jurisdictions noted in the staff report with agricultural buffers in place, and highlighted a few of the buffer policies in place throughout the State. He commented that the City of Arroyo Grande's focus on a 100-foot buffer is liberal and flexible, especially as it relates to existing development. He stated that the approach is reasonable as compared to other regulations statewide. Mayor Ferrara stated that for new residential units, residential uses should be �fined based on the degree to which structures will encourage human occupation and human activity, and if it is within the buffer zone, those uses should be discouraged. With regard to the 20-foot landscape strip, he favored placing it adjacent to development as opposed to next to farming operations to provide an immediate barrier between homes and agricultural use. He concluded by referring to Agricultural Commissions that exist in other jurisdictions to evaluate issues such as buffer zones and suggested that forming an Agricultural Advisory Committee may be appropriate for Arroyo Grande at some point to mediate some of these issues. Council Member Dickens moved to direct staff to allow flexibility regarding the location of the 20- foot landscape strip within the 100-foot agricultural buffer, with a preference for keeping the landscape strip as far away from agricultural operations as possible. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Dickens moved to direct staff to not allow any residential uses within the minimum 100-foot agricultural buffer area and require the buffer area to be maintained by either a) a homeowners association, b) a maintenance district; or c) dedicated to the City, for new residential units as laid out in Section 16.12.170 including the restriction of backyards and garages within the minimum 100-foot buffer. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. MINUTES ' ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04-001 & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-002; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREETS. Commissioner Brown requested a continuance of this item to a date certain to give more time for review of the very large amount of information presented to them for review. Commissioner Fellows agreed that a continuance was in order, but would first like to hear comments from the Commission and the public. Ms. Heffemon then presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for a Neighborhood Plan (NP) to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer and open space considerations, and ultimate development of 83 new residential lots on 22 acres in two phases. She stated Phase I is a proposed 37 lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration for 9 of the 22 acres; also proposed are two open space lots and a 100-foot wide agricultural buffer; Phase II encompasses the remaining 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council and consider alternatives depicted on the tentative map for the internal lot configuration and the road alignment for East Cherry Avenue and recommend the preferred layout. Commission questions and discussion: Fellows: • Is there a way to collect an in-lieu fee for the proposed pedestrian bridge over the creek. Ms. Heffernon -an in-lieu fee program could be instituted. • Is there any increased community benefit over the E. Cherry Avenue alignment? Ms. Heffernon - it is the City's position that we wou/d like to see E. Cherry Avenue deveoped to iYs full widfh including the existing 15 foot wide dirt access road and we would like this issue resolved before Phase 2 is entered into. • Mitigation 5.3, page 31, asked which "owner' shall be responsible to register the residence in the California Register of Historic Places? Ms. Heffernon - it is the property owner and this issue can be clarified in fhe mitigation measure. • Are there retention basins in the plan? Mr. Devens - in fhis area onsite retention of water is not required as the entire watershed drains to the creek. . Page 4, a) the Initial Study check list regarding ag. resources, staff has marked off "insignificant impacY', but the Ag Commissioner's letter states "the projects site soils are almost entirely prime soils..." Ms. Heffemon - the project is not proposing to convert an ag use to a non-ag use, since the use has always been residential (staffs interpretation). • Page 4, also in regard to the Ag Commissioner's statement, asked for an explanation of the relationship of Class 2, non-irrigated and prime soils. Ms. MINUTES PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Heffernon — the project soils are designated as Class 2, non-irrigafed soils;prime soils occur when Class I and ll soils are irrigated, such as with row crops. Parker: • The Commission is being asked to approve the NP (Phase 1 and Phase 2), without receiving any information on Phase 2. Are all the residents in favor of the new zoning? Ms. Heffernon - fhe new zoning land use for this property was adopted with the General Plan Update and a/l the infrastructure will be provided; the details will be addressed when someone comes forward with a subdivision in Phase 2. • By removing Myrtle Street as a through access road, Phase 2 would only have access through Cherry Avenue, should there be two access roads for a PUD? Ms. Heffernon - Myrtle Street has existing constraints and in this instance there would only be one access street, unless an emergency access is required by the Fire Department. • Concerns re the Neg. Dec., water quality, the runoff from the ag, taking away the water percolation and allowing everything to run through two 72" pipes before going into the creek; what happens when no response is received from WQCB. Ms. Heffernon - the applicants are required to obtain separate permits from the various agencies who will handle these types of issues. Mr. Devens explained how the pipes would work, that they wou/d not allow contamination because of fhe high water velocity and that the proposed drainage solufion is being done to solve a historic prob/em. • Do the houses that are already in Phase 2 have a 100-foot buffer as designated in the General Plan? Ms. Heffernon - fhey are considered legal non-conforming, they could have accessory structures, but no habitable living space closer to the buffer. • Is there any area near the bridge location that could be considered for a drop off location/turnaround for the school? Ms. Heffemon - the applicant cou/d provide more details on this. Brown: • Initial Env. Study, Page 36, Newsom Springs Drainage Report listed as reference, asked if the Commission could have a copy of this report. Mr. Devens - fhe analysis of the report is in draft form, but he would ask Don Spagnolo if it could be given to the Commission. . Condition #67, of the Resolution: there is no discussion of the relation to Subarea 2 or a time frame the Commission would need more information for the next meeting. Mr. Devens - they cannof condition to connect to property outside of the project, but the applicant has agreed to provide the appropriate easements in the event the City has to enforce fhe connections. • Condition 104, page 16, asked if the existing culvert at Huebner Lane was to be used for the storm drain? Mr. Devens - the applicant had been informed by the City that it would not be e�cient to use this. • Does the change in direction of the water flow and Condition No. 103 trip the need for an EIR? Ms. Heffernon - it would not in staff's opinion (both questions) and explained why. MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 " • Is the road width on East Cherry Avenue to City standard and what is the proposed circulation? Mr. Devens - if would be at typical dimensions for travel and parking lane width; there has been no discussion on fhe u/timate extension of E. Cherry Avenue, buf there are several potential locafions. Mr. Brown said he would like to see staff comment and clarification from Public Works on what the City's intent is for this road in terms of circulation. • Re overlay of 100-feet on sub area 2 properties, asked Ms. Heffernon for clarification on staffs interpretation of what is allowed in the buffer; thought it was clarified at City Council. • What is the buffer plan for sub area 2 that is required as part of General Plan LU 2-7 (it was not mentioned in the NP)? Ms. Heffernon - it would be whatever is determined by Planning Commission and City Council, and agreed that whatever is approved for Phase 1 would apply to Phase 2 and would be done at the time someone comes fonvard with a discretionary project. • Asked for clarification on the creekside trail along sub area 2. Ms. Heffernon - the NP does discuss the alternatives. • Howdoes the current use of prime ag soil change the fact that it is prime ag soil? He requested the next staff report contain clarification as to why this property falls under the need to provide like preservation. • Asked if it was normal to see approval from the agencies that require permits and if there was a condition of approval re this? Mr. Devens — the City does receive verification of approval from the WQCB. Ms. Heffernon - the applicants are required to obtain permits and referenced the Initial Study (which are considered conditions of approval). Brown requested that they be put in the conditions of approval and the specific agencies named. Parker • Re theTraffic Study: There has been a significant increase in traffic accidents at East Cherry and Traffic Way since the pool and Coker Ellsworth property went in. Like to see some figures for coming from East Cherry onto Traffic Way (especially making a left turn toward the freeway); a 22°/a increase in traffic is going to cause a problem. Ms. Heffernon - the fra�c engineer will be able to answer these questions at the next meeting. Mr. Devens stated he wou/d clarify this specific question with the traffic engineer. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing. , John Knight, (project manager), Damien Mavis and Brad Vernon (applicants) each gave a presentation. John Knight addressed the amount of homes proposed, the existing units and parks, inclusionary/affordable housing units, the existing homes, two of which would be retained having some historical value, the two sub-areas and the various ownership; their efforts to inform the neighborhood of the proposal, the landscaping and the fencing. Damien Mavis addressed the NP and the policies, how subarea 1 would interface with sub-area 2, street access, water and sewer infrastructure, the creekside path, open MINUTES PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 space, regional drainage associated with the proposal (explaining that this project resolves a serious regional drainage problem for the City). Brad Vernon addressed the ag buffer, how it would work, their efforts to get feedback from the existing neighbors, pesticide applicators, County Ag Commission, farmers and other cities and jurisdictions. He stated how they had increased the City's buffer requirements; that according to County Ag the 115-foot setback complies with all but one of the chemicals that are to be used. Toulone requires a 300-foot setback if used more than one time in three years, but has rypically has been applied every 6-7 years. They are proposing to have a 115-foot buffer from a residential structure to the property line; described the buffer and landscaping (to screen pesticide and dust along the property) with an 8-foot wall; homeowners would be notified of the "Right to Farm Ordinance"; City staff has approved their design; they had addressed pesticide use and drift, noise issues, dust, crop theft, animal intrusion and lights. The Commission took another five-minute break. Cliff Branch, owner of the other two parcels in subarea I, stated the applicanYs representatives had done a terrific job; he was very impressed with the design and the N P. Lyn Titus, 404 Lierly Lane, stated that consideration should be given first to the traffic on Cherry Avenue and the NP should be looked at first, not the subarea I development; this is prime ag land, but the ag buffer will not allow a view of crops growing and this is the joy of living in this area. Sara Dickens, co-trustee of the Dixson Trust, sited the Co Ag Commission's letter which addressed their recommendation for a 200-500 foot buffer between residential and agricultural uses and that they do not feel the drainage solution is resolved in a manner helpful to the farming operation. Linda Osty, 309 E. Cherry, stated she was glad to be talking about the entire project; lives right in front of the ag property with no buffer; has concerns with the traffic (especially at school times) and even to turn right onto Traffic Way is really difficult; all of the traffic is concentrated at this intersection. Kendall Medina, 851 E. Cherry, just outside of Phase 2, concurred with concern about the traffic and the proposed increase in homes; appreciated Commissioner Browns statements re what will happen with East Cherry, does not want E. Cherry to go all the way through as safety will be decreased; wants it to remain as a private road. John Oberg, 613 Grove Court; 12 houses on 2,800 sq. ft. lots is unacceptable, eight would be better; concern with the drainage pipe and the unintended consequence of pushing farmland closer to his house; their will be a lot more pressure on the sewer system, like the concept of putting in the ag buffer first. MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Steve Andrews, 465 Tanner Lane, project looks good, his main concern is where Cherry Lane hits Traffic Way - you see many near accidents near the swim club and a 3-way stop sign will not take care of this. The study only looked at streets near the project and need more analysis to be further away; something needs to be done or this will become a liability for City. Larry Turner, 323 Noguera Place, gave congrats to everyone, looks like a good project, likes the NP; this project has the best drainage solution he has seen yet; would like the tract lots adjacent to Noguera to be single story homes and would like to see the easement on Noguera be removed. Otis Page, spoke for pon Shorts, 610 Myrtle, who requested the Commission to expedite the reduction of the 10 foot easement behind his house and require the developer to have onsite parking during the construction to relieve conjestion; asked where the 10,000 gophers would go who will lose their homes? Otis Page, submitted a letter to the Commission and stated: • Development of this project would be a contradiction in terms of the present Council and erosion of open space prime soil ag land; asked how could this be justified with the denial of the Vanderveen's development of their land which has less than prime ag soils. • He was in support of this project, but asked that the density be four homes (in the center) not eight and that they abide by the 7,000 foot criteria and discount the use of the Vanderveer home and the other developed property. • Agree the Noguera easement should be released, and that the housing facing Noguera be one story. • The traffic circulation analysis (specifically on Myrtle) does not make sense and the traffic engineers should meet with the neighborhood. Ella Honeycutt, Director Coastal Resource Conservation District, read a report from the Coastel Resource District stating concerns with the buffer; flooding potential for the Dixson farm; pesticide use in the future could be a problem; 85% of AG citizens support protection of farmland; nothing less than 200 feet for a buffer should be acceptable. Glen Mark, 855 Olive Street, stated that the City should not forget to look at the potential impact on phase 2. ' Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, the project would only lose four lots on Cherry Avenue if the bigger buffer is chosen; would like to have the Public Hearing comment period continued to the next meeting. Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street, stated she appreciates the potential development of open space and thought in the intial plan there was more open space near the creekside; would not want to see a turnaround near the bridge as it would encourage more school drop offs for Paulding School and cause traffic to go back down Myrtle; MINUTES PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 thought the gate for the estate not in character with the Village (does not see any other gated communities in the Village). Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated that the Cherry Avenue problem between Railroad and Traffic Way needs to be addressed before further development: it is non- conforming as a residential street and is now being proposed as a feeder street. Eric Justason, RRM, spoke at length, describing the process involved in developing the project and stated that a myriad of issues was involved in putting this together during the last two years and the goal was to strike a balance and provide housing. Vice Chair Brown closed the public comment. Commission Comments: Keen: • All the problems had been discussed during the meeting. Parker: • Agreed with Commissioner Keen and would rather wait until the next meeting to make further comment. Fellows: • Center homes of the development are they affordable and intermixed. Mr. Knight explained the requirement and stated they would be mixed in and unidentifiable. . Eight homes instead of 12, is their a consensus on this (concern with parking)? Mr. Knight— at this time there is no preference — eight may be more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. • The Stillwell Home — asked what the plan is for this? Mr. Knight - the p/an is to try to fix it up, put it on a new foundafion and relocate it to a site next door. • He would like to see it on a local Historic Register. • Asked how long it would take the buffer to look like what is shown in the color depictions? Mr. Knight - about �ve years; that is why a wall has been suggested as an interim buffer. • How will prospective future buyers be made aware of the "right to farm? Mr. Knight- they would look into it. Tait: • Asked for clarification on the statements regarding Dixson farm and flooding, the drainage and how this would enable farmland to be brought back into production and would like to hear what the Dixson Ranch owners feel about this. • Would like a copy of the questionnaire on the buffer before the next public hearing • Would like to see a copy of the "Great Valley Center" document regarding buffers. MINUTES PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Brown: • Re the ag buffer study: He would like to see substantial documentation provided as to how the conclusions were arrived at; the study needs a lot more work before being recommended to City Council. . Like further comment on the 25% rule for affordable units. . Re the pedestrian bridge: He would like to know how the process took place to make this determination. . His biggest concern was the NP, but sub area 2 is almost left out of the picture. He would like to see a conceptual plan that truly integrates sub-area 2. . To reduce the agricultural interface the density should be lowered. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 1, 2005, and requested staff and applicant to return with information requested during discussion. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows,Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. Asked for an update on Tract 1769 — the Busick Tract. Ms. Heffernon stated the department had not received any further communication on this. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 15. 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. on a motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Tait. ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 � Mr. Strong excused himself from the following item due to conflict of interest and left the meeting. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. (CONTINUED FROM 02/01/05 MEETING) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for the continued review of a new development and Neighborhood Plan (NP) for a 22-acre area bordered by East Cherry Avenue, Myrtle Street, and Arroyo Grande Creek. The staff report addressed Commissioner comments from the February 1, 2005 meeting regarding: • Drainage and Water Quality • Sewer • Traffic • Circulation • Agricultural Buffer Interpretation • Additional Ag Buffer Information • Class II Soils Classification vs. Prime Soils • Other Agency Permits • Affordable Housing Requirements • Right to Farm Notice Additionally, comments and clarifications addressed in response to a memo from Jim Dickens to the Commission were: • Neighborhood Plan • General Plan Inconsistencies • Negative Declaration • Newsom Springs Drainage Project In conclusion Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council and that staff further recommends that the Commission consider the alternatives depicted on the tentative map for the internal lot configuration and the road alignment for East Cherry Avenue and recommend the preferred layout. Development Code Amendment be processed provided that the Neighborhood Plan is considered adequate. ' Commission questions to staff: Parker: • Re final landscape plans —what credentials and experience has the City Arborist had in working with environmental plantings and if they are not knowledgeable in environmental planting could we get someone who is? Ms. Heffernon — the City has a certified arborist. MINUTES PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • Is there a drainage issue in subarea 2? Victor Devens — re mitigafion for Newsom Springs, there is no issue. Ms. Parker — so there is no water runoff from the ag issues that run into subarea 2? Mr. Devens - he would have to look at an overall topo map of the ag land and see what the drainage patterns are. • Exhibit IV, asked for clarification on why new poles were being put up. Mr. Devens— there are two po/es being relocated; he exp/ained which they were and stated PG&E wou/d not put anything down on creek bank, but it may end up in the 25 foot creek set back. Ms. Parker said that it should be addressed before PG & E put a pole in a 25-foot riparian area. • Will the City Water Plan be in place before this project is approved and if not could this jeopardize the status of our current water supply? Mr. Devens — said the Cify is securing additional water supplies and explained what the City is doing to acquire more water,• the project could be conditioned not to grant occupancy until extra water is acquired. • Mitigation 3.5, page 7, re air pollution mitigations, asked if the City expects the wheel washers etc. to be used? Mr. Devens explained the various methods used and fhat the City does oversee fhis. Ms. Heffernon — fhis is a soft mitigation from APCD and they could be consulfed if there was concern. • Why is the bridge being eliminated and what is the City basing the elimination on? Ms. Heffemon — there was no consensus to pursue it and Parks and Recreation does not want the maintenance and the neighborhood does not want it, but the Commission can suggest further discussion. Fellows: • What is staffs position on abandoning the Noguera Street property owner's backyard easement? Mr. Devens — The abandonment is not being considered at this time. • Will the project convert prime ag land to non-ag land use and why is the initial study checklist phrased this way? Ms. Heffemon— it is a standard question to try to get issues resolved. • Ownership of buffer maintenance later etc. Ms. Heffernon — the HOA would be responsib/e for all maintenance. • Mitigation MM4: Does this also refer to the Walnut trees, as they exist now? Ms. Heffernon— it should say "and native trees"(Walnuf frees are not protected). • Re Page 4 of the staff report: Traffic surveys for the City have underestimated at least one project for the City, how close would we be to LOS 'D' at build out of this project. Mr. Devens said he would have to do some research to answer that question. Tait: . Re Page 3 of the staff report asked for clarification on the 2nd sentence regarding pollutants in the creek. Mr. Devens — this is a nexus issue (an existing problem is being taken and added to this project) and more research needs to be done. . 2.2 new mitigation measure states the 4 lots adjacent to the buffer should be single story, but Attachment 10 (design guidelines) conflicts with this as it mentions 2nd story windows. Ms. Hetfernon — said the design guidelines as proposed to be amended is what staff is recommending and probably needs more discussion. MINUTES PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • There are 19 pages of mitigation measures, how can the City enforce all of these concerns? Ms. Heffernon — the Cify does the best they can and alI departments do go out and check on them and they are important fo include. • The Arroyo Grande Creek wildlife corridor adjacent to the property site does contain habitat for steelhead and the red legged frog, would the Endangered Species Act come into play, particularly if the 72" drain pipes are depositing ag runoff including pesticides into the creek which is their habitat. Ms. Heffernon — the applicant will be required to consu/t and obtain permits from both Federal and State departments such as CA Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife etc. • Re cultural resources: Are the results of the Phase 2 sub surface testing available yet? Ms. Heffernon — not at this time, but before this proposal goes to Council, Phase 2 testing should be done to determine if there are any archaeological issues with this project. • Re the vegetative screening for the Ag buffer: Should a condition be added that the vegetative screen must be effective in reducing airborne pollutants prior to occupancy (a wall would not be effective). Ms. Heffernon — suggested the City cou/d request the landscape plans be signed off by an outside consu/tant to ensure that the screening is su�cienf. • Loss of prime ag land under CEQA is considered a significant impact so if the project converts prime ag land to non-prime ag land why is this considered an insignificant impact? Ms. Heffernon — the subject site is not agricu/tural land and is not being converted (it is prime soil for residential use). Parker: • Reminded staff that she had submitted a list of consultants who would be glad to help with choosing correct buffers to decrease pollutants in the air and ground. In reply to another question from Commissioner Parker, Mr. Devens stated that the existing 15" and 12" City Sewer line interconnected in the area of Fair Oaks and Hwy 1 at Valley Road, has been identified in the Capitol Improvement Program and we have been assured that this sewer line does have adequate capacity and occupancy of this project should not be the trigger for this line to be replaced. Brown: • What environmental review was done was done at the time the drainage master plan was approved. Ms. Heffernon — she did not know what level of review was done. • The concept plan for subarea 2: Was there any discussion as to how that would be part of a condition of approval for the NP? Ms. Heffernon — a reduced density in subarea 2 is not being proposed. • Is the�e a condition of approval to build the homes above the 100-year flood plain in subarea 2. Mr. Devens said he did not know abouf subarea 2. • How is the hydrology going to work in the case of a 100-year flood event if the pipes are 17 feet plus under water? Victo� — the outlet elevation was being selected based on trying to be above the base flood elevation for the area. • Page 7 of the Newsom Springs report: He had concern that the City was making recommendations for a drainage plan for this property that is a regional issue; the MINUTES PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 recommendation was based on the Master Drainage plan or the Newsom , Springs Report (which Public Works states in a memo is "informational only'); conditions of approval also state that the hydrology report is to be done after the project is approved. • Because this property is not zoned Agriculture is it not subject to overriding considerations? Ms. Heffernon — stated that she did not believe it was subject to overriding considerations. • Concern that the staff report stated that the proposed project neither resolves circulation nor does it preclude future road connections. Ms. Heffernon - ultimate connections will be decided upon in the future; we show where secondary access could be. Mr. Devens - agreed that there are other possibilities other than fhe 227 bypass. • The Cherry Ave alignment: What is staff's opinion on the curved route? Ms. Heffernon — staff would like to see this not curved; like to see the East Cherry Avenue extension be a public right-of-way. Tait: • Mitigation measure 4.16 does not state when the survey of trees (prior to removal) by a qualified biologist should be done; The Morro Group report states this should be done from March 1 —August 3151� this date should be added to the measure. Ms. Heffemon — agreed that this should be added. Vice Chair Brown opened the Public Hearing for comment: John Knight, RRM Design Group, discussed four key issues: Traffic, the Regional Drainage Plan, the Neighborhood Plan, Ag Coordination; he stated the archeological study for Phase 2 was completed and was included in the binder (monitoring was the only recommendation); gave an update on the Neighborhood Plan meeting; he presented a new plan for the proposal received from Jim Dickens and stated the neighborhood was not interested in this. In conclusion, he stated that emergency access would be reviewed in the future as part of Phase 2. Eric Justason, RRM, gave a brief summary of the agricultural issues; discussed the Ag Buffer Study, prepared by Dameon and Brad and a publication regarding Agricultural Buffer Policy that they collected during their research. He discussed the research they had conducted on ag buffers and the and the need to protect farming and residents and reduce impacts from farming operations to minimize complaints; he described the design of the ag buffer, the proposed wall and landscaping proposed; explained that there was 127 feet separation between edge of crops to first habitable structure. In conclusion he asked the Commission to give clear direction as to what is needed if the Commission feels that they are not providing sufficient protection. Ed Harrison, 441 Lierly Lane, concerns: 1) alternative plan from Jim Dickens would put a road on three sides of his property 2) East Cherry Lane to Traffic Way is already a bad road with no parking, the traffic study did not look at these things and it is not a good plan to add more traffic to this street and needs to be addressed. The applicants have done a very good job of communication and have been sensitive to the neighbor's ' desires. MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, gave history of flooding on Tally Ho Road (Tally Ho Road twice flooded) and stated the water is similar to what comes out of Newsom Springs; the new houses raised up will not get flooded, but the adjacent houses will; use the mitigation measure money and build a dam in Newsome Springs and work with the County. JR Hoffmeir, 765 Branch Mill Road, discussed an email on the comparison between Australia and USA ag buffers. Linda Osty, 309 East Cherry Avenue, previously Commissioner Brown had asked that the applicant recalculate the size of lots and she had not heard anything about that. However, her main concern was with congestion on Traffic Way and East Cherry Ave this is a huge problem. The project looks great but we do need to look at this for the future. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, re her parents property at 404 Lierly Lane, stated that when the 2001 General Pian was approved she had been assured by Council (on a handshake only) that 4.25 units per acre was too much; she believes Cherry Creek is part of something bigger; it is impossible to approve Cherry Creek without getting a better idea of what type of density is planned for the remaining nine owners; density should not be more than the smallest property existing now (1/4 acre). Other issues of concern were fencing material (does not like the proposed wall); does not like the two story, 4 units backing into ag land; concern with traffic and width of the road at Traffic Way. In conclusion, she asked what project will it take to "break the camel's back"? Carol Hoffmeir, 465 Branch Mill Road, has concern with the proposed 2-story homes adjacent to the buffer; buffer will need to be bigger for future pesticide production, trees will need to be taller for protection; the Negative Declaration for the Coker Ellsworth project required buffer protection that never happened; what happened here, so how do we know that this will happen with this proposal. Nora Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, her property adjoins this proposal; she just received a copy of Jim Dickens proposal and does not support having a road straight through her property. She does support the Cherry Creek proposal and commended the developer for working with them; they have had successful neighborhood meetings. The pedestrian walkway ends up in her backyard and will not work; she would like the Commissioners to come out to look at the property. She has mixed feelings on the bridge, it needs to be reviewed and Lucia Mar consulted; road alignment is a big issue and she would like to see it dedicated to the City. She was interested in hooking up to , the sewer, but did not like the language in the mitigation, which states, "I must " (within a certain time-frame). The offer of private easements from the developers was great; better alignment is needed where Cherry Avenue meets Branch Mill Road and a 3-way stop sign. One-story units would be better than no windows on a two story. It is unfair to require the developers to have the buffer screening with 5-year old trees when people live there now with no screening. MINUTES PAGE 10 PLANNWG COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 � Otis Page, Myrtle Street, asked who in the City made the determination that this site is considered to be residential and not agricultural. Ms. Heffernon — staff made the determination as if is written in the Genera/ Plan. He stated he was in favor of this plan but not the configuration — density is too high, two story not acceptable; he discussed the circulation; the traffic analysis is understated and the traffic calming not adequate; he would like to see one-way into the project; there has been no analysis in the traffic study of the bridge that is being considered. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street, stated concerns that 1) there is significant runoff from existing ag land and this is not the responsibility of this development — owners of the land should mitigate this, 2) requiring a developer to provide ag buffers five years in advance of starting building would not be legally defensive for the City, 3) the current traffic analysis did no counts on Cherry Lane or Traffic Way showing number of cars moving down Cherry Lane to Traffic Way and none on the traffic moving to freeway at this time; it is the City's responsibility to improve this stretch in conjunction with development and not the developers. Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill Road, discussed drainage and stated that moving forward with the current proposal would preclude any future discussion about looking into the possibilities of a Newsom Springs detention basin (that would have multiple benefits). He questioned the claim that with this proposal no changes are being made as to what is being discharged into the Arroyo Grande Creek; a 100-year flood event could cause 900 cu. ft. per second traversing Branch Mill Road (the Dickson Ranch would have to take care of this) and no one knows what would happen in subarea 2. He stated that an appropriate hydraulic report should be conducted before the project is approved; no environmental review was done on the Drainage Master Plan and we were told that when a project comes forward the questions will be addressed; so a drainage analysis needs to be completed. Re circulation: the staff report states the proposed project would not preclude future road alignments, the 227 by pass was put to rest two years ago; in the General Plan Update regional relief routes were discussed; if approved the project would preclude routes for the future. Mr. Dickens stated that the intent of his alternative conceptual Neighborhood Plan was merely to show how multiple factors could be incorporated within the subject property site; his goal was to show that there are different alternatives, look at all factors and deal with subarea 2. He recommended the Commission look at the Ag study from the applicant; the Queensland Report recommends a minimum of 40 meters for landscape buffers to mitigate between agriculture and residential. In conclusion, he asked the question —.at what point as more and more neighbors move in do the farm operators have to be more and more mindful and at what point does it become an economic burden. Eric Justason stated that regarding drainage, it is not possible for the project to take care of a 100-year flood; our proposal addresses a long-standing drainage issue, but there is a limit to what we are able to do. Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierly Lane, stated he though this was a good project that needs much further review to resolve all the issues; he asked that sub area 2 be looked at a later date; he would like the ability to split his property at the density given to him. ' MINUTES PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 The Commission took a 10- minute break. 10:00 p.m.: Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None John Knight stated that it did not make sense to do environmental studies for sub area 2 at this time. Commissioner Keen asked Mr. Dickens re the 150-foot buffer, what data was he basing , the information that a 150-foot buffer would be adequate versus the 100-foot buffer with vegetation. Mr. Dickens — the County Ag Commissioner recommends fhis to allow for protection (even though the exposure may only be a perceived) to alleviate complaints that impact farming operations; additional distance will decrease perceived effects of any kind of exposure and lastly it is The Queensland ReporPs recommendation. Keen to Mr. Dickens: • In his opinion did he believe that in five years the environmental impact from pesticide use will only get better? Mr. Dickens — he could not say that, but even if they were 100% organic they would still have complaints- fertilizer smell, dust etc. that is why we need more space. • Re drainage basin, should it be the applicanYs responsibility to buy the land and build it. Mr. Dickens—absolutely not. • Should the farmers have any responsibility for drainage of their waste into the local creek? Mr. Dickens — they have 100% of responsibility for everything that leaves their property. Parker to Mr. Dickens: • Does the buffer accommodate for natural events when a farmer is spraying. Mr. Dickens explained how the County Ag Commissioner's department regulates pesticide use and permit conditions include adverse weather conditions; the most important issue for a buffer is to create a comfort zone for the average person to live and as more and more people move into the area it becomes more di�cult to educate people and we do not know what tomorrow may bring; it may be helpful to bring a represenfative in from the County Ag Commissioner's o�ce. Parker to John Knight: • Asked for clarification on the parking plan. Mr. Knight — we revised the plan to demonstrate that there could be parking on both sides of the street; East Cherry has parking on one side only at 32 feet (requested by the Public Works and Police Department); further up East Cherry near Phase 2 we have nof presumed any widths, but the areas that will need parking wou/d need wider street. • Asked for clarification on the fence heights for the yards. John Knight — yard fences are proposed to be six feet neighborhood fences. MINUTES PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • Is there a reason why the Vanderveer property has been subdivided from the rest of the proposed project and has a stone wall all around and a gate? Mr. Knight— Myrtle Street will not go through because of the creek, it was the desire of the person who is purchasing the house and the large lot thaf is behind the house. • Concern that when driving into this project from East Cherry the street is proposed to be named Myrtle and could get confusing. Mr. Knight — fhe Fire Department identified how the streets will be named. • Re the General Plan walkway conception, why can't the trail be put on the creek side? Mr. Knight — if we did it would have to dead end; but we are proposing a small pathway along the creek along with some other alternatives. • Will the 72 feet drainage pipe have a grate on it and be cleaned out periodically? Mr. Knight—there will be a grate and the City will clean this out. • Asked for clarification on the site runoff from the project. Mr. Knight and Mr. Devens explained how this wou/d be faken care of. • Tait: • Will the Palm trees near one of the proposed homes will they be removed? Mr. Knight— they will be removed. • Asked for clarification on the Buffer surveys. Mr. Mavis — explained that originally they talked to everyone in the neighborhood, left the questionnaire with them, but none were returned, so the second time they went out wifh a new questionnaire and these have been included. • Asked for clarification on the width of the proposed Buffer. Mr. Mavis — the buffer they are proposing is 100-feet from property line to property line and 115 feet from property line to the edge of first habitable structure. Fellows: • Circulation plan for 2nd Phase asked for clarification. Mr. Knighf — at the neighborhood meeting we gathered the information, but no street widths have been presumed. • Asked about the storm water collection basin mentioned in the letter from Linda Chipping? Mr. Knight — described the basin and stated it had to be fenced for safety.reasons. Brown: • Re the Buffer study, asked why language was used relating to the "evolving agricultural buffer". Mr. Damien — when this was originally started this study if was unclear. • Re the Buffer issue, asked where does the study discuss the 100-foot buffer in conjunction with the "current intensity of ag use and possible future uses". Mr. Mavis — the basis of this came from the fact that we are going to be providing a higher performance buffer than what is currently there. • Where in the material does it describe that 100-feet is adequate? Mr. Mavis — recommendations from the Ag departmenYs o�ce and it is a good minimum for pesticide access-start at minimum. . Re the proposed level of development including, subarea 2, how does the density fit the 100-foot buffer and where is the supporting information? Mr. Mavis — based on the fact that there are 6-8 lots that will be directly effected by the buffer. MINUTES PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 • During the presentation that there a comment that there has been an attempt to zone this area back to agriculture, where did this come from? Mr. Knight — comments we received in the packet regarding an attempt to identify this area as prime ag land and they had presumed it was for the purpose of converting back to agricultural land. Commissioner Brown stated that there had been no such suggestion to zone this area back to Agriculture". • Re drainage, on what basis was it determined that it was adequate, especially as there is a condition of approval suggesting a study should be done. Mr.. Knight— we decided on this design because it was the City's; we believe it is above and beyond our responsibility, but we are willing to do it to get this proposal through the City; there was no environmental review done for this. Vice Chair Brown suggested that this project be continued to the next meeting, but he did not wish to close the public comment. Commissioner Feilows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the hearing to March 15, 2005 and that it be placed first on the agenda. AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Keen, Parker and Vice Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Keen made a motion to adjourn. There was no second. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 05-004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN AND VILLAGE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS. Due to the late hour this project was not heard. Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue this item to the May 3, 2005 meeting. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Fellows, Tait, Brown, Keen and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: None B. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 03-001; APPLICANT — S & S HOMES OF THE CENTRAL COAST; LOCATION — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AND COURTLAND STREET. Staff requested continuance of this item to the March 15, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. After discussion on the upcoming meetings and project status the Commission made a motion. MINUTES ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fellows, Keen, Fellows, Parker and Chair Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 04-007, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-002, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 04-002, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 04-001; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVE & MYRTLE STREET (Continued from the meeting of March 1, 2005). Associate Planner, Ms. Heffernon, presented the staff report for the continued review of a new development and Neighborhood Plan for a 22-acre area bordered by East Cherry Avenue, Myrtle Street, and Arroyo Grande Creek. She recommended the Commission 1) consider the additional information incfuded in the Initial Study and determine the adequacy of the environmental determination; 2) consider the Neighborhood Plan (NP) issues, and; 3) consider the project. The staff report addresses the following impacts: • Traffic— primarily the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry • Sewer • Drainage • Prime Soils • Water Resources • Neighborhood Plan — level of detail that should be in the Plan Ms. Heffernon then stated that staff had made some recommended changes to the Initial Study. In addition, as part of the environmental review process, staff is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. However, if necessary the Commission can direct staff to prepare an expanded initial study under CEQA. If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, then an EIR shall be prepared; staff recommends that if such factual information exists, then any deliberations on the project itself be reserved until it comes back to the Commission with the EIR completed. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon requested the public hearing be re-opened and if the environmental review is determined adequate, the Commission should adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project. Commission questions and discussion followed: Commissioner Tait: . Drainage: He disagreed that the length of time required for performing environmental review of the reservoir at the mouth of Newsome Springs Canyon MINUTES PAGE 6 PLANNING COM,MISSION MARCH 15, 2005 would not be feasible with the project time line; time should be taken for the review- iYs very important. . Loss of prime ag land under CEQA: Asked for clarification on "prime soil zoned for residential use". Ms. Heffernon — it is staffs determination thaf this is a policy issue and not an ag conversion — this area was s/ated for development before the City was incorporated; so City Council would need to make an interpretation on this issue. • Initial Study: He disagreed with the most current change to allow second story, even with no windows against the ag buffer; this would need further discussion. . Biological resources: Did not agree with the statement that the "project site contains no habitat types that could provide suitable habitaY'. Ms. Heffernon - she wou/d get clarification from the biologist. . Mitigation measure 420: A sentence has been deleted that weakens the mitigation. Ms. Heffernon — they were waiting to hear from Fish and Game to see if this was necessary, but they could leave it in. Tait— he would like to see it left in. • Mitigation measure 4.16: As requested at the last meeting he would like to see � the dates March 1—August 31 added (prior to removal of trees by a qualified � biologist) to the measure. • Mitigation measure 4.28: Asked why the word "permanenY' was added to sentence. Ms. Heffernon— will get back to him on this. • The creek foot trail: Who will revegetate this area after the developers leave? Ms. Heffemon — a condition can beaded that the CC&R's require the HOA to maintain this area. � • How can the initial study be complete until responses have been received from , the RWQCB and Fish & Game? Ms. Heffernon — the applicant must go through ; these agencies before obtaining permits. In reply to questions from Commissioner Fellows, Ms. Heffernon stated: • The applicant has not yet secured a permit for discharge of water from the two 6" pipes into the creek from the Army Corps of Engineers. � • Re Ordinance 550 language, wording to state "the design shall require an adequate buffer" can be included. . If an expanded initial study is not to the Commission's liking a full EIR can be requested; a full EIR is a much larger scope of review, lengthier (at least one year) and more expensive. Parker: • Asked for clarification on the abandonment of right of way— area of Myrtle Street: Mr. Devens — it would be a privately maintained road - the City would retain an easement over it. � . Is the Vanderveer house a registered historical house? Ms. Heffemon — it has not been registered, but it may be considered to have historical significance. 1 � MINUTES PAGE 7 I PLANNING COMMISSION I MARCH 15, 2005 • Capital Improvement Program: Asked for an update on the sewer system for this area. Mr. Devens— it will depend on when the design has been approved. Keen: • When will the City get the Neighborhood Plan? Ms. Heffernon — the Neighborhood Plan for sub area 2 has been included in the information submitted for Commission review, but it is only in discussion form (text only); the General Plan does not give much guidance; the decision makers need to determine how much information is necessary. Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. , John Knight, representing the applicant, answered the Commission's questions; discussed changes made to the project to increase the buffer to 130 foot (measured to habitable structure); discussed the Neighborhood Plan and sub area 2. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, had concerns with the easement on Noguera; traffic on Cherry Avenue; the proposed bridge; he suggested an amendment to the General Plan regarding the prime soils. Carol Hoffmeier, 765 Branch Mill, had concerns regarding the buffer, drainage and emergency access. Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, had concerns regarding the buffer and ways to increase it; prime ag soil issue and the ability of the Dixson family to be able to farm in the future. � Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oakhill Road, had concerns with the drainage; past flooding history ; of Arroyo Grande, the buffer and the proposed wall and stated the need to protect families that had lived in Arroyo Grande for years. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, encouraged the Commission to ask for an EIR of the Neighborhood Plan, requested the Commission not to accept the mitigation measures; asked them to seek a General Plan Amendment lowing the density in Phase II. She stated that the NP should be approved prior to the Cherry Creek development; Phase II must be included in the study; suggested that the area is perfect for transitional zoning; does not agree with the proposed two story houses or the proposed gate on the Vanderveer historical residence; did not agree with the proposed construction hours, the monument sign and the berm with fence on top; concern with the size of the drainage pipes sewer mains and did not agree with the traffic report. Bill Surry, 831 East Cherry, commented that there had not been any negotiation for purchase on Cherry Avenue (private, dirt road), although it is being included as part of the buffer area. I � Noma Looney, 444 Lierly Lane, stated she disagreed with transitional zoning; there j would have to be further discussion on this. i MINUTES PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION , MARCH 15, 2005 ' Tony Janowicz, 445 B Lierly Lane, stated he also disagreed with a transitional area; the neighborhood needs to get together for further discussion. Karen Estes, 811 East Cherry, referring to Ella Honeycutt's comments, stated that once the dam had been installed there had been no further flooding; in 31 years she had not seen the Dixson property wash any water across Cherry Ave; she did not believe a wall would create any problem. John Knight gave his response to the public comments: . Noguera Place easement: This will need to be clarified. • Buffer interpretation: His understanding was that within 100 feet, backyards would not be included. • Enforcement of buffer: Projects will be installed according to plans and should not be a concern. • Fire access options: It is possible to get additional fire access if needed. • Newsome Springs drainage: The City has agreed to look at this next time the City's Drainage Master Plan is updated. In the meantime, there will be two 72" pipes and an overflow route. • If there were an initiation to alter the zoning and decrease the density in this area we would have some serious concerns. • We have moved the windows away from the buffer on the two story homes to avoid nighttime noise and light (when farmers may be working). • Construction times are typical and will be in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. • In some areas the wall is 7-foot high because of the grade change. • The vegetative buffer areas should be irrigated and there should be no concern with fire safety. The Commission took a five-minute break. Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Knight said if the Commission requires additional environmental documentation on the Negative Declaration (expanded Initial study), they would be willing to pay for a third party consultant, hired by the City. � Chair Brown suggested that the Commission start with review of the Negative Declaration, and stated that they would like to make all their comments before this goes forward to the Council. Commissioner Keen: • He would like to receive RWQCB and Fish & Game responses before going forward to further discussion. MINUTES PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Commissioner Parker stated that she was submitting her detailed written comments on the CEQA Negative Declaration (ND) to staff (copy to go to the developer); stated that the ND was inadequate; her comments addressed each of the items that she felt did not address the mitigating impacts sufficiently or identify additions required. Following is a condensed version of Ms. Parker's comments: • Traffic Report: Traffic is already a problem at the East Cherry and Traffic Way intersection, especially with regards to left turn onto Traffic Way from East Cherry (study provided to staff). According to the Traffic Study, this project will not be adding that much to make it worse; the City should address the current traffic issues at the Traffic Way and East Cherry intersection. • Aesthetics: The wall and berm area should be made more aesthetically pleasing and fit better with the rural area; the sign is not necessary and does not fit in with the neighborhood; glare and light shoufd be mitigated also. • Agricultural Resources: The buffer should be in this section — iYs a good mitigation. Ms. Parker stated that after much research and based on the findings from quite a few sources she could accept a 130-foot buffer. i • Biological Resources: Wildlife corridor, wetlands and riparian habitat is a significant impact— could be mitigated. ! . Hazards & Hazardous Materials: Are a significant impact; the creek bed is exposed to hazardous material and people are also exposed to the agricultural runoff and spray (could be mitigated). • Transportation/Circulation: An adequate secondary emergency access has not � been provided to the area and would be necessary for sub area 2 to be further developed. � • Land Use: Ag. 1-1 of the 2001 General Plan, identifies this property as prime , soils (and a natural resource along with oak trees) and is classified as prime I farmland, class II soils; once houses are built on prime soils, it does not require it ' to be turned back to Agriculture, but this property falls under every criteria that � the General Plan has set up for saving the Prime Soils. As it now reads, must either go to City Council for clarification of intent, and possible amendment; or � have a full EIR in which case it would need an overriding consideration from City Council to go forward. � • Mandatory Findings of Significance: The drainage system seems like a good solution, but it may cause problems for the chemical flow into the creek (not „ allowing chemical percolation through the soil); the mitigation measure is not , sufficient; there needs to be a response from Fish & Game & RWQCB before the , drainage goes in; this should be addressed. . According to CEQA, a negative declaration is only permissible if "all significant impacts are definitely mitigated"; Ms. Parker then stated the reasons why it could not be certified at this time. • A full EIR has to be done for this project because of drainage (regional issue) and prime soils (would require overriding considerations from City Council). � MINUTES PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Chair Brown requested that documents given to staff from Commissioner Parker's report be made part of public record and attached to any staff reports. Chair Brown announced to the public that due to insufficient time Item III.B. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 04-004, would not be heard this evening. After discussion it was agreed that a special meeting date on Monday, April 4, 2005 at 6:00 pm. would be acceptable for continuance of this item. The Commission then returned to discussion of Item III.A. Tait: . Drainage: Perceives this as a major concern because of the runoff going through the proposed 72" drain pipes, leaving no natural percolation taking place to � reduce harmful chemicals from going directly into Arroyo Grande Creek; good I buffers would trap pesticide runoff, but cannot happen inside a drain pipe; this issue needs to be looked at in depth using expert opinion. • Buffers: The applicant has taken many positive steps to reduce significant impacts; he agrees with the Co Ag Commissioners Office that none of these attempts replaces the benefits that adequate distance provides to adequately mitigate potential conflict; Ordinance 550, in the General Plan states "the protection of ag lands within the City is the City's greatest priority"; an inadequate buffer may limit the potential of future operations of a farm to change crops; in the revised East Village Neighborhood Plan, the ag buffer study presented by the applicant, ends with "this buffer will serve an as example for the future'; it is a concern that this project may be setting a precedent for future projects. • Prime farmland soil: The Co Ag Commissioner's Office states "the project site soils are almost entirely prime soils, with a small area of river wash (same soil type as Dixson Ranch); Ag1.4-3 in the General Plan and comments from Brian Troutwein to the effect that projects such as this in Santa Barbara almost always trigger a CEQA review. " • Re the Parks & Recreation Element: The bridge to connect the middle school i with the recreation facilities should still be considered. � • Pesticide use: Re the Buffer Study prepared by the applicant, the pesticides � included are both "restricted use" pesticides; one of the pesticides is heavier than � water and inside an enclosed drain pipe would not be able to evaporate; Ag 2 in ! the General Plan requires that water quality for agriculture be maintained and ' direct discharge of the pollutants through the proposed drain pipes within permeable land he believed violates the General Plan. • Given the complexity of the environmental issues with this project he believes an EIR is needed to provide everyone with a more in depth analysis. 10:00 p.m. Chair Brown requested a motion to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. � MINUTES PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 Commissioner Fellows made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m; the motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. Commissioner Fellows stated that after studying the Negative Declaration for many hours he had come to the conclusion that a full EIR would be required. Commissioner Fellows further comments: • He disagreed with staff's interpretation that the project would not convert prime ag land to non-ag use. • A 100-foot ag buffer with 20-foot of vegetation is clearly inadequate; County Ag Department lists factors why a wider buffer is needed; other jurisdictions have a minimum of greater than 150-feet; The Queensland Report has good scientific data recommending an acceptable buffer of a minimum of 131-feet, with half of the width planted with specific trees and shrubs; it is very important that ownership and maintenance of the buffer is taken care of (not an HOA), it has to be done by the City; Agreed with Commissioner Tait on drainage, groundwater recharge and water cleansing; a minimum of 150-foot buffer, plus borders on both sides (to be 37 feet of fire retardant plants) designed by a professional; mitigation by City arborist is not an acceptable mitigation; ownership and maintenance of the buffer should be agreed upon (not a HOA), City should take care of it. • Agreed with Commissioner Tait on drainage; hydrology and water quality: . discharge needs to be dealt with; the two 6 foot pipe system would be obsolete before it was built; suggested vegetative basin for water filtration. Brown: '� • Aesthetics: not pleasing because of the proposed wall and gate on the historical residence; this needs to be mitigated. • Ag Resources: Prime Soils, General Plan, Ag 1-4, City Council must address this issue; this parcel has been zoned residential for many years, but the City Council may have to make overriding considerations for the loss of prime soils; the secondary access for subarea 2 over possible ag land needs to be ' addressed; buffer: there is sufficient information in the applicanYs buffer study and the Ag. Commissioner's Office (so a full CEQA review would not be necessary) to require a buffer of 130-feet, property line to property line. • Geology and Soils: This project does involve the 100-year flood zone so the drainage and soil needs to be dealt with. . Recreation: The General Plan clearly states that a neighborhood plan needs trails and pedestrian bridges - needs to be addressed. . Transportation/Circulation: Secondary access for sub area 2 needs to be addressed; circulation has not been sufficiently addressed. • Hydrology and Water Quality: He agreed with Commissioner TaiYs comment. • Newsome Springs drainage issue: the City Council cannot determine what is appropriate without an environmental review; suggested that the City pay for part of the cost to determine the hydrology coming from Newsome Springs and must ' be done prior to approval of the project. MINUTES PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 • Land Use: It may be potentially incompatible to surrounding land uses, due to buffer next to ag land — needs to be addressed. • Density also needs to be addressed. • It is not appropriate to rely on future approval of government agencies; issues must be resolved prior to approval of the project. Commissioner Keen suggested that the Commission ask City Council for an interpretation on prime soils for this area before proceeding with a decision on the Negative Declaration because the whole project is hinged on this. Commissioner Brown stated that the General Plan requires an EIR for this issue and the Council can choose not to do this. Ms. Heffernon asked the Commission for consensus before moving on to the Neighborhood Plan. Chair Brown suggested an expanded Initial Study be undertaken. Commissioner Parker stated that an expanded Initial Study would not make much sense as no matter how good it was, an EIR would be required. Commissioner Keen stated that from his past experience EIR's do not solve the problem. When someone has doubts about a project even after completion of an EIR, they still have the same doubts. Commissioner Parker said in addition to the ag issue she has doubts about procedure and other issues; she did not need an interpretation of the General Plan from Council on the prime soils issue; the ag issue may need an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Parker. Chair Brown said he did not want to send the recommended environmental determination to Council before dealing with the other project issues. Commissioner Parker agreed. John Knight said his clients were not prepared to do an EIR; he would like the Commission to deny the negative declaration and this would allow them to appeal to City Council. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to recommend that a full EIR be done on the project and request that it not go forward to City Council until the Commission has dealt with the drainage, prime soils, agricultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and the neighborhood plan. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: MINUTES PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 AYES: Commissioners Parker, Fellows, Brown and Tait NOES: Keen ABSENT: None Commissioner Tait made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fellows, to continue discussion of the project to a special meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 2005. The motion was approved on a 5/0 voice vote. IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Chair Brown requested CEQA handbooks for the new Commissioners. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Ms. Heffernon: Brown Brown Bag lunch would be showing a video from the Housing Trust re affordable housing on Thursday, March 17, 2005, from 12 — 1:00 p.m. VIII. TENTATIVE AGENDQ ITEMS FOR APRIL 5, 2005 MEETING: No discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. to the special meeting of March , 29, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. ATTEST: LYN REARDON-SMITH TIM BROWN, CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting of April 19, 2005) ,., ATTACHMENT 8 MINUTES I� ' PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2006 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Fellows presiding; also present were Commissioners Brown, Ray and Tait; Commissioner Parker was absent. Staff members in attendance were City Manager, Steve Adams, City Attorney, Tim Carmel, Public Works Director, Don Spagnolo, and Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon ANNOUNCEMENTS: Request for the public to turn off their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commission Ray, approving the minutes of May 2, 2006, with one typographical correction; the motion was approved on a 4/0 voice vote, Commissioner Parker being absent. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: All correspondence received was related to Agenda Item II.A. Cherry Creek proposed project: 1. May 6, 2006, from Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street. 2. May 9, 2006, from Billie Tyler, 246 Garden Street. 3. May 9, 2006, from Noguera Tract residents. 4. May 16, 2006, from Polly Tullis, 236 Garden Street. 5. May 16, 2006, from Thomas Pask & Barbara Cretzler, 314 Noguera Place. 6. May 16, 2006, from The Mike Titus Memorial Committee. 7. May 16, 2006, from Mrs. Jeannette Tripodi, 521 E. Cherry. 8. May 16, 2006, from Sara Dixson and Molly McClanahan, Dixson Co. Trustees. C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-007; NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04- 002; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-002 ('CHERRY CREEM'). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for consideration of a proposal for the development of fifty-three (53) new residential lots on a twenty-two (22) acre site in two phases. Ms Heffernon stated that Phase 1 of the proposed development is for a 38-lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration of nine of the 22 acres; Phase II encompasses the remaining 13 acres PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 where no development is proposed at this time; the updated Neighborhood Plan did not include "dirt Cherry" (the 15 foot wide access to the back lot) in the proposed East Cherry extension. Ms. Heffernon then gave details of the drainage plan, the proposed water and sewer lines, the open space area, which includes the proposed 130-foot wide Ag buffer (for both sub areas), the vegetated bioswale, the area adjacent to the creek, a portion of the creek itself, and pedestrian paths located throughout the open space areas. Ms. Heffernon further stated that the Architectural Review Committee reviewed and approved the architectural style and design of the residential units (subject to the standards for historic districts). During previous public hearings, a number of environmental issues and questions were raised and the expanded Initial Study was to address these concerns. Ms. Heffernon advised the Commission that in making a recommendation to City Council, they should consider the environmental review presented prior to proceeding with deliberation on the Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Heffernon then stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the Neighborhood Plan, the proposed Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development, after providing direction on lot coverage and other issues identified, including approving the project as proposed, recommending one-story homes be changed to two-story, or recommending that lots be enlarged. In conclusion, Ms. Hefferrion stated that if there are environmental issues that the Commission feels have been inadequately addressed, the Commission may recommend to the City Council that additional environmental analysis be conducted, that other changes be made to the Neighborhood Plan and/or project, deny the Neighborhood Plan and project, or provide other direction to staff. Don Spagnolo, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed drainage system for the project addresses some regional concerns the City has; the drainage design for this area included in the City's Master Plan study in 1999, was chosen to cover a 100-year storm event (per the Development Code) and with these proposed improvements there is a possibility to eliminate some of the flooding hazards for the existing residents of Noguera Place. He described the storm-water bioswale, stated that there would need to be further studies and topographical survey to determine the size and depth for a detention basin, and that a weir structure at the north end of the drainage swale may provide some onsite detention. David Wolff principal ecologist for the project, on behalf of the City, gave a presentation and overview of existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures proposed for the project site. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait, Mr. Wolf explained: . The applicant would first provide a riparian enhancement plan to the City for their review and approval; the proposed plan would be simple with mostly top of creek PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 bank planting within the 25-foot setback area using typical native species for habitat restoration; the City would monitor the plan. • In regard to the footpath proposed and concern with the steep banks of the creek and how would this be handled; the surface will most likely be permeable; the surrounding areas will be planted with native plant species to encourage the public to stay on the path. . M 4.5 Re the pond turtle, and concern with the less restrictive measure being used, the requirement for just one pre-construction survey is more in line with this species; surveys for the red legged frog and steelhead trout have not been proposed as they occur throughout the creek; we presume they are there and regulatory measures will be taken that are necessary to get a permit. In reply to a question from Commissioner Tait, Ms. Heffernon stated that to date the only response they had received, regarding State public agency review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, was a letter from the Department of Conservation. Answers to questions from Commissioner Tait: Mr. Spaqnolo: re concern that the gauge construction is an impediment, it was his understanding that the structure would be removed and replaced with a more streamlined and environmentally friendly construction, with a gauge on the outflow to enable adjustment; the drainage solution chosen was the one that was thought to achieve the best regional benefit. Ms. Heffernon: City zoning was first established in the early 1960's and the first residential zoning in 1972 (earlier information is not available). Mr. Spaqnolo: there is still funding available (from a former settlement) that could be used for the City's portion of a regional drainage solution for this project. Mr. Sqaqnolo: re APCD's recommendation that all access roads to this development must be paved, only the part of "dirt Cherry Avenue" that leads up to the tract and the part that connects to the established road system will be paved. In reply to a question from Commissioner Ray, Mr. Carmel clarified how the City obtained (through legal process) a drainage easement for a portion of East Cherry Avenue. After some discussion with staff, Commissioner Brown requested staff review whether the drainage easement (across the Dixson property) was done on an emergency basis and if there was any environmental review at that time. In reply to Commissioner Brown's concern that the proposed drainage would not be able to handle the width of water (and siltation) that would sheet across the property in a 100-year flood event, Mr. Spagnolo explained that as part of the drainage analysis the water that comes out of Newsome Springs was taken into consideration and the size of the pipes chosen directly relate to this; in addition, due to the grade of the property, ponding would occur first, water would slowly migrate towards the low point, then the bioswale, and finally flow into the collection area. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES MAY 76, 2006 Commissioner Brown, referring to Attachment 11, (information from CEQAdocs.com) of the staff report, asked if the thrust of the report indicates that a jurisdiction could do a CEQA analysis (beyond zoning) as to the value of the loss of a prime resource, whether or not iYs prime soil and whether it needs to be mitigated? Mr. Carmel agreed that Attachment 11, the "LESA" analysis does go beyond zoning and stated that the policy (1564.7) links up with the provision of CEQA that allows jurisdictions to establish their own CEQA thresholds. Commissioner Fellows, referring to the letter from Sarah Dickens and Marianna McClanahan, Co-Trustees, Gorden Dixson Trust, referencing the 72" culverts and where they would connect to and who would maintain them, asked staff for clarification. Mr. Spagnolo explained that the last design that he had looked at showed them connecting to the grassy area in front of the box culvert that goes under the road and through the biofilter. Chair Fellows requested that the Commission be provided with a more detailed plan in the future to help clarify some of these questions. Chair Fellows asked staff if the City could gain an easement across the entire part of "dirt Cherry" in the future, so there would not be two Cherry Avenues (if the project is approved)? Staff replied that the Planning Commission could recommend this to the City Council. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group, gave a detailed description of the project and history of their application, addressed the Neighborhood Plan and sub area 2, the Nouguera residenYs request for a more substantial barrier between the subject property and the Noguera Tract, and their concerns with the height of the proposed residences on the lots next to their Tract. John Knight, RRM, Project Manager, gave some further background information; addressed the density and the drainage; explained that the purpose of the bioswale is to capture the first flush in the lower flow storms not the 100-year storm; explained how the concern with access into sub-area 2 had been resolved; re the concern of the Noguera' residents about the proposed two-story for sub-area 2, he explained that they are proposing to have the first story setback 15 feet, the second story setback an additional 10 feet (staggered setbacks), or restrict all these homes to one story (if this is chosen they would like to have an increase in the lot coverage); most of the other issues have already been addressed in the staff report. Dan Takacs, traffic engineer, Higgins and Associates, described the details of their study for the project area and in conclusion stated that according to their analysis, with the project trips added to the road network, the intersections would continue to operate at an LOS 'C' or better. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 In reply to questions from Chair Fellows, re the Dickens/McClanahan letter and the bioswale, Mr. Knight pointed out the location of the bioswale, the proposed size of the pipes (three 72"); they would be designed for a 100-year storm with a velocity of 1,100 cubic feet per second. In reply to questions from Commissioner Tait re clarification on the width of the bioswale, Mr. Knight stated that one option discussed is to remove the pedestrian path from beside the bioswale and locate it in the bottom of the channel to make it flatter, wider, and more effective. 8:00 o.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break � Public Testimony: Rachel Shoemaker, 206 Mason Street, stated the traffic problems should be dealt with before considering more residences be built; crosswalks need to be dealt with (she has seen people almost killed at intersection of Nelson and Traffic Way (crossing at the intersection of Poole and Fair Oaks is often blind due to parked vehicles; a stop light is required at Cherry Avenue. Sarah Dickens and Moliv McClanahan, Dixson Trust, 769 Branch Mill Road, addressed concerns stated in their letter to the Commission; asked that part of"Condition No. 6 be changed: "No new uses or structures shall be allowed in the Agricultural buffer area, unless approved through the CUP process", remove words "unless approved through the CUP process". In summary, they requested a continuance of consideration of the proposal to address the following issues: a. A separate hearing on the Newsome Springs drainage alternative. b. A clear direction on lowering the density and the use of a PUD. c. Direct staff to develop a modified LESA model that is tailored to Arroyo Grande's prime soil lands. d. A permanent resolution to the existing 15-foot "dirt Cherry Lane" as part of the application, Neighborhood Plan, and Agricultural buffer. Reuel Estes, 811 East Cherrv Avenue, resident of proposed sub-area 2, stated that the 130-foot buffer is a taking and will not protect the public; previously he had no problem with the farm, but the new tenants claim they have "a right to farm" and they have been using pesticides/fungicides quite often (even when the winds are not suitable); organic farming might be a solution; if an earthquake occurred a retaining wall by Newsome Springs would really cause some damage; when the Noguera residents bought their property they knew there was drainage there and now want it deeded back to them. However, it is being proposed that an easement be put on his property that he cannot use; in the future he may not develop his property, but he would like the zoning in the proper way; if a higher density is put in then it may make the price of the units more affordable. Commissioner Brown asked if the issue of the 130-foot buffer all the way PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 across Mr. Estes' property (sub-area 2) had been resolved for him? Mr. Estes stated that it had not been resolved, but they were open to negotiation if they were approached in the right way. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, urged the Commission to deny the application for the project stating the following reasons: the project requires a full EIR; the environmental concerns are significant; the traffic study is outdated and insufficient; the East Village Neighborhood Plan does not adequately address the future development in sub-area 2; the strong entry feature for the access points to the Village, proposed for su6-area 1, do not fit in with the Village; the proposed bioswale will not serve the use it is intended for; the project and the neighborhood plan are not consistent with the General Plan; a separate hearing should be required to decide if the parcel should be subject to a PUD. Ms. Martin further stated that she had done a good faith estimate of�the project site including the area in the creek, and had figured out that no more than 21 homes should be allowed for the proposed medium density; the City should take the leadership on the ownership of "dirt Cherry"; the Air Pollution Control District requires all access roads to the development be paved; the Mitigated Negative Declaration is incomplete — it does not mention that the loss of prime soils is a loss of significant natural resources and there is too much monitoring required (up to 5 years) and it is too vague. In conclusion, she stated objection to the deviance from the General Plan (especially the density); the last rural residential land should be properly planned; she would like to see East Cherry straight and paved; less density: four estate lots and no more than 20 additional units in Phase 1 (total of 24 units); the General Plan should be followed rather than allow a PUD where it does not belong. Grea McGowan, 432 Garden Street, is in support of residential use of the site, but suggested the following changes: 1. Noise and dust causing activities should be limited to 9:00 — 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. 2. Re traffic: believes that traffic will find other ways through the neighborhood if they have a long wait at an intersection —this should be reviewed. 3. The density may seem more dense because the three existing lots are being included. 4. The 25-foot setback adequately protects the creek, but zero buffer is being provided for the riparian corridor. 5. Concern with how the grading for the storm drains would be done without altering the top of creek bank; one solution may be to use a direction drill to bore down to eliminate disturbance of the creek. 6. MM 4.2 for native restoration is a great idea, but confused on the planting sheet (L-1.0� as it contains largely cultivars and aesthetic planting, not native; maybe this could be integrated into the restoration plan. 7. He would oppose the access down to the creek; it is very steep and dangerous and does not think neighbors would try to get down there. 8. He cautioned the City and applicant that from the mitigated negative declaration there did not appear to be impacts to listed species, but the discussion today PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 indicated that there may be impacts and presence of these species — a deferral mitigation is illegal under CEQA. Kevin McCarthv. 222 Garden Street, stated concerns with traffic through the entire neighborhood; that the increased traffic flow would affect both pedestrians as well as drivers; asked that these traffic issues be considered. Michael Block, 505 Ide Street, stated concerns that East Cherry and Allen Street will not carry the increased traffic load (he worked for Caltrans for 36 years); traffic will filter onto Ide Street (which during the last year has changed to families with young children); also has concern with flood waters- as the sewer on his property is lower than the other houses on the street; in 1995 the flood water came right up to his property. Mike Kellev, 322 Noquera, stated concerns with traffic; agreed with Mr. Block that traffic will divert to other streets; does not agree with traffic report on number of trips that would be generated; the City has responsibility to do something about Cherry Lane and Traffic Way intersection; does not want to see the project go through until the traffic problem is solved; re the storm drains, there needs to be a design compensation to keep debris out of them. Pat Sanaer, 530 Los Olivos Lane, (exits onto Cherry Lane) stated concern with the traffic; does not understand why a section of Cherry came into existence where residents cannot park onto the street and have to back out into traffic, and if a bus or mail delivery truck stops traffic piles up behind them; Allen Street cannot be called a thru road- if traffic is parked on both sides two cars cannot pass; this project will impact the Village and traffic needs to be addressed in a serious way. Larrv Turner, 323 Noquera Place, stated he had attempted to file an appeal of staffs recommendation to the Commission (prepared by the Mike Titus Memorial Committee), but the City rejected it; he would like clarification from staff. He described the neighborhood concerns with the proposed residential development and he would like the hearing continued to allow further discussion. Lvnn Titus, 404 Lierlv Lane, stated she and her husband had worked long and hard on the General Plan Update; there are items in the plan that should be directed by the City, not the developer — such as the East Village Neighborhood Plan; at the neighborhood meetings the developer was advised that the General Plan calls for 7,200 sq. ft. lots and paving "dirt Cherry" should be part of the plan (the City should take charge of this); the applicant cannot make an Ag buffer from land that he, or the City, does not own; she does not agree with Ag. Buffers; does not want the 8-foot high block wall (proposed along the Ag buffer) abutting her rural wooden fence; the lots for this area should be a minimum of 7,200 sq. ft. consistent with the residential neighborhoods in the Village and zoning in the General Plan; asked the Commission to deny the project. � PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 Jamie Ohler. 126 Allen, stated concerns with traffic problems on Allen Street and Cherry Avenue; believes the subdivision is a good idea and will be an asset to the Village, but , traffic is a concern; there should be less parked cars on the street and the traffic at the intersections needs to be addressed; the traffic is not a 'C' iYs an 'F'. Pollv Tullis, 236 Garden Street, read the letter submitted to the Commission for the record; it contained information on the heritage of the Village, the history of the Stillwell property, the fact that at least five of the nine acres designated Phase 1 are Class I, prime soil irrigated farm land (in production from 1913-1987); no development should occur; there were inaccuracies contained in the mitigated negative declaration; she agrees with Colleen Martin's comments; Phase 1 should require a complete EIR; only one home per acre should be built, or the land sold and other alternative uses for the I land be made, such as hands-on community outreach, historic sustainable agric-tourism ! using no pesticides as benefit to all, or other rural purposes consistent with the RR ' zoning. Greq Burdar. 201 Garden Street, builder/developer, stated concems about traffic that I'� this project would produce; concern with the proposed three 72" pipes and believes i there would be serious issues with them; agrees that East Cherry will need to be improved with sidewalks and parking before the project goes forward. Chair Fellows closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner Brown stated that due to the volume of material they had received he would like more time for review and suggested that the item be continued; he basically considered this a new project. Commissioner Brown proposed a motion, seconded by ' �ommissioner Tait, to continue the matter to a date certain. Commissioner Ray proposed a motion to recommend that City Council review the I requested interpretation from Mr. Coker, regarding whether Phase 1 is prime soil, before the Commission reconsider this proposed development. Commissioner Brown stated it was the duty of the Commission to make their interpretation before recommending to the City Council. The Council will then ultimately decide whether or not the Commission is correct. � Chair Fellows agreed that the Commission needed more time for review due to the huge volume of public testimony. Commissioner Ray requested that the Newsome Springs residents also be noticed when this project is renoticed for the next hearing date. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue the discussion to the July 18, 2006, regular Planning Commission meeting, open the public '� hearing and renotice the item. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 ' The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, Ray and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker Iil. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. IV. A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MAY 2, 2006: Case No.:! . A ` .'Name ::. Atltlress. : - Descri 't�on.. . ; f. ' AcNOn Pianner ' 1. TUP 06-010 Jeff Stnckland 1200 E.Grand Nature's Design Center, Open House A. K. Heffemon Ave. and AA Show for Uni hi Foundation 2. TUP 06-011 Gospel Lighthouse 710 Huasna Fundraiser cherry sales. A B.Soland Church 1200 E.Grand 1026 E.Grand I 1570 W. Branch '� 497 Fair Oaks 3. PPR 06-008 Wiley/Butcher 201 Wood Piace To allow continued use a non- A T. Ricard conformin 2ntl residential unit.. 4. VSR 05-016 D.Osborn 448 Allen Street Demolition of an existing one car A. T. Ricard garage and construction of a two-car garage and 2nd floor dwelling a roved b ARC The Planning Commission had no concems with the approved Administrative Items. , The Commission took a five-minute break. �I I V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. ' VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. ', VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: Ms. Heffernon advised the Commission that the first meeting in July falls on the July 4�h � holiday and asked the Commission if they would like to meet on an altemative date. After discussion the Commission decided they would prefer to have just one meeting in i July. Commissioner Ray made a motion to cancel the July 4'^ meeting and meet next � on July 18, 2006. I, The motion passed on the following roll call vote: I AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows �, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parker I PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 9 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 , C. REFERRAL ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION: None. V.A. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 13, 2006: A public hearing is not required for the following items unless an administrative decision is a ealed or called u for review b the Plannin Commission throu h a ma'orit vote: r'= `, .'.CaseNo �,_:: �. . . App r; riaAddress k..��: �,;De'sariptiont x'_;:.. ..'AcGOn Planrier, '-. �, MEX 06-017 (Changed J. Mocan 375&375A MEX for FAR and possibly A. R. Strong. to PPR—no new# Walnut Street garage/2nd du assi ned. 2, MEX 06-015&VSR O6- J. Godwin 527 Arroyo Street On file A. B. Soland 011 3, ARC 06-005 J. 522 E. Brench On file A. R. Foster Severance Street 4. VSR 06-013 B. Stote 381 Zogata Street On file A. M. Meier Community Development Director Rob Strong reported briefly on each item and Commissioners made comments: 1. Commissioner Parker requested a condition be added requiring insulation installation in order to bring the atrium up to code, since the atrium is included in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations to allow the secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Brown agreed. Mr. Strong noted he add the condition and communicate it to the building department. 2. Commissioner Brown noted he would prefer not to have additional items added to Administrative Decision reporting after agenda preparation, but he will discuss this further during upcoming procedure discussions. Commissioner Tait agreed. 3. Chair Fellows noted there has been public complaint about time lag to finish this project. Mr. Strong responded that the applicant returned with these new plans after City encouragement (in response to the complaint), so the process is working. Also, the applicant is now in a better financial position and he is motivated to get it done quickly. Mr. Strong will still pass along the comment to the Building Department. 4. No comments were made on VSR 06-013. The Commission had no other concerns with Administrative Items 1-4. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 04-007; NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04-001; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 04-002; PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 04-002; APPLICANT — CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC & ALAN LITTLE CUSTOM HOMES; LOCATION — EAST OF NOGUERA COURT/NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION ('CHERRY CREEM')—ConYd from 5/16/06 Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon presented the staff report for consideration of development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area, generally located northeast of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue, consisting of two sub- areas. Sub-area 1 is a proposed 30-unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on 9 of the 22 acres. Sub-area 2 encompasses 13 acres where no development is proposed at this time. In regards to drainage, the Citys PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 � Drainage Master Plan will be discussed at the City Council meeting on August 8, which would be a better arena for discussion on a regional basis. She outlined changes to the project as outlined in the staff report. The request for tonighYs meeting, however, is to first determine if the Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) is deemed adequate by Planning Commission. If not, then iYs suggested the Planning Commission stop discussion of the project and report their recommendation to City Council. If it is, then iYs suggested they proceed with discussion on the Development Code Amendment (DCA) and Neighborhood Plan (NP), followed by the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Planned Unit Development (PUD). Staff answered numerous technical questions from commissioners in regards to environmental issues. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. John Kniqht and Joslvn Broome, of RRM Desiqn Group made a powerpoint presentation. They made minor modifications to the previous design in terms of: density and lot size (from 38 to 30 lots), drainage (extended length of bioswale), street design (showcasing the Vandeveer home), Ag buffer (additional detail and only two "holes" in the landscape screening), and creek enhancement (additional detail). He answered many technical questions from commissioners in terms of environmental issues. Carmen Ortiz, 331 Garden Street, voiced concern about losing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) designated prime soils. Elizabeth Scot-Graham, 2410 Cima Court. San Luis Obispo, read her letter dated June 23, 2006, suggesting increasing the density to avoid losing more farmland. Meqan Bochum, 823 Turquoise, spoke as a resident of Zone 1/1A, requesting further study on the amount of sediment dropout in the bioswale and how it will affect others further down the creek. Otis Page, 606 Mvrtle Street, commented that City Council had already decided the ag determination issue, the NP has never been defined objectively and the neighbors aren't in agreement on it, and there are neighbors who don't agree with the 130' ag buffer. Lance Tubell, 834 Creekside, voiced his "strong support" of the project. The bioswale issue has been addressed and iYs more than adequate. The applicant continues to meet requirements and extend efforts to make it a nice project. Steve Ross, 211 Garden Street. clarified the tree ordinance and mitigation process. The ag buffer won't be an issue for small remodels of existing homes (only for demo/ rebuild or larger development). He is concerned about traffic on Cherry, even as it is now. Also, the steps to the gauging system by the creek are used daily and, if considered a safety hazard, should be mitigated with a fence now. Cindv Hansen, 775 Santa Manuela, voiced her preference that the project remain as it is. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Ron Janelli. Lopez Drive. spoke in support of the project, noting that Mr. Branch "goes the extra mile to make it righY' in his projects. Cliff Branch. co-owner/aoplicant, spoke in support of the project. They're working on helping to solve the regional drainage issue. IYs zoned residential so iYs not against the General Plan. They can go either way on improving Cherry. There are several letters showing support for the project. Lyn Titus requested that he purchase her house and she would "go away", but he declined the offer. Mollv McClanahan. 617 Malvern Ave.. Fullerton, CA, (co-trustee of Gordon Dixon Trust at 769 Branch Mill Road), read aloud Neil Havlick's letter (on file) and suggested that Planning Commission add a condition prior to recording the final map (after COA #23) adding his list of potential issues that need to be addressed prior to final map approval. She also suggested that "unimproved Cherry" should be part of the NP, because it makes sense to use the land. Third, instead of allowing structures in the ag buffer through the CUP process, they should be completely disallowed, especially since the ag land is in conservation and will be there in perpetuity. Gre4 McGowan. 432 Garden Street, responded to Commissioner TaiYs questions. He agrees that CEQA involves a public disclosure process. Mitigation isn't so much disclosure, as a method to provide for impacts. If it can be mitigated, then do a MND. If not, then do an EIR. The question is does the MND reduce impacts to less than significant. There's a problem with deferring mitigation to other agencies, when they don't have enough manpower and resources to follow through. The conditions need to have qualitative measures. Parkers' suggestion to require seeding afterwards is a good idea. He answered further technical questions from commissioners. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, requested commissioners to follow the General Plan, provide for less density and require an EIR. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the meeting to at least 11 p.m. Motion approved on 5/0 role call vote. Dr. R.D. Estes, 811 E. Cherrv, gave a brief history of the project since 1997. He felt things fell apart with this project when the developers said they would pave dirt Cherry and then changed their position. The monetary offer of mitigation of prime soils for $35,000 is bribery. Noguera owners should get their easement back. The walnut trees are almost at the end of their useful life. Traffic is already a problem. IYs a good project. If increased density is encouraged, nobody will farm that land again, so if Commissioners don't want that to happen, then buy back the property. Larry Turner, 323 Noquera, agrees with Mr. Estes on a couple things. Noguera neighbors should get their easement back. He's very concerned about drainage, but this project will help. Condition of approval #108 should be deleted, so Noguera isn't lined in concrete, as it was only a temporary easement to start out with. Chuck Fellows closed the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 10:10 pm The Commission took a 10-minute break. Commissioner Comments: Parker • She discussed CEQA/MND checklist issues one by one, and came up with the conclusion that the project impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. • 1. Aesthetics: A, C and D - change to "impact can and will be mitigated," because the aesthetic compatibility, visual character and glare of lighting will be impacted, but can be mitigated. • 2. Agriculture Resources: o A) Prime Farmland — change to "impact can and will be mitigated." This area has prime soils not from a zoning perspective, but as a natural resource as classified by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). One of the biggest problems is General Plan Ag1-4 and the "threshold of significance", which hasn't yet been established, so Planning Commission and City Council need to use their best judgment. One way to go is that no project on prime farmland soils can be mitigated and a full EIR must be done. (However, she believes this land cannot be used for ag production, which she acknowledges are two separate issues). The other way is to acknowledge the prime soils and consider mitigation on a case-by-case basis, which she's chosen to do. Because of natural constraints (the 25' creek setback and 130' ag buffers), there isn't much room left (about 1.3 acres) to rezone the property and convert it back to active farming. If the basic notion of the General Plan was to preserve prime soils to continue farming, then it won't work in this situation. Turning it into open space will be mitigated by the 130' ag buffer, itself. The applicant has made a generous offer of $35,000 to mitigate the prime soils. Ag1-4.2 "Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of 1:1 with regards to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use." This doesn't have to be 1:1 for the entire prope�ty, since it couldn't all be used for ag anyway. In addition it says, "Other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council." In this case, she thinks that mitigation measure would be appropriate. o Remove paragraph two from MND page 6 that says it is not an impact. o Add language that says why this would be considered prime land. o Add the reasons why iYs been mitigated, and allow a mitigation measure of 1:1 for useable ag land soils remaining as a fee to help farmland down the road. • 3. Air quality: Delete MM's 3.12 through 3.16, as they didn't deal with air quality. . 4. Biological Resources: o Change MM 4.3 to read "Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone saa shall be replaced within the riparian setback area ..." PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 o Attachment 6, page 25, the next to last paragraph reads "This would be considered a potentially significant impact." She understood this to mean the checklist box #4A needs to be marked "potentially significant." o Change MM 4.8 to spell out California Red Legged Frog (not CRLF). • 6. Geology and Soils: o Silt flow needs to be addressed. o CC&R's need to address continued maintenance of the bioswale in regard to vegetation, sedimentation, reseeding and water quality monitoring. These should be written in. o Add to the end of MM 6.5 "... Creek and the project shall comply with all County ordinances and mitigation set forth by this agency." • 12. Transportation/Circulation: o MM 12.1: She doesn't agree with the Traffic Study that iYs a level of service C. There are existing traffic issues, not just measured by the number of cars, but by other factors. Accidents have been seriously increased in the area. The project won't make much difference, but since iYs already an issue, she suggests to City Council that it be studied further. o MM 12.2: She agrees with the neighbors about E. Cherry extension. IYs a difficult issue, and should be resolved however possible. . Drainage: o Normally she wouldn't approve the NP and MND until everything is in place, but the best thing to do in this case is to move forward with the MND and place regional drainage issues back with the City Council. The project should be contingent on the regional drainage issue and separate environmental report being approved by the City first. There needs to be time for public comment on the regional issues. She considers the Branch Mill easement a temporary fix done on an emergency basis. o IYs important to know how much water will have to be provided for, in terms of which solution will be best. • Phasing of NP: is okay and has been done before. Tait • He felt the project could not be mitigated with the negative declaration due to the impacts on prime soils, drainage to the creek, regional drainage and protecting threatened species. • It was a good idea to remove the pipe, because a longer bioswale is better for water quality. • Prime soils: There is a significant impact to prime soils. In regards to mitigation, he doesn't think a dollar amount can be put on replacing prime ag land. • He's okay with the Ag buffer - 130' will do an adequate job. However, per Nanci's notes, Susan E. Kegley, Ph.D., a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network of North America stated: "The main thing I would worry about in terms of the buffer being taken out of the development property is what would they do with it. Landscape it? Would that make it an attractive place for kids to play? How will they ensure that people won't spend time there?" Her and my concern, is about the pesticide use from the adjacent farmland. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 • Per Ag1-1.1, "Prime farmland soils shall include all land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible." Polly Tullis' letter says this area has had irrigation rights since 1913. • Ag. 1-4 considers the "loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact." The SLO County Ag office said this has been classified as prime soils, it has no limitations if farmed, and it's suitable for orchards. • Ag1-4.1 states, "Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes or development such as coverage (e.g., paving, construction of buildings, etc.), or conversion to urban/suburban use (including residential yards/gardens and recreational areas. Cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallow or is allowed to revert to a natural undeveloped state." Per that statement, the farmland has not been "IosY' yet and is still prime farmland soil. • Ag. 1-4.3 states, "Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are geographically specific, the onlv means for mitiqation to less than siqnificant is preservation." o He read from Ella Honeycutt's article "Arroyo Grande Valley Prime Farmland a Natural Treasure to ProtecY' which states, "We cannot dig deeper into the earth and find new productive soil. We must keep what we have or do withouY'. o Ag 1-4.3 continues, "The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil areas by directing growth potential to more suitable urban locations." None of these ag elements are dependent ori zoning. While not zoned ag, this land has been in production from 1913 to 1987. • He can't agree with or approve a MND that states conversion to non-ag use is an insignificant impact. He can't approve a MND that uses a state-wide LESA model. The City followed County Ag Department advice to determine the buffer, and should follow similar considerations in determining a local LESA model. • Drainaqe: There were three experts: Carmen Ortiz, USDA, Elizabeth Scott Graham, American Farmland Trust, and Greg McGowan, Biologist, who made public comment tonight in addition to the following: o Megan Bucham, zone 1/1a resident, said "we all live downstream" (in relation to sedimentation dropout). o Molly McClanahan said, and he agrees with, "the City needs to look at the list of RCD issues prior to approval." o Newsom Springs drainage needs to be separated from this project. He read from Neil Havlick's letter, "the basic problem with properly handling flood flows from Newsom Springs remains unaddressed, and the District feels that some form of stormflow detention ... would benefit all downstream landowners (including those in Zone 1/1A who are already heavily impacted by siltation and flooding on lower Arroyo Grande Creek). The Cherry Creek project provides ample reason for starting anew the investigation undertaken in the late 1990's as well as more recently regarding the Newsom Springs watershed but never acted upon". PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES JULY 78, 2006 • Other: They have received many letters recently that maintain iYs time to move forward and the process has gone on too long. For perspective, the creek and prime soils have been there thousands of years, farming has been there hundreds of years, and it would take a dozer and grader half a day to destroy it. We need to take time with this case, because iYs important. • Given the complexity of the issues: ag land, drainage, water quality and protection of species, an EIR is needed to provide the Planning Commission and • City Council a more in-depth analysis and more alternatives. IYs important to do it right the first time. Chair Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to continue the meeting to midnight if need be. Nanci Parker commented she would only like to go to midnight for discussion on the MND. Motion approved on unanimous roll call vote. Ray • She went through a different process than Parker regarding the prime soils issue, but also determined that project impacts could be mitigated to less than significant. • When the General Plan was updated, environmental impacts to land use changes were evaluated at that time. Since this project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use map, there's no reason to request an EIR. • She talked to the City Attorney via the City Manager. The question is not whether impacts to prime soils are "significanY', but "mitigatable". • The General Plan Land Use, zoning and the current use are not ag land, but there are prime soils. There's no clear way to move forward, so she chose plain common sense, which tells her this is mitigatable. She appreciated the detailed analysis of the MND that Commissioner Parker went through. • We're losing an aging orchard and protecting ag land by creating infill, which is in itself mitigation by preventing sprawl. In addition, there are other mitigations built in like open space and buffers. • The RCD issues will be resolved by City Council. • She appreciated Mr. McGowan's comment that when there's a MND, the onus is on the applicant, whereas with an EIR iYs on the City. Because iYs a gray area, instead of going to court, the applicant is working to agree with the mitigation. The MND gets us to a point where we can say they did mitigate a loss. • With Commissioner Parker's changes, she's ready to approve the MND and send it to Council. • She's ready for Council to also address the regional drainage issue. The developers did a good job with a problem thaYs not originally theirs. If it can't be solved on a regional basis, it will return to Planning Commission. Brown • He agreed with Tait that the project impacts could not be mitigated because of prime soils, and also due to the possible lack of environmental review on subarea 2 projects if brought in individually. Therefore, he can't support the MND at this time. • Prime soils: He disagreed with Commissioner Parker about mitigating the loss of prime soil to less than significant, because Ag1-4.3 says the only true mitigation is preservation and even then, the Council has to approve a statement of PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 overriding considerations. It does warrant at a minimum that the City Council develop a threshold of significance as required by the General Plan. Given the lack of that threshold, this is subjective and guesswork. While this has been done previously, with money put aside for conservation as opposed to analysis, his sense is that in the absence of the threshold of significance, the loss of prime soil becomes a negotiation and City Council needs to decide whether iYs appropriate. He thinks it is, because the City doesn't have a LESA-type model to determine significance for this property. The State LESA model, as is, would wipe out most if not all of the ag zoned parcels in the city limits, so it can't be used in its current format, but he supports and appreciates staff's willingness to make it part of documentation and discussion. He believes, from an environmental standpoint, some of the major environmental issues not resolved are: . Regional drainage issue with Newsom Springs: The applicant does have some responsibility based on timing of the project. The Newsom Springs issue should be separated, with the environmentally preferred path determined by the Public Hearing process before determination for this project. • There are best management practices that have been developed since 1997. • Stakeholders like DFG and other parties like the farming community need to be brought into the process. • Sedimentation and pesticide runoff need to be addressed. • If there's streambed alteration, he believes an EIR is required by CEQA. • In terms of the NP, he's disturbed by discussion that CEQA would be categorically exempt for small projects. Unless an environmental review is done now for subarea 2, it must be dealt with as a separate tract. Fellows • He felt a full EIR is still necessary and the negative declaration would not mitigate his concerns appropriately. • He's supported infill to save ag land from development, but iYs not appropriate for this location surrounded by riparian area and conservation ag land. • 16 months ago Planning Commission chose to recommend a full EIR. Applicants and staff chose to do an expanded initial study instead. Some improvements have been made, but that hasn't changed environmental effects. • From Appendix G in the CEQA handbook, an EIR preparer would review: o Land use — b) Conflict of adopted environmental plans and goals of the local community? He thinks this project still does and major questions have not been dealt with. o Water — b) Interteres with groundwater recharge? It does without a retention basin. ■ c/d) result in substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? — They don't need to solve a regional problem, but without an EIR the water sheet flowing across the ag land needs to be dealt with before they break ground. o Traffic and noise - With density proposed now, it does cause traffic and noise problems that require further study. � PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 o Agriculture Resources - Does it convert prime ag land to non-ag use? Yes. Literally, it does. • He quoted from the CEQA Handbook "If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant ImpacY entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required." • We're all self-educated volunteers, but EIR reports are done by experienced experts and non-biased analysis is performed. There's been a fair argument in favor of preparing an EIR. Brown • Regarding the process, since the regional drainage issue is going forward at this time and only the lack of an EIR has been discussed, would it be beneficial to the . applicant to forward commission's opinion on the need for an EIR first and then deal with other issues at a later date? Mr. Adams answered, "Yes." Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and recommend to City Council that a full Environmental Impact Review be completed based on the following issues: • Drainage, . Environmental impacts to prime soils on subareas 1 and 2, • Creek sensitivities for subareas 1 and 2, • Siltation, and . Pesticide runoff calculations haven't been fully addressed. Due to the insufficiency of the MND, a full EIR should be done. In the event that City Council disagrees, he requested that these issues (as listed above) be more fully addressed in any future Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioners Parker and Ray ABSENT: None Commissioner Brown requested the rest of the project issues be scheduled for the first Planning Commission meeting after the Drainage Master Plan is discussed at City Council. Commissioner Ray replied that it can't go forward at Planning Commission without an EIR per the above motion. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: None. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. ATTACHMENT 10 , Cherry Creek Flood Channel Preliminary Analysis Prepared at the Request of.• Above Grande Engineering Prepared by: Keith V. Crowe Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 832 Atascadero, Ca 93423 �ess,q� / � v.����� ����LCS No.31,58 I�"n Expires 12/O6 � �T�/����/� 9lF�/O�' �OF �Al\F � V/ �/"U� August 31, 2006 Background Above Grade Engineering is proposing the subdivision northerly of the intersection of East Cherry Road and Branch Mill Road. Included in the subdivision proposal is a 40 foot wide right-of-way for a channel to carry storm water runoff from a problematic area southerly of the project. This report is intended to demonstrate the right-of-way is of adequate width to accommodate a channel that will carry the required flow. This is not the final design of the channel. The city has provided the flow rates it expects the channel to carry. The return frequency and associated flow rates are: • 100-year 1024 cfs • 50-year 878 cfs • 25-year 707 cfs • 10-year 531 cfs • 2-year 197 cfs The starting water surface elevation at Arroyo Grande Creek was taken from the Flood Study for the City of Arroyo Grande for the 100-year and 50-year floods. The flood level in Arroyo Grande Creek was below the invert of the new channel for lesser floods so the normal depth in the new channel was used for the starting water surface elevation. HEC-RAS is used to model two potential channels. The first channel proposed by Above Grade Engineering that was created without benefit of hydraulic analysis. The second is a modification of the first channel that corrects certain hydraulic problems with the first channel. It is important to note this is not the final design. The channels do have certain issues that must be addressed in a final design. The analysis only demonstrates it is possible to install a channel of adequate capacity with the 40-foot right-of-way. Analysis of Channel Shown on Tentative Map This channel has 2:1 side slopes. The bottom width varies from 0 at the downstream end to about 12' wide at the upstream end. There are 20'wide box culverts at the upstream and downstream project limits. The slope of the channel bottom is 1.2%. The HEC-RAS output for the channel is included as Table 1. The profile is included as figure 1. A plot of the tentative map with the sections is included in figure 2. The section station is the number on the right side of the plot; the 100-year water surtace elevation is the number on the left side of the plot. , Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 1 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer � Table 1. HEC-RAS results for channel as proposed HEC-RAS Plan:Plan 05 River:Cherry Reach:Project River Sta Profile Q Tolal Min Ch EI W.S.Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width (cfs) (ft) (ft) (fl) (fUft) (Ws) (sq fQ (ft) - 1000 PF 1 1024 125.4 13224 0.001588 4.91 208.69 51.03 , 7000 PF 2 876 125.4 131.71 0.001675 4.81 182.49 47.85 1000 PF 3 707 125.4 130.85 0.002071 4.92 143.57 42.69 1000 PF 4 531 125.4 129.89 0.002682 5.03 105.54 36.97 1000 PF 5 197 125.4 127.71 0.005598 5.04 39.06 23.85 980 PF 1 1024 125.4 132.04 129.42 0.001801 5.76 177.04 3329 980 PF 2 878 125.4 131.56 129.06 0.001724 5.44 16127 32.33 980 PF 3 707 125.4 130.76 128.6 0.001815 5.2 136 30.72 980 PF 4 537 125.4 129.87 128.06 0.001919 4.86 109.32 28.94 980 PF 5 197 125.4 127.77 126.8 0.002271 3.72 52.9 24.73 925 Culvert 870 PF 1 1024 725.1 130.6 0.003477 729 140.39 31.01 870 PF 2 878 125.1 13023 0.003268 6.81 128.84 3025 870 PF 3 707 125.1 129.73 0.00302 6.21 113.91 2925 870 PF 4 531 125.1 129.12 0.002755 5.5 96.54 28.04 870 PF 5 197 125.1 127.49 0.002202 3.69 53.43 24.77 850 PF 1 1024 125.08 129.99 129.61 0.007797 9.14 112.09 32.65 850 PF 2 878 125.08 129.6 12926 0.007306 8.81 99.69 31.09 850 PF 3 707 125.08 129.1 128.78 0.007448 8.35 84.64 29.09 850 PF 4 531 125.08 128.52 12822 0.007587 7.76 68.46 26.77 , � 850 PF 5 197 125.08 127.04 0.008262 5.95 33.08 20.82 750 PF 1 1024 123.88 729.18 0.007473 9.38 109.22 312 750 PF 2 878 123.88 128.76 0.007715 9.11 96.39 29.52 ' 750 PF 3 707 123.88 12821 0.00808 8.74 80.85 27.33 750 PF 4 531 123.88 127.57 127.36 0.008604 8.28 64.13 24.76 750 PF 5 197 123.88 125.97 125.87 0.010242 6.66 29�.59 18.35 650 PF 1 1024 122.68 128.73 0.005509 8.42 121.57 322 650 PF 2 878 122.68 12828 0.005617 8.16 107.66 30.42 , 650 PF 3 707 122.68 127.7 0.00579 7.8 90.67 28.1 650 PF 4 531 122.68 127.01 0.006069 7.36 72.12 25.32 650 PF S 197 122.68 125.16 0.00769 6.14 32.07 17.91 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 2 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer River Sta Profile Q Tolal Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl FlowArea Top Width (cfs) (ft) (ft) (fq (iVft) (fVs) (sq ft) (ft) 550 PF 1 1024 121.48 128.35 0.00442 7.79 131.44 32.87 550 PF 2 878 121.48 127.9 0.004426 7.5 117.09 31.08 550 PF 3 707 121.48 127.31 0.004436 7.11 99.5 28.73 550 PF 4 531 121.48 126.61 0.004458 6.62 8021 25.9 550 PF 5 197 121.48 124.68 0.004642 521 37.82 18.21 450 PF 1 1024 120.26 '127.56 0.006033 8.75 116.96 30.63 450 PF 2 878 12028 127.13 0.006045 8.43 104.'13 28.91 450 PF 3 707 12028 126.57 0.006043 7.99 88.52 26.66 450 PF 4 531 120.28 125.91 0.005957 7.4 71.79 24.02 450 PF 5 197 12028 124.06 0.005866 5.74 34.31 16.64 385 PF 1 1024 119.5 126.44 126.44 0.010151 10.62 96.41 27.77 385 PF 2 878 119.5 '126.04 126.04 0.010304 1028 85.43 26.14 385 PF 3 707 119.5 125.5 125.5 0.010574 9.83 71.92 23.99 385 PF 4 531 119.5 '124.82 124.82 0.011244 9.37 56.7 21.3 385 PF 5 '197 119.5 123.1 123.1 0.012569 7.62 25.85 14.38 365 PF 1 1024 119 '125.89 123.03 0.001582 5.52 185.41 33.79 365 PF 2 878 119 125.2 122.66 0.001693 5.41 162.28 32.39 365 PF 3 707 119 124.33 122.19 0.001854 5.24 134.99 30.66 365 PF 4 531 119 123.37 121.67 0.002071 4.99 106.47 28.74 365 PF 5 197 119 121.2 120.4 0.002879 4.03 48.92 24.41 310 Culvert 255 PF 1 1024 118.5 122.49 122.49 0.009958 10.39 98.54 29.39 255 PF 2 878 118.5 122.12 122.12 0.010292 10.01 87.68 28.51 255 PF 3 707 118.5 121.66 121.66 0.010592 9.44 74.93 27.43 255 PF 4 531 118.5 121.14 121.14 0.011024 8.71 60.99 2621 255 PF 5 197 118.5 119.9 119.9 0.012888 6.5'I 30.27 2329 235 PF 1 1024 118 123 12'1.78 0.00352 6.83 150 40 235 PF 2 878 118 121.45 121.45 0.010103 9.46 92.81 33.8 235 PF 3 707 118 121.32 121.03 0.007513 7.99 88.49 3329 � 235 PF 4 531 118 120.83 120.55 0.007502 7.31 72.64 31.32 235 PF 5 197 118 119.37 119.37 0.01283 6.31 31.2 25.49 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 3 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer Cherry Creektent map Plan: Plan 14 8/31 /2006 I �.ryP�� _ 136 _ _ - Legend 134 _ WS PF 1 132- �� - ; . �� , .„..���:� � � WS PF 2 � 1� _ � . - --' `. � "" � � ,� � � �. � 12g . �� � � `��� , �.� o , � � � �'� y WS PF 4 :r � � �.� ,�+ir. < > �� � p � u � '�� �-�-�"`-�'' ��� _ �_ � , � �„� ,�� �' �-� ���. � WS PF 5 W ' E L 124 --.— - Q'a.md 122 - � _ �`�� ' � ������ � �` E �°�" LOB 120 � ,, _ :_�:, .. � �. 118 � � � � � � 0 200 400 600 800 Ma n Charrr�el Distanoe (ft) Figure 1. HEC RAS profile for channel as proposed Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 4 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer i � � _ �. i �_, � _ _- 2 �£�--� � �, � � �' '� . 't ' .- = r £ c __ \ . � .. . . .-� � : -. . , \ � ,, � „ ' .... , . � , _., i � . � 1 ;\'� � . '. ' i.,.r%' � i ' � � N \ � �....�i.. ( �:.��. �'- �� . � _ _.. . ... �..� —.... ? A F 1 ._ �. . , I_ _ � ' F �� 4 ' .:_. � �� i� � 3 -' — ' � � ,t � � � . � �-� � � 'iv ,�i � � i t k ... .. � � �� � � � � ..,� . L�� � 48 � .. �� I 14 p), y�t�� 1] I . � i b "� . _ T ' J I y�p ..., � II'..� ti� � ,� � . �� � — I� ;j. r. .:. :.. 3 I ( � •� , 3 ' 1 i '' ,_ f , . ' �—'_-- . � %� � � I` �r .' �. ��- _., _ � �� � I � ..13 � i �f . . � y�, ; -2y- / 3" �+ ��� n. � IL . i t ( 4 � i ' I '� �� ,� � ! ; z ;� � ^��� � "i; ��'+�. - � ' .�� 4 Y � � I I �F� S� '. Pn I � , i f F � � � I. l { 1 . ., � �; ,i„ . T` ( :�,.. I � .�,. �x � \I I r �� � ...—�ylI{� �ll� I I I y I I� � J �,, J � �, � . . r ,.. �:I i �R ��'10 7 I�/l� � �2�� i � I E' ; i� �� �.{I' .. � � �..� � ' i � , ' � . . +�.tx , 3 t � ' f ��„ . _.r9 �. `��I� F "� � 1 � � � I I I I � J �__'/ � 1 I i� i r � t i i i 1 �� � � � ��� -� '__ .. ': � � � '.. _; � , ;, ` :, t. ' ,. .. . , . � '�.. -1I .1� ' ; � � ..�8 fl��� � �� . 13 I I 24 IJ t '. � ��. I ' �... '� ) ,d-, � T.�=� � . �•." �� � s,�,' il i '� t � - t _ �, � ' �� 3 � sa. � _ I� �L _ , � I ai �: t� r _ V� � � .. � ,. �l ' . f ' � � " . �-l._ i` � :�. ,� :. .. '-`i.- _t,. � `� _ il ' N'�' ..� Eh~'T NER�Y,��- � �.... -. . '_ II ,..�., �� �y ! �[ . I_-- _ ^ -� zr. ' ._. — ,� ��.�-�� `32 , u -0���..-.� , - . , . .,..- -- -- . � .. ._. .�.. _-- --.. ui� _� .... , -.,— . .� , � Figure 2. Results of analysis of channel as proposed Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 5 August 31, 2006 ' Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer There are several issues with the results of the channel analysis. They are • There is not adequate verticat clearance between the proposed lots and the water surface in the lower reaches of the channel • The velocity in the channel is erosive • The street intersection at the northwest corner is not high enough above the flood elevation. Analysis of a Modified Channel In an attempt to address some of the issues with the channel described above two basic modifications to the channel configuration were made. First, the longitudinal slope of the channel was reduced from 1.2% to 0.75%. Second, the channel cross section was changed to use a consistent bottom width of 5'. The HEC-RAS output for the channel is included as Table 2. The profile is included as figure 3. A plot of the tentative map with the sections is included in figure 4. Again, the section station is the number on the right side of the plot; the 100-year water surtace elevation is the number on the left side of the plot. Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 6 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer Table 2. HEC-RAS results for modified channel RiverSta Profle QTolal Min Ch EI W.S.Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl FlowArea Top Width (cfs) (N) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (fUs) (sq ft) (fQ � � 1000 PF 1 1024 123.75 132.35 0.000355 2.87 357.15 63.02 . 1000 PF 2 878 12375 131.79 0.000345 272 322.26 60.19 1000 PF 3 707 123.75 130.91 0.000357 2.6 271.59 55.82 1000 PF 4 531 123.75 129.94 0.000361 2.42 219.61 50.95 1000 PF 5 197 123.75 127.73 0.000273 1.65 119.05 39.88 980 PF 1 1024 123.59 132.19 127.63 0.00072 4.16 245.91 372 980 PF 2 878 123.59 131.65 127.25 0.000668 3.88 226.06 36.11 980 PF3 707 123.59, 130.8 126.78 0.000694 3.6 796.13 34.42 980 PF 4 531 123.59 129.85 126.25 0.000596 3.23 164.49 32.53 - 980 PF 5 197 123.59 127.7 125 0.000352 1.99 99.07 28.22 925 Culvert 870 PF 1 1024 122.76 129.87 0.001419 5.31 192.76 34.22 870 PF 2 878 122.76 129.41 0.001319 4.95 177.29 33.3 870 PF 3 707 122.76 128.81 0.001195 4.49 157.5 32.09 870 PF 4 531 122.76 128.08 0.001055 3.95 134.58 30.63 870 PF 5 197 122.76 126.07 0.000732 2.55 77.19 26.62 850 PF 1 1024 122.61 128.76 128.4 0.007494 9.49 107.87 29.84 850 PF 2 878 122.61 128.36 127.99 0.00749 9.13 96.17 2823 850 PF 3 707 122.61 127.83 127.46 0.007491 8.64 81.8 26.11 850 PF 4 531 122.61 127.19 0.007496 8.04 66.06 23.58 850 PF 5 197 122.61 125.49 0.0075 6.22 31.66 16.76 , 750 PF 1 1024 121.86 128.01 127.65 0.007487 9.49 107.91 29.85 750 PF 2 876 121.86 127.61 12724 0.007475 9.12 96.24 28.24 750 PF 3 707 121.86 127.08 126.71 0.007476 8.64 81.86 26.12 750 PF 4 531 121.86 126.44 0.007487 8.03 66.09 23.59 750 PF 5 197 121.86 124.74 0.0075 622 31.66 16.76 650 PF 1 1024 121.11 12726 126.89 0.007471 9.48 107.99 29.86 650 PF 2 878 121.11 126.86 126.49 0.007439 9.11 96.42 28.26 650 PF 3 707 127.11 126.34 125.96 0.007435 8.62 82.03 26.15 650 PF 4 531 121.11 125.7 0.007454 8.02 662 23.6 650 PF 5 197 121.11 123.99 O.OW506 622 31.65 1676 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 7 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G.Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (fUs) (sq ft) (ft) 550 PF 1 1024 120.36 126.52 126.14 0.007436 9.47 108.18 29.88 550 PF 2 878 120.36 126.15 0.007254 9.02 97.33 28.39 ' 550 PF 3 707 120.36 125.61 0.007273 8.55 82.71 26.25 550 PF 4 531 120.36 124.97 0.007297 7.96 66.73 23.69 550 PF 5 197 120.36 123.25 0.007412 62 31.79 16.79 450 PF 1 1024 119.61 125.8 125.39 0.00726 9.38 109.16 30.01 ' 450 PF 2 878 119.61 125.51 124.99 0.006666 8.74 100.45 28.83 450 PF 3 707 119.61 124.97 124.46 0.006647 8.27 85.54 26.68 450 PF 4 531 119.61 124.33 123.84 0.006607 7.67 69.25 24.11 450 PF S 197 119.61 122.61 122.16 0.006337 5.85 33.69 17.24 385 PF 1 1024 179.13 125.34 124.91 0.007166 9.34 109.69 30.08 385 PF 2 878 119.13 124.51 124.51 0.010069 10.2 86.11 26.77 385 PF 3 707 119.13 123.98 123.98 0.010323 9.74 72.58 24.66 385 PF 4 531 179.13 123.35 123.35 0.010697 9.18 57.87 22.15 385 PF 5 197 119.13 121.68 121.68 0.012338 7.47 26.36 15.44 365 PF 1 1024 119 125.89 123.03 0.001582 5.52 185.41 33.79 365 PF 2 878 179 1252 122.66 0.001693 5.41 162.28 32.39 365 PF 3 707 119 124.33 122.19 0.001854 5.24 134.99 30.66 365 PF 4 531 119 123.37 121�.67 0.002071 4.99 106.47 28.74 365 PF 5 197 119 1212 120.4 0.002879 4.03 48.92 24.41 310 CulveA 255 PF 1 1024 118.5 122.49 122.49 0.009958 10.39 98.54 29.39 - 255 PF 2 878 118.5 122.12 122.12 0.010292 10.01 87.68 28.51 255 PF 3 707 118.5 121.66 121.66 0.010593 9.44 74.93 27.43 255 PF 4 531 118.5 121.14 121.14 0.011024 8.71 60.99 2621 255 PF 5 197 718.5 119.9 119.9 0.012888 6.51 3027 2329 235 PF 1 1024 118 123 121.78 0.00352 6.83 150 40 235 PF 2 878 118 121.45 121.45 0.010103 9.46 92.8'I 33.8 235 PF 3 707 118 121.32 121.03 0.007513 7.99 88.49 3329 235 PF 4 531 118 120.83 120.55 0.007502 7.31 72.64 31.32 235 PF 5 197 118 119.37 119.37 0.07283 6.31 31.2 25.49 Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 8 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer I Cherry Creektent map Plan: Plan 15 8/31 /2006 136 I� �ryPro1� I Legend 134 , _ - W5 PF 1 132- , , _ - � WS PF2 r � ..; � _ - � . -_,- .. , ._ . � tt _ - - _ _ W5P 3F c 128 �` � � o � � , �� W5 PF4 � ,�� � � ��-a u : . �� ` � g�� �— �� �, � "'�" � W5 PF 5 w 124 � � � � � ��� � � „; � ��_x� ,� a� �— �''� Q'OUI'ld � . � � -- � F, -- ; 122-� �°� � � � _� � . _ . . � , -,:;��E.�x � � � _ LOB 120 � �3; �, � �:,:.�, _ _ 118 .- � � � � � � 0 200 400 600 800 Ma n Channel Distanoe (ft) Figure 3. Revised channel proflle Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 9 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer i - = �� � r � ; _ �. , �. � � _ � � / �` i_�c yxMf MFI �. I � 1� f t ��_ r c r� "'_ \\ � #f � � j �l � , .I� � ... � � . y .. .. � i o�' , .�....�iF \ � ��r ,�:, , . _ _� � , _.��_ i ., , , , ,.�`"' _- , �- -- - - _ . . e: - � ;> --- —�--- — . ;:. •' r , ` - - - - � ' � I�'r� � I � ����' i � ,�� ,_ - - = — _. , ,— in l I k :,� � t ; x � � � � . � ,� � d ' '� � � _ � ;� ��'�� _ . t'��` ae .i , r� n � ' �a ' -7' � ti .,� i;30._ _< � i — — i ,t, �:` 9 � � .I. i _ 'I � � �� 1 , . �� -, .- . : „ � � il , ..... I II. . .� � ° - - � � �� ' I 13 f � L� Itl �I I� � tl I I - 4 ` i� t ,.�. , . ;� ::� �F � I � / i t 1 r t. � '! iq I I ,/� ,'I l I��II Y iR �� \ 21 _ .��I I I �� j �� � � ' , � ..p i i � : �.} � .4 1 � r ��f i��' (,.. .� ��.,, il j _, , . �. ,,., , � � . . se . � � .�� , � ' . .. . . ' I F`'c. ' �i ah � ' I i ~ ��. " � '� ��--� � � i ' �.� � ..._ .'�_ �? � � i x ��aa �.' � ( � '�zi ; � � I � ,— � ��, { ., � � il ', � �• -. . � � � p � ����� ., : � , ,�,� �:, '.�; J .' ' �, � t �� � �' I r � i' i i i i� I i i _ t ° — } ) i �� e I �,� cl � ... J 1 � �� �-" �, _ 1 r F F I �I� y:.� �� I I ` � -� I '�� _ � � JI' I�� A � I ' I I Y� r '� T �II ` J24 �T r � ' �a �I I�, I :a , i „ � i;', _ �,r � _ , ; # � � - _ , , 1�, ._ n . � i - , � I �I � sa , � _ . �i! Ij � _.. - 31 .i;�l ., V l . � ...i. .. . ! � ? � ���`( ,� � 'il ,_,. t I . , � �.� I . . . �I I. . �' c ' � �f ''rt Ear.�,T'QHER�Y�.�_. . °' , I '1 — I „I ji;. � .. .'. . �•� " - = �—�_,�{�-� �'" � ��`�„�— _��—�� _ �"��..���Ed�I .3, .- ��._ �-J �_ � - —�----- -- � __ _ . I,� - � � -- � _ . � : - Figure 4. Revised channel project plot Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 10 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer This channel is an improvement over the first channel because • The flood levels have been lowered to a more acceptable level • The channel provides some flat bottom to work with • The velocities are slightly lower This channel still has some issues • The velocity in the channel is still erosive • The box culverts need some adjustment to eliminate undesirable hydraulic characteristics However, the analysis does demonstrate a channel can be installed within the 40-foot right-of-way that will handle the maximum flow rate proposed by the city. Some additional modifications that could be implemented to further improve the situation include • Using a flatter channel slope • Optimizing the box culverts to eliminate adverse hydraulic characteristics • Maximizing the bottom width to the widest that can be constructed within the available right-of-way Cherry Creek Channel Analysis Page 11 August 31, 2006 Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer Keith V. Crowe, P.E. Consulting Engineer a member of: � ��' ,...�.-.€ � ��u:�.��`st,��„„� _� r� �� September 1, 2006 �»,_�;} z , r , ;;,i. MEMO RE: Cherry Creek Flood Channel — response to questions To: Craig and Scott From: Keith In the calculations, the two culverts are 20' wide. I used very tall culverts in the calculations to keep the entrance from being submerged. Because the water surface elevation at the downstream culvert entrance is just below elevation 126 the culvert soffit could be set at or near that level. This would require the road to be raised. However, as I stated in the "report" the culverts need to be optimized. This could, and probably would include widening the culvert. Other options include using a much wider culvert with a lower soffit and allowing the culvert entrance to submerge. This would help deal with the transition from subcritical to supercritical flow at the culvert entrance by forcing the drop to occur inside the culvert rather allowing the potential for the drop to occur in the transition. This same discussion applies to the upstream culvert. In addition, I believe additional modeling will find a channel configuration that will lower the HGL throughout. It will, however, take some additional modeling time to get things nearer the optimal condition. You are correct that the road grades need to be adjusted to accommodate the hydraulic characteristics of the channel. I will leave the redesign of the road elevations to Above Grade. P.O.Box 832 • Atascadero CA 93423-0832 � Phone:(805)464-0975 • Fax:(805)464-0978 E-Mail: KVCrowe@Charter.net .,. . ._ � _ —�— �- ' , ' 'i , E pRROy� � hO1NCORPORATEO Z � ATTACHMENT 11 " T MEMORANDUM � .�.. �o. ,o„ * ' c4��FORN�P � TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER pGYJ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 2006) DATE: AUGUST 29, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. continue the presentation regarding the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project from August 22, 2006 (see Attachment 1 for full staff report); and B. select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements; and C. direct staff to perform additional engineering analysis and to initiate the environmental review process in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and D. transfer $25,000 from the Pavement Management Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and � E. direct staff to work with representatives of the Coastaf San Luis Resource � Conservation District to identify and apply for grant funding to further pursue future drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agricultural land. FUNDING: The original funding request for the environmental review process has been revised to delete the appropriation of$75,000 from the unappropriated General Fund balance. This amount will be funded from the Newsom Springs capital improvement project budget. DISCUSSION: Backqround . At the August 22, 2006 meeting, Council continued the public hearing to discuss the remainder of the presentation, accept additional public comment, and consider the recommendations for the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project. Council also requested that the proposed improvements be overlayed on aerial photos to provide a better understanding of the visual impacts of the project alternative alignments. i CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT OF NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 2006) AUGUST 29, 2006 PAGE 2 It is recommended the Council continue with the presentation regarding the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project from August 22, 2006. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve staff's recommendations; • Request staff to provide additional analysis; . Do not approve staffs recommendations; • Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. August 22, 2006 Staff Report 2. Aerial Photos— Newsom Springs Alternative Alignments ' ' o� PnROVO�� ATTACHMENT 1 FINCORPORATEO �z ° �� m MEMORANDUM + ���. ,o. �s„ * c4��FORN�P . TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: � It is recommended the City Council: A. select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements; B. direct staff to perForm additional engineecing analysis and to initiate the environmental review process in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and � C. appropriate $75,000 for environmental review process costs from the unappropriated General Fund balance and transfer $25,000 from the Pavement Management Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and D. direct staff to work with representatives of the Coastal San Luis Resource ConservationDistrict toidentifyandapplyforgrantfundingtofurtherpursuefuture drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agricultural land. FUNDING: It is estimated that the environmental review process will likely result in costs up to $100,000. Staff is recommending that $25,000 be transferred from the Pavement • Management Program CIP budget. The City received State Proposition 42 funds above whatwas originally projected. Therefore, this will not result in any reduction to the project. Staff is recommending that the remaining $75,000 be appropriated at this time from the unappropriated General Fund balance. However, staff is working on recommendations to replace this funding through savings in equipment replacement in the Building and Fire Department budget and through increased cell tower lease revenues. These changes are proposed to be reflected in the First Quarter Budget Report. There is currently $286,293 remaining in the Newsom Springs CIP budget account. However, under any of the options considered, it is anticipated that this funding will be needed for construction costs. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION: Backqround On August 8,_2006, the City Council authorized a 60-day public review of the 2006 Drainage Master Plan Update. During the discussion, Council requested that staff research and provide a separate presentation to select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements. The Newsom Springs project has been analyzed in reports prepared in 1998 and 2006. In 1998 a draft negative determination focusing on one of several alternative projects was distributed for public comment, but the declaration was not approved by the City Council. The 1999 Drainage Master Plan was adopted including the Newsom Springs project, subject to future consideration of the alternative alignment and configurations. Proiect Description: The Newsom Springs project is intended to reduce flooding in several locations within the City. The total Newsom Springs project watershed area is 1,240 acres and generates a 100-year peak runoff flow of 1,024 cubic feet per second (cfs). The watershed is comprised of 1,160, 51 and 73 acre subwatersheds. The main watershed of 1,160 acres lies upstream of Branch Mill Road. In a 100-year storm event,this watershed wili generate about 891 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill Road and � into the City limits through an 8 ft. x 4 ft. culvert. Downstream of the Branch Mill Road crossing, an additional watershed of approximately 51 acres contributes additional runoff upstream of the "stone culvert", and a watershed of approximately 73 acres contributes additional runoff to the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue. A small ditch currently diverts 30 to 100 cfs of this runoff to the east, crossing Branch Mill Road again through the 3 ft. x 5 ft. "stone culverY'. Downstream, this flow contributes to flooding problems within Tract 139 (Launa Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, the Pacific Coast Christian School, and further downstream at Valley Road. In a large storm, the majority of the runoff flow is not diverted through the stone culvert. The excess flow sheets across the agricultural fields and is directed toward the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue. At this point, the 100-year runoff is approximately 1,024 cfs. Historically, there has not been adequate drainage facilities to accommodate this runoff in a controlled manner between East cherry and Arroyo Grande Creek. As a result, the homes within Noguera"Place cul-de-sac have experienced serious flooding. In 1999, the City constructed temporary drainage improvements that improve the area drainage in small storms. These consist of a ditch from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande . Creek, with a culvert crossing at East Cherry. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS I DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 3 Tract 2217, a housing tract at the southwest corner of the Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Street intersection, contributed $250,000 towards a regional drainage solution (the Newsom Springs project) in lieu of constructing offsite drainage improvements. The subdivision agreement required payment of the moneys within one year of project acceptance. The City accepted the public improvements in 1998. One lot on the south side of Hillside Court within Tract 2217 included grading that is dependent on the completion of the Newsom Springs project. Therefore, building permits for these two homes have been held up. This is because the grading design is based on the expected reduced flow in the rear yard ditch that will be achieved when the Newsom Springs project is completed. A recent development proposal known as the Cherry Creek project is located at the end of Cherry Avenue. This private development project is proposed to construct 27 homes on approximately 9 acres and is currently under review by the City. This project is proposing to install drainage facilities that would be required for either of the proposed alignments by incorporating them into the design. A series of box culverts along with an earthen swale have been proposed to traverse the site. Landscaping will also be incorporated in the design to enhance the area around the earth swale. On April 7, 1998, John L. Wallace and Associates (now Wallace Group) prepared a "Hydrology and Hydraulics Report" researching the watershed characteristics and hydrology requirements for the Newsom Springs area. Based on the information, the report recommended various alignment alternatives for potential drainage improvements, including cost estimates for each option. Three alignments were developed that provide for a series of ditches and/or pipes to carry storm water from the box cuivert under Branch Mill Road to Arroyo Grande Creek. Alignment"A" carries storm water on its existing path along Branch Mill Road crossing both Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street to Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposed Cherry Creek subdivision project inciudes an additional proposal for a drainage project generally along � Alignment "A". Alignments "B" and "C" have a more direct route from Branch Mill Road across the existing farm land to an outlet at Arroyo Grande Creek. All three drainage alignments include pipes or ditches along Branch Mill Road, which collect runoff from the portion of the watershed downstream of the Branch Mill Road crossing and convey the flow to Arroyo Grande Creek. The potential to utilize stormwater detention facilities as a component of the Newsom Springs project was also investigated and described in a June 28, 2006 report prepared by the Wallace Group. Alignment "A" is recommended as the preferred alternative because it has been deemed the most feasible alternative due to cost considerations and with Option A-4 (Cherry Creek), there is the ability to acquire the necessary right-of-way at this time. However, there are many issues related to the alignment options, including the extent of the area protected from flooding, the extent of right of way acquisition required, and the affect on agricultural operations and property access. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS , DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 4 The alignment options are described below and shown schematically on the concept � sketches. With Council direction regarding the preferred alignment, staff will prepare a more detailed analysis and project description of the project and initiate the environmental review process. I Alignment "A" ! Alignment "A" is the most westerly alignment and generally locates the drainage facilities within two reaches. Reach 1 is from East Cherry Avenue Extension to Arroyo Grande Creek and provides flood protection to the Tract 409 (Noguera Place) area. Reach 2 is along Branch Mill Road, from the stone culvert to East Cherry Avenue and provides flood reliefforTract 139 (Launa Lane), Vagabond Mobile Home Park, Coastal Christian School, and surrounding areas. Within this general alignment, there are four configurations of improvements that have been considered. This includes the three projects originally considered in the 1998-1999 report and the project included in the proposed Cherry Creek subdivision. Issues common to all of the Alignment "A" alternatives: . Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development. ' • Does not provide flood protection for agricultural lands upstream of East Cherry Avenue. � • Most closely follows the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff. . Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey environmental flows. The project differences are summarized below: Project A-1 Reach 1: 2-72 inch pipes Reach 2: Inlets and Ditches Cost: $884,275 Additional Issues related to project A-1: • In order for the Reach 1 pipes to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches and multiple inlets must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue. • The Reach 1 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, eliminating the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • The Reach 2 ditches would impede existing agricultural operations. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 5 Project A-2 Reach 1: Ditch and Bridges Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets and ditches Cost: $1,087,350 Additional Issues related to project A-2: • In order for the Reach 1 ditch to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue. i • The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the ' right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above the pipe. • Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. � • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. f Project A-3 Reach 1: 2-72 inch pipes Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets and ditches Cost: $996,550 Additional Issues related to project A-3: . In order for the Reach 1 ditch to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue. I'I • The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above the pipe. • The Reach 1 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, eliminating existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of wayacquisition over agricultural property would be required. Project A-4 (Project as proposed by the Cherry Creek Subdivison) Reach 1: Ditch and Culverts . Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets Cost: $1,087,350 (approximately the same as A-2) Additional Issues related to project A-4: . This project is essentialiy the same as A-2, except that it uses large culverts instead of bridges, and it attempts to keep the collection ditch north of the existing agricultural property by relocating a portion of East Cherry Avenue. Additional topographic information is required to verify the feasibility of this concept. . It is likely that the required facilities would be larger than as shown on the Cherry Creek proposed tentative map. • Intended to avoid any work or right of way acquisition over the agricultural property south of East Cherry Avenue. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS I DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 6 • The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above the pipe. . Provides earthen surface for runofffrom agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. Cost (2006 estimate): Description A-1 A-2 A-3 � Design, Permitting, Admin $229,250 $281,900 $258,350 �i� Right-of-Way Acquisition $59,250 $67,300 $59,250 Construction $595,775 $738,150 $678,950 Estimated Project Cost $884,275 $1,087,350 $996,550 �I ---... ___ _ _ ------- NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT - ALIGNMENT A — PROJECT ALTERNATIVES "'° — -—�,.--. � -- ,. ;,,�s ; �s;i _'_ . ' �' _ ,!" � � ' \ � // ' ' . f..� `i . �� /'N: � .��... b- . ' �p � \ . � rv� ���"- _ _ -�.. �``�. .`\ REACH 6 �\ ... �;` • �- �. . . ' EAU:.r'2-7�' P(pes � , . - ���� ' <A2) D4tch $' Bridge ' I � . � 7 ��., � . . (A3) 2-72'PI es , � � � ;' i /�'\ ; ,. ; REACH 2 '., ' .F� ' /. �i` / �l CAU Inlets �& • r' . Ditches ' � I � .t� �c,:U rt � � � . �,� (A2) D�tch \ '`: \�� . � i ! .�. .�,i �,�•u ;{, � �� '.:q (A3) 1-48' PIp e, �� ��' . Inlets, & � / !' � �` � � Ditches , � : . .�. . ., . ` � ... � . �..__ \ . �� i::.,,r::. � ., ,. , , ' , r. ' . -" " 'r __' � ��/ '.�:�:n„•, . . . . ,��'"' — . /, / . , ... ,. �� .L ' / � ' ". ._ �. " / i • . \. . / I ' / � cliv ur � '. criw�rv ru ;.:• i f�hldilYi� C��I:fANIL'= r I / SnN WIJ ❑UlSPU � I. ` . ,,.: :� .�,:. , ,. � CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 7 Aliqnment "B" Description: This project would also provide relief to Tract 139 (Launa Lane), Vagabond Mobile Home Park, Coastal Christian School and surrounding areas by diverting runoff before it crosses Branch Mill Road in a pipe and conveying the flow directly to Arroyo Grande Creek. This pipe would be smaller in diameter than with Alignment A because much of the flow would be diverted upstream. ' Alignment B follows property lines in a route direct from the crossing at Branch milt Road to • Arroyo Grande Creek, and generally locates the drainage facilities within four reaches. Reaches 1 and 2 are the same as for Alignment A, except that the flow to be conveyed is only the runoff downstream of the main channel crossing at Branch Mill Road. Reaches 3 and 4 are the downstream and upstream sections of the proposed main conveyance facility. This alignment provides flood protection for all of the areas that Alignment A does, plus the agricultural properties downstream of Branch Mill Road. Within this general alignment there are three configurations of improvements that have been considered. Issues common to all of the Alignment B alternatives: • Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development. • Protects agricultural lands between East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road • Does not follow the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff. • Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey environmental flows. The project differences are summarized below: Project 8-1 Reach 1: 48 inch pipe Reach 2: Inlets and ditches Reach 3: Ditch with crossings Reach 4: Ditch with crossings Cost: $1,371,875 Additional Issues related to project B-1: • The proposed ditch may impeded agricultural operations and alter property access. • Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22,I2006 PAGE 8 • Project 8-2 Reach 1: None Reach 2: None Reach 3: Ditch with crossings Reach 4: Ditch with crossings Cost: $948,475 Additional Is lues related to project B-2: • Properties downstream of Branch Mill Road are not fully protected. • Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • Provides earthen surface for runofffrom agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintaini�g the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. . Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. Project 8-3 Reach 1: 48 inch pipe Reach 2: 48 �inch pipe Reach 3: 2-1�02 inch pipes Reach 4: 2-102 inch pipes . Cost: $1,833i,725 Additional Issues related to project B-3: • Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • The Reach 3 and 4 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, eliminating existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. I • Farming operations and access could occur over the pipe. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE I�MPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22,�2006 PAGE 9 ; I NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT <.� ' ROJECT ALTERNATIVES ""'" . . ..__ _ . . --- � -- ALIGNHENT P � .. ' / ��—^ '� �, , a_`� '. . ,. .: � , . � ' i-�~ sis�°'� REACH 3 r' � ���� � � � ..-`! � �l�. �� CHU Dltch�.�Vi/Crossings ; ; . ��� �' (B2> Dlteh w/Crossings,. �/` I r� —=�. ��'• �� � '� � (p3Y�2<102' Plpe � --�' i�::,� . ; '�.. '1 ' '., ,'� � �� , /" �,'�. , , � . . '�. �`•\�\`, ' \`` REACH.1 \✓ /` H{)L Ditich w/Crossl gs . . . l • r � ` .(6U� 48' Pipie,/ �. <B2> Dltck�w/Cr6ssln�s �.�` y i � ��� '�� � � y CH25 None � �'� ��H3> 2'102"EtPe \, � . ` � ..1;' '�� >> � �'��CB3) 48' PI e '\ . . i l. rya , _ t�y \\ \)\;� RCACH 2 .�f�� � j � , . (Bll Inlets & � �� ` \ :Jr..:pr. ,iy:;:.c�:!:`.'�'. \ '. _� - Ditches �� . � % . - . '���s.�.i''. �'�` � ., �.�. <H2) t:one � , � , , � ���. CB3) 48' PI es � �. tiy�_ ��� t ..n.� - ._ ' ' _ � �I . . 1. ' �iF� .. � . : �li.", . -. � . ". :..' - �\ �- �� , ., i . .. �. . ., ' '�' .;.I_ .::� '.'.. . — ./ _ � .... � - �. ' / � ��� ' .' , .� . �' .�\ . I , i .... .. , . � . . . . ' . . ' .: . . _ _""" . i ' . ��. ..�' . , _ ' I. . //' I . � � j 'i T'; n= „ . I �, . � -. CUUF!!Y Cf �t: . �F;RllYfl C�,f."F,NOF. / .. 1�� SM I..lil.`. OHISPIi � � � �. ., Cost (2006 estimate): Descriplion B-1 8-2 B-3 Design, Permitting, Admin $355,675 $245,900 $475,400 Right-of-Way Acquisition $145,075 $118,000 $139,650 Construction $871,125 $584,575 $1,218,675 Estimated Project Cost $1,371,875 $948,475 $1,833,725 Aliqnment "C" Alignment "�C" follows a similar strategy to Alignment "B". However, the location of the facility has been shifted to a location more to the west. Compared to Alignment B, this project appears to impact less agricultural operations, but it requires a longer facility, and it would be deeper at the downstream end because there is not as much natural fall. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 PAGE 10 i NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT ' -1 ALIGNMENT C - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ""'�"! ; _ .,.,-..- _. ..--- � � '--� ------'--'-- . _ .. . . —__'— i � ' ' _.� . . , ._ - . � . � � � . . . . , �. .,1' .. � � . .., }�'-�:� ..�� . . �- .yy/~/, '��/'�:.. ' ' ' '' REACH 3 ' I . Y� r_ , ��; . ' �.t , ,� . . � '� �--=• . ,.� .. CC1) DIYCh i. '- i � I �� >>� ` � �''' REACH�/1�i j � �' REACH 4 i ,�'� I � ��� `�' ,.. (CU 48' Pi�e � <CU �Ditch - . I /` ` . . .�^ � `� '� ` REACH 2 `�. �'� � i �� ' <Cll 46' Plpe, � x� ��� J � � l , ,.,'��.` � . - j . �.�'. � inlets. 8 '.� i ' � i::+...i:,,n .. "{'.�:- Ditches �'l . , . � �.\\ . . � /'. � �L.+>_ __ / / � � , t '. i . ' .. -.. �_. .� / �t. . ..'��. � . . ,. � .� �:,. �. """.-_'_ � � ' , ,.'• .I. '' . . .. _"_. � I � .. ' � ' ..' ,���,��. .c. � . � � . . � . %. ' ^�/ � i I' /� / � � I I / (�� I A' Ti- " � )l(. f . L;IUi':1 Y ili ! ,1ti1i:1'lil i��R4N1Jf. / SA"J ��_U(S L[1?^�i� ,'. . �� �. � ..� ... .. I . �� .... .__.__... __.... . Issues related to the Alignment "C" alternatives: • Protects �existing developed areas and areas zoned for development. • Protects �agricultural lands between East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road • Does not follow the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff. • Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey environmental flows. . Topographic constraints increase the size of the project. • Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek, maintain�ing the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches. • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required. • Agricultural operations and property access is impeded by the Reach 3 and 4 ditch. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERA�TION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS ' DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22, 2006 , PAGE 11 Cost (estimated 2006 $): Descnpfion C-1 . Design,IPermitting, Admin $322,000 to $395,000 Right-of-Way Acquisition $167,000 Construction $736, 800 to 945,000 Estimated Project Cost $1,225,800 to $1,507,000 Upstream Deltention Two basin locations were selected to determine feasibility. One is located at the north side and one on the south side of Branch Mill Road at the intersection with Newsom Springs Creek. These locations were reviewed in the field and analyzed by computer modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained the analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the available basin depth. With basin depths assumed of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow is marginal. However, with the basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of the berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34 percent) can be achieved. Whether or not this depth can be achieved �on the site must be determined byfield survey. This is a significant reduction in flow, but would not eliminate the need for downstream flood protection. Also, the basin would be designed with a spillway and downstream properties would need to consider a safe overflo i path for spillway flows. An alternative concept preliminarily reviewed is to utilize Branch Mill Road as a dam to hold � back stormwater. However, based on initial analysis, staff does not believe that there would be a significant increase in capacity overthe detention basin concept. Additionally, it would require substantial property acquisitions or a flood easement and would still require drainage pipes be installed to the creek. Staff proposes to perform additional analysis on this aiternative as part of the effort to work with the RCD on improvements to prevent impacts to existing agricultural properties. Analvsis Staff is recommending that the Council designate Alignment "A" as the preferred alignment, with option A-2 or A-4 (the Cherry Creek proposal) as the intended project. Constructing project A-2 or A-4 provides the City with an opportunity to address an ongoing drainage concern, does not preclude construction of either Alignment "B" or "C" in the future, and p�ovides an opportunity to incorporate drainage facilities in the overall design of the proposed development. The specific design option proposed will depend on whether or not the Cherry Creek project incorporates the proposed system or the City constructs the project �independently, and whether the feasibility. of project A-4 is verified with additional topographic information. With Council designation of Alignment"A", staff would proceed witFi a more detailed project description (field survey and preliminary plans), and initiate environmental review. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 22,� 2006 PAGE 12 It would also be staff's recommendation to abandon the existing drainage easement along the westerly edge of the proposed Cherry Creek project upon completion of the storm drain improvements assuring the project can be constructed as proposed. Underthe preferred alternative, it has been determined that there would no longer be any benefit from the easement. Staff has confirmed that the properties drain in the opposite direction and the ditch was intended to be temporary when originally installed. However, a public utility easement would remain. Public Notice� Notices rega�ding tonighYs meeting have been pubiished in the newspaper and distributed to property owners within 300 feet of the Cherry Creek project and within Newsom Canyon, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report and the Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and Hydraulics Study will be made available to the public through the Public Works Department. The information can also be accessed from the City's internet website. ALTERNATIVES: , The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve staff's recommendation; • Request staff to provide additional analysis; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or . Provide direction to staff. � Attachment I: 1� Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, July 27, 2005 2 I Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and Hydraulics Study -- - - ! N � F- Z W — _ � � : 2 ` . � ���� / /� Q 5'��� � a F.�'� ' ° � R � / _ ":: ^\ • /,i = _ _' _—_. . ��'� -::.,, �� \\, � . '. �/ ' �8 t-z. K�2. / � �'� � . , . . 4 .. / ...� .`� � � « Top of , � :. . ��.' , :;,�; _r----'� Top of 3 CreekBank' � �'J ' ..���_�:,. `� `.CreekBank � �,' �; .- �!.- ` 25' Setback = .• ' r,.� �� �'::< ` Riparian w ���-�r�� '`• � ':�(e9etation Edge g ' "� � `�� 25�5Btback.� '� _� i;` , .r ` .. � , � "�,. �.1. L., . 8 � � .';j ; '.� ;'� � ' y�.�/ " �� .f . � � : i, ..4� ` g ��._ ��_J s'��. � , . .'`� � � �, - % �' ix' � , , � � �l� g �� ,� � ' �� �.,.,e � ; Riparian % " � � _ � �� �'� � � � Vegetation Edge ;'�' :,', �, . �,, � 1. - ��� \. �Z � �, � . . t, y , ��i�4� � � � � , �.� �, ;, " \ � ` � t— V n� p� - ): �-` ' . . . , _ . ' .. . . , -1: _ . Rm�nfi���gro�p� Cherry Creek - Creek Setback Exhibit � eae`qeTrauna�bps/MeWI � � �_ �.,�s.. __. °--'°_ ' Z��605� Au9ust29.2006 S�le: �=40' �"ti�@���i�rlrr+� �,�- �i � ATTACHMENT13 : � David �o�� �nvironmenta� �'�'�'-` = f "' P ,��. . ._ _ , .. .,.. _ , ; � P.O. Box 6552 Los Osos,CA 93412 �E������� 805.235.5223 805.528.3504 FAX DATE August 21, 2006 To: Kelly Heffernon, City of Arroyo Grande FROM: D�avid Wolff Sus.�ecr: CEQA Compliance and the California Department of Fsh and Game Section 1600 et, seq. Streambed Alteration Agreement Program Kelly, This memorandum follows the July 18, 2006 City.of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission meeting on the Cherry Creek project. At that meeting, two Commissioners stated as one reason in recommending to City Council that an Environmental Impad Report(EIR) be prepared was that it is required as a part of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Based on the Fish and Game Code, information on tfie CDFG website, and my experience in obtaining many Streambed Alteration Agreements, I wouid suggest this is not a statutory or regulatory basis for requiring an EIR. The following provides the background information to support this position. Flsh and Game Code Section 1602(a)(1)(D) states that a notification shall indude a copy of�ny (emphasis added) document prepared pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the P i biic Resources Code (the CEQA Statute) be provided. The CDFG Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement webpage quesUon and answer link includes the following information on CEQA compliance (I heve added bold and underline emphasis on ap�I licabie text; bold/italics are CDFG emphasis). 4. Does the,Department need to comply wfth other state laws or reguiations before issuing a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement? Yes. The IDepartrnent must compty with the Califomia EnvironmeMal Quality Act(CEQA)(Pub. Resources Code, §21000, et seq.) before it may issue a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. Issuance of a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement occurs after the Department receives a draft Lake or Streambed Aiteration Agreement ffom the applicant and the Department signs it. In many instances, the DeparUnent will receive a§igned draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from an applicant before the lead agency has fulty complied with CEQA. In those instances, the Departrnent must wait for the lead agency to fully comply with CEQA before it may sign the draft Lake or Streambed Aiteration Agreement, thereby making it final. Biological Resources Analysis, Planning&Monitoring �avid@oicwenvironmenwl.com Regulatory Complia�nce Specialist www.dkwenvironmentai.cam `_ __" _�.�.__��.__� _' Cherry Creek CDFG SAA CEQA Memo Page 2 of 2 j�a��d Wolff Environmen4al _ i _ _ _ _ _ . Under CEQA, the"lead agency" is the local or state governmental agency that has the principal responsibility for cartying out or approving the activity.All other local or state agencies with discretionary approval authority are"responsible agencies." The lead I aencv must detertnine Tirst wheffier the activitv is exemot from CEQA. If the activitv is not exemot the lead adencv must oreoare an environmenta�document,which will be a neaative declaration. a mitiaated neaative declaration,or an environmental imoact renort.A lead agency is entitled to recover all of its CEQA-related costs from the appiicant.lif the Department acts as the lead agency for the activity your draft agreement covers, it will instruct you to submit an initial deposit to cover its initial CEQA-related costs. The deposit and any further CE�A-related costs will be in addition to your notification fee. If the Depl rtment is a responsible agency, you must submit with your notification package a capy of a�document prepared by the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, if one already has been prepared.iYou must also identify in your notification package the lead agency. Also, Fish and Game Code section 711.4 requires the lead agency to collect a fee on behalf of the Departrnent whenever�the lead agency prepares an environmental document, uniess the activity is exempt from the fee. If the lead agency prepares a negative or mi6gated negative declara6on, the fee is � $1,250. If�the lead agency prepares an environmental impact report, the fee is$850. i For a detailed expianation of CEQA,you should consuit the statute itself, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.)that implement CEOA, and CEQA handbooks and guides. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines are available at wowv.ceres.ca.aov/�lannina. Furthermore, it is my experience that CDFG accepts lead agency findings that a project qualifies for a CEQA Categorical Exemption, and in the absence of a CEQA lead agency or any existing CEQA environmental document, the COFG can make their own findings that the project as it relates to issuing the Streambed Alteration Agreement is determined by the CDFG to be Categoricai Exempt under CEQA. In summary I the Fish and Game Code provides for CEQA exemptions or r�y CEQA document from a lead agency to satisfy the CDFG CEQA requirements. In practice, many forms of environmental documents have been submitted, accepted, or determined by the CDFG to satilsfy CEQA compliance that include EIRs, Negative and Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Categorical Exemptions. There is no statutory requirement or practice of CDFG to ma'ndate an EIR for processing and issuing a Streambed Alteration Agreement. I hape this clarifles the CEQA compliance issues related to the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement program. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thanks very much. . I �� - 8iotogical Resources Analysis, Planning&Monitoring uavid@oKwEnvtronmenwi.com Regulatory Compliance Spetialist www.dkwenvironmental.com t `}` " I ATTACHMENT 14 ; � ! 7 � �t� � a,�a��`���, �� ��Az a.!c, o b - GIC,EIV[�'-- :'li'� '. . •n ` • r..- -4.n�� ��• �d� �-�`"�''�-°'� C� "JG 23 Pil !� '+4 �� ,/� ����- .,� ��.� „��� -�- � �>�� � �. i;�1�!-r�cz ��-.�2�J� ��/l7,Z�4�'�'y, �� 1./�'�-�' ��c.t� (/�/ """�° . .�)YLZeiL�1� C�ti�j'�"a's'�tt/1-%? ✓Ll2C/ [X�iG�t%fiD��iisi ��' � '�� �.�.�� �.� rn� � � � �� �1 r�.���� ��,�.����L'� �- �,�.�oG �� �mx�:�' �� -� -��' t����L�/ �.v✓✓ �.t�/�/�`�', .��� ��Mu�� �� � � �'71 i�� �r^..cZ� � � -�i,.ae�rc' Gt e a•e'''°"-�aL/�,�rf D' ,�``ti .�ZZ,�7 `,o .2fi�G � �� �c�� �'-a�, � �/�r�rG c�.a��Z�,•.� C�� �r�c'y��cC , J � .�-� ..�-�� -�-� ���-� � �� �� � - � � �� �� �.�n�. ,u,�r,Z��!�h,��-� ��, ��..us-��G � �I �°.oa3'-�.'¢��'�'f �,-� 4��yz�c' � �� �� ��-�-u,�- ..:��--�-� ��" �`�?''".�`�' 'U`��'� �� �'� �� � � .�,.��-��� � � �,�,� .;�- P�-ee�.a .�'c�`e`L .,6� ���!°vm�-� � ���'��` ��� �.�`u'.� �' ..�-�--�-����-����`��. �,=,e, � .�- �-��`� �`'' �� z� �-�- � -�-� � a� � Cv,.i I � �-�� '��''�°���-�.� ; �'t,.a. �� G�.� u.� u�-�°��.9 �-� .�-� '�_ �L �.�,1� r.a'� 7�s. /'�°-��� � ����„ � �� � ,�u, �. �y ,i,� �'a.�•ti. ,�-�.�-r�t�La-�'� ����ca�� .��� -�v G'� -r�-e-�T�i�a,���� �;C.�.�,u�� �� I h.a=t� � �� G-�oLe�' ��'n�`.�' ��,�=.-� --�-�- ����� .��c� � ��� �- ` , '�s`��`'�..�� �' � �� ��:�t��r,s� �.� -�.�.=i T,�-� ci�� �-iX�� .�..� �-� .-�-�'i.� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � ��� �UA��.y °j2`� � �'u'� -�'�"� ��,��,,`� 7 �,: �''� �„ ��� �.x � �� .�-- �,.�,�r�%�� � �� � f� � , ,;�-�- �y�u, / I�,�t J�"'i.�' a�r �� .l-� .�• y✓ �1"� iT�, �,�/ 1� ��..� !�-�.l'c �, �y����°'�� ,� .,� � � !`�-�'� � I ,,�� � �`��� '���'�� �� ���'�' �'w���� � c�� ��` � �!� c�,,,�,�``� �� � ���� �� � � � � �� ,�� ����'-�' '�� 2,-�-�'� ` � ��-��- .� �'� � ��.�'� ? ��� �� ���'�� �� �� � I �� � � ��� �,;�:`�r'�� .� ` � ��,�-� (.F,� �r�''�'`' /!'1/�'" .:�ia'� ' .f1''���<< , I,,�, ,al'�''"� �,z , .�iw ����'�` rv✓� �� � ` �,,�,`.',, �� � �� ���hJ ,,. I-� � �,.c ��"�'� � iz1•� ����`, `1 „�� r� � rx,,,,, ,r��'-�''� '�,a,�� ��'1 �,,� �;�' ��� �,,�,�;.�r�~ � ����'`'�" -,��; �' � �;,� � ���.�- . � ���'✓` �"� �-''``,���°_✓`��'i� � �� T���,-..�' �' I l� �'�✓ ��� J✓� � ��� .�� �� � � , .�{�`'� ✓��'? �r �,�,, i .�-��! v,/, -�-`�'�! � % � ��,/ ,�"..U-u"`- �,� �..��-k�• , � �,,�.�z �, -�' % - � � �,,: ��� �� `�� ��y �{o�`� �'"'`� �•� .� � C1,14��'�`lCL�(.�Y C,' � � m/y4lUtJ, ` v �.�,�� i�`� Cz)ti�--�"_--_I��` , � �� r����c,---- � � _... �r� July 11, 2006 �ECEIVE� Planning Commission ��L � Il 2�6 City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Brarich Street CIN OF ARROYO GRANDE Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 �OMMUNIN DEVELOPMENi Deaz Planning Commissioners: . My f I ly owns the property at 835 East Cherry Lane. At this time we have no plans to develop our property, but want to have that option in the future. The Arroyo Grande Planning Department and Planning Commissioners, in conjunction with the Cherry Creek Developers, appear to have produced a plan that addresses and solves all of the significant issues regazding both their proposed development,and the future development of the neighborhood to the East (which inclu ies our property). Specifically Cherry Creek: complies with Anoyo Grande's General Plan,provides an "AG Buffer"�zone and open space neaz the creek, solves a major drainage problem in the azea, and extends sewer and water lines as well as an emergency access road to serve pazcels located East of the C i erry Creek Development. With their new proposal,which reduces the number of lots from 38 to 29, Cherry Creek Developmenti appears to have satisfied every significant request made by the Planning Commission over the last four meetings and eighteen months. I would urge the Commissioners to approve the project without further delay. Sincerely, ������ Mike Miner JUL-11-2906 06 :30 RM P_ 01 � . � . 1 � � Spalding Laboratories, Inc. 760 Printz Rd. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 _ ' ?>• i.i.�, .. ! �] 7/10/2006 Kelly Heff I,rnon Planning Commissionera & City Council Members City Hall I . 413 East Branch Arroyo Grande, California 9344X I Fax 805-473-0386 Re: Che I Creek Project Dear Plen i ing Commissioners and City Council Members, My fanuly has lived in Arroyo Grande for the past 30 years, at 760 Printz Road. Our family also operates Spalding Labs, which operates nationally, from Arroyo Grande. The new neighborhood at Cherry Creek came to my attendon via the local newspaper. I am femiliar with this azea, and frankly, I was taken abeck by the "not in myI back yard" mentality of those few people who try to block any new development in our city. I recently took a look at the E. Cheery Neighborhood Development Plan and I sm one citizen who is�`avor of thie new neighborhood, and cannot understand why it has teken three years to allow new homes in an azea, which is properly zoned for more homes. The property is within the City, which makea the eite a logcal place for an "in fill" development, rather then tearing up land outside the City limits. I also know that the area at E. Cherry flooda historically, and I understand that thia development will provide the funds to conatruct the City's exiating drainage plan for this area—which will protect the existing homea in that azea. I would hope the City wiil allow this project.to move forcvard as soon as possible. It always sl ema that those people "against° projects apeak the loudest at the city hearings, because those people "who don't object" do not feel so compelled to voice their opinion. So I'm writing to say that my family (as well as the people I have known in AG for the past 30 yeaza) would find this new neighborhood a welcome addition to our Cityl �--��IY� I � To 5p In�J "� v :� �1 . I l , � ..� .. . .�f,Y , k :i,,��r �' ` l'�.�''�. ' '`'�" � c � � � ��L � s. ' �� 2` Y •��� �. �� i . / � °� . . �- �r.'�'�'-�._.1._�:-.�c�t�=���',i_.�..'�'� '> .�� . _ � �. , _S`' ' ��i -�"_�::._ . .--�1_�,� _. .. F� `' _ - ti i. . _ Y[J • :�� `i�. �,v-._:. � � �j.0 5�N �k�YN�.�j�. � . . � '� '�r _l. - 6 �'i� . .\ ✓ ". i,"; e �.Y� .e. 2• • � _ -��-/F ` ��.�ue, �qf r `:_r _ I ", ,:� ,c. ,, �� . � 6�P! CR �tis! t'j JU�(J. 7� 2��0 , . { g.;�i.'^ t1G CC ���.I1 � .,�' lPF O@ �C�,-.v..e � . f�=� i 7? � � Y.� + )..� e ��,�}- ��� � _a �� .��' �W-^l� < �3` f � ..>., ��- .•� k � : � ..... � r "� f� �C��1. T;� .., �._ �;=�: �: ;�� ; . �..:_x ��, ,T ' S},,; �'�annin� Commission �'�` �� � C�ty of,qrroyo �jrande �������� �': � ���,.. �''tr���' 2 i 4 �l st �jranch st. � ` � -.,., ;, I �u� T ,;� iQrS k,� . ���''`� Arro o �jranc�e, CA 93420 „ F' °_ y CIN :�� F;��C•'r� ;-:w,,NpE `��S . .i �:`�C�:v� �;.I��. �::;,,. rOIVi�4UN{iY �,:�,�4.,rt��ENT ��� :.,.. �: ;'� , . � �. ,�� Dear�'Janning Commission, �\�,_ � ,� � i m writing to suPPort the new C�erry Creek subdivision �r � �� - C��,^', tF�at hals been ProPosecl6y local develoPers, including CIi{f �S�_ � :;� ,: �ranch. � c�on't have financia� interest in this Pro�ect, but � {�ave ;`'� ? _ '. �. ?�- >:.�;, i known CIi{�for 3o years and am very fami�iarwith ot}�ert}�ings �:4 ti :G ` !` ��' . F�e has c�one, suc}� as t�e 6eautifu� /-�vi�a �ay C�ub, �jassi F=,' Y.. i! __j?L.. k�_.... ;�j� _� ` }zanch, and t{�e Stonericlge j�bdivision, not to mention the � � :.,;ry; �.:��, ;y;� Privat� l�omes he}�as clesigned and built. � - ,.� . , ;:4. , ,. "�:;;;'3 � I1�ave Iooked over the PI for th" P � d I ke d t he _ �. an ts ro ect, an wa ';';�� ' Y'' �roPe r ty an c� ] can visua�ize w ha t i s P�a n n e c r t h e r e. N o o n e c o u�d � �_ ,�; I �''-t� do a nicer�ob of itt{�an C�i{f. . . {�e is a�� about 9ua�ity, and � '''��{� something else . . . he loves trees and carefully IandscaPes every L; �;�,�; , •_ �;��� Pro�ecit beauti�ully. � was P�eased to see �ow t�is Pro�ect was i;�� ,..; �.;� -r� nest�ed between two existing neighborhoods and that t�e �=, , ,.- ,. r; 4�_ ��t`� , � YYYccciii... ` �F �6/ } � ��� . ; I ..�_ J -l�\�'' �rin,�/` l \..: �_. �;��FJ , / t �� 4..��.. l.'a � � ' ./T � � ,. } `y� .�YL� � � ` � 3 . l J�t �l"- f' r � /_� l i��.����. �_ c �1-_"� �'`�`��_�:'�; '_ ,-. . ' �'{..i • �. _ _.. � �. i... . �.h`�'.. -- I ��_ _ __ . .�.:�:.�� . .. . ._ �___.... ..._._. .. ------- .- - .._. .._ .. . . _--- : .. �._ _ _, � _-_...... r � }�istorica� (�ome on the ProPerty will be saved. CIi�I�as great � resPectifor the traditions of a p�ace. ��t{�is ProperEy is ever to 6e develoPed, no one could do a nicer�ob t}�an C1i{-�. T�an�Cyou so muc� �oryourtime. ; �jincere�y, ; C � `"'„� �`',,�, � Susan granch ; ; -•-- �..=s.��_ ..�__..�..z_ : _ ._..._ .,_.�-..... _ _ . _. . �_ _- _. , . _ �(���r���� � r� ��� Joseph Hall ✓U� �� �� , � T ,._.._ n�__.. c, � G'71 V JNl.IGG L11V G ry .� . � �oy 805-474e 9332 3420 c�MMU���oyo���6' F�F�opqNoF July 6, 2006 q,j FNl Planning Commission City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street P,r:cS•a G:anu�, C° �:3^2�J Dear Plan�ning Commission Members: I am wri I g to express my support of the Cherry Creek subdivision proiect and the associated Develonment Code Amendment; Neiehborhood Plan, Vesing Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development. I have read about this project in the newspapers over the past year or so, and recently I have reviewed many of the documents and minutes from the Plannnzg Commission and from the City Council related to this project, aid I have seen the plans of the development. I am in favor of this project in its most recent revision because the density arid scale of the proposed project is less than it could be legally; because tlie developers have been responsive to the concerns that have been voiced 'oy neignoors and ciiy oiiiciais; uecause inis project is contiguous to existing neighborhoods and will complement them; because the existing homes akeady there will be left in place and the architecturally and historically sign�cant Vandeveer house will be rehabilitated; because the project is within a short half mile of the village ce.^.Y�r a^d �a:�es f r ;r. �as� ::aL�; an3 becau;e it::^�� b� ° �isti.^ct improvement aesthetically over many of the other residential areas. Also, the project allows for the continued unimpeded use of the neighboring agricultural fields. I think th I t this nroiect will nrovide lastine benefits for its neiehbors, and for the whi le community in Arroyo Grande. V Sincerely yours, � � �z��=�v �1 ��-�s� r-��° �.a�- osephB Hall �`N��fC� C�Mm65'n�,� }�NI� C t� ��V�<i7'I� h1'�ri��sYL.. , PECEiti��;. To The City CounCll� City Of Arroyo Grande,`-iL`Tafi�i n`!'�Y�' -� ' Oo JUL I 0 fl�i {!� ^2 Dear City Councilman- This letter concerns a proposed new housing project 1 read about in the Tribune.called Cherry Creek. i am employed in the City of Arroyo Grande. 1 am confused that people are protesting the development over what they call °°prime soils." Do these people realize that several developed and undeveloped areas in Arroyo Grande also have prime soils? Under this thinking, must we now re-zone all.existing residentially zoned areas that also happen to have excellent soil? My understanding is that this land is already zoned for residential development on the City's Approved General Plan that was recently� updated by the City Council, so why would this not be allowed? How are we ever qoinq to build anv new homes in AG if we don't even follow our own General Plan? 1 looked over the plans for Cherry Creek that were submitted to the City and 1 would think that the City would be pleased to have a carefully designed new subdivision, which is small in scale and is located between two existing neighborhoods. The newspaper stated that the AG Planning Department recommended approval of the new homes, but as always, a few neighboirs do not want anyone near their own neighborhood, so they are trying to stop the project. The newspaper also stated ihw# that this project has been in the works for three years and the planning commission is now on the fifth hearinq? What does someon�e have to do to build a new neighborhood in this community? The City gives lip-service to caring about creating affordable new homes in Arroyo Grande but then throws up road block after road block. The result is lower density and higher new home prices. 1 suggest that AG listen to their professional pianning st and let this new project proceed! ��� c�.,� a�� �� � e Ron Janelli, Lop Drive, AG. (805) 458-5820 � '' C: C��(:6u.tiic�✓ c�:j m�-5� Cc�y��� ��s�lc���ml, � � i � . V. . ��l\'•• �..�� � {/ i V ,/ Steven Puglisi AflCHITECTURE AIA �� '� � .. ' � w. July06� G0�6 a:.a ._. . .. . � ..._. . , h' ':l, . City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department �"'� '� ; ' ,. � P. O. Box 550 '�C .::,: - Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 ' SUBJECT: CHERRY CREEK Dear Commissioners and Council Members, Having desig led numerous projects khroughout San Luis Obispo County including a number of both commercial and residentiai developments for Clifford Branch, I have watched the Cherry Creek Project from iYs inception and would like to offer the following comments. 1. The pr I ject conforms to both the Arroyo Grande Generai Plan and all applicable zoning iordinance. Land Use, density, lot coverage, parking, building setbacks etc. all meet city design standards. It is these codified standards that serve, statewide, as the litmus test in the planning process protecting both the comminity and the land owner from arbitrary decision making . 2. The current project design also addresses a number of more subjective development issues as well. These include a much improved regional drainage solutio� notjust for this property but for the surrounding community. Also, sewer and water infrastructure improvements are being provided which will benefit the entire planning area as will the peving of East Cherry Avenue. 3. The cul rent site design pays particular attention to the Vandeveer residence. I am pleased to see the new street design showcase this historic and beautiful home. I thank you for considering these comments and hope you will support this application. Respectfully, ��" D' " - - �`"�. I Steven Puglisi , Steven Puqlisi ARCHITECTURE r�cFivC;3 _'li'r" �"� . .,J::?Yii ':... . - . 0� .;'JL I � P;� ;_: f� City Hall Arroyo Grande City Planning Department 214 E. B�ranch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93440 To the City Council- I have b l en a resident of Arroyo Grande since 1978. I have seen a lot of change and growth in our community, while still having that small town feel. I have bleen made aware of the Cherry Creek subdivision proposal and I'm writing tliis in support of the subdivision. I've been made aware that there is a drainage issue that affects the surrounding areas to the proposed Cherry Creek subdivis'ion. It should be the developer's responsibility to solve this drainage issue to go forward with the project. As I understand it, there is a lot of community support to go forward with this project. 1 would urge you to consider this project. Sincerery, ��� ��c��� Shannon Martin Arcoyo Grande, CA 93420 �'i'`6$ Ce_cQnX l-"`._ ""Pleas I distribute this letter to all City Council and Planning Department Members'* � : �����- c��n�.,�.� �� , Pc�,�- ���;�� �ob orr -� �._. .l .- Li -� � � .- . .. .. , .�� _. _ Go .;;,_ i u :=:. ._ .� ;uiy 3,20U6 Thc Mayor end City Council C/O City Hall 413 W�.Branch 5trcet Arrayo Grrandc,CA 93420 Dear i ayor and City Council, I live on Cheny Street uz Arroya Grande.I understaud there is a pr�ject of new homcs tu tak�place here.For the cecord; i am in favur of these new homes. 1 und I-tend the owner of the Cherry Creek dzcelopmcnt a e local,�nd they are know:� ferqu�ality projects. I rrefer quality new homes be built here. We sheuid have a choice and a�voice on d�is matter,an3 I am ir.favor of this developmant.This pmject descrves approval! 1 vr.11 be at the next J-�:i��hcaring so I can voice iny suppon on this naw sub�ii�ision. Sincerelv, ���1 (r 1 2s�-���Gi� I�oug Priedeck Dou I Friedeck 9 Cher'ry. Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 e : c�,-� Crru.��Q, �. m�►���- �� A�� A�P��- . ��� I�b� I,�+*'y �`'"'`a.'•-" �"i, ��'• ,�.., L`.a�V ,,^ �.... _ �`. I. � � �' ���; n � � f � i L . . �ITY C� �.r .,r�;�_ . ..:':i '��c. June 28,2006 i��Y�l����l).�:rS : I�.�,V�4�..'�:"IY�^1Y Arroyo Grande City Council &Planning Department 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ' Re: Proposed Cherry Creek Project To the Members of Arroyo Grande City Council: As a residel t of the Arroyo Grande area for the past three plus decades, I travel East Cheny daily. I have property in both the city and county, so I am concerned about this new development. After looking over the current project drawings and overall plan, I believe tliis will actually be an excellent addition to the City of Arroyo Grande. The new ueighborhood is thoughtfully designed with nice open space areas mixed ia l like the idea that it is within walking distance to the village. This new neighborhood will be in character with our small town. I understand that the average lot size is around 8500 square feet. This should make for more affordable housing,.which we need, without very high density. We have a lot of large homes on large lots iln our ciry, but we need some more affordable housing. I feel this is truly a smart development for our city. Our Arroyo Grande planning staff has done an excellent job of planning this development, and I agree with their conclusion that you should approve the project as proposed. incerel , �R ��<-� sJ N Irma Jean Erenius 2225 HUASNA ROAD ARROYO GRANDE, Cl�;@�t.��a��, � / [� /°� (805) 481 b175'` ARi'o1'C :' - �� 1l8� `� �� �� H _ �, CONT.LIQ:30671�� �v� ' O r„ �`� Y i/' '��"� g i.� R�/ I�i�1 �_�� ;� � June 28, 2006 The Mayor and City Council C/O City Hall 413 W. Branch Street Arroyo Gtande, CA 93420 Deaz Ma lor and City Council, I have livl d in Arroyo Grande for about 20 yeazs. I own and operate a landscaping company ifrom Arroyo Grande that operates countywide. After reading the local newspaper about the proposed new subdivision known as"Cherry Creek," I Idecided to look at the actual plan and reports and then decided to write before the next hearing in July. I will als I try and show up at the July hearing,but if I am not there, I would like to go on record with my support of this new subdivision. I have hel d it has become almost impossible to get any development approved in Arroyo Grande. After reading the property owners have been trying to get this approved for three years, I guess it must be true. You would think the Planning Commission could make up their mind in less than five hearings, especially after the Arroyo Grande Plazu�ing Depaztment has presented a thorough several page report and recommended approval! The property is zoned residential. The project has low density. It is a relatively small residential project nicely located in a residential azea. The owners aze locai, and they aze known for quality projects. The newspaper says the City has already listed 138 conditions and 53 mitigation measures, so what do you want from these people? This is alproject that deserves approval! Sincerel I, � C� � Stephen�Bosch Bosch Landscape Company ' C: C��z�Y'V1� A��� � P�� e���'�'�I�f�b ' � � , - . . June 28, 2006 The Ma lor ofArroyo Grande 214 E. Iranch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Cherry Creek Project Deaz Mr. Mayor: After looking over newspaper article on the referenced project and the subsequent proposed plans and drawings, I believe this will be an excellent addition to the City of . Arroyo Grande. I am a resident of the Arroyo Grande area for the past several yeazs and love our"Little Village". I am so pleased to see this small neighborhood carefully designed within our City limits within walking distance to the village. This"Cherry Creek" neighborhood design will be more in chazacter with our small town than the lazge-scale urban sprawl developments that include hundreds of homes, which we see covering the hillsides in Arroyo Grande. . In my opinion,the Arroyo Grande Planning Staff has done a good job of planning this development,and I would encourage you to accept their recommendation for approval of this project. Sincerily, � �G � U1fErenius D.D.S. P. S. Please forwazd a copy to the Councilmen and Planning Staff. 1915 SCANDI LANE PHONE (805)489-8793 ARR i YO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 FAX (805)489-1941 C� CC�-1�L�tiu�� pJ /`,._ ��,�,�,,��,�r�-K� C� rn0,�.�e� �;�+�� Pl,�,,.�,� G�-�� C-Q�-6- Steven 8z Sheri Hauck 420 Hidden Oak Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93480. �:- - � June 25, 2006 Mayor Tony Fenara City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Cher►v Creek Subdivision We are writing to you in support of the proposed Cheery Creek Subdivision, covered by The Tribun�e on May 18, 2006. We aze residents of Arroyo Grande and familiar with the area where�the project is proposed. After reviei ng the plans for this development, we believe it will serve to enhance our entire community and more specifically the adjoining neighborhoods in Arroyo Grande. We like the fact that the development in neatly tucked between two existing residential azeas and that it is within walking distance of the Village. We join with the many other residents and professionals that support the recommendation to approve this project The newspl per article referenced that there is some opposition to allowing 35 homes. It seems to us that allowing 35 homes to be constructed on nine acres is reasonable. This density promotes more affordably priced homes, as opposed to larger homes on lazger lots. Our vote would be to allow this important project to proceed. Si er ly, . I 2�H !� /�""��Z������ Steven Hauck Sheri Hauck Please distribute this letter to: City Council Members Planning Commissioners City Planriing Director e�, (;�.-��i�.�-, �n1�.�� 74- ��� Telephone (805) 474-5940 Faesimile (805) 4 5941 ��, C"' /"::r'^. rn y' . i`.� :.. ._. :, F,;a L_`,...,� ':�.,;: . . . _. .� _ ii r: _r^ - / /� /�n�`r \1i^ nGi,er.,r ���1 l..'�p !'.:'.1".�• ll �� .. ..,�;:. !::Q;�,�:.�'1:.;�Y C��`,'_��:...��.- City Hall � Arroyo Grande City Planning Department 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93440 **Please distribute this letter to every City Council and Planning Department Member** To the City Council- I wanted to share my thoughts on the Cherry Creek subdivision proposal with the City Council and the Planning Department. I read about the subdivision in the newspaper and as a resident of Arroyo Grande for the past 30 years, and lmowing area well, I want to strongly suggest going forward with the project. - - To my lcl owledge there is a drainage problem affecting the surrounding azeas. In developing the subdivision they, being the developer, could take care of tlie issue as a condition of approval of the development. There are always people who are against the growth of our beautiful city and want to see it remain the way it is, however I believe ttus pmject would help our city. I would urge you to make the housing as affordable as possible. I would encourage you to go forwazd with the project as soon as possible. Sincerely, I � Lance . elt 834 Creekside Drive Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 - Elizabeth Scott-Graham (805)785-0248 C0�1: 710-0712 i��� r�. aa E-mail: es2rahamna slonet.or¢ ����,, �5 �, t� '''Ya �i,�t:,,� y� �q� �� l��'�. � „ �,. , June 23,2006 "��t, �� ;! � I i.11Y p�- fi,4p ��. ,�V� �r Arroyo Grande Planning Commission and "����^•irj`.;��,• �i, ,_''��+TJDF Mayor Ferraza and Members of the City Council � '''��C���F��•- City of Arroyo Grande 413 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 RE:Cherry,Creek Development City Council Agenda for July 18, 2006 Dear Mayor Ferraza and Members of the Council: [am writing to sup lort the Cherry Creek development project scheduled for July I8,with one reservation,which I will explain shortly.i I have lived in San Luis Obispo County since 1969, over twenry of those yeazs in Arroyo Grac�de. I have worked conscientiously since that time to protect the environment of the area.As a volunteer,while practicing law in Arroyo Grande during the 1980's, I spearheaded the successful effort to raise the$15million that was used to conservie the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes. Shortly after that effort I took a position with a national nonprofit,The American Farmland Trust.As the Central Valley Field Director of AFT, I worked long and hazd to protect our farmland. During my tenure al AFT,we commissioned a study by the University of California lnstitute of Urban and Regional Development to determine the.most effective way to curb sprawl unto our fazmlands. This study proved that the most effective way to protect farmland was to increase density and in-fill urban areas.The other result of this study showed that low-density development exceeds the cost of revenues needed for community services.The study concluded,"The tragic waste of agricultural resources and tax dollars can be avoided by encouraging more compact, e�cient growth..." The low density of this development is a classic example of a waste of land and in-fill opportunity. It will eventually result in a decrease in community services or an increase in taxes as the Ciry stru�les to pay fcr needed szrv iczs. The residents who I ave encouraged the increased lot sizes are only accelerating the time when Arroyo Grande will be swailowed by more sprawl. I would encourage Ihe City Council to increase the densiTy of the proposed development in the name of the greater good of the community u a whole. Sincerely yours, �i�Z��� Elizabe Scott-Graham � I � �,�,° �, �,A.--�� � ���!'.4� r :,,�� c � � a 1Ui:! � 3 ;'f;�'� ! �..:: . 1� C�N Q- p.�Ci�Q��� ���3����' ; - C:C�M�.;:i`diir C_`rti.�-:; �;;��ti: � ' ; �j� June 22, 2006 Ioyo Grande City Planning Department 21�4 East Branch Street Avro}o Grande,.CA 93440 R I: Cherry Creek Project T I the Director of Planning: I I a native of San Luis Obispo County and have owned a business in Arroyo Grande for the past 25 years. I recently read a story in the Tribune regarding the new Cherry Creek Development, and have also taken the time to review the plans and visit the site. I am encouraged to see that the City is actually proceeding with new homes for our azea! E I en though this is a small development with only 37 homes, it is exactly the type of neighborhood that Arroyo Grande needs. It will be great to have some new homes where people can actually walk to the Village. I I taken aback by those who wish to stop this development because they claim that this particulaz pazcel is "ag land." This property has been used for residential purposes for the past 50 years. The land is already zoned residential, and there are existing homes on the property. There is also an existing residential neighborhood on both sides of this p ioperty, making it a logical place for a new neighborhood. Please do not allow a small group of obstructionists to prevail in stopping this project. I believe the Planning Department is conect in suggesting approval. Sincerel , ���� lichard Blake Please distribute copies to: �oyo Grande City Council & Planning Commission r�, _ � ' � � . � a : � � � • . 3 : i �.: :'� e: ..�.. . . ,�C v "c� �.¢ ! i 3�o� ��i.� (�I �c (���t��u; Memo �' � C�� Date:. June 12, 2006 To: A loyo Grande City Council Members . From: Polly Tullis Re: Pr Iposed Creekside Estates Project located on the former Stilwell, Vandeveer, an i Peters' properties Note: Attached you will find a co�y of the letter I presented to the Planning Commission at the May 16 meeting. I was advised by a few wise people to provide you with the letter as well. Therefore, I have made minor revisions to . include the City Council in the letter, and I respectfully ask you to read and corisider it in the days ahead. In your further reseazch of the Stilwell property pleiase note: Naomi Stilwell lived on the farm and worked the walnut orchazd for several years before she inherited it. The same is true for Grace and Albert Stilwell. They cared enough about the farm to live there and be good stewazds for many years before the property became theirs. When they inherited it, they had to choose between the financial gain of stocks and bonds or sole ownership of the farm....They chose the land. W I, too, can do that as we consider preserving for future generations a Heritage of Grace—the Stilwell Fann. ���� ���� JUN �. � 2006 CiN OF Al2RQ'�'O GRANDE COMMUNIiY DEYELOPMENT , 236 Garden Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (revised) June 12, 2006 City Council Members (and Planning Commission Members) City of Arcoyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Anoyo Gr�ande, CA 93421 "...Don't it always seem to go /that you don't know what you've got til it's gone/ They pave�d paradise and put up a parking lot" (from song "Big Yellow Tasi" by Joni Mitchell) Deaz City i ouncil Members (and Planning Commissioners), I am respectfully writing in response to the upcoming (May 16th and) July 18th meeting(s)� regazding the proposed"Cherry Creek Development," located on the former Stilwell, Uandeveer and Peters properties. I will address the heritage of this particular piece of land, point out some of the misleading inaccuracies stated in the Mitigated Negative Declazation, and urge you to consider aitematives to dense development and the rezoning of this property. I have very important information (see attached documents) for you to consider before sending this potential development on to the City Council (or before the Coucil considers its approval or denial). First of all, I will tell you that both the past and the future of the village are very important to me, due to my own heritage. I have lived in Arroyo Grande for almost all my life (over 35 years), and both my own ancestors and my husband's have been an integral pa�rt of the Arroyo Grande Village since the 1920's. My great grandfather and his brother�l operated a gas station/gazage in the village (near today's Arroyo Grande Flower Shop) and my great grandmother and her sister owned/operated a dress shop where Cafe Andrieni's now is located (they were also Harvest Festival grand marshals). My husbarid's great grandmother lived in the village, and his great uncle operated a mortuazy in the village for many years. We both lived in the village when we were younger, and we have resided in the same house on Garden Street for the past 12 years. Our children have never lived anywhere else. Therefore, both the past and the future of the Village of Arroyo Grande matter immensely to me (and to future generations). Because I I as friends with Grace Stilwell for several years before she passed away and have remained in contact with her sister-in-law, I know a great deal about the former Stilwell pr�operty. I have recently done a bit more research on it, and have a significant piece of information to share with you-- namely that 734 Myrtle Street has (and has legally had since 1913) mutual irrigation rights (see Exhibit"A"). According to Grace, they used flood irrigation that was pumped from the creek through pipes, and they allowed the Vandeveers to use their piped system to water their orchard trees as well. That means that at least five (and possibly two more) of the nine acres designated as Phase I of this development are in fact Class II Prime Soii Irrigated Farmland. The property is not zoned Ag, however it has been in agricuitural production (walnuts and chicken eggs) from at least 1913 (through 1987). According to both Grace Stilwell (now deceased)Iand her sister-in-law, Laveme (both primary sources), Grace's mother-in-law, Naomi, fanned walnuts on the property frorn the 1940's through ihe 1960's, selling her crops to Diamond Walnut Growers among others. Grace and Albert came to live and work on the farm in 1967 and continued the walnut production and sales until 1987, when Albert became ill. I have included a copy of a Diamond Walnut Grower's payment stub to prove that they were indeed an established and active farm that in 1977 produced 1,440(bs. bf Class I walnuts (with no insect damage} for Diamond Walnui Grawers alone (see receipt ofpayment to mother,Naomi, who had since been moved to an elder care home in Giendale). I'm not sure what other avenues they used to sell their walnuts, but there is still a"Walnuts" sign hanging in the chicken house, as weil as the original processmg equipment behind the chicken house -- of cultural and historical significance. I believe they sold some of their walnuts directly to the community from their small fazm. According to a local farmer I know who sells at Farmer's Markets, there has recentiy been an renewed demand and market for walnuts and walnut oil, due to iheir tremendous heatth beriefits. The trees on this property stili produce abundantiy. There are la few reasons why this factual,historicat information is so important. First of all,the City's Associate Planner has stated inaccurately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that this land was dedicated in the 1800's primarily to residential housing and that this land is non-irrigated and therefore not considered loss of prime soii farmland, when it was actually a working farm for.several decades. A simple title search at the SLO County Recorder's office proves the presence of irrigation rights, and yet the Planner fails to mention anything about this land being used for farming. This irresponsible omission of most important details(that could affect the approval of the development) is unacceptable and shauid be addressed by both the City Council and the Planning Commissioners to City Staff. Second(y, it is clear that no development should be recommended for approvai at this time, nor should any change in zoning occur, due to the City's�dedication to preserve both small and large farms. Thirdiy, a large number of other inaccuracies occur in the Mitigated Negative Deciaration, but to conserve time and paper, I will refer you to the letters/out(ines writien by Colleen Martin and Ed Hanison in the May 16`" Planning Commission meeting packet. I agree with most of what they pointed out in their commenzs on the Mii.Neg. Declaration,as I too have many of the same concerns. Finally, what school will the children of this "Neighborhood Plan" attend —Branch or Ocean View? How will the increase logistically affect bussing, classrooms, etc. at that particular school site? Perhaps the parents and staff of these schools may have some concerns. Please do not accegt the Mitigated Negative Declazation as being sufficient.I There are far too many mitigations needed to approve this development, and many of them are not even addressed in the document. The 22 acies cunently zoned Residential-Rurai are the appropriate transition between singie famity neighborhoods and agricultural land. That acreage should remain one horne per acre so that people can continue to enjoy the rural setting of the village and have the best of both worlds—a little piece of land to call their own: with great soil to grow vegetables,to have a small orchard, to own an animal, to stroll down a country lane, to admire the Vandeveer home up close (rather than not at all) and yet to still be in the village. O�ne home per acre (R-R zoning) still allows the developers to build homes on the n'ine acres they own (as I understand, Cliff Branch owns four acres, and the Mavis Family Trust owns the five Stilwell acres). It just means they may not make as large a profit. Before the Stilwell property (734 Myrtle St.) was sold, City Staff outlined the potential problems with that land in a memorandum that was available to the public so that future developer/owners would know what difficulties they may face if they purchased the property. The fact about business is that you win some, you lose some. Therefore, it is not the responsibility of the City of Anoyo Grande to ensure that development occur on that property. Here are sl me possible alternatives to developing Phase I. 1) Require a complete EIR before even considering development. 2) After careful planning by developers, only allow one home per acre to be built, which would mitigate most of the significant impacts. 3) One or more of the developers could sell their pazcels "as is" or with lot-line adjustments and move on. 4) If sold, part or all of the former Stilwell property could be used for hands-on community outreach and/or"historic/sustainable agritourism" (using no pesticide sprays) as an attraction and benefit to all (run by a private group of individuals or by a non-profit organization). It is a historical small fazm with its own quaint farmhouse and outbuildings—not to mention the amazing stone fannhouse next door, and is unique in that it is one of the last remaining walnut orchards in the Village of Arroyo Grande (part of the original village walnut grove). If someone doesn't want to farm walnuts, R-R zoning would at least allow many of the trees to remain while accomplishing other purposes. 5)Because there are currently four parcels within that nine acres� each parcel could be sold to different parties and used in different ways, under the zoning of R-R and consistent with the other properties within the Neighborhood Plan overlay. In conclusion,the General Plan is not a guarantee that the zoning will change, nor is it a guarantee�for development. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City Council need to seriously consider what effect the present and future development of those 22 acres may have�on the community members who currently live in the village (including those land owne�rs within the "Neighborhood Plan" acreage who do not want the Phase I development to occur). Not only will S-F/M-D development destroy open, farmable irrigated land and wildlife habitat for future generations, it will cover over past generatioris of rural heritage. It will also negatively impact hundreds of other village families in the areas of traffic, school crowding, aesthetics, sewer, etc. Please consider the alternatives I have mentioned above, rather than allowing this development and/or zoning change to move forward. Thank you for all of your hard work. Sincerely, � '`_ ��lL� Polly Tullis I r��; y�,PY���.:- 4... �: .. : • . ,. . ... _ .. .. ... , ; *° �ia����� + .�-�L'�.��5�.`�Y :�.E74iIBIT:�iAn ,:: i"� �:t. Y• _ .s.i.. �;-. v t> _ .�... . .. . , . . . _ -; - r Parcel �l• Lots;3Z znd 38 of- the Subdivision of the R2nchos Corrzl de Piedra, Pismo -' ?and :Bolsa de Chemisal, in the City of Arroyo Grandz, County of San Luis ' `Obispo;' State .of Californi2, 2s laid dow�n and designated upon a Map entitled ' =..'.;'Map ::of the Resubdivision of a pzrt -of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, —Pisiuo�2nd_Bo1sa de,Chemisal, Ssn Luis Obispo County, .California, the �.:�property of E: ld. �Steele, Esq., surveyed by R. R. Y.arris, November, 18E5," _ .,according to *fap on file in Eook A, Pa�e 63 of t:a?s. _ - � Parcel 2. : The portion o: Lots 17 aad 18 of the Subdiv±sion of Lhe P.2nchos Ccr:zl de Piedr2, P15:0� ci1� BOLSc C2 CCiE�152�.� 2^ C[1B �lty O_ :7ZOV0 �Tc�GE� �C.:T�.�' of San Luis OSispo, State oi Czliio*n_z, as laic do:� and desigr.zteZ L�on c ::cD "c:=1Y�2C ��.'�2D OF thc Resu�div:s_on of a pci� o: tne RcIC}]OS CG.7c� de Piedra! ?isao and Bo1=a de Che�isal, San Luis 0�`_spo County, Caliiornia, � the propert}• oi E. ��'. S�eele, :se. , surceyed by R. 3. czrris, t:ove��e=, 1SS5," &CCOIG�IR�' t0 if2P OR fl�.c lII DOOK �1� �BoE 63 Of ):275� CESCTl.�E(.' c5 iO1�C45: BEGIti\I�G st S[a'..e 5.62 2: t�e �est Scetherl� coz�e_ o' szic Lot 1S� C.^.E^CE ° � c e r rl i " �°.�"l � rorth 57 30 East alor., t!� \o_t�::este__�� 1'ne e_ �_e Street, 65 .o I2EC� �iic'C2 �OZtR G� l:� :ic5� LO L.^.2 Cc�tc= 0= i'c :.':c.-:IIcl 'O' r""J':Q b_c:�5 CiCC1p �IC.��C •:CJ�C ' G . C.0 � .. �_ ..O .. . � .. .. t0 C!12 L25� Z1ilE OI SicG12ti :Cc:1l'2� �..c'Cc SOII�i �� U� L'c5� 21C.^.�' �:tc _c5i line O: SL'cl_2� n�2.'lUE SLU _TC:�� =�O:c^0. 1"c55� iC =.'.c IV1��_ UC __.._:.��_��.�-.. ��SO c��. =!�[1L� :1C12 c::C lII�c:cSL O: �iE $Z2.^.CO� Le_c2^ ll 'eF1G i0 �l'ei. Ce_�c=.-: "2oreerent IO: i':L'iL'c� _"'ScL_Qi $�c=c-�� D2L'Ac�^ l.'_=5:_:0 :.. Ylc_Cc� ci 25.. datee 12J��+c:C 3� ���.�`. c.^.CVLcCOTCEC :�c=C:l J� IC�J _- jOOe: �6� T.�2o? �}C C_ J2_�e _P. Ii10 O°Z=CE O: C10 CO:i::�\' �ECCTacI. O_ Sc_C CO�i:i':. tii��Ctl Sc1C �i.C2TE5C �25 cCeU17EC D� n. J. SIc�= D� Cc2C ITC-� ��E'.0:2 ScUtS]�:�� 8 5'_i:?tc + =c:� C£:c� i 7'. iC!l ' 7� "!' - � _' on 1�]. (� c_Ccc� ;cCC_C5 . JL'_� -.� _ . n :C 7cC:=.:cL _ _. J -. . . � C�. . •'°c- . _ . �desr,��pkco;�, o� 73y M�r�l.c S�-. ` � �ov W�r� u%��o• Y�e�e r '�'v �ee� . � - ::�_�, . Doc. .3_2 N°l S i . - . _ ,_ _ O�'i �ial Ye GvYd 5 � :.y . r x . , , G�YdS S w Coti.��+� R¢ x . l . ': Y ,. . �j�� . . .4. +' . �i� ~^ �'�c- . � � t�-. # � ��QIQ� � K��k s�?��" �SI �Zz�y�� �^� �-. rm'�' ', . r� �S . �'F� .. � � � �..� 5.., ��`.. 6 ; "�'y_.y��L-"�..,�'�`-ti€t �' :r`.�5^v...=i� �a'`1�{v-v:s`t +w �c �`�� ��-,_, �i�J-.+w.-^v„_ y-. . i . ,-�� �v �_y3.$�fgu''-'� t ;S -v.`�i� '�- uR^;"�.r�- ��'w Fy. p : `,b� Iw y/�� L� -. - x,�f�n"'4��`1 - .'Y'�,i��P���� .���35��aVy� ..�p � ' � .h x� _v� y � G.- !p r � � . . w,r . � ' ' .�t.��7��,,,,-��'�"i' �'y'�z? C� -� � ',� �i S y� ^ ; '. � � �q� .�^�'�1y71�^.-._ �v _��ya�;� 'c�r:. fi . ._ ._ j` ���� Y'n= .� �' }� n=. ' . . . -�'I �-n.1`� . � ✓f�e. .�.%.en.bg .:v..R �� . . '�'. _ I_ " � � � ' � DIAMOND WALNUT GROWERS, INC. A GROWER-OWNED COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION BOX 172� STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 9520f • TELEPHONE 466-4851/AREA CODE 209 TELEX 359�4]O Dear Grower Member: The enclosed check is the first advance on your 1977 crop deliveries. i—"� "- PAYEE'S NAME aSiiGVED°5 viA,.a.t.,�o in�.w„mc..ro�e:l 0�\ET PROCEE�S inc��.�e..Ca..espon<en<e,n:. w93b31 MRS NA0�4I E .3TILW�LL 100� 00 SO 21 77 15; 8495u0; 00! 520 tdEBk LILA ROAO � CI.ENDALE CALTF 91��8 1477 CROP D t;�►JI()�D�j��l_�1,��'T�;(���tc���a:xs:.,I.�c., . P.O. BOX 1747 STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA � � � DELrvERY �NSVECiIOV RESUlTS '.10N-DAY }yE��"* v..;E.. e NET WEIGHT R'_a`+E_va+�rsis EJ�9�� OFCGB<OE % INSECT nCCUV DELIV. nuvecn cooel y POUNDS ;_iGN*': a��� .-ci a=a:e to�o� w iG�+� -- DAS1AuE ,�: C,'LB. � � 15 23703 07 l � uU!± 3p�4 53.6 L,IGHT 8, 0 S 1 �'. ` ,:.`I .' _ , � :`°� s-T ..t; - . - � (4i. �� .... ' . ' :._,. .. . �. .-_. -'. �OUNDAGE: TQTA,l.S,: 'i . ,.; . . ., 1i4y0. _ u38 , . -._, > ,.'... :. 1 �5 ;. , _... ._. . . . ` ' _-. , _ _ l,0 °_, Q 6 — . � 3, y , SO _. ----- --- ._._...,_... .. . — i z36 Garden Strl et Arroyo Grande CA 93420 - August 26, zoo6 i ; :' ; : . . ... . City Coun<il �" �:-'-' -:'^ ; , �1. �,' �0[UlG� �ity of Arroyo Grande ' z�4 E. Dran<h St. • ��{�r/ Arroyo Grande�CA 934z.o �'f �,� Dear Mayor and Council Members, `�aw���' I thought you I ight be interested in the information 1 have endosed as it pertains to 734 Myrtle Street and the proposed Cherry Creek development. i have an interest in seeing the former Stilwell farm preserved and utilized as do many others. On July�5, zoob a garden tea/informational meeting was held to begin notifying neighbors of alternatives to dense develop 'ment of 739-Myrtle Street (please read the endosed notes from that meeting). More than twenty people attended and others who couldn't make it called to put their names on the contact list. We now have almost forty names on our contact list of interested community members. Fourteen members of our contact list attended the July�8`" Planning Commission meeting to show their support for aiternatives to the re- zoning and dense development of 734 Myrtle Street. I was going to speak on their behalf at that meeting to share our vision but was unabie to do so, as the Commission Chair chose to cut the publie comment period short. I am, therefore, sending this information on to you to preview and consider since you witl be making important decisions re: the former Stilwell farm in the near future. 6est possible land use is a serious matter to consider in ou i rural community. 6ecause of the history ot farming on this property and the fact that it is prime soil with irrigation rights, I urge you not to ailow this property to be re-zoned at ail. There are far better uses for this land. i am not promoting preservation of the land for the land's sake; 1 am promoting preservation of th is farm for the sake of our<ommunity-so it can become a unique model of rurai living in an excellent location, <onducive to community outreach. Again, please read the enclosed Heritage of Gra<e Farm Project meeting notes for the vision we are proposing. [iecause the tand is zoned R-R and no pesti<ide sprays wili be used, no buffer zone is required and the land <an be fuliy utilized. I urge you to consider the"greening"j of Ameri<a and what significant role our community will play in conserving our limited natural resources and promoting sustainable, rural living -our heritage. At the very lealst, please do not allow this proposed development to go forward without a full Env(ronmental Impact Review. it is necessary to require in-depth study, given the numerous number of mitigations needed to develop this particuiar piece of land. Many of the mitigation's needed are not even addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration or impacts are downptayed in a very subjective way. A memorandum put out in Oct. zooi by Rob Strong warned prospective buyers of the issues involved with this particular piece of land. Why did�Ithe developers buy this land in the first p!a<e if they are so opposed to an EIR? Is it because they fear the resuits of an EIR? If so, this development should not be approved.The,developers themselves are the ones who have delayed this pro<ess. When the Pianning Gommission recommended a full EIR in March of ZooS, the developers stopped the Citys public pro<ess for i5 months, ignoring the recommendation. They put themselves in the situation of running out of time and money. Had they gone forward with the EIR in March/April zoo5, they wouid have had their answer by now. Instead, they<onstantly<hanged the layout of their homes rather than effectively dealing with the environmentai <oncems. Please hoid them accountable and require an EIR. Sincerely, Polly Tuilis �{�-z,l(�� _ .. • }feri.tagvr of Circu,� Farwv�roject' C�r�servLvt�am�d.Ltti,Li�im,r�the� �orm.e.r St%Lwei.L FarvwJ Note�s��owv Gard.e�vv 7'ew/I w{prma.ti.ov�a�L m.eet'vn,g�owJuLy I 5> 2006 •'...'Drnv't i.t a.Ltuay I see.rw to-ga/that yow don:t know tuhat you:v��ot`t'i.U.i,t'y gon.elth�e�y pcwed. pa.r-ad�iana.pu,tiup a.pcu-k�i.n�lot .." �'rovwthe�son�"Si.g�YelZow ra�x.+%'ir�'Joru%Mixcheu, I. �Ei,st vo�^�ac#c�.rouvie� A. My O�wn.�- �ntly i.v� vi.2.la� si.nc� 19z0's teache.r, gcu-dzn.er, ga-eat reypect {rn nc�.tu<-Pi, farCi�s fa-L3�e.pa�t '8. �rF,erid�h.i� w�t3v 6racei StibwelL - s�e.nt Y�ou�� at cv tinn�{w ti�tabt 7 yra: df her Li� k�1e,w her d.rea.m�{rn' Y�er I��a,nd.hew- �av�fov' �a.�'dzvu,nQ; fa.�'"ai.n�; cuuL cre�'wPi a.+'Cy. G. St"�eZL Farrru - worki,vu� walnu.t {urrw {ronv a.t lea6r 1913 throu$h i9a�Co�«t�t. fo+- 4o y� vy staw�u, fi;�,ruzy), currenzly �or�ed. Re7i.d.entia�i. RuraL (onPi h.omer per acrPi), hc� r',rriqa.tF,ow ri.�hts; CZa23�II �ri,mPi,4l.Zcwia,L SoiL, two-pa.rcels�tota�m,g�5 aare,a�, svnaa.L century o1cL fa.vmhou�Pi, c2uck.evv ho+.�v and. o-r' '�waLvu.ex prdcerb3'^u�'e9wipmzv�t; cu.ltcwal�for vi.11ac�er (rcu-aL he'"��) a. �r�2)e.ve�men.t - 30 horneb� orv 7�Y tYwtw 9 a,cr'e�Y (undtiad�.n�2 adjace.n.t parc?,Ls-), vw�actYN�pu.bZt.c.opew spa,c�i C+w-parTu a�,w), pvoposulg�M1�-s� �,ov�i.v� wi,Li�.lvati-i,a.nr,ri ow�rt.i,n%mctim iot b4�i to-a�ccofvi.modat�44 ft w%d,�drad,na�v u.ncZ Property that r�oe�r',nto-cree7�bec� �. ,4tterinax'wea� - d.e,ve.t�p ta.nd. at on� lwm�per acre Ccvs i�s� cwrrev�ly �,crned�vio- g°n','''.g'c7tia.n$em'), selL la,n.cl `aa� id' and. move ovk lo�l�;v�ei adju6t�nenL�to-crea.tPi better parcelb- Cu}� to{aur wlxiv oid.iot ti.ne�a-) arui.ae.iL, 3eU. (to-pre.se,rve�) ovw.w morPi a.crpi of SCLLweiL furm�ttr lmi u�br,cL fr�s' ha� orv co»�.nuwt+,ty ouxrP,ac,h. a,nd. �ouri�rw Cpromot'wu�'loca.lZy g"�ou'vv &MU,��crtaW�fa.rm.i.rig') 1i. Ga.rdp,w}fouse�c ', ou.trn,ar,3�. • non.pro�i.t'�roup staaCed,by mei CaZonc��w(xfi. ot3�.e.ry) LwOct 2004 Cccwrenxiy i.vvthPiprocP,�Y�'�°�"p°'"�"'�') A. Tv�perat'eon. - TO yeara� oF researclti a.nd. coU.e,ct'uu� a.vt'ec,�e� (exa.�n�l.ea� amunc� th� �) �"awvGexv Garde,v� Gw Gotetw Caztende.cL 3-dwy urix.�w,4grr.cr,�.itcw� Covi(erencv� i,w Sept. 2002), Cawa>ri.u. i'LvteY Lod.ge Ga+"d.enb, �ngla-vtcUY �m�o�^Ca.nce�o-n.pudr�.ie��ard.e+�o�, pre.�e.vvatiorv avui.he�-Cta�e, ou.r g*'ou�p lie�a.rv ao' a� i.nL-err� gard.en.i.n.g�$ulrier sttid.y called. "CetCu�Clo�er ta God. Ln.t3�ei Ga.rdevv" focetisi.v�orv tev�di.ng-ou.r "i,v�nea- gas-clew" a.�welL a�owr outer �rn�-dzvk udiv�g�a.devot'wnal book.{ar yto�cly a.v�d.ga.rd.eni,vu�act'wit'�: 8. Mi�3i'arv Statemen.t - "...to- reconruct pe.oplPi wxlv ti� tamds wi.t3v God�s a�td/or' wit3v�theErheri.ta.r�t�wougivact'wit'�es�rela�ecLto-garcieni.n.g; {urm�,ng; a.nc�.th� d,omebt'i,�, cu^C3: Ou.r goa.L i.d� t3ui.t t3wou�h� Che�Pi r-ural a.d''wi.t'�, co+vuncuuty men�eUe�-s� a.ncL ot3�er� wGll Ue,nef'rz menzza,ly, PYy'+ica.l.i�', soc+ulZy a+a,c�or spi.ri,tUa.LLy ay weil ae� i>ecomi� mt»-e.cuvare�of tiw�:r oww ta.iP.nts�and.Pu�yo3eY ��„ C. RP.a.��ow fr�r' c,laoyi,vw� a, fa,%th-1>a4� rn�lneazEow - �rr,edo»u..freP,c#.o»v to- �i,vP. God.l crv,di.t wh.P,�v cred.%t i6� deeP, freP,d.mw to- puz' i,vv w BLl�ic-,aL ya.rdP.rv wh:,ch. C�rcecer alwuys� e,rwLSione.cl ow her lamtiL, not w ciu�.vch% not a. cult ...�,%vrtpL�' {�»" rea�o�n�of f+'ee.c�.o�n.Ceducaxlona.Lnavvprofitdop.s-rv't provide.thoseo�t'�ovw) 7�. Mare�abou.t Gardwv�}{oua� - W�an.vw ta provid.�ed.ucatGor�a.l oppor'tu.vu.t'�za� Cew. hand.y-orv en.-i.ch�me.nt' cZay3e� {o+' a.7.1 age�Y, "trGps� to- Ci�ei f�'ield.," le.cturer�, �G), servic�opport-u�ut'ce� Caem,+:or menxor/d.ocenta; ga.rd.en.,n�ouxreeLCh.{or thos�Gw . � neecii {p,x, wame,v� ow bed.rest}, fa-+'+v�i,n,�'and.�ard.P.ni,n�y on.s�i.te� w�a.i,ntr.na.ncP, corru�nu,nity-su.ppo�t-ed, a,�rtcu�tzurPi> etu), a.n� evenxx (g�arderi. tecv; ha.west day� tours. etc�). We�cwe� aLre.ady dacv'cd' m.aM.Y of the�,e.act'Wi.L"�.e� o-w a. xtinall scaZe, l:u.t w� wo,.�Zd, l.k� to- ex.panc� � to- �n�.cciz a. Iarger porttow oF th� carne�y tlwou�lvthe.pre2ervatiawoFt3�e.fo+-mer Sti.lwelL(arrnc III. SomPi�I I.QMc�!1�$a�. A. "� Gs�too- e�cpev�i.v�..lwu�}ea.nd.tree5� a�-�wo�tihle�bs�xearthQ.wv dowvu..d.v,velaperyshoulcli�a.al�to-rvuikewla.rge.pro{iL", eta„ B. I �I��i.�wd.e,velaperwho-'rt3�.PibcunPia�e.wrrnPioryowttqe+'fnu�vu7.PeaPlPito-buy tha.tl.a,vtd., the.n.so-ca.n.w�(orbo-ca,n�GocL)...11�.e�hou�ec�,fu�orchard.arer{cw {ronvwo�2ha.v�ya; t�ey arPi ner�iecx'ed.wnc�.cww bn.re�t'orec�. NP,�IP,cted.i.s�vwt�t�e. sa.�nP�t3u:ny�ay wo�2�Ie,yy..7�v,rP.i.s�a.ira.�a,ncP.bettveen.c�rowth/pvt�'i,t a.nd.thP. �re�,por�ibi.l;.ty to-prese.w�our nattaraL re.scnwce��rtpariaw corridor, pri.wizsoilb�J cwi.d,cuZt�wa.LherGt-a.c�i CswSt'ai.naWz, pesttcid�free�bvnaZl�fa+�+ni�) {Qr'��tur�gene.-at'wvwtaapprea:a.t�cuu�ul Uen.efit{rom<,> C. Cha,Zlen�ey - are.vwt i.m�o�2i�i,l.i.t'�z4: Challen�e�arr�vI�stacle�b-tha.t ccirv Ue� overcomP, ori�step az-a.t'wn�. a. T�aWaUvto-Gai.vv�ers�ect'w�i-Wailvd.owrvMye'tierSt. or£. Cher-ry,4ve,nu.� per,at�t�e.{rnmer sr�d.u,ell f wrrrv C734 MyrCZ�st.)to-t3�va,ncl.v�veer prope,�Cy. Not'�ce. the�SCclwelL{arrrvalocat'wwto-the.creekf itrfeari.u'ea�, av�d.Lt3�prowi,mixyto-flg� land. IL'i�tru�iya.ru.rala;,r�htto-i�.Y�ord: �o-vwttre�a.�bs i�u.ttrytouitc3vt�.ei vi,yi.otiv, wiL3�oi.tt Ue(.vt�'ne,r�a,t'weL�' i.n�.+�e�e,d.iry thPiex.terior of t3�eihou�P. It ca.n.lm.rn.3t'orec�.beae,ctl.{cci,ly. Try to-bePithPi�otenl'ia.L im.thP.la.nd.-vcwio+,+�typP� of�eramd.h.erlrga.�-de.n,s; smaR�veg:eza.i>i.�cropa�i.rvthecleari.ru�x, prn�.cct'w� orcha,rd�tYeP.s; farwvher�ta�rnwbeu�wvi.wch.i:ck.e,n.hotv,e, cic�b2esitivt3tivil�ot.�se, a. sma.11fiu'+vr.sta-nd�attl�cornerofE. Gherry/ara,sach-M�,17. N. �ferf.t I ofGra.c�Farm.�ro;ectfpresewi.n�g-a�uz'al.i�i,vu�-t3�P.SCdlweLL{cr�-wv) A. �cq 'wii�ct'iavv - pa.rt or a1,1, privat� owners or nan.proFit aunecL or cmnl>o- C�ebarc��telv liabecL u�trw parcel6��, cu-g� City Cowrtic�I. ta vwt re-�,on2 a.ruL ta cortd�i�de.ra].ternati.vea�, Loo�vi.nto-g,-a.nt fwnd�i,vt�a.rtd�con4P-rvat'�orvea�errteri,tr 8. Restorattovi. • houaPi. ch.iT.k.ew h.owa�, orcharcl, rer�pl.a.vir gccrd.ev�; creat� new gae-den�and.s m.a.11 vegexal�iz�i.e,�ds: c. ut'cl,%�,atlo-w - co�n"veu,n�.ty Proc�r'amd' Cse� a]xw� part II. D.) to- � at sa.m� t ic�.sre�.torat',.owand. tacont'u-u.c�forfietur�generati.os� V. Irv Cottca.�,c4ionc It L Ctera.U,v 7'ake�s�aV��Cof Cerruru.uutv Su{�port) A. Ti,vna�, 7'a.�ev�t, c�ncL7're,a.kcwv. �. wh�,i- a,-� ro��- r�s�sk�:u�7 �vwy ��u�a.p�-so�. �a- �a.�a. s� � on �act G%t Pr lrra+mst"'orm.you+- im.te.re�3�or SauU�to li.bt wb�well. c. 1�Acxcon,/8�i�roa�c�"w�i - (fltcena,meet"u�a� I m�orcaai.t c�zy coua�ci.L,neexs,ru� ow Sept 22�'. Check.ta conf"wnv date� Wri.te� Zettesy to- Cocw�ci.L l�e vi mzet'uu�: Spea;lv up at mee.t'�wg•s: Shtiwe.vi2ian�wixh fi-iend.b a,n,d.nzi.gl��oi-a: Show yow caxe, � believe. thaL' peo�lpi caw m.ake� t�ei worlcl avu� t3iew:r cosvu-+uu-u.ty a better plou'.�, oner�arderi/pre3ervecLfdrrwatwt'unai) 'D. Q��.ond�? CaZL mz C805) 481-3428 i.f yow hcwe� Cdv.a.y for ccnry �te}7 a.loru�thPi WaS'I os' i�Yow kmaw aosxeon� who- suot.�ld.tik�to-� added.to-t�.e contact L;.st: tea.ve a. m,esaa�e�wi.ttiv d.etcu:7�t f I ca.vvt an�oer at the�t'r,�vre: nti«.n1�you.{o,-yo�- Lnx-erest ancLpotent'�.aL support.� � �oily Tc�I.l;�. I ATTACHMENT15 , �pRROYp I p Cp \ • wcoxvonereo>2 i � I U m k .ex�m,ivn � c9��FORN�P CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title & No. East Villaqe Neiphborhood Plan; NP 04-001; DCA 04-007; VTTM 04-002; PUD 04-002 Che Creek ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The proposed project could have a "Potentially Significant Impact" for at least one of the environmental factors checked below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels or require further study. � Aesthetics � Geology and Soils � Recreation � Agricultural Resources ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials �Transportation/Circulation. � Air Quality � Noise � Wastewater � Biological Resources ❑ Population/Housing � Water � Cultural Resources � Public Services/Utilities � Land Use DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the Environmental Coordinator finds that: ❑ The proposed project COULD. NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacY' or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner 1/27/05; Amended: 3/20/06, 6/27/06, 9/01/06 Prepared by (Print) Date Tim Carmel, Cit Attorne - Reviewed by (Print) � Signa _, Date City of Arroyo Grande, lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 1 i Proiect Environmental Analvsis The City's environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study includes staffs on-site inspection of the project site and surroundings and a detailed review of the information in the file for the project. In addition, available background information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and characteristics, geologic information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water availability, wastewater disposal services, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. Exhibit A includes the references used, as well as the agencies or groups that were contacted as a part of the Initial Study. The Community Development Department uses the checklist to summarize , the results of the research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project. Persons, agencies or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental review process for a project should contact the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 or call (805) 473- 5420. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal by Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC for a Neighborhood Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to allow for ultimate development of seventy-five (75) new residential lots on twenty-two (22) acres in two phases (27 in Phase I and 48 in Phase II). A total of fourteen (14) single-family residences exist within the Neighborhood Plan area (3 in Phase I and 11 in Phase II). The City is concurrently processing a Development Code Amendment to update the superseded Residential Rural (RR) zoning consistent with the Single-Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-MD) designation of the 2001 General Plan. The project is located east of the Noguera Court subdivision, north of East Cherry Avenue extension, and is bounded to the north and east by Arroyo Grande Creek. The purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, and open space considerations. Phase I of the Neighborhood Plan is a proposed thirty (30) lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration for nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) acres. Proposed residential lot sizes range from approximately 3,905 to 12,980 square feet. Four (4) lots are also proposed for the purpose of passive open space and a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide agricultural buffer is proposed to separate conflicting land uses. Phase I I of the Neighborhood Plan encompasses the remaining thirteen (13) of the twenty-two (22) acres where no development is proposed at this time. Currently, all of the residential properties are served by individual septic systems and the majority of the lots are accessed by a private fifteen-foot (15') wide dirt road. The project site is located within the Newsom Springs watershed area, which is identified in the City's 1999 approved Drainage Master Plan as having drainage deficiencies and recommends implementation of the "Newsom Springs Drainage ProjecY' as a high priority to mitigate future drainage problems. The regional drainage solution outlined in the Drainage Master Plan and Newsom Springs Drainage Project includes diverting all of the Newsom Springs runoff at the stone culvert under Branch Mill Road directly to Arroyo Grande Creek by means of a 48" drainage pipe along .the agricultural field adjacent to Branch Mill Road and three (3) 72-inch pipes through Phase I of the project. As proposed, the project uses a combination vegetated channel with a box culvert at the outfall instead of the three (3) pipes. This drainage solution also includes eliminating the diversion of runoff through the existing stone culvert that is intended to reduce localized flooding of the residential development of the area. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 2 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S): 007-565-004, 005; 007-522-008; 007-571-001, 006, 011, 012, 013, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019 . _... i �, .... �� y. y c y i� "h^ �'�n�s '�} t� ✓�i `�` � �v .._ ' . i . ' ,.�' iY(f2 � ��X � k�� �yaM� AjS�',�4 tn �..? 1 . J t I' y Yii � �� �{ Y� h 1�M' �!..��'� {4 YA'}� �. - ��t n � ���„ s ti+ n sri++1 t ` , ' „` ' tyr � � �wk } � , " ` �,� �' � +i w�` r _ f �'� + � i , �' x t . ' z '��M m'�" "'�j"t�` . y �} y a � r e�. _. 4 v. �'�` .�z _�+�,�„'F��v'F�'�(C�t4 � L ... '" � _ i�� ��;�q .: � Tf�*{'�� �"M � W � E 'Y� �j 3h' T $� Y� 53`�W�".T'"� i ( q� � �i((� ✓ y 4 '+Y �g �l.x' f�, f�e{� ��NI��Ap�„M� »�w�.t � � � irMwu �' uT {� t� x M � �y ! 3'q ��� p1 t N � . ¢`'t �`/� 1� = �`���� ll . y&.c�s��'�'i�'g'4��.,,�2'a.� .a. � m � t`'�"'r � �`„�� t �gy � '` � , �g ,y R 1 ��t� 66 ��M�,�2]"N'� `d�y°��,4 . i�{ �Y �h�� q Y � � � �,y � T kYA 3 . `�S i14" ..�'� , i����?�� f�.r,�y5 �vH.�y♦ +�'+Ik a::e �, � ; ��x W tN,�r. � �^- � S � �. a. �.., v :'# � '� '� ,�„� #�"" e. ,dy .$,r�� s�`. � .q.. Y � :. � � >r�.c �* 2 ' � i.w � y.� k"� 3y!!�Y d'� � �' 9 � Y'� .3-m � . � y �.� •'�F� Y i 'U�� M f'�j' l� �'4 � 'i � �� Y� ��y�y>4�3i y ,r+. �'� 'v' q.,'� 3 '� � # r hk f '�+s.�y 3' � �,%�n.�w�'�"'°�.F� y„I� r£�,5? � 4 S ]4 .°r"� '�y r�')*��` va '��`�t 'Y f s��. .�.�,�k �. ,,, 4i'�f d � '.� �t 4 , {t n � tF � ik. '. '4.h�' � }�� Sse.� i k �� h !.S �: �.� j . : �'fl �itr 4�t� � ^. z: °k �� b�( . v M1 � F"3 � �' y mk .,"`",#��y � �. ' n ,'� r +S % . J ' ., � : :�- ' ��� �: , : .�a , . ,. °<F:,l. '�;t+.''r ,` .. .'=� ,,�': x� ' �!� a�� � . ; , a s e a , � wN � � ti w q .. .:. ^r' aft � � n, �` t �� .�.�tr, y�� �_ {� e ' � , i� � , k -.. , Y..�.�.. �� : .._.:..�„hvJk '. ... . .... � .:. . � : . «. . � . . _. ..: .._.._. ... ' i \ri�hi�„rh+ o�Pian . � , , � � '; t I.i�. ._ . .._ . .... . .. .... . .. .. . .wF r i n d.-�tb . ..I r . L �,..���:El.{�� {..���� � , .. . . .. , '::..r....«»�.a:� B. EXISTING SETTING LAND USE CATEGORY: Single-Family Residential - Medium Density (SFR-MD)with a Neighborhood Plan overlay. ZONING: Residential Rural (RR) EXISTING USES: Low density residential development (13 homes on 22 acres) TOPOGRAPHY: Nearly level VEGETATION: Residential landscaping; walnut orchard; riparian forest PARCEL SIZE: Phase I: Nine (9) acres (4 existing parcels; 30 proposed parcels) Phase II: Thirteen (13) acres (9 existing parcels; no subdivision , proposed) City of Arroyo Grande,Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 3 SURROUNDING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND USES: � North: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS); East: Agriculture (Ag); undeveloped j undeveloped (Arroyo Grande Creek) � South: Agriculture (Ag); undeveloped West: Single-Family Residential — Medium Density (SFR-MD); single family residences C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS During the Initial Study process, several issues were identified as having potentially significant environmental effects (see following Initial Study). Those potentially significant items associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the mitigation measures listed below. All mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study shall be included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS - Will the p�oject: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Create an aesthetically incompatible � � � � site open to public viewl b) Introduce a use withrn a scenic view � � � � open to public view7 c) Change the visual character of an � � � � � areal d) Create glare or night lighting that ❑ � ❑ ❑ may affect surrounding areasl e) Impact unique geological or � � � � physical features7 � Other � � � � Setting. The project will not be visible from any major public roadway. However, the visual character i of the neighborhood will change from very low density residential to medium density residential, � allowing up to seventy-five new residential units. The increase in night lighting and glare in this area ' could affect surrounding residents. j Impact. Although the Subarea 1 project incorporates landscaping, open space, pedestrian paths and agricultural buffer that will soften the visual impact of residential development, additional mitigation is necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant. Future development of Subarea 2 will also be subject to landscaping, agricultural buffer and lighting req�irements. � Mitigation/Conclusion. There are potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics that can be � mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures listed-below. I City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 4 � MM 1.1: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for development of Subarea 1 verifying that all exterior lighting for the development is directed downward and does not � create spill or glare on to adjacent properties and riparian habitat. Responsible Party: Developer ', Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD; Police Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 1.2: The applicant shall submit final design, exterior colors and materials for the homes in Subarea 1 for ARC review and approval. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 2. AGRICULTURAL Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not RESOURCES !n determining Significant m'�ila ee� Impact Applicable 9 whether impacfs to agricultural resources are significant environmenta!effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment(LESA) Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an - optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland (CEQA Guidelines). - Will the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique � � � � Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use7 b) Involve other changes in the existing � � � � environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural useT c) Conflict with existing zoning or � � � � Williamson Act programl d) Other � � � � Setting. As described in the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, the soil � type of the subject property is identified as Class II "non-irrigated", and the "irrigated" soil class is "not applicable". The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan specifies � City of Arroyo Grande, lnitial Sfudy for"Cherry Creek" Page 5 that all Class I and II soils are considered prime soils, but not necessarily prime "farmland" soils. The adjacent property to the south (the "Dixson Ranch") has been in agricultural production since the early 1900's (row crops) and is in a permanent agricultural preserve. The Dixson Ranch is approximately 37.8 acres in size. ����� � � �����` � , � �. �l�� � I � ��t�5 1l����or� ��� ��t� �f ��:r��� ���r��� � � ,�_� __�� ..�.k.� ..... __� � I w; � ; .. . - � ;� � � �q �,��„„���� r��� {� � 4 � f � ' � a��"�RrLf 4. r i y eay� r 4 ry ���t # +:" �,,, r` �.. �., 'Mk,_ '��'} t ,y�,r s, y�y i : 4 �+2t . p�� �^�' � p .�� mR�� 4 . t"Sf'�`� ��'. f TM+C w " k ,✓#. � � S 'S "_ .. `� a i : R'�' 4 a1 t r' �' . s �R ' ' � � � .�.'� ��'�' � Project Site � � �; r � ,'�°� `�' ' �t ;��+ a�„� � '��+'` - * �wT��GI� 1� I��u' t C55 � L41�N r t � �t J � � �I���S��� dl. r K'���e :. t it�sMdr�J,)b *� $, ilb' +iW�� < '�3��}����[�5t {'h �i'��{v��! ,ti!4 ., � k �..tl�i'�'���q�tk� .�f3?.��Yy,. ��"�'�itM1 �. � 5i Y��A��� �T" �?� 'aa �. S:. , � .. �� x..4t$� t}'',�di �x �f� �". �� ����f��Y 3 � :.,"'".�. w�€ �. ..d�,� { 3(�.�K x ����.d�. �.� a��� ��'��. ,", 1 _. i ._ .._. , r,, .. � . � -x: �C''C,'"t". iit$? �:fi 4'Stl.'YI��E:'(h :?� i1 Li-l:t'4'..ra '�.. ; n� Cilc���, i �rsci !1 t�ais rr,�rift��: 9ts�> ' '���� s , , Ci#y a7E ,�4CrpyCS t�e�€sac�c� ?' ' ,, ,..�i, i � : S ' � � : S : i"e J.�Y 'I {s�':�YY I � r,. ., .. ,ma. .n,.;.s... a� » . . . .,... „� . �...,.m�_.... �.. a _.. � �w.....- . .. _ .....�.,.�.�.__�« . . . ,,.�.,.«..,Ne..«...�..,.b....e�.�.�,..n..s....w.,.�.-�.w . Impact. City Policy Objective Ag1-1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Pian states the following regarding conservation of prime farmland soils: "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." The subject property has been committed to residential uses since the late 1800's and has been consistently zoned residential since the City established zoning. Given that the property has historically been committed to non-Agricultural development and that no impacts to prime soils will occur from the project beyond what was already considered and addressed in the 2001 General Plan EIR, the loss of prime soils is not subject to mitigation under CEQA. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 6 Included as Attachment A is a copy of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA), which is an objective point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features. (This Model is referenced in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). The LESA Model was developed to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the I environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. The Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given projecYs size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a single numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a projecYs potential significance. In applying this Model to the proposed project, the result is an insignificant impact to agricultural resources. The divergent land uses of the project site (residential development) and adjacent Dixson Ranch (agriculture) create conflicting impacts. From the residential perspective, the source of agricultural- related conflict can be from noise, light, dust, pollen, smoke, pesticides, odors, traffic, insects or rodents. From the farmer's perspective, the source of conflict from the adjacent residential use can be theft, vandalism, litter, pest infestation, water drainage, or increased liability. Adequate separation of these land uses is therefore necessary. The project incorporates a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide buffer that complies with City Ordinance No. 550 (creation of Agricultural Preservation Overlay District), and serves as adequate mitigation. The proposed buffer includes a minimum of thirty-foot (30') wide landscape strip, 32-foot wide road, and drainage facilities. The San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture has reviewed and provided comments on the proposed project (see Attachment B for the County's letter dated November 18, 2004). The County has a considerably larger buffer requirement between development and agricultural property than the City (distances of between 200 to 500 feet for row crops, depending on various site-specific factors). In determining an adequate buffer, each jurisdiction must examine its own distinctive set of j circumstances and site conditions. The larger buffer requirement can be more readily obtained in the " County's rural setting where larger parcel sizes prevail than in the more urbanized City. Mitigation/Conclusion. The project adequately provides separation of uses that mitigates potential conflict by means of a 130-foot wide buffer that includes a 30-foot wide vegetative screen, a solid wall on the residential land use area and an exclusionary fence on the agricultural land use area. The City also has adopted a Right-To-Farm Ordinance with provisions for farmland preservation and protection, and serves to notify residents of farmers' rights and clarify agricultural activities. As an added measure, the foliowing mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level: � MM 2.1: All new property owners within the Neighborhood Plan area must sign a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure indicating that they acknowledge and agree to the provisions contained in the City's Right-To-Farm Ordinance. The disclosure shall have a bolded statement cautioning the purchaser that they are living close to farmland. Responsible Party: Developer; Real Estate Agent Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD Timing: Prior to close of escrow MM 2.2: The final landscape plan for the agricultural buffer shall be prepared by a landscape professional having experience with designing agricultural buffers. The plant , selection shall provide effective and appropriate screening with fast growing evergreen trees � City of Arroyo G�ande, lnitial Study Poi"Cherry Creek" Page 7 and shrubs. The vegetative screening shall be installed prior to issuance of building permit to allow time for the plants to become established. The CC&Rs shall also include insurances that the screening is sufficiently maintained. Responsible Party: Developer I Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD, PR&F (Parks, Recreation and Facilities Dept.) Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit. 3. AIR QUALITY- Will fhe project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate any state or federal ambient � � � � air quality standard, or exceed air quality emission thresho/ds as established by County Air Pollution Control District(APCD)T b) Expose any sensitive receptor to � � � � substantial air pollutant concentrations? c) Create or subject individuals to � � � � objectionable odorsl d) Be inconsistent with the District's � � � � Clean Air PIan7 e) Other � � � � � Setting. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed the CEQA Air Qualitv Handbook to evaluate project specific impacts and help determine if air quality mitigation measures are needed, or if potentially significant impacts could result. The City refers to this Handbook for all discretionary projects subject to CEQA. The APCD has reviewed and provided comments on the proposed project (see Attachment C for letter from the APCD dated November 12, 2004). The project incorporates several site design strategies that are effective in mitigating potential air , quality impacts. These include orientating homes toward the street with parking located towards the ! rear of lots; providing pedestrian-friendly streetscape to make walking more comfortable and safe; providing good access for pedestrians and bicyclists with pathways located throughout the � development that ultimately connect to sidewalks leading to the Village area; providing tra�c calming devices, such as a narrow interior street design in a circular pattern and textured concrete at pedestrian crossings. Impact. The project is expected to generate roughly 880 average daily trips (ADT) at buildout (350 ADT for Phase I of the project). Based on Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook ("Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Impacts"), these cumulative trips would produce approximately twenty- five (25) Ibs./day of emissions (emissions are defined as ROG, NOx, PM�o, SO, and CO). Projects having the potential to generate more than ten (10) Ibs./day of emissions may cause significant air , quality impacts and are subject to on-site mitigation. � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page S As proposed, Phase I of the project will result in the disturbance of approximately nine (9) acres (the remaining 13 acres of Phase II will likely be developed randomly over time). This will result in the creation of construction dust, as well as short- and long-term vehicle emissions. In San Luis Obispo County, ozone and PM,o are the pollutants of primary concern, since State health-based standards for these pollutants are exceeded in portions of the County in most years. For this reason, San Luis Obispo County is considered to be in non-attainment of the state standards for both ozone and PM�o. The major sources of PM,o include mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust and vehicle exhaust. Grading and construction of the project would occur over a period of many months. Short-term impacts related to dust generation from site preparation and grading would result in dust generation that could affect adjacent properties. Mitigation measures placed on the project would reduce short- term dust generation during construction of the project to less-than-significant levels. Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans. Mitigation/Conclusion. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. Air pollution impact assessment is divided into the construction and operational phases of the project. Co�struction Phase Emissions The project shall comply with all applicable Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM,o) as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans shall list the following regulations: MM 3.1: All dust control measures listed below (MM 3.2 — 3.6) shall be followed during construction of the project and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone number of such person(s) shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area. MM 3.2: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent airborne 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. MM 3.3: Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. MM 3.4: 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. MM 3.5: Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads on to streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. MM 3.6: , Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried on to adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 9 MM 3.7: To mitigate the diesel PM generated during the construction phase, all construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications. The measures below (MM 3.8 – 3.10) shall be clearly identified in the project bid � specifications so the contractors bidding on the project can include the purchase and installation costs in their bids. MM 3.8: All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with California Air Resources Board (ARB) motor vehicle diesel fuel. MM 3.9: To the maximum extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment shall meet the ARB's 1996 certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. MM 3.10: If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation, or building(s) are removed or renovated, this project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M–asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to: 1) notification requirements to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos ; Inspector, and 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of asbestos containing material. iMM 3.11: Prior to any grading activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxins Control Measure (ATCM) regulated under by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande - Public Works Dept., Building and Fire Department Timing: Prior to Grading Permit and during construction Ooerational Phase Emissions MM 3.12: Provide continuous sidewalks separated from the roadway by landscaping with adequate lighting and crosswalks at intersections. MM 3.13: Provide shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce � summer cooling needs. � MM 3.14: Provide sodium streetlights. MM 3.15: Orient homes to maximize natural heating and cooling. MM 3.16: Provide outdoor electrical outlets on homes to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. i Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD, Public Works Dept., and Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Pertnit � — City of Arroyo Grande, Mitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 10 i 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not Will the �o�eCt: Significant &will be Impact Applicable p 1 mitigated i a) Result in a loss of unique or special � � � � status species or their habitatsl b) Reduce the extent, diversity or � � � � quality of native or other important vegetation7 c) Impact wetland or riparian habitat7 � � � � d) Introduce barriers to movement of � � � � resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or factors that could hinder fhe normal activifies of wildlife? e) Other � � � � Setting. The existing conditions and evaluation of potential project impacts on biological resources is based on a June 3, 2004 Due Diligence Report (Report) prepared by the Morro Group, Inc., for the applicant (contained in the Technical Appendix on file in the Community Development Department), and the review of available background information and field reconnaissance of the project site conducted on April 6 and September 14, 2005 by David Wolff Environmental. The April 6, 2005 field reconnaissance included staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide a jurisdictional determination of the drainage ditch that crosses the westem portion of the site before discharging to Arroyo Grande Creek and to identify the likely limits of Corps jurisdiction along Arroyo Grande Creek (see Attachment D for letter from ACOE dated November 9, 2004). The Phase 1 project area of the Cherry Creek project site is composed of a senescent walnut orchard with a non-native annual grassland understory typical of the region. Since commercial walnut trees were commonly Engiish walnut grafted to the native walnut root stock, lack of orchard maintenance appears to have resulted in some of the trees reverting back to expressing California walnut leaves and nuts. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the site is still considered as an old orchard. The Phase 2 project area is composed of large lot rural residences that are surrounded by non-native landscape vegetation. Orchard trees, annual grassland habitat, and non-native landscape vegetation in rural settings can support common reptile and mammal species as well as providing habitat for resident and migratory bird species. Some bird nesting likely occurs in the walnuts, landscape trees, and riparian vegetation within the project area. The project area is surrounded by rural and medium density residential development, and active agricultural operations producing annual row crops. The � surrounding hillsides support native coast live oak woodland, coastal scrub, and annual grassland habitats. I The Arroyo Grande Creek riparian corridor that borders the northern portion of the entire project is composed of an overstory of willow, cottonwood, and sycamore trees with an understory composed mostiy of a blackberry and poison oak thicket. The banks of Arroyo Grande Creek are steep and almost 30-feet high above the active low flow channel of the creek. During the April 6, 2005 field meeting, the Corps reviewed the limits of their Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction (the Ordinary � High Water Mark; OHWM) in Arroyo Grande Creek. The OHWM is typically equated to the 50 percent frequency storm (the two-year storm event water surface elevation) and in this case is well below the top of the creek bank on a "bench" approximately four vertical feet above the summer low flows in Arroyo Grande Creek. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction under Fish � i City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 17 � 1 and Game Code Section 1600 ef.seq. (Streambed Alteration Agreements) is typically the top of creek banks or the outside limits of riparian vegetation whichever is greater. Riparian vegetation extends beyond the top of bank within the project reach along Arroyo Grande Creek suggesting the limits of CDFG jurisdiction extend beyond top of bank. 1 Localized and some regional drainage from the Newsom Springs watershed to the south are conveyed in a man-made ditch and drainage easement that cross the site. During the April 6, 2005 field review, the Corps reviewed the man-made ditch and determined that it does not represent a waters of the U.S. or wetland as no evidence of an OHWM or wetland plants were observable at the time. The Corps determined their jurisdiction over the Newsom Springs drainage was limited to the realigned drainage ditch through the adjacent agricultural lands and remaining channel behind the existing residential development downstream of the "stone culvert" under Branch Mill Road at the turn in the road approximately YZ mile south of the project site. The Newsom Springs drainage downstream of the stone culvert runs behind the subdivision and through a series of culverts and open ditches through agricultural and developed lands before joining Los Berros Creek near the City limits. Localized runoff gathers in this drainage as it runs its course through the City. The open channel of this drainage is mostly absent any riparian habitat and supports minimal seasonal aquatic resource values. Arroyo Grande Creek has known occurrences of the federally listed threatened steelhead South- Central California Ecologically Significant Unit (steelhead) and California red-legged frog (CRLF). The ' county stream gauge represents a partial barrier to steelhead movement but this fish has been observed upstream of the project site. The CRLF is a highly aquatic frog that would be mostly restricted to the creek and immediately adjacent riparian habitat. The southwestern pond turtle likely occurs within Arroyo Grande Creek. Similar to the CRLF, this is a high aquatic species that would be mostly restricted to the active creek channel and riparian habitat below top of the creek banks. Specific surveys to determine presence or absence of these species within the project area have not been conducted. This analysis assumes these special-status species could be present at some time in Arroyo Grande Creek along the project reach. No other special-status species are expected to occur in the project area. Detailed water quality sampling and analysis studies were conducted for the County of San Luis Obispo Lopez Dam project Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to identify any potential detrimental water quality issues for the CRLF and steelhead that may occur as an existing condition in Arroyo Grande Creek. The following is excerpted from Section 3.4.5 of the February 2004 Final Draft HCP (the Final Draft HCP can be found on the following website: www.slocountywater.org under "Lopez Water System") "A variety of water quality constituents affect habitat conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek. Some of these constituents are associated with naturally occurring mineral deposits, and some are associated with agricultural spraying and fertilization, stormwater runoff from roadways, urbanization, recreational activities, and other land-use practices. To provide reconnaissance- level baseline information on water quality constituents within Arroyo Grande Creek, grab samples were collected for chemical analysis by a certified analytical chemistry laboratory (Chromalab, Inc.). During the first survey on July 29, 1999, water samples were collected from four locations along Arroyo Grande Creek: the concrete raceway immediately downstream of Lopez Dam (AGC-1), Cecchetti Road Bridge (AGC-2), Arroyo Grande (AGC-3), and Arroyo Grande Creek Lagoon (AGC-4; Figure 3-19). The four sampling locations were selected to provide information on changes in water quality constituents within different reaches of Arroyo ; Grande Creek that may be affected by local land-use practices. ; 1 City of Arroyo Grande,Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 12 I l_ Each grab sample was analyzed, following EPA protocols, for specific conductance, pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, mercury, total hardness, total dissolved solids, total phosphorous, total nitrogen, ammonia, screening for pesticides and herbicides, and oil and grease. After the July 1999 survey, the sampling design was modified for subsequent surveys with collections at two locations, Arroyo Grande (AGC-3) and the I Arroyo Grande Creek lagoon (AGC-4), on October 20, 1999, April 29, 2000, and August 9, 2000. Results of water quality surveys are summarized in Appendix A (Tables A-2 through A- ' 5) Water quality analyses indicated most constituents were below analytical detection limits. No consistent pattern was observed in water quality constituents between up- and downstream locations. These reconnaissance-level baseline surveys indicate that water quality conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable habitat for steelhead, red-legged frogs, and other aquatic resources." Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the conversion of approximately nine (9) acres of senescent walnut orchard and annual grassland habitats to residential development including houses, streets and landscaping with non-native landscaping plants. In order to facilitate project and regional stormwater drainage issues, a "bio-swale" detention basin and box culverts would be � instalied through the project site to discharge stormwater to Arroyo Grande Creek (see sectional diagram below of creek outfall). Installation of the stormwater culverts and associated outfall structure would require impacts on the riparian habitat and banks of Arroyo Grande Creek that may encroach on the jurisdiction of the Corps and CDFG. {t�T��i'Cti6GK BIWit ' ?1 SWPB , �(k7?OP G�GRC[K pANK � I .. ___._._ _.. _ .„:.__._,..,_, y..,� +�12i q1LYERT TOF s�118 CULYERT IMIERT f' �12.8 MIGNEBT FECORGED RLOW � 807CCLILVERT. EMD �,' 878TREAMt�l1U08.18� pFOTHCTEO TO ��:....�104s�lNAf�Y M1GH V�ATER PQEVEhiT ENTM!!H� '.... � tUOt BOl"I'01A � 4�T�!Pol�fikP SLOi'E PROtECYi!ON "�'fiON GC City of Arroyo Grande,lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 13 Impacts on riparian habitat would be avoided and minimized by the establishment of a 25-foot non- development setback from top of bank along Arroyo Grande Creek. In addition, disturbance to the � riparian habitat would be limited to that necessary to install the culverts and associated bank protection measures (rip-rap and/or gabions). Impiementation of the approved drainage master plan would divert flows from the Newsom Springs drainage at the stone culvert through the proposed 48-inch culvert along adjacent agricultural field to the "bio swale" and the two box culverts discharging to Arroyo Grande Creek on the project site. Under existing conditions stormwater flows through both the stone culvert and the man-made ditch along Branch Mill Road and the proposed project site. Diversion of flows from the stone culvert through the project site to remedy local flooding issues is not expected to substantially affect the downstream reaches of the Newsom Springs drainage as it will still receive localized runoff from the hillsides and surrounding developed and agricultural lands. Given the low values of the aquatic and riparian habitat resources downstream of the stone culvert would be maintained by localized runoff, this is considered to be a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of orchard/grassland habitat for common wildlife species (raccoons, skunks, opossum, coyote, rodents, reptiles) and nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for resident and migratory bird species. Installation of the box culverts and associated outfall structure in the banks and riparian habitat of Arroyo Grande Creek would result in the loss of riparian habitat that provides habitat and streamside shading for steelhead, CRLF, and the southwestern pond turtle that likely occur along the project reach of the creek during at least some portion of the year. While impacts on an old walnut orchard and grassland habitats are not considered a significant impact, impacts on nesting bird species are considered to be a potentially significant impact. The impact on riparian habitat and potential impacts on associated special-status species from installation of the stormwater culvert and outfall structure is considered to be a potentially significant impact. The results of a regional water quality study of Arroyo Grande Creek determined that under existing conditions there are not any detectable limits of constituents that could adversely affect aquatic resources in Arroyo Grande Creek. As such accommodating existing regional Newsom Springs flood stage storm drainage through the project site would not be considered a significant impact on aquatic resources. Impact Summary: The proposed project could substantially degrade the riparian corridor associated with Arroyo Grande Creek indirectly through introduction of exotic/invasive non-native plant species, introduction of foreign materials (petroleum products, refuse, etc.), erosion, slope slippage, and directly through removal of riparian vegetation and other native trees on the project site. Access to the creek by local residents would likely continue by use of the existing footpath at the stream gauging station. Given the steep topography and thick vegetation along the project area, additional access � points would likely not be established. Therefore, creek access at the existing footpath is not � considered to be an impact on riparian habitat. Mitigation/Conclusion: Potentially significant impacts on biological resources can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.1: The Final Tract Map shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City the creek channel and the twenty-five foot (25') creek setback area measured from top of bank or the outside edge of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, along the Phase I property boundary. An open space easement shall also be recorded stipulating that no , development shall occur within 25' creek setback area. i City of Arroyo Grande, lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 14 � Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to Grading Permit MM 4.2: - A Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Restoration Plan) shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and/or restoration biologist experienced in native habitat restoration for the dedicated open space 25- foot creek setback area measured from top of bank or the outside edge of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The Restoration Plan shall include at a minimum a detailed � planting plan for the 25-foot setback area and for all disturbed areas from culvert/outfall construction. The Restoration Plan shall also include at a minimum the number and location of other native trees impacted and location of replacement plantings, specific plant species palette, a non-native species removal plan, success criteria, a five-year monitoring program, and contingency measures to ensure meeting the success criteria. The Restoration Plan shall also include an erosion control plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all disturbed areas within the 25-foot creek setback and exposed banks. The erosion control seed mix for the riparian setback area shall be composed exclusively of native species. Responsible Party: Developer shall submit the plan to the City Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD and PR&F; CDFG Timeframe: Restoration Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of Grading Permit; duration of monitoring shall be no less than five (5) years. MM 4.3: Landscaping within the bioswale shall be limited to native plant species. The CC&Rs shall include a provision for continued maintenance of the bioswale with regard to vegetation, sedimentation, reseeding and water quality monitoring. Responsible Party: Developer shall submit the landscape plan to the City. The CC&Rs shall include a maintenance provision. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD and PR&F Timeframe: Final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of Grading Permit. CC&Rs shall be submitted prior to issuance of Building Permit. MM 4.4: Any native trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater � than or equal to two (2) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and less than twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Trees removed that are greater than or equal to twelve (12) inches DBH shall be replaced at a 5:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be limited to � in-kind replacement of appropriate native tree species as approved by a qualified landscape architect and/or restoration biologist, and the City Parks, Facilities and Recreation i DepartmenYs arborist. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked on construction plans and marked in the field with flagging or paint. All trees to be retained shall be clearly identified on construction plans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction fencing at a minimum around the drip line. Native riparian trees impacted shall be replaced within the 25-foot riparian setback area. Native trees impacted outside the riparian zone shall be replaced within the riparian setback area or incorporated into the development landscaping plan. � Responsible Party: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, PR&F Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, PR&F Timeframe: During construction � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 15 IImpact: The proposed project may result in direct impacts on the southwestern pond turtle in the riparian corridor including injury or mortality from construction equipment, and from temporary loss of habitat from construction of the stormwater culverts and outfall structure. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact. � Mitigation Potentially significant impacts on the southwestem pond turtle would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.5: A qualified biologist shall perform one pre-construction survey for southwestern pond turtles immediately prior to initiation of site grading and culver/outfall structure construction. If southwestern pond turtles are observed within an area to be disturbed they shall be relocated out of harms way to an appropriate area immediately upstream or downstream of the project I area within Arroyo Grande Creek. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD Timeframe: Prior to and during start of construction. Impact: The proposed project would potentially result in a significant adverse impact on nesting resident and/or migratory birds including raptors as a result of tree removal and ground disturbing activities that may cause loss of nest sites, reduced nest site success, and/or potential nest abandonment. The CDFG Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 prohibit the possession and destruction of birds, nests, and/or their eggs. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation. Potentially significant impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory bird species would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). MM 4.6: All tree removal shall be limited to the time period of September 15' to March 15` which is considered to be outside the typical breeding season for birds. If it is not feasible to avoid the bird-nesting season and trees will be removed between March 15� and September � 15t a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If active birds nests are located during pre-construction surveys within the project area subject to tree removal or ground disturbance, the nest site shall be avoided until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. If determined necessary by a qualified biologist, a non-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around each nest for the duration of the breeding season until such time as the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by the qualified biologist. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: Diversion of stormwater flows from the Newsom Springs drainage stone culvert and construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek within the riparian habitat may result in the fill of waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction of the Corps and/or result in the substantial alteration of the bed, bank or channel of the , creek under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Placement of a diversion structure at the stone culvert and removal of riparian vegetation and work on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek would fall under CDFG i jurisdiction. Final design of the stone culvert diversion structure and Arroyo Grand Creek outfall structure would determine if Corps jurisdiction would be impacted (fill below the OHWM) requiring a i City of Arroyo Grande, lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 16 ! permit or authorization from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This would be considered a potentialiy significant impact. Mitigation: Potentially significant impacts on the Newsom Springs drainage and Arroyo Grande Creek from fill or alteration within Corps and/or CDFG jurisdiction would be mitigated to a less-than- ; significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). In addition, implementation of MM 4.2 requiring a Riparian Habitat Restoration and Native Tree Replacement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for impacts on Arroyo Grande Creek riparian habitat would further reduce this impact below a level of significance. A separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project. MM 4.7: The applicant shall provide proof of Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage at the stone culvert and placement of the culverts and ouffall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. Should a permit be ( required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the � satisfaction of the City and the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to � demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD; Corps Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.8: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with Section 1600 et.seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for diversion of the Newsom Springs drainage at the stone cuivert and placement of the culverts and outfall structure on the bank of Arroyo Grande Creek. Should an agreement be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the City and the CDFG. The CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on riparian habitat and the stream zone. In addition, CDFG requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD; CDFG Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: Construction of the stormwater drainage culverts and outfall structure on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek within the riparian habitat may result in the take of the federally listed threatened CRLF and/or steelhead from direct mortality, harm (habitat modification), or harassment (alteration of beliavior affecting reproduction and survival). Take of a federally listed species would require a permit,or authorization under the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 17 � Mitigation: Potentially significant impacts on CRLF and/or steelhead would be mitigated to a less- � than-significant leyel with implementation of the following mitigation measure(s). i MM 4.9: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the CRLF in the form of a take permiUauthorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project , would not'result in take of the CRLF or would othervvise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permiUauthorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the City and the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer I Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD; USFWS Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit MM 4.10: The applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the federal Endangered � Species Act for potential impacts on the steelhead in the form of a take permiUauthorization or written documentation from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the steelhead or would othenvise not adversely affect the species. Sliould a take permiUauthorization be required, or conditions imposed by NMFS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the NMFS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the � City and NMFS. The NMFS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was , implemented. Additionally, the NMFS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on;the steelhead to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD; NOAA Fisheries Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Potentially Impactcan Insignifica�t Not Will the pl'OJeCt: Significant 8�will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Disturb pre-hisforic resourcesl � � � � b) Disturb historic resources9 � � � � c) Disturb paleontological resources? � � � � � d) Other � Q � � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 18 Setting. The project is located in an area historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash. The Obispeno territory' covered an area from Arroyo Grande Creek to San Simeon along the coast with inland settlements across the Coastal Range and into the Salinas River drainage north of Paso Robles. One (1) historic structure is present on the project site that is proposed to remain and no paleontological resources are known to exist in the area. A Phase I (surface) survey was conducted by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries, Inc. dated May 14, 2004 (on file in the Community Development Department). The survey produced positive results for the presence of a combined historic and prehistoric archaeological site. A prehistoric archaeological site is located on the lots on the terrace above Arroyo Grande Creek, where marine shellfish, mainly Pismo Clams, were found across the area from the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek and extending south to southeast across several lots. A historic home, the Vandeveer House, occurs on the project site, and archaeological materials associated with this structure also exist on several lots. ; , A Phase II (subsurface) study was conducted by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries, Inc. dated September 6, 2004 that produced positive results for the presence of historic era cultural resources. Impact. Based on results of the Phase II survey, monitoring shall be required for this development. Mitigation/Conclusion. Development of the project could have a potentially significant impact to cultural and historic resources that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measure(s) listed below. i MM 5.1: i A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities. The monitor shall work closely with construction crews in close proximity to earth moving equipment in order to investigate and evaluate exposed materials immediately upon exposure and prior to disturbance. A daily log shall be maintained by the monitor to record when and where earth-moving activities take place within the project area, as well as the presence/absence of archaeological materials in the monitored matrix. In the event that prehistoric cultural materials, or historic cultural materials are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the archaeologist shall be allowed to' quickly record, collect, and analyze any significant resources encountered. The client and the City shall be notified should resources meeting CEQA significance standards are discovered. The archaeologist shall work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of construction activities. It is preferred that location data of finds be recorded using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) receiver. - In the event that human remains (burials) are found, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she will contact by telephone within 24 hours the Native American Heritage Commission. Following the field analysis work, the qualified• archaeologist shall prepare final monitoring/mitigation report that includes a description of the methods used, materials recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials. The final archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified archaeologist shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A high-quality, laser or equivalent copy, shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cheny Creek" Page 19 ' Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During grading and construction activities; prior to � issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 5.2: The owner of the property containing the Vandeveer house shall register the residence in the California Register of Historic Places through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Building & Fire Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy MM 5.3: Any alteration to the Vandeveer house shall comply with the Secretary's , Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR part 68). Responsible Party: Developer � Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept. ' Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit for alterations to the residence I ' 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentialiy Impactcan Insignificant Not Will the plOjeCt: Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated , a) Result in exposure to or production � � � � � of unstable earth conditions, such as landslides, earthquakes, ' liquefaction, ground failure, land subsidence or other similar hazards?; b) Be within a CA Dept. of Mines & � � � � Geo/ogy Earthquake Fault ZoneT c) Result in soil erosion, topographic � � � � changes, and/oss of topsoil or � unstable soil conditions from project-related improvements, such as vegetation removal, grading, excavation, or fil1T d) Change rates of soil absorption, or � � � � amount or direction of surface � runoff7 � e) Include structures located on � � � � expansive soi/s? � Change the drainage patterns where � � � � substantial on- or off-site sedimentation/erosion orflooding may occurl � City of Arroyo Grande, Mitial Study for"Cheny Creek" Page 20 i I 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Will the project: Significant mit ga ed Impact Applicable g) Involve activities within the 100-year � � � � flood zone9 h) Be inconsistent with the goals and � � � � policies of the County's Safety Element relating to Geologic and Seismic Hazards? i) Preclude the future extraction of � � � � valuable mineral resourcesl j) Other � � � � Setting. The topography of the project site is nearly level. The property is located approximately 130 feet above sea level, and lies adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek just outside of the 100-year floodplain. The landslide risk potential is considered negligible. The liquefaction potential during a ground- shaking event is.iconsidered low. No active faulting is known to exist on or close to the subject property. The project is not within a known area containing serpentine or ultramafic rock or soils (i.e. low risk for naturally occurring asbestos). Impact. The major source of potential earthquake damage to Arroyo Grande is from activity along the regional San And�eas Fault located less than forty (40) miles east along the eastern border of San Luis Obispo County. The most widespread intensity of ground shaking depends on several factors including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake epicenter, and underlying soil conditions. Other regional faults of significance that could affect the project area in terms of ground shaking are the Rincondada and Nacimiento faults, located approximately twenty-five (25) miles east of the City. These faults are considered `potentially active", and could cause moderate (Magnitude 6.0+) earthquakes in the area. The West Huasna fault is located roughly three (3) miles east ofi the City of Arroyo Grande. The project site would be subject to severe ground shaking in a strong seismic event, which could cause damage to structures and endanger public safety. �, Mitigation/Conclusion. Seismic hazard, soil stability, soil erosion and downstream sedimentation are considered potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below. MM 6.1: A project-specific soils report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical or soils engineer as required by the City's Grading Ordinance, and the recommendations of that report shall be incorporated in the design and construction of the proposed project. Final improvement plans submitted to the City shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from the civil engineer that the plans are in conformance with the soils report, and the certification shall confirm that the plans include the following: . , The project shall be designed to withstand ground shaking associated with a large magnitude earthquake on nearby active faults. • All proposed structures shall be designed to conform to the most recent � Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 4 guidelines. • ' The project shall comply with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. • Site-specific specifications regarding clearing, site grading and preparation, footings, foundations, slabs-on-grade, site drainage, and pavements or turf � block shall be delineated. City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study foi"Cherry Creek" Page 21 I j I , � I I Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit i Impact: The project would potentially result in soil instability impacts (including landslides) that could damage structures and endanger public safety. i MM 6.2: The soils report shall include the following considerations, at a minimum, to ensure that the impacts related to soil instability and landslides are reduced to a less-than-significant level: ; • I Utilities should be designed with as much flexibility as pradical to tolerate ; potential differential movement without becoming disconnected or broken. � • ; Subgrade or base material shall be replaced or covered with suitable base material. • ; Retaining wall design shall be prepared by a qualified structural engineer based � on the recommendations of a qualified civil engineer and shall comply with the I requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact: The project site will be subject to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation during construction and after project completion. Because the project involves more than one acre of disturbance, it will be subject to preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),� which focuses on controlling stormwater runoff. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the local extension that monitors this program. MM 6.3: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a grading and erosion control plan in compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance for review and approval by the Public Works Department, a qualified biologist and hydrogeologist. The plan 'shall be prepared by a civil engineer to address both temporary and long-term sedimentation and erosion impacts. The erosion control plan shall be subject to review, approval and monitoring during construction by an on-site biologist, soils or geotechnical engineer and City staff and shall include the following, at a minimum: . � Install and maintain silt basins and fences or straw bales along drainage paths I during construction to contain on-site soils until bare slopes are vegetated. � Carefully stockpile graded soils away from drainages; . � Restrict grading and earthwork during the rainy season (October 15 through April 15) and stabilize all exposed soils and graded areas prior to onset of the ' rainy season through mulching and reseeding. Permit grading within this period only with installation of adequate sediment and erosion control measures; • � Delineate and describe the practices to retain sediment on the site, including sediment basins and traps, and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep; • Delineate and describe the vegetative practices to be used, including types of seeds and fertilizer and their application rates, the type, location and extent of pre-existing and undisturbed vegetation types, and a schedule for maintenance and upkeep; • �! Comply with all applicable City of Arroyo Grande ordinances including i ' landscaping compatibility for erosion control; i I , � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 22 �I , • � Only clear land that will be actively under construction within 6 to 12 months; • � Stabilize disturbed areas except where active construction is taking place. , i Examples of stabilization techniques include jute netting, hydro-seeding (using native plant composition in consultation with a qualified biologist or re- vegetation specialist), etc. and provide permanent stabilization during finish � grade and landscape the site; . � Dispose of ail construction waste in designated areas, and keep storm water ; from flowing on or off these areas; and . � Place perimeter controls where runoff enters or leaves the site prior to clearing, � grubbing, and rough grading. Perimeter controls may include dikes, swales, � temporary storm drains, sand bags or hay bales. i Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: Ciry of Arroyo Grande — CDD, Public Works Dept.; � ConsuRing biologist and hydrogeologist Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit I MM 6.4: All project stormwater not passed through the bioswale shall be passed through in line storm water filters prior to discharging to the creek. Re'sponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—CDD, Public Works Dept. , Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Impact. Repetitive flooding problems have occurred within the watershed area encompassing the subject property. � Currently, an earth ditch carries runoff parallel to Branch Mill Road on the north side, to an existing 3ft X 5ft culvert, and an earthen drainage channel currently exists along the western edge of�Subarea 1 that drains to Arroyo Grande Creek. To alleviate regional drainage problems, both on- and off-site improvements will be made that benefit the larger Neighborhood Plan area. The project description includes installation of two box culverts at either end of the bioswale that conveys drainage to Arroyo Grande Creek. This drainage solution offers many times the capacity ' of the existing ditch network located on the western edge of Subarea 1. The County Public Works Department will need to review project plans for the outfall structure to determine potentiel impacts to the County's active gauging station operated to monitor stream flows and water quality of Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation/Conclusion. The project helps to solve a regional drainage problem with installation of a vegetated channel, two box culverts and other off-site drainage improvements along Branch Mill Road. The following mitigation measure is necessary to ensure that impacts are not made to the County's gauging�station. MM 6.5: The San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department shall review the project improvement plans to determine potential impacts to the County's gauging station for Arroyo Grande Cre'ek. The project shall comply with all County ordinances and mitigation set forth by ' this agency; Responsible Party: Developer; City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to approval of improvement plans , �� � City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 23 li li � I 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not MATERIALS - Will the ro'ect: Significant &will be Impact Applicable P J mitigated a) Result in aI risk of explosion or � � � � release of hazardous substances (e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation);or exposure of people to hazardous substances? b) Interfere with an emergency ❑ ❑ � ❑ response�or evacuation plan? c) Expose people to safety risk � � � � associated with airport flight pattern9 � d) /ncrease fire hazard risk or expose � � � � people or�sfrucfures to high fire hazard conditionsl e) Create anyi other health hazard or � � � � potential hazardl � Other � � � � � I Setting. The project is not located in an area of known hazardous material contamination. The project is not within a high severity risk area for fire. The project is not within an Airport Review area. I Impact. The project does not propose the use of hazardous materials. The project does not present a significant fire safety risk. The project is not expected to conflict with any regional evacuation plan. Mitigation/Conclusion. No impacts as a result of hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are necessary. � I 8. NOISE - Will the pr'ojeCt: Potentially Impact can Insignificant , Not i Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Expose people to noise levels that � � � � exceed th�e City's Noise Element thresho/ds? b) Generate increases in the ambient � � � � noise levels for adjoining areas? c) Expose people to severe noise or � � � � vibration? d) Other � � � � � Setting. Existing, ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is primarily generated by vehicular traffic and adjacent agricultural operations. I I City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 24 i Impact. The project is expected to generate loud noise during construction that will impact adjacent residences. This�is considered a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less-than- significant level with implementation of the below mitigation measures. Mitigation/Conclusion. The project will generate short-term noise impacts with construction activities. Long-term increases in traffic and other operational noise levels are considered less-than- significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary. I MM 8.1: Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 8:OOAM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. There shall be no construction activities on Saturdays or Sundays. On-site equipmenti maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. MM 8.2: All construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be required to have mufflers that are in good condition. Stationary noise sources shall be located at least 300 feet f�om occupied dwelling units unless noise reducing engine housing enclosures or noise screens are provided by the contractor. � MM 8.3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Rei ponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— CDD, Public Works Dept. Timeframe: During construction � I 9. POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not Will the pioject: Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Induce sub�stantia/growth in an area � � � � either directly or indirectly(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or ex;tension of major infrastructure)7 b) Displace existing housing or people, � � � � requiring construction of replacement housing elsewherel c) Create the need for substantial new � � � � housing in the area? d) Use substantial amount of fuel or � � � � energy? � e) Ofher � � � � � Setting. The project site is bounded by residential development to the east and west, Arroyo Grande Creek to the north, and agricultural land to the south. The subject property has been zoned for residential develo,pment since 1972. The 2001 General Plan and Program EIR adequately addressed the increase in density, and the project is within the allowable density. The City adopted its Housing Element in 2003, which includes goals, policies and implementing programs for the preservation, improvement and development of affordable housing. Per the Housing City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Cieek" Page 25 i � i i i I Element, residential subdivisions and mixed-use projects are required to restrict 10% of the units as affordable to either very low-, low- or moderate-income households. Any fraction of a unit is required to pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee. Phase I of the project will provide 27 additional units, and therefore 2.7 units are subject to the affordable housing provisions of the Housing Element. The Phase I project �includes two (2) deed restricted, affordable housing units. Future proposed subdivisions in Phase II will be subject to the City's affordable housing standards in effect at the time when the tentative map is deemed complete. � Impact. The project will not result in a need for a significant amount of new housing, and will not displace existing jhousing. The project will also induce growth in the Neighborhood Plan area by extending the City,'s sewer and water system. This anticipated growth was previously evaluated in the 2001 General Plan Program EIR and no mitigation measures are necessary. I Mitigation/Conclusion. To mitigate the deficiency of affordable housing in the City, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. MM 9.1: Ten percent (10%) of the new units constructed shall be sold to qualified families earning a �moderate-income (based on the County's Affordable Housing Standards). The developer shall pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee for any fraction of a unit. An affordable housing agreement between the City and developer shall be recorded that stipulates the details of the terms and conditions for producing and selling affordable ownership housing within the; project. Said agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final tract map. i Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — CDD, City Attorney Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map i I 10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Will the project have an effect upon, Significant &will be Impact Applicable or result in the need for new or mitigated altered public services in any of the following ereas: a) Fire protection? � � � � i b) Police protection? � � � � I c) Schoo/sT � � � � � I d) RoadsT ; � � � � e) Solid Wastesl � � � � g) Other i � � � � i i Setting. Development of the site with twenty-seven (27) additional residences would increase demand for fire and police protection services, but not beyond levels anticipated by the 2001 General Plan for City buildout. East Cherry Avenue will be extended the length of the development and constructed per City standards. Solid waste will be collected. . �I City of Arroyo Grende, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 26 � Impact. The project direct and cumulative impacts are within the eneral assum tions of allowed use 9 p for the subject property that was used to estimate the fees in place. The project is expected to add approximately nineteen (19) school-aged children to the Lucia Mar Unified School District based on a student yield factor of 0.7, which will impact the capacity of local schools. As allowed by State Law, the Lucia Mar Unified School District has a development fee established by the school district for new residential and commercial construction to finance any new classrooms. The designated fee is currently$2.24 per square foot for residential development. � I Mitigation/Conclusion. Public facility and school fee programs have been adopted to address the projecYs direct ani cumulative impacts, and will reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. MM 10.1: iThe applicant shall pay the mandated Lucia Mar Unified School District impact fee. � Re'sponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; Lucia Mar j Unified School District Timefreme: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant &will be Impact Applicable 11. RECREATION - Will the project: mitigated a) /ncrease the use or demand for parks � � � � or other recreation opportunitiesl b) Affect the access to trails, parks or � � � � other recreafion opportunities9 c) Other I � � � � i Setting. The project is not proposed in a location that will affect any trail, park or other recreational resource, and provides limited recreational opportunities within the proposed open space parcels. Open space area i will include pedestrian paths and appropriate landscaping. Impact. Although the project includes some recreational features, the added residences would increase demandl for City park and recreation facilities. In this case, the Parks and Recreation Director has indicated that the impact would be mitigated by the City's standard condition requiring payment of the park development (Quimby) and impact fees for the improvement or development of neighborhood or community parks. Mitigation/Conclusion. The City's park development and impact fees will adequately mitigate the projecYs impact on recreational facilities, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. I MM 11.1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact fees. Re'sponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; PR&F Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit I I ' I I i I City ofArroyo Grande,lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 27 � �I I 12. TRANSPORTATION/ Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not Significant 8�will be Impact Applicable CIRCULATION - Will the project: miti9ated a) Increase vehicle trips to local or � � � � areawide circulation system? b) Reduce existing "Levels of Service" ❑ ❑ � ❑ on public roadway(s)1 i c) Create unsafe conditions on public � � � � roadways�(e.g., limited access, design features, sight distance)? d) Provide for adequate emergency � � � � access9 I e) Result in inadequate parking � � �, � capacity?� � Resu/t in inadequate internal traffic � � � � circulationl g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, � � � � or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian access, bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)7 h) Result in a I change in air traffic � � � � patterns that may result in subsfantial safety risksl i) Other � � � � � I Setting. A Traffic Impact Study was conducted by Higgins and Associates, dated July 16, 2004, to study traffic-related impacts resulting from development of Phase I and Phase II (traffic study contained in the Tiechnical Appendix on file in the Community Development Department). The study analyzed traffic conditions (intersections and roadway segments) for the following development scenarios: i • Existing traffic conditions, • Existing plu I Phase I traffic conditions I , • Existing plus Phase I and Phase II (project buildout) traffic conditions • Cumulative conditions without project • Cumulative conditions with project Impact. The trip generation for Subarea 1 is estimated to be 340 new daily trips, of which twenty-six (26) will be generated during the AM peak hour, and thirty-four (34) during the PM peak hour. Conclusions for Subarea 1 state that the project will not significantly impact intersection or road , section traffic operations, and all studied intersections and road sections will operate at a level of service (LOS) "C'I or better under project conditions. In reviewing the revised intersection design for i City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 28 � i � East Cherry Ave) and Branch Mill Road, the tra�c consultant determined that an all-way stop is ' necessary. It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Study was based on a more intensive project than what is currelntly proposed. Mitigation/Conclusion. Although no significant traffic-related concerns were identified in the traffic study, the project traffic would contribute to the cumulative impact on the backbone circulation system. These long-range traffic impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the City's standard condition requiring payment of the City's Traffic Impact and Signalization Fees as adopted by the City Council. MM 12.1: (The developer shall pay the Citys Traffic Signalization and Transportation Facilities Impact fees. Rel ponsible Party: Developer Minitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit i MM 72.2: iThe developer shall design and install a controlled 3-way stop at the intersection of East Cherl Avenue and Branch Mill Road as approved by the Director of Public Works. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map ( I 13. WASTEWATER- Wil/the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not project: I Significant &will be Impact Applicable mitigated a) Violate waste discharge requirements � � � � for wastewater systemsl b) Change the quality of surface or � � � � ground water(e.g., nitrogen-loading, daylighting)T c) Adversely affect community � � � � wastewater service provider9 d) Other � � � � � Setting. Wastewlater disposal for the project area is currently managed by means of on-site septic systems for indiviiival parcels. The project is required to hook up to the City's wastewater collection system. i i Impact: The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) provides wastewater collection and tr,eatment services for the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and the unincorporated community of Oceano, and owns and maintains all of the main sewer trunk lines. The SSLOCSD provided comments on the proposed project, dated October 13, 2004, which is included as Attachment E. � Per the Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (AGWWMP), the additional flows from the project were not accounted for and will add peak flow of approximately 14 gallons per minute (gpm)for Phase I, and 16 gpm fori Phase II. The area of concern is the Fair 0aks Avenue trunk line near Hwy 101, Ciry of Arroyo Gral de, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 29 � which is owned and maintained by the City. This stretch of trunk line is currently at 100% capacity and is slated as a Capital Improvement Project. Once implemented, this reach will have sufficient capacity for all aniicipated buildout flows. Mitigation/Conclusion. Through sewer hookup and SSLOCSD fees, the developer will pay the projecYs proportional share of impact fees to mitigate the additional demand. The mitigation listed below is necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. MM 13.1: �Existing and new residences located in Phase I shall hook up to the City's sanitary sewer system and shall be provided with individual sewer laterals. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—Public Works Dept. Ti i eframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 13.2: iThe developer shall pay the City's sewer hookup and SSLOCSD impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Building & Fire Dept.; Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to issuance of Building Permit � MM 13.3: iThe Final Tract Map shall show private sewer easements in the fire road to benefit the existing residences along Lierly Lane for future sewer connection. Rei ponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arcoyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timeframe: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Tract Map 14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not QUALITY - will the �o�eCt: Significant &w�n be Impact Applicable P 1 mitigated a) Violate an I water quality standardsl � � � � b) Discharge into surface wafers or � � � � otherwise;alter surface water quality (e.g., turbidify, temperature, dissolved;oxygen, etc.)? c) Change the quality of groundwater � � � � (e.g., sa/hvater intrusion, nitrogen- loading, etc.)1 d) Change fhe quantity or movement of � � � � available surface or ground waterl e) Adversely affect water supplyl � � � � � Other � � � � � i I I Ciry of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 30 � Setting. The project site supports a senescent walnut orchard with annual grassland ground cover with a woody tree and shrub riparian fringe along the banks of the adjacent Arroyo Grande Creek corridor. Localized stormwater surface runoff crosses the western edge of the site through a drainage easement along the adjacent residences and through a created ditch on the site. Both of these drainage features carry surface runoff to Arroyo Grande Creek. Regional drainage from three undeveloped watersheds upstream of the site converges at the "stone culverP' under Branch Mill Road approximately '/z mile south of the project site. Excess flows during large storm events that are not diverted through the stone culvert travel in a roadside ditch that runs parallel to Branch Mill Road through an activelagricultural field until it reaches the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. While some large storm event runoff is carried through the site in the above mentioned drainage easement and ditch that run through the site, some storm events have caused flooding problems for residents in the area. The Newsom Sp l ings Detention Basin Feasibility Report, prepared by Wallace Group in July 2005, evaluated the feasibility of attenuating 100-year storm runoff in upstream detention basins to ameliorate the localized flooding problems at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue (see Attachment F). The study essentially concluded that upstream detention basins are not feasible given the availability of land to accommodate the necessary size and depth of detention basins to achieve�a local flood control benefit. The City is currelntly in the process of updating its Storm Water Drainage Master Plan and will be preparing separate preliminary engineering and environmental review on a comprehensive drainage plan for Newsom Springs watershed area that will include, but not be limited to, the proposed drainage solution �proposed by the applicant. Final construction documents for drainage will be based upon the results of the environmental review for the regional drainage project. The City currentl i receives its water supply from both surface and groundwater sources. Ground water extractions are derived from seven (7) wells and two (2) separate basin formulations. Surface water is obtained from the Lopez Reservoir Project, which was constructed in the late 1960's. Reclaimed storm �water collected by the Soto Sports Complex Storm Water Reclamation Project is also used as an ir�igation supply source. The City adopted a Water System Master Plan in 1999, which identified water resources as being a significant issue, and identified methods to increase and diversify water supply to increase long-term reliability of the City's water service to its residents. The report assessed potential methods to address the wateri supply issue and prioritized alternatives. Impact Summary: Construction and grading activities removing existing vegetation and exposing soil to potential erosion could result during project development. Post-construction uses on the project would increase impermeable surfaces and subsequent increase in urban runoff generated from the residential development. As a result of construction and build out of the site, the proposed project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface and ground water bodies, and may contribute to an increase in localized flood hazard during large storm events. As a result of thl Newsom Springs drainage study, the project has been designed to allow the regional large sto�m event drainage to bypass the stone culvert and enter the site through a culvert under a raised East Cherry Avenue that crosses the site initially though a vegetated "bio swale" then discharging to Ar�oyo Grande Creek through a box culvert under the Myrtle Street extension. The project drainage design to handle the existing regional stormwater runoff is intended to eliminate the 100-year storm event localized flood hazard of existing residences. As discussed in the Biological Resources Section 4 above, localized runoff from the hillsides and developed lands wouid continue providing flow to the existing Newsom Springs drainage pattern downstream of the stone culvert. As such, the diversion of flows at the stone culvert through the project site would not result in a City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 31 I i I substantial change in the quantity or movement of available surface water given the low values of the aquatic resources along this lower reach of drainage. The project is designed for stormwater runoff from all but three lots to drain into the bio swale before discharging through the Arroyo Grande Creek ouffall. Runoff from the three lots (21, 22, & 23) would surface sheet flow to the creek through the vegetated 25-foot� setback. As discussed in the Biology Section 4.0, under existing conditions there does not appear to be an existing water quality problem in Arroyo Grande Creek as no consistent pattern was observed in water quality constituents detrimental to aquatic life at the sample locations. The reconnaissance-level baseline water quality surveys conducted for the Lopez Dam Habitat Conservation Plan indicated that water quality conditions within Arroyo Grande Creek provide suitable habitat for steelhead, red-legged frogs, and other aquatic resources. Given that the project is designed to resolve localized flood hazard from project and regional drainage, use a tiio swale approach which is a widely accepted measure for water quality benefits, and that the project would not contribute substantially to the existing conditions where there is not an identified water quality problem for aquatic resources in Arroyo Grande Creek, water quality impacts from proposed project build out would be considered a less-than-significant impact. (See also MM 6.4, which requires all project stormwater not passed through the bioswales to pass through an in line storm water system prior to discharging into the creek). Mitigation/Concll sion. Potentially significant impacts from soil erosion and an increase in sediment and turbidity to Arroyo Grande Creek could result from project grading and construction. Potentially significant impacts on hydrology and water quality from construction related activities can be reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measures: II MM 14.1: The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit. This shall include preparation and submittal to the RWQCB of a City- approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan that specifies the implementation of Best Management Practices to avoid and minimize water quality impacts as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At a minimum, the SWPP and Erosion Control Plan shall include: • Designation of equipment and supply staging and storage areas at least 200 feet from the outside edge of the Arroyo Grande Creek 25-foot setback area. All vehicle parking, routine equipment maintenance, fueling, minor repair, etc., and soil and material stockpile, shall be done only in the designated staging area. • Major vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and equipment washing shall be perFormed off site. • I A wet and dry spill clean up plan that specifies reporting requirements and � immediate clean up to ensure no residual soil, surface water or groundwater � contamination would remain after clean up. ; • � Erosion control and bank stabilization measures for installation of the t � stormwater outFall culverts on the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek. I • , Designating concrete mixer washout areas at least 200 feet from outside edge I of Arroyo Grande Creek 25-foot setback with the use of appropriate containment or reuse practices. • A temporary and excess fill stockpile and disposal plan that ensures that no � detrimental affects to receiving waters would result. • Requiring ail grading and application of concrete, asphalt, etc. to occur during the dry season from April 15 to October 15. � i i � � I I City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 32 � i i � • ( Required site preparation and erosion control BMPs for any work that may need to be completed after October 15. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande — Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Impact. The City�used approximately 94% of its available/allocated water supply between December 2004 and November 2005. Per Chapter 13.05.010 of the City's Municipal Code (Water Supply Conditions), this level of water use is considered a "severely restricted" water supply condition that has not yet reached a "critical" level. To manage its water supply deficiency, the City adopted a two- phased strategy in November 2004 that included alternatives to be pursued to meet the City's water demand over the next 10- year period (phase 1), and identified alternatives that will provide permanent water�supply increases to meet the long-term demand that are most desirable, feasible I and cost effective�(phase 2). As part of phase 1, the City adopted a Water Conservation Program in May 2003 that included: • Plumbiing Retrofit Program; • Water Shortage Contingency Analysis; I • Public Information and Education; • Information System Assessment for Top Water Users; • Enforcl ment of Citys Water Conservation Codes; and . Optionl I components, including washing machine rebates, irrigation system or landscaping rebates, and retrofit of cemetery with non-potable water. I Other components of phase 1 include construction of Well No. 10 (located on Deer Trail Circle), � pursuing oil field �water on Price Canyon, implementing a tiered water and sewer rate structure as financial incentives for water conservation, and a utility retrofit upon-sale program. Phase 2 provideslvarious permanent water supply options that include: • Conducting a groundwater study (in process); • Pursuing w Iter from the Nacimiento Project; I • Implementing a reclaimed water system; I ' • Pursuing feasibility of a desalination plant; and I I • Pursuing witer from the State Water Project. Mitigation/Concli sion. The City is currently in a moderately restricted water supply condition (as defined in Municipal Code Section 13.05.010). The projecYs contribution, however, is considered di minimis, meaningjthat the environmental conditions would be the same whether or not the project is implemented. The City adopted overriding considerations for cumulative water supply impacts ; identified in the Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update. The Neighborhood Plan area was k included in the Update for the increase in density and therefore cumulative water supply impacts were City of Arroyo Gral de, Initial Study foi"Cherry Creek" Page 33 ' I � addressed at that time. However, the project shall implement the following restrictions and measures to reduce water supply impacts to a less-than-significant level. I MM 14.72: The project shall comply with the City's required water conservation measures including any applicable measures identified in any applicable City Water Conservation Plans. � Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit � MM 14.13I The project shall install best available technology for low-flow toilets, � showerheads and hot water recirculation systems. i Re'sponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—Building Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Certi�cate of Occupancy MM 14.14I The final landscape plan shall show low-water use/drought resistant species and drip ir�igation systems rather than spray irrigation systems. Rel ponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande— Parks, Recreation and Facilities � Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.15I The project plans shall include methods for collecting surface run-off from the site for use on landscaped areas to reduce water use and minimize run-off to the extent feasible. � Rel ponsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande —Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM 14.16: The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demi nd created by the project by either. • Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing off-site 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, • The applicant may pay an in lieu fee of$2,200 for each new residential unit. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande—Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit � I � City of Anoyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 34 ; I 15. LAND USE - Will the pioject: �nconsistent Potentially Consistent Not Inconsistent Applicable a) Be potenti I lly inconsistent with land � � � � use, policy/regulation (e.g., General Plan, Development Code), adopted to avoid or mitigate for environmenta!effects? b) Be potentielly inconsistent with any � � � � habitat or community conservation planl c) Be potentially inconsistent with � � � � adopted egency environmental plans or policies with jurisdiction over the projectT d) Be potentially incompatible with � � � � surrounding land uses? e) Other I � � � � Setting/Impact. Surrounding uses are identified on Page 3 of the Initial Study. The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with policy and/or regulatory documents relating to the environment and appropriate land � use (e.g., City's Land Use Element, Development Code, Zoning Map, etc.): Referrals were sent to outside agencies to review for policy consistencies and code compliance (e.g. APCD for Clean �,4ir Plan, City Fire Dept. for emergency response, CDFG and RWQCB for water quality, USFWS for Endangered Species Act, etc.). The project was found to be consistent with these documents and codes with implementation of the above mitigation measures. � The project is not within or adjacent to a conservation plan area, although is subject to the City's requirement of a 25-foot creek setback (see MM 4.1). The project is compatible with surrounding land uses subject to implementation of the agricultural buffer, included in the project description, and MM 2.1, which requires adherence to the provisions contained in the City's Right-To-Farm Ordinance. Mitigation/concl I sion. No inconsistencies were identified and therefore no additional measures above what will al'ready be required was determined necessary. I I I ' . . . � C�ty of Arroyo Gralnde,lnihal Sfudy for"Cherry Creek" Page 35 I � I 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Impactcan Insignificant Not SIGNIFICANCE - Will the Significant &will be Impact Applicable � mitigated � project: � a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substanfially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populafion to drop be/ow self- sustainingllevels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered p/ant or animal or eliminate imporfant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory9 ❑ � ❑ ❑ b) Have impa I ts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerab/e"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in ' connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of ofher current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ❑ � ❑ ❑ c) Have envir i nmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human 6eings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ � ❑ � I � � ' I � � City of Anoyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 36 ( --- - - � i Exhibit A- InitialiStudv References and Aqencv Contacts The City of Arroyo Grande has contacted various agencies for their comments on the proposed project. With respect to the subject application, the following have been contacted (marked with an , �) and when a response was made, it is either attached or in the application file: Contacted Auencv Response � County Public Works Department Verbal Response ❑ County Environmental Health Division � � County Planning & Building & Fire Dept. '* � County Agricultural Commissioner's Office See Attachment B � Air Pollution Control District See Attachment C � Regional Water Quality Control Board No Response � CA Department of Fish and Game No Response ❑ CA Department of Forestry ❑ CA Department of Transportation � US Army Corps of Engineers See Attachment D � So. County Sanitation District See Attachment E ** `No comment"or"No concerns"type responses are usually not attached The following reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is available at the City Community Development Department. I I I City of Anoyo Grande, lnitial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 37 ------ � SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (October 2001) 2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map (October 2001) 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 Program EIR (October 2001) 7. Air Pollutio�n Control District Clean Air Plan 8. FEMA- Flood Insurance Rate Map 9. Ordinancel No. 521 (Amending Title 10, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code regarding the Community Tree Program) 10. Ordinance�No. 550 (Amending Title 16 of the Municipal Code to incorporate regulations and amending the Zoning Map to create an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District) 11. San Diego Council of Governments—Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates In addition, the following project specific information and/or reference materials have been considered as a part of the Initial Study: , 1. East Village Neighborhood Plari, dated August 31, 2006 2. East Village Neighborhood Plan Technical Appendix, dated August 30, 2006 3. City of Arroyo Grande Drainage Master Plan, November 9, 1999 (Draft Update -August 2006) Attachments: A: California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model developed by the California Resources Agency in 1997 B: Response�from the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office C: Response�from the Air Pollution Control District D: Response�from the US Army Corps of Engineers E: Response�from the So. County Sanitation District F: Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, prepared by the Wallace Group, dated July 2005 � � � City ofArroyo Grande, Initial Study for"Cherry Creek" Page 38 i ATTACHMENT A CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL . LAND EVALUATION AMD SITE ASSESSMEIVT MODEL Instruction Manual f�- �l •� _ ' ` �p f'� .��r'""����_ � ' . .. � •�� �` r f - .r . i � i,• x � r� ' �' . •- '� � + � J � � _ � ` ��+�j! +ril� t � �� _ • � . s��.- ` � � ` • ,;i I� t f� . - � . -� < 1 t , t _ , i f - i For further informatioa, please contact: California Department of Conaervation Office of Land Conaervation 80I K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 (916) 324-0850 FAX (916) 327-3430 m Caltfornia Departmeat of Coaservation, 1997 � The Department of Coneervation makea no warrantiea as to tke auitability of thia product for any particvlar purpose. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ------------------------------------------------- ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 Defining the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System........................... 2 Background on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Nationwide.................................................................................... 2 Development of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model............................................................................. 3 The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model....................................................................................... 6 Section I. Required Resources and Information................................................. 6 Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors................................. 7 A. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors....................................... 7 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating....................... 10 2. The Storie Index Rating ...................................................... 12 B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors..................................... 13 1. The Project Size Rating...................................................... 13 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating......................... 16 . 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating........................ 23 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource LandRating......................................................................... 28 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring........................................... 29 Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of Significance under CEQA................................................................... 31 Bibliography.......................:................................................................................... 32 Appendix A. Abridged set of California LESA step-by-step scoring instructions .............................................................:.............A-1 Appendix B. Application of the California LESA Model to a hypothetical proposed project...................................................... B-1 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agric�ltural lands. Such an amendment is intended "to proVide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given projecYs size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. it is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a projecYs potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects. INTRODUCTION Defining the LESA System The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system is a point-based approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets � of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soi� based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this � dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and I can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself weil to adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additionai information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA-the Evolution of Land Eva/uation and Site Assessment(8). Background on LESA Nationwide In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designed to provide objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site i Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of federal programs (e.g., funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The _ Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis. Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual projects that involve other agencies of the federal government. Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over finro hundred jurisdictions have developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions. Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. LESA is 2 also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification of priorify areas to concentrate conservation easement acquisition efforts. Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability associated with the determination of the relative value of.agricultural lands. In fact, LESA models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach is provided in, A Decade with LESA-The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment(8). Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study, conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to concerns about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan(1) (developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) was not fully known. The findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California (2). � Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts of projects. The only specific mention ofagricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "convert prime agricultural land to norragricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land". Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farm/and Conversion in California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact analysis at ali. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Govemor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey 3 showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project itself. The focus on ptime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Govemor's Offce of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA Model, which can in turn be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Present�tion of the California LESA Model The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections: Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to develop LESA scores for individual projects. Section II. provides step-by-step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an expianation of the rationale for the use of each factor. Section Iil. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another, and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project. Section IV.assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the ptirpose of determining the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands is a project issue. 4 Additionallv: Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step-by-step LESA scoring instructions that can be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects. Appendix B.demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a hypothetical project. 5 The California Agricultural LESA Model Section i. Reauired Resources and Information The California Land Eyaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of measurements and calculations is also necessary to obtain a LESA score. Listed below are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will require: 1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers 2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map 3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options include, from least to most technical: . A transparent grid-square or dot planimeter method of aerial measurement • A hand operated electronic planimeter • The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS) 4. A modern soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which delineates the soil-mapping units for a given project. [Note: If modern soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may be necessa to draw u on the services of a rofessional soil scientist to erform a rY P P P specific project survey]. 5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such as the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map series,.the Department of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information. 6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surcounding the project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site. 6 Section II. Defininq and Scorina the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Factors This section provides detailed step-by-step instructions for the measurement and scoring of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B. Scorinq of Land Evaluation Factors The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated: 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 2. The Storie Index Rating The information needed to make these ratings is rypically available from soil surveys that have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Gonservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff (field offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local field offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate I soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil consultants is availabie through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California, P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992-3213; phone: (916) 671-4276. 1) The USDA Land Capabilitv Classification (LCC)-The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils.. An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys. 2) The Storie Index-The Storie index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are � considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, saliniry). In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists. Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating. Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor weighting. Identifvinq a ProiecYs Soils In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these figures, based upon the following: Step 1. Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey. Step 2. Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate the project boundaries on the map, paying close attention to the map scale. Step 3. Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A). Step 4. Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using any of the means identified in Section 1 , Required Resources and Information, and enter this information in Column B. Step 5. s Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in Column C. 9 1. Land Evaluation-The Land Capability Classification Rating Step 7. In the Guide to Mapping Units typically found within soil surveys, identify the Land Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV-e) for each mapping unit that has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in Column E. � Step 3. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit(Column C) by the LCC points for each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. Step 4. Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project. Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land Capabilit Classification Units Land LCC Capability Point Classification Ratina I 100 � Ile 90 Ils,w 80 Ille 70 Ills,w 60 IVe 50 IVs,w 40 V 30 VI 20 � VII 10 VIII 0 io Table 1A. Table 16. Land Evaluation Worksheet Site Assessment Worksheet 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Project Size Score and Storie Index Scores A B C D E F G H I J K Soil Map Project Proportion o LCC LCC LCC Storie Storie Index LCCCIass LCCCIass �ccc�� Unit Acres Pro'ect Area Ratin Score Index Score I- II III IV-VIII %.95,5� D,D V I 1 l � j 0, YS�s �Y bby 1. 9S5 ts', G6`l p , � o fls B'D 69.b g �p, y� o g3 0.83� o, v39 1 !ad 3. 9 /oU 3. y (Must Sum LCC Storie Inde Total Acres Tota/s°��' ��O to 1.0 Tota Tota /Y,So l•9,�5 Project Size „�( Scores �� f� Highest Pro%ec �O Size Scor 11 2. Land Evaluation-The Storie Index Rating Score Step 1. i From the appropriate soil survey or other sources of information identified in Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in Column G of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project(Column C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H. , Step 3. Sum the Storie Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) iz Scoring of Site Assessment Factors , The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated: 1. The Project Size Rating 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating 1. Site Assessment-The Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1A. The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score. Step 1. Using information tabulated in Columns B and D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size(Table 1 B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping units in a given project. Step 2. , Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class III soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower rated soils on the project site. Step 3. For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table 3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B). Determine which column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). 13 Table 3. Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class Iil soils LCC Class N or lower Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 fewer than 40 0 � 10-19 10 fewerthan 10 0 Explanation of the Project Size Factor The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nicholg-Berman, a consuiting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of tliis rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report-Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). The inclusion of the measure of a projecYs size in the California Agricultural LESA Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment, and shipping) and food processing industries. While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rafes being paid by an individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA model. 14 In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different qualiry lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcei to be considered attractive for them to farm. The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of information on land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation component of the methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination, which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given qualities within a project. This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be considered significant agriculturai resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as "prime") is necessary. 15 2. Site Assessment-The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then deterrnining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and norrdrought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score. Step 1. Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4. Step 2. Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site. A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged together to serve a crop's needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). If the project site includes land that has no irrigation suppiy, consider this acreage as a separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability. [As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate water supply portions: � Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only; Portion 2 is served by ground water only; Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water; Portion 4 is not irrigated at all.] Step 3. Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site"Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the proportions equals 1.0. 16 Table 4. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability A B C D E Water Weighted Project Water Proportion of Availability Availability Portion Source Project Area Score Score CxD 1 i�t/�llS l,U �'o S-� 2 3 4 5 6 (Must Sum Total Wate �� to 1.0) Resource Scor - 17 Step 4. � For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic restrictions exist, during both drought and non-droughtyears. These italicized terms are defined below: . A physical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices -- such as planting a crop that uses Iess water, or leaving land fallow. (This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result in a physical restriction --for example by requiring the planting of salt-tolerant plants, or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.) . • An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water, suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within an aquifer.) . Irrigated agricultural production is feasib/e when: 1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project identified in Step 2; 2) Physical and/or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and 3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic retum on crops though irrigated production. (A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the jurisdiction, some typicai crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to � grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissione�s, the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) • • Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically viable return on a nonirrigated crop. • Adrought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the Department of Water Resources or by a locai water agency. Many regions of the state are by their arid nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be providing water exports. 18 Step 5. Each of the projecYs water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified in Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into Column D of Table 4. Step 6. For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area (Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet (Table 8). 19 Table 5. Water Resource Availability Scoring NorrDrought Years Drought Years WATER RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS Option RESOIiRCE - Irrigated Physical Economic Irrigated Physical Economic Production Restrictions Restrictions Production Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Feasible? ? ? Feasible? ? ? 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO - - - - 50 9 YES NO YES NO - - - - 45 10 YES YES NO NO - - - - 35 11 YES YES YES NO - - - - 30 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 25 production in both drought and norrdrought years 13 irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 20 production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0 20 Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report-Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system. First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural production (such as being forced to change to lower-value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions. Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliabiliry of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost-- a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories —physica/and economic. These are separated because, generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system. Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to avoid the worst'effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions iiuring a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not. The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? 21 i if the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries. The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past— it should be a prediction of how the water system will perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmenta� reasons, which will decrease the future available surFace water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance. 22 3. Site Assessment-The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a projecYs"Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below, and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1. Defining a ProjecYs "Zone of Inffuence" Step 1. ; Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions of the proposed project site. Step 2. , Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site (Rectangie A). Step 3. Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) beyond Rectangle A on all sides. Step 4. Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B. Step 5. ' Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. [In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone of Influence.] I, 23 Figure I: Defining a ProjecYs Zone of Influence � iRcctaogle A � I � " Re[haRle 8 I , ii 111� - 111�. I i I �f S�eD2. Derermine�the 5iep i. CN��emtine the sntitllest sectrn,��ic�lurt K7D aica:uui cltmeasior.e cnmpletety cvniain the�rojee� ot�6e pmject site�tu<1lratcd as ftectangle�1. i I �__ � -"Pccid X�-. '�`�• �111 f-G'y$�r }4 � M �r �, '`` s;. Step 3. CreaCC a za•ond recWx�',fe ' �`'.;. R ' (RlCkdlly'�C 8)1�1r7t CCtcTIdS Q.25 tIIlle ti320 Ctet}ticynctti RtYtangle A on all stctes. ;:'y� � 'i'; > �: iPj, � t� �'arc �t5 t �E.„�"f`` k � k �� �s�y: ^�e����4 .t*..��,��.t-� ,�.y�'� �{s, � ,. . �w x.r:.lq� 3 ,}., y� "e�tik��x` i'k � �' ,� ���,,: � . ? �k,� Siep a. Sdm�lfy alt parceJs char are uichia or ue Wters�.Kted by Receanglc& �� f . Step 5. Bcfine the propv:t's'zone ot�nl7uvncr on the cntire area ol a21 Parcrls iden�itf��1 tn Step 3. _ tess thC area of Hta propoxd project trom Step t. In[hts e�aa+pte.parzcls w X.and Y e�ct r_d bcyaM �Rettaz�Afa B and are theselure include[t tn thc thcir �tVety m i3etiaing iite prvjecYs zone of fnfluence. I j Measuring Surrounding Agricultural Land Step 1. ; Calculate the percentage of the projecYs Zone of Influence that is currently producing agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources' Land Use� Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has been fallowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or because the land has become formally"committed"to a nonagricultural use. Land that has become formally committed, whether fallow or not, should not generally be included in determining the proportion of the Zone of influence that is agricultural land. For further information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultt�ral Land Rating.] Step 2. ,' Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this score in Line 5 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8) . Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating ` Rercent of ProjecYs SuROUnding �Zone of Influence Agricultural Land in A ricultural Use Score 90 - 100% 100 Points , 80 -89 90 �,III / 3�1 � : 3Z �� 75 - 79 80 ' 70 -74 70 65 -69 60 60 -64 50 55 - 59 40 � 50 -54 30 45 -49 20 , 40 -_ 1 ! 40 < 0 25 Expianation of�lthe Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LES;4 Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a "Zone of Influence"that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. In a simple example, a single one quarter mile square project(160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a minimum of eight times greater(1280 acres) that the parcel itself. i Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case determination of whether this land should be considered agriculturai land. The Department of Conservation's Important Farmiand Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed"to future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is defined as "land, that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either(a) or(b) below: (a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals: 1. Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 2; Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 3: Recorded development agreement (per Government Code §65864); 4: Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items#1-3 above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does ' not qualify as a permanent commitment. � Or , 26 , I (b) It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as shown below: 1. ;Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment; 2. 'Payment of assessment; 3. ;Sale of bonds; 4. ' Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of infrastructure; 5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items#1-4 above and exhibit an element of permanence." Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a projecYs ZOI and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation perFormed here. � I I i I i 27 I I , 4. Site Assessment-The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding' Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: • Williamson Act contracted lands • Publicly ownecJ lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. Instructions fo�the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Step 1. i Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected Resource Land, as defined above. Step 2. Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). Table 7.;Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Percent of ProjecYs Surrounding Zone of Influence Protected Resource Defined as Protected Land Score 90 - 100% 100 Points 80 -89 90 75 -79 80 70 - 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 -49 20 40 -44 10 40 < 0 , 28 i I Section III. jWeighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring ' rni LESA Model is wei hted so that 50 ercent of the total LESA score of a iven The Cahfo a g p g project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent. Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 25% Storie Index Rating 25% i Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Site Assessment Factors Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% Each factor is measured separately(each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line in Column B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied by its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum )for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D. i 29 Table 8. Final LESA Scoresheet ' — --- — A --- -- - - - -- -- – g- --- -- -- - - C-- -- — — - D-- -- -- -- -- - Factor Factor Weighted Factor Name Rating X Weighting = Factor 0-100 oints otal = 1.00 Rating Land Evaluation 1. Land Capability Classification <Line 1> ��3.`� X 0.25 = �g� 3�� l g�,� 2. Storie Index Rating <Line 2> �N, 5�Z5 X 0.25 = /�• ��� � Site Assessment 1. Project Size <Line 3>�_ X 0.15 = �6 __ 1 �� 2. Water Resource Availability <Line 4> � X 0.15 = �_ � 3. Surrounding Agricultural Lands <Line 5>_� X 0.15 = 4. Protected Resource Lands <Line 6> v X 0.05 = Total LESA Score <Line 7> 55 (sum of weighted factor ratings) 30 i � � Section IV: California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA i � A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. The.California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a projecYs conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds. I Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision i i 0 to 39 Points � Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Pointsi Considered Significant on if LE and SA ' subscores are each rq eater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA ' subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Points Considered Significant 31 i Bibliography � 1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land-A P/an for Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation. 1987. 2. The Impacts of Farm/and Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991. i 3. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report-Project Size and Water Resource Availability Facfors. Prepared by Nichols- Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. I 4. LESA Guidelines for Loca/Jurisdictions -Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols- Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 5. Office of the iFederal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations-Agriculture, Parts 400 to 699. 1990. i I 6. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricu/tural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996. 7. Pease, J., et al. Stafe and Local CESA Sysfems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J. Pease, and'R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade wifh LESA: The Evolufion of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. i i i � 32 Appendix A. California Agricultural LESA Worksheets Calculation ofthe Land Evaluation (LE) Score NOTES Part 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Score: (1) Detertnine the total acreage of the project. - ----- — - - --- - ---(2) Determine the soil types within the project-area and enter-them-in-Column-A of-the Land_Evaluation ____ Worksheet provided on page 2 A. (3) Calculate the total acres of each soil type and enter the amounts in Column B. (4) Divide the acres of each soil type (Column B) by the total acreage to determine the proportion of each" soil type present. Enter the proportion of each soil rype in Column C. (5) Determine the LCC for each soil type from the applicable Soil Survey and enter it in Column D. (6) From the LCC Scorina Table below, detertnine the point rating corresponding to the LCC for each soil type and enter it in Column E. � LCC Scorin Table LCC I Ile Ils,w Iile Ills,w IVe IVs,w V Vle,s,w Vlle,s,w VIII Class Points 100 90 SO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 (7) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the point score (Column �and enter the resulting scores in Column F. (8)Sum the LCC scores in Column F. (9) Enter the LCC score in box<1>of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. Part 2. Storie Index Score: (1) Detertnine the Storie Index rating for each soil type and enter it in Column G. (2) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the Storie Index rating (Column G)and enter the scores in Column H. (3) Sum the Storie Index scores in Column H to gain the Storie Index Score. (4) Enter the Storie Index Score in box<2> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. A- 1 Land Evaluation Worksheet Site Assessment Worksheet 1. Land Capability Classification Project Size Score (LCC) and Storie Index Scores - A B C D E F G H I J K - - --- --- Soil Map Project Proportion o LCC LCC LCC Storie Storie LCC Class LCC— TCC —` Index Class Class Unit Acres Pro'ect Area Ratin Score Index Score I- II III N-VIII (Must Sum LCC Storie Inde Tota/s to 1.0) Tota Tofal Scor Tota/Acres Score Project Size Scores Highest Project � Size Score A- 2 LESA Worksheet (cont.) Calculation of the Site Assessment (SA) Score . Part 1. Project Size Score:. � NOTES (1) Using Site Assessment Worksheet 1 provided on page 2-A, enter the acreage of each soil type from Column B in the Column -1, J or K-that corcesponds to the LCC for that soil. (Note: While the Project Size Score is a component of the Site Assessment calculations, the score sheet is an extension of data --- - - ----- ----- -- --- - - -- ---- collected in the Land Evaluation Worksheet, and is therefore displayed beside it)_ _ -- -- --- -- (2) Sum Column I to determine the total amount of class I and II soils on the project site. (3) Sum Column J to determine the total amount of class III soils on the project site. (4) Sum Column K to determine the total amount of class IV and lower soils on the project site. (5) Compare the total score for each LCC group in the Project Size Scorina Table betow and detertnine � which group receives the highest score. Pro'ect Size Scorin Table Class I or II Class III Class IV or Lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points >80 100 >160 100 >320 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 2039 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 . 40-99 20 10< 0 20-39 30 40< 0 10-19 10 10< 0 I (6) Enter the Project Size Score (the highest score from the three LCC categories) in box<3> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. A- 3 �esa worksheet �conr.) Part 2. Water Resource Availability Score: (1) Detertnine the type(s) of irrigation present on the project site, including a determination of whether there is dryland agricultural activity as well. NOTES (2) Divide the site into portions according to the type or types of irrigation or dryland cropping that is ' available in each portion. Enter this information in Column B of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. •Water Resources Availability. (3) Determine the proportion of the total site represented for each portion identified, and enter this information in Column C. (4) Using the Water Resources Availabilitv Scoring Table, identify the option that is most applicable for each portion, based upon the feasibility of irrigation in drought and non-drought years, and whether physical or economic restrictions are likely to exist. Enter the applicable Water Resource Availability Score into Column D. (5) Multiply the Water Resource Availability Score for each portion by the proportion of the project area it represents to determine the weighted score for each portion in Column E. (6) Sum the scores for all portions to detertnine the projecYs total Water Resources Availability Score (7) Enter the Water Resource Availability Score in box<4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. A- 4 , Site Assessment Worksheet 2.-Water Resources Availability A B C D E Water Weighted Project Water Proportion of Availability Availabil'ity Portion Source Project Area Score Score -' --- --- - -- ---- - --- - -- --- - — �� X p�--- --- ----- --- -- ---- ---- -- � 2 3 4 5 6 � (Must Sum Tota/Wate to 1.0) Resource Score A- 5 � , Water Resource Availability Scoring Table I !, Non-Drought Years Drought Years WATER � RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS - -Option-- - --------- — — Irrigated Physical Economic Irrigated Physical Economic Production Restrictions Restrictions Production Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Feasible? ? ? Feasible? ? ? 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO - - - - 50 9 YES NO YES NO - - - - 45 10 YES YES NO NO - - - - 35 11 YES YES YES NO - - - - 30 12 Irrigated productiori not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 25 production in both drought and non[irought years 13 Imgated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 20 production in non-drqught years (but not in drought years) 14 Neither ircigated nor dryland production feasible 0 A- 6 LESA Worksheet (cont.J Part 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score: (1) Calculate the projecPs 2one of Influence (ZOI) as follows: (a) a rectangle is drawn around the project such that the rectangle is the smallest that can completely NOTES encompass the project area. (b) a second rectangle is then drawn which extends one auarter mile on all sides beyond the first rectangle. (c) The ZOI includes all parcels that are contained within or are intersected by the second rectangle, less the area of the project itself. - (2) Sum the area of all parcels to determine the total acreage of the ZOI. — - — ---- - --- -- --- (3) Determine wliicfi parcels are in agriculturafuse and sum the areas of these-parcels — - - (4) Divide the area in agriculture found in step (3) by the total area of the ZOI found in step (2)to detertnine the percent of the ZOI that is in agricultural use. (5) Determine the Sunounding Agricultural Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Aariculturel Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI Surrounding in Agricultural Agriculture Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 sasa so 55-59 70 sasa so 45-49 50 40�d4 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <19 0 � (5) Enter the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score in box<5>of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. A- 7 Site Assessment Worksheet 3. Surrounding Agriculturel Land and Surrounding Protected Resource Land A B C D E F G Zone of Influence Surrounding _. _ _ TotalAcres_ __ Acres_in___ __Acre_s of_ __Percent in Percent Surrounding Protected — — — -— ---- - - — --- --- Agriculture Protected Agriculture Protected Agricultural Resource " Resource Resource Land Land Score Land Score Land A/B A/C From Table From Table 8 LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 4. Protected Resource Lands Score: The Protected Resource Lands scoring relies upon the same Zone of Influence information gathered in Part 3, and figures are entered in Site Assessment Worksheet 3, which combines the surcounding agricultural and protected NOTES lands calculations. (1) Use the total area of the 201 calculated in Part 3. for the Surrounding Agricultural Land Use score. (2) Sum the area of those parcels within the ZOI that are protected resource lands, as defined in the California Agricultural LESA Guidelines. (3) Divide the area that is determined to be protected in Step (2) by the total acreage of the ZOI to determine the ____________ _ percentage of the surrounding area that is under resource protection. � (4) Determine the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Sco�e utilizing the Surtoundina Protected Resource---- Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI Protected Resource Protected Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40-44 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <20 0 ' (5) Enter the Protected Resource Land score in box<6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. 9 ' Final LESA Score Sheet LESA Worksheet (cont.) Calculation of the Final LESA Score: ' (1) Multiply each factor score by the factor weight to determine the weighted score and enter in Weighted Factor Scores column. NOTES (2) Sum the weighted factor scores for the LE factors to determine the total LE score for the project. (3) Sum the weighted factor scores for the SA factors to determine the total SA score for the project. (4) Sum the total LE and SA scores to detemiine the Final LESA Score for the project. Factor Factor Weighted Scores Weight Factor Scores �LE�F8Ct0i'S�°����� s� r�� � ���. � ��,� ;€ �a ,. i� h�,� k�f � a �a^.�,�� r� ': �''�� ?x �.b t ,E�._. $,��. . ,:n�s,_z�',��a ��n��� Land Capability ��� 0.25 Classification Storie '2' 0.25 Index LE ��:� � `� �E �,� ,,< 0.50 Su6total "�yf,"�,,. �,`��� J�, M. H ti.�+`W. .°^� .°y .. �'vf,y PS}.t��'l.sy�'. { � Y a"�L�' � i?k�`�`" �^'�.A" � � F,� � H'�=`.'Sk''� p �y. �J�/4'(t.�aG`�OPg'.�.� .rz�{ro'�. ,�„r'S�^t���� a�*,f,...f.�<., :�l�.�t�a 4'.�,`�� � ,+�,. 'S:f� � .�"eaa..:�. ,�,"� Project �3� 0.15 Size Water Resource �4� 0.15 Availabili Surrounding �5� 0.15 A ricultural Land Protected �6' 0.05 Resource Land SA % ' �_` 0.50 Subtotal .�rt � �r� Final LESA Score For further information on the scoring thresholds under the California Agricultural LESA Model, consult Section 4 of the Instruction Manual. 10 Appendix B. California LESA Project Scoring Example California LESA Model - Worksheet for Scoring UPLANDS ESTATES EXAMPLE Calculation of the Land Evaluation (LE) Score Part 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Score: Uplands Estates is a fictitious 200 acre (�) Detertnine the total acreage of the project. proposed project. Four soil mapping units -- �2� Determine the soil types within the projed area and ente�them in Column A-of the Cand Evaluation - have been identified on the site: Cc, Ll, Si Worksheet provided on page 2-B. and Lt. Using an electronic planimeter, the (3) Calculate the total acres of each soil type and enter the amounts in Column B. aaeage of each was found to be 30, 120, 10 and 40 acres, respectivety. The acreage of each soil type is divided 6y (4) Divide the acres of each soil type (Column B) by the total acreage to determine the proportion of each the total projecf acreage, 200 acres, to soil type present. Enter the proportion of each soil type in Column C. determine the proportion of each. The LCCs for the four soil types are found in (5) Determine the LCC for each soil type from the applicable Soil Survey and enter it in Column D. the Counry Soil Survey to be: Cc-Class IVe, (6) From the LCC Scorina Table below, determine the point rating corresponding to the LCC for each soil LI-Class l, Si-Class llle and Lt-Class lle. type and enter it in Column E. LCC Scorin Table LCC I Ile Ils,w Ille Ills,w IVe IVs,w V Vle,s,w Vlle,s,w VIII Class Points 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 From the LCC Scoring Ta61e the LCC point (7) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the point score (Column E�and enter the scores for the four soils are found to be 40, resulting scores in Column F. 100, 70 and 90, respectively. The proportion (8) Sum the LCC scores in Column F. of each soil type represented is multiplied 6y (9) Enter the LCC score in box<1>of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. its point score in Column F, and is summed to get a total LCC'Score of 87.5 points, which is then entered in box<1>of the Final LESA Score Sheet. Part 2. Storie Index Score: Storie Index ratings for each soil type, 34, 86, (1) Detertnine the Storie lndex rating for each soil type and enter it in Column G. 66 and 75, were determined irom the County (2) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the Storie Index rating (Column G)and enter Soil Survey. The Storie Index ratings are the scores in Column H. multiplied by the pioportion for each soil type (3) Sum the Storie Index scores in Column H to gain the Storie Index Score. and Column H is summed to get a total (4) Enter the Storie Index Score in box<2>of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. Storie Index Score of 75 points, which is then entered in box<2>of the Final LESA Score Sheet 1-B Land Evaluation Worksheet- Uplands Estates Example Site Assessment Worksheet 1. Land Capability Classification Project Size Score (LCC) and Storie Index Scores A B C D E F G H I J K Soil Map Project Proportion o LCC LCC LCC Storie Storie LCC Class --LCC---LCC � Index Class Class Unit Acres Pro'ect Area Ratin Score Index Score I- II III IV=VII Cc 30 0.15 IVs 40 6 34 5.1 30 LI 120 0.6 I 100 60 86 51.6 120 Si 10 0.05 Ille 70 3.5 66 3.3 10 Lt 40 0.2 Ile 90 18 75 15 40 (Must Sum LCC Storie Inde Tota/s 200 to1.0) Tota 87.5 TofalScore 75 Tota/Acres 160 10 30 Score Project Size Scores 100 10 0 Highest Project Size Score 100 2-B uP�aN�s esrarES Exan-tP�e �cont.) Calculation of the Site Assessment (SA) Score Part 1. Project Size Score:. (1) Using Site Assessment Worksheet 7 provided on page&B, enter the acreage of each soil type from Column B in the Column • I, J or K-that cortesponds to the LCC for that soil. (Note: While the Project Size Score is a component of the Site Assessment calculations, the score sheet is an extension of data collected in the Land Evaluation Worksheet, and is therefore displayed beside it). Column 1 sums to 160 acres, (2) Sum Column I to determine the totai amount of class I and II soils on the project site. Column J sums to 10 acres, and (3) Sum Column J to detertnine the totai amount of class III soils on the project site. Column K sums to 30 acres� (4) Sum'Column Kto determine the total amount of class IV-and lowersoils on the project-site. Column 1- 160 acres of class 1-11 soils (5)Compare the total score for each LCC group in the Proiect Size Scorina Table below and determine corresponds to a score of 100 points. which group receives the highest score. Column J- 10 acres of class lll soils in corresponds to a score of 10 points. - Column K-30 acres of class IV or lower soils corresponds to a score of 0 points. The highest score is for column l;. 100 points. Pro'ect Size Scorin Table Class I or II Class III Class IV or Lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points >80 100 >160 100 >320 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 SO 80-119 80 160-239 60 2039 50 60-79 70 100-159 ' 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40.99 20 10< 0 20-39 30 40< 0 10-19 10 10< 0 100 points is entered in box<3>of the I (6) Enter the Project Size Score (the highest score from the three LCC categories) in box<3> of the Final LESA Score Sheet. Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. 3-B ua�4NOS esrares exan-fP�e (conr.) Part 2. Water Resource Availability Score: i There are two types of irrigation on the (1) Detertnine the type(s) of irrigation present on the project site, including a determination of whether there is site; groundwater and water district dryland agricultural activiry as well. water. The site is divided into three portions according to irrigation (2)Divide the site into portions according to the type or types of irrigation or dryland cropping that is available availability: in each portion. Enter this infortnation in Column B of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. •Water Resources Portion I-both irrigation district and Availability. J groundwater-50%of the site; -- - - - — -- -- -- P i n ll- Irrigation distnct only-25%. (3) Determine the proportion of the total site represented for each portion idenGfied and enter this information of the site; and in Column C. Portion 111- unimgated -25%of the site. (4) Using the Water Resources Availabilitv Scoring Table, identify the option that is most applicable for each Portion I- While irrigation is always portion, based upon the feasibility of irrigation in drought and non-drought years, and whether physical or feasible, economic and physical economic restrictions are likely to exist. Enter the applicable Water Resource Availability Score into restrictions become evident in Column D. drought years(Optlon 5)yielding a score of 80 points. (5) Multiply the Water Resource Availability Score for each portion by the proportion of the project area it Po ion II- While irrigation is always represents to determine the weighted score for each portion in Column E. feasible, economic restrictions 6ecome evident during drought (6) Sum the scores for all portions to determine the projecPs total Water Resources Availability Score years (Option 2)yielding a score of 95 points. (7) Enter the Water Resource Availability Score in box <4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. Portion 111-irrigation is not feasible and dryland farming is only feasi6le in nondrought years (Option 13), yielding a score of 20 points.; subtract 75 points. Dryland farming is not feasi6le in non-drought years; subtract 5 points. Portion I- (80 points)(0.5) =40.0 points Portion ll-(95 points)(0.25) =23.7 points Portion lll- (20 points)(0.25) = 5.0 points Portion 1+Portion ll + Portion lll = 68.7 points, which is entered in box <4>of the Final LESA Score Sheet. 4-B Site Assessment Worksheet 2.-Water Resources Availability A B C D E Water Weighted Project Water Proportion of Availability Availabiliiy Portion Source Project Area Score Score --- -- — — — --- ----(C z D) — -- Irrigation district and .50 80 40 1 groundwater Irrigation district only .25 95 23.7 2 not irrigated 25 20 5.0 3 4 5 6 (Must Sum Tota/Wate 68.7 to 1.0) Resource Score 5-B Water Resource Availability Scoring Taple Non-Drought Years Drought Years WATER RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS - - --- --Option-- — — -- — — -- —RESOURCE Irrigated Physical Economic Irrigated Physical Economic Production Restrictions Restrictions Production Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Feasible? ? ? Feasible? ? ? 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO - - - - 50 9 YES NO YES NO - - - - 45 10 YES YES NO NO - - - - 35 11 YES YES YES NO - - - - 30 � 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 25 production in both drought and non-drought years 13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 2� production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible � 6-B I � UPLANDS ESTATES EXAMPLE (cont.J Part 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score: Upland Estates is surrounded by 4 (1) Calculate the projecYs Zone of Influence (ZOI) as follows: parcels:parcels W, X, Y and Z, 200, (a) a rectangle is drawn around the projed such that the rectangle is the smallest that can completely 180, 150 and 100 acres, respectively: encompass the project area. The total acreage ot the ZOI is the sum (b) a second rectangle is then drawn which extends one quarter mile on all sides beyond the first of these paroels or 630 acres. rectangle. (c)The ZOI includes all parcels that are contained within or are intersected by the second rectangle, less the area of the project itself. (2) Sum the area of all parceis to determine the total acreage of the ZOI. Parcels W, X, and Y are in agnculture- — (3)'Determinewhich parcels are imagricultural use and sum the areas of these-parcels— The amount of the ZOI in agncutture is 530 acres. The percent of the ZOI in agricutture is (4) Divide the area in agriculture found in step(3) by the total area of the ZOI found in step (2)to determine the 530 acres divided by 630 acres, or 84%. percent of the ZOI that is in agricuttural use. Eight}Ffour percent of the ZOI in (5) Detertnine the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table agriculture corresponds to a score of 95 below. points. Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table Percent of ZOI Surrounding in Agricultural Agriculture Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 � 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40-44 40 3539 30 3034 20 20-29 10 <19 0 95 points is entered in box<6>of the I (5) Enter the Surcounding Agricultural Land Score in box <5> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. Final LESA Score Sheet. Site Assessment Worksheet 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land and Surrounding Protected Resource Land A B C D E F G Zone of influence Surrounding _-___ _TotaLAcres_ _ Acres_in__ . Acres_of _Percent in Percent Surrounding Protected Agriculture Protected Agriculture Protected Agricultural Resource " Resource Resource Cand Land Score Land Score Land A/B A/C From Table From Table 630 530 380 84 60 95 80 8- B UPLANDS ESTATES EXAMPLE (cont.) Part 4. Protected Resource Lands Score: Parcels W and X are under Williamson Ttte Protected Resource Lands scoring relies upon the same Zone of Influence information gathered in Part 3, and Act contract. The sum of these paicels' figures are entered in Site Assessment Worksheet 3, which combines the surrounding agricultural and protected areas is 380 acres. The area under lands calculations. protection divided by the total acreage (1) Use the total area of the ZOI calculated in Part 3. fot the Surrounding Agricultural Land Use score. of the ZOI(380I630 acres)gives the (2) Sum the area of those parcels within the ZOI that are protected resource lands, as defined in the California peroent of the surrounding area under Agricultural LESA Guidelines. protection, or 60%, (3) Divide the area that is detertnined to be protected in Step(2) by the total acreage of the ZOI to determine the percentage of the surrounding area that is under resource protection. —oorresponding to a Protected Resource (4) Determine the Surrounding Protected Resourcetand Score utilizing the-Surcounding Protected-Resource - Land Score of 80 points. Land Scoring Table below. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table 6 Percent of 201 Protected Resource Protected Land Score 90-100 100 80-89 95 70-79 90 65-69 85 60-64 80 55-59 70 50-54 60 45-49 50 40-44 40 35-39 30 30-34 20 20-29 10 <20 0 80 points is entered in box<6>of the I (5) Enter the Protected Resource Land score in box<6>of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-B. Final LESA Score Sheet. 9- B � Final LESA Score Sheet uP�aN�s esrares exaMP�e (cont.) Calculation of the Final LESA Score: (1) Multiply each factor score by the factor weight to determine the weighted score and enter in Weighted Factor Scores column. (2) Sum the weighted factor scores for the LE factors to determine the total LE score for the project. (3) Sum the weighted factor scores for the SA factors to determine the total SA score for the project. (4) Sum the total LE and SA scores to determine the Final LESA Score for the project. The componenfLE and SA factors have --FeCt01' F8Ct0� —Weighted been ente�ed into the Final LESA Score SCOI'@S Weight Factor sneer. Scores � The LE factor scores are multlplied 6y the ?LE FBCtOfS'���� '' ��'7q� " '"� M '�� ��.`"F� ��°� �' t �+", � ' '�� " � 4 4 � �'` "" H a[}- + S�" �.,' { x ��" r k ' !� 3j � �M p+�" x i� � x�.. � s?4'� �� , v�`. �1�i S � factor weights to determine the weighted .� � � � � � � ,�� �� �����'� � ��' , score for each 5 . �� +��,r .��. ��r°' , s .: .. �° E.� „ , ,s �.m�&,��."��'�w ' Land Capability <�> 87.5 0.25 21.9 Classification Storie <z> 75.0 0.25 18.7 Index The weighted LE factor scores are summed LE Subtotal $ , � �� 5�{ �`�,� 0.50 40.6 to determine the LE portion of the Final ���'� ���t'��' � ' - LESA score ���s� N '"� u°�,;t The SA factor scores are multi lied b the ,f,' `� �� �','��a� � �* �� '�°� �''��"���� ��� ""�z�:' � � � �ti� A Y SA�F� Ot'S � � �„d. ` �� , � factor weights to determine the weighted �,+����� u��� ���� ��"`�'�'r�`� � � '� > �' ���� �, �j {� 6 I � 5p.§��- tl �?'�npt 4�,fi�%q �n f ��' ���`j��.l �5 �q��{j�}�� SQ��PiIV�P.aQ�I. � �STd� ��"�.xw � �W.'���d• � �' �'iC4�M4irPs. �k.. . rr'�"w�'!$wn. l Project <s> 100.0 0.15 15.0 Size Water Resource ca> 68.7 0.15 10.3 Availabili Surrounding <s> y 95.0 0.15 14.2 A ricultural Land Surrounding Protected <s> 80.0 0.05 4.0 Resource Land The weighted SA factor scores are summed SA Subtotal ; �< �3 0.50 43.5 to determine the SA portion of the Final #* ",. �� ����:x LESA score 't�s�`� � �'�'., ` � The LE and SA subtotals are summed to Final LESA Score 84.1 determine the Final LESA score , ATTACHMENT B , , --: , , COUNTY OF S.4N LUIS OBISPO .<>:��r:.. � �s�� - . � --�.��,f-�;; Department of Agriculture/1►Ieasurement Standards ..�.�z� :,:�� ''� � � �` 2156 SIERR�111'A�', SUITE A • SAN LU[S OBISPO, CALIFOR�'1.�1 93401-4556 ,x�- t � .-- •"�$���� ROBERT F. L[LLEF IS05) 751-5910 : �, tiy , : AGRICULTUR�L C0�1:�IISS[0\ER/SE�ILER FA.\ (S0�) iS1-103� �..... ' �,�.�,,- AgCommSLOCcoslo.ca.us DATE: November 18, 2004 - � TO: Kelly Heffernon, Community Development Department ;; "J ' FROM: Michael J. Isensee, Count}� Department of Agriculture��� • � - " SUBJECT: East Viilage Neighborhood Ylan (04-001)/Clierry Creek PUD (04-002) The County Department of Agiculture appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment on the proposed East Village Neighborhood Plan and specifically the subdivision of Subazea 1. Specifically, the DepartmenYs comments focus on issues related to the agricultural-residential interface and the mitigation of potentially significant impacts to both agricultural resources and operations and to residential uses adjacent to agricultural operations. Compatibility issues may be created with residential development adjacent to production agriculture. Noise, dust, nighttime operation, and legal pesticide use may be considered a nuisance by residential neighbors. Increased trespass, theft, damage to crops and machinery, runoff, and liability are concems for growers adjacent to development. The East Village Neighborhood Plan needs to address each of these issues adequately in order to protect both future residents and existing and future agricultural operations on the adjacent property. The County of San Luis Obispo has an adopted buffer policy and right to farm ordinance that p:evides ?he basis for the fo!!owsn�co*.r:*±en!s. These ce_**vments are also base� on the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and on current departmental policy to conserve agricultural resources and to provide for public health, safety and welfare�vhile mitigating negative impacts of development to agriculture. If I can be of further assistance, please call 781-5753. AGRICULTURAL SETTING The proposed development project, the Cherry Creek Planned Unit Developmeut, is an approximately 22-acre site adjacent to the Dixson Ranch property within the City of Arroyo Grande and occupies approximately one-half of the East Viliage Neighborhood Plan area. ('hcrrv Crcck Pl. D Eaist �`iila�_c \�i�,hhonc�,od PI,u \u�cmbcr 1 S. ?f10=S - - Pa�� '_ ul=t The project is adjacent to the north boundary of the 40-acre Dixson Ranch site, a farm established nearly one century ago. The combination of excellent alluvial soils, a mild climate, adequate water resources, level ground and the existence of a�riculturally associated business al lowed the establishment of a substantial agricultural industry in the Arroyo Grande and Cienega Valleys. Continued encroachment of urban development in these valleys threatens the continued viability of agiculture in the area, and development value-and thus development pressure- continues to grow faster than the agricultural value of the land. In recent years the adjacent Dixson Ranch site has been utilized to grow an assortment of row crops, including cabbage, head lettuce, bok choy, broccoli, romaine lettuce, napa cabbage, celery and flower seed. The Dixson site soils consist of prime soils (camarillo loam and mocho silty clay loam) and other soils types (marimel sandy clay loam and zaca clay near the hiliside to the south), while the project site soils are almost entirely prime soils (mocho silty clay loam) �vith a small area of rivenvash (NRCS Soil survey of San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, 1984). Unique to this property, it is protected by a permanent agricultural conservation easement, �vhich recognizes the commitment of the property owner to long-term a�-icultural production and the public recognition of the high value placed on the productivity of the land. As such, protecting the agricultural value of the property is important in order to increase the probability that agriculture will remain a viable activity on the property. The proposed project creates the potential for significant conflict beriveen the existing agricultural use and new residences. Several methods are proposed to mitigate these impacts to reduce their impact to either occupants of new residences or to ihe agricultural land owner and operator. These include a physical distance, or buffer, separating the uses, as �vell as vegetated screening, a solid wall, a exclusion fence, and right to farm notification. BUFFERS Buffers and screening techniques are recognized as valuable methods to increase the likelihood oi compatibility beriveen development and agricultural property. Experience has shown physical distance buffers to be the most effective mitigation measure. For irrigated row crops, the county buffer policy is a buffer distance of 200 to 500 feet. This range reflects the variety of site- specific factors to consider in the development of a buffer, including: 1. The intensity of the agricuitural use 2. The level of proposed development including proposed parcel sizes, configuration and location of structures between the habitable structures and agricultural use 3. Predominate wind patterns 4. Existing vegetation which provides screening between the proposed development and � agricultural use 5. Topography 6. Extent of existing development 7. Natural buffers such as riparian corridors and roadways Each of these is addressed below. I.. .\like L�rd Vsc I-ilce CI_P Chcr,l(1',ck('Uf'-Pxst G`il''�.:ig:\cigt;burl�uud Pien.l'ir:uf\(7l?7G(,.,!�c C'hcrr}' C.'rcck PL U ' Eust �'illaLr \ci_hhorhuod I'lan \o�cmhcr 1 S, 2f)0=l Pa�o 3 of=1 1. Intensity of Use: The proposed development project is located adjacent to row-cropped land (the Dixson Ranch) that is used to produce multiple crops each season. The property is protected from development with an agricultural conservation easement, increasingly the likelihood that intensive agricultural production will continue at the site far into the future. The property owner has suggested that with ever-changing a�ricultural economics, the site's agricultural use may in the future become a different intensive use such as greenhouses or orchards. 2. Level ofProposed Development: The proposed development would continue to expansion of relatively intense residential development adjacent to the agricultural parcel. Attempts have been made to reduce the potential number of residences that interface with the adjacent agricultural use, but the proposal is substantially more intense than the current use on the nroject site and the applicant also suggests that a community trail be located near to the adjacent agricultural parcel. 3. Predominant Wind Pattems: The project site is located upwind of the agricultural property. 4. Existing Vegetation: It appears that none of the existing vegetation near the agricultural parcel will be retained. It can be expected that the proposed vegetated screening will not be fully established for a number of years. 5. Topography: There is no topographic separation between the rivo parcels. 6. Existing Development: Existing development in the area includes eight older homes within 300 feet to the north-northeast of the Dixson Ranch site and an additional seven homes are located to the northwest. In recent years, development to the west of Branch Mill Road has placed an additional 15 residences within 300 feet of the agricultural fields. Under current pesticide use regulations, certain pesticides cannot be utilized within 300 feet of an occupied residence, and growers must limit the application to portions of the field more than 300 feet from adjacent residences. The proposed development, while only marginally increasing the portions of the Dixson Ranch off limits to certain pesticide applications, further increases the time, money and energy needed to notify neighbors regarding pesticide applications and increases the 3ikelihood that neighbors will have complaints about adjacent agricultural praciices. New residents are often the most likely to complain, as they are frequently unfamiliar with typical agricultural practices and the industrial nature of farming at certain times. 8. Natural Buffers: The existing and proposed access road provides a small amount of separation between the uses but is inadequate as a buffer. The proposed development places the development footprint of habitable structures within 115 feet of the adjacent agricultural property and less than 130 feet of the crops on the adjacent property, which is well under the established county buffer distances. Serious attempts to mitigate for a buffer distance of only 115 feet beriveen the agricultural operation and the proposed adjacent habitable structures have been incorporated into the projects' proposed buffer area design. These include a six-foot block wall atop a two-foot high berm, a vegetated screen of 30 to 60 feet in depth, and a fence (three board with a no climb wire) near the shared property 1:��.Aiike fsnd l�sc Filn l'I;P:.Chcrrp l7r<k CUN-l'-.at 4'il`a�e`d�l�burlwud PI':n Cirv ul:1(L07LG.du< Cherry Crccl: I'l'L) Eusl \'illa�r \ci�;hhorLooc! 1'I:in Nut'cntbcr 1S, 30p� Page 4 of 4 line should reduce the potential for significant impacts from noise, odor, light, dust, trespass, or legal application of fertilizer or pesticide. However, none of these either alone or in combination replaces the benefits that adequate distance provides to mitigate potential conflict. Finally, it appears that the City of P.rroyo Grande, in implementing its recent agricultural buffer ordinance, will be establishing a precedent for its future use. Will the standard set in this instance represent the maximum buffer potential for future projects? If not, the Agriculture Department would recommend that specific findings be made for why this particular buffer distance in combined with the proposed additional measures are sufficient to address the potential impacts of this additional development. TIMiNG OF AUFFER AREA nESIGN The Department would also recommend that conditions of approval address the timing of the buffer improvements so that the vegetative screening is adequate at the time of occupancy of proposed residences. The installation of young vegetation that will provide little or no screening until maturity is ineffective. At a minimum, trees of an adequate size to rapidly provide adequate vegetated screening should be recommended so that the screen is effective at or near the time of occupancy. In order to accomplish this, screening should be installed prior to issuance of building permits in order to become established. Conditions should also ensure that the screening is maintained and does not become a nuisance to the adjacent agricultural operation. STORMWATER The Agriculture Department would also recommend that the City carefully consider potential impacts to the agricultural property due to the potential for increased storm�vater runoff and for the potential adverse impacts to the agricultural operation from the proposed collection swale located immediately adjacent to the property line. The proposed development should not adversely impact the production capacity of the agricultural operation by exacerbating drainage problems on adjacent properties and increasing the potential for either erosion or sedimentation on the agricultural land. It appears that the proposed collection swale serves no detention or retention purpose and could adversely impact the adjacent agricultural property during major storm events. I � � ' L:`�..\like fxnd Usc f�ilc��.CUP('herry Creek CUf'-Puxt 4'iPsg�\ci�fd,orLinnl Plun Cit•:ul A(i07I,(�.t!.s ;�'���'� ���i ,'�C9�_������i�*� ATTACHMENTC % ���� ��������� ������� � ��. `-- Cc.�V.\T} OF ti.qN LUIS UBISPC) November 9, 2004 Kelly Heffemon,Associated Planner City of Arroyo Grande � '�. �; Community Development Department � ' � � � P.O.Box 550 ; , Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 �' 'j'` '- ' `: �'�` VI:, / ��- 1�1i!\`',l'. � fi_ • ..�..: i��L�_:.__�r...:.�! L _'.. SUB7ECT: Cherry Creek-Tract 2653 Thank you for including the APCD in the environmrntal review process. We have completed our review of the proposed project located between Myrtle St. and East Cherry Ave., in Arroyo Grande. T'F�e project as proposed includes a Neighborhood Plan for a twenty-two acre site, a thir[y-nine lot residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration for nine of the twenty rivo acres. We have the following comments regarding this proposal. GENERAL CO1VI��NTS: APCD staff supports the proposal to allow for subdivision of lands within the Arroyo Grande Urban Reserve Line. Allowing for infill within the existing URI.is consistent with the goals and policies of the Clean Air Plan. District staff would encourage increasing the density of any future development to the extent allowed by the zoning requirements. Increasing density can reduce trips and travel distances and encourage the use of altemative forms of transportation. As a commenting agency in the Califomia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)review process for a project,the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction and operational phases of a project,with separate significant thresholds for each. Please address the action items contained in this letter that are hiehliehted bv bold and'underlined text. I. Construction Phase Emissions The air quality impacts from the construction phase of the project will most likely exceed the Dish-ict's CFQA significance threshold for erading. The nrniect shaU he rnnditioned to comnlv with all . applicable Air Pollution Control District reEUlations pertainin2 to the control of fu¢itive dust {PM101 as contained in section 6.5 of the Air Oualitv Handbook. All site eradin� and demolition lans noted shall list the followin re ulaHons: � Reduce the amount of the disturbed azea where possible; • . Water trucks or sprinkler systems should be used in sufficient quantities to prevent airbome dust �1�`� from leaving the site. Watering frequency should be increased whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed(nonpotable)water should be used whenever possible; � � 3,i, ! All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; i�`� �. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible foltowing 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 a fast-gemunating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical � •3 soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; 3433 Roberco Court • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002 inFo@slocleanaicorg •: www.slocleanair.or� Cherry Creek Development November 9, 2004 Page 2 of 5 � 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; 3 Ze Vehicle speed for all conshuction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; • All�trucks hauting dirt, sand, soil, or other loose mzterials are to be covered or should maintain at �• y least rivo feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance�vith CVC Section 23114; �`� Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; and 3 �• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is camed onto adj acent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. All PM10 mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. In addition,the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust contro]program and to order increased watering, as necessary,to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods�vhen work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD urior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished aradine of the area. This project is located in close proximity to both Paulding(Ruth)Middle School and Arroyo Grande Community School, and will involve the use of numerous pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment. As you may be aware, in July of 1999 the Califomia Air Resources Board(ARB)listed diesel exhaust particulate matter, as a toxic air contaminant(TAC)with no identified threshold level below which there are no significant effects. To mitieate the diesel PM¢enerated durin2 the construction phase,District staff recommends the followine equinment emission mitieation measures be implemented: 3 �. • All conshuction equipment be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications; • All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, 3-`� graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers,backhoes, generator sets,compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with ARB motor vehicle diesel fuel; � �• Maximize to the extent feasible„the use of diesel construction equipment meeting the ARB's 1996 certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and � Install catalytic diesel particulate filters or Diesel oxidation catalyst on rivo'(2)pieces of conshuction equipment involved in primary earth moving and construction activities and projected to generate the greatest emissions. District staff shall be included in the selection of candidate equipment along with a representative of the contractor. These measures should be included and cleartv identified in the nroiect 6id specifications so the contractors bidin2 on the proiect can include the ourchase and installation costs in their bids. , ��,� ' Demolition Activities ' Y�� ' Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling,demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACIv�. Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during demolition,relocation,or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utilitv pipelines are scheduled far removal or relocation; or building(sl are removed or renovated this proiect mav be subiect to various reeulatorv iurisdictions, includinQ the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61,Subpart M-asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but aze not limited to: 1)notification requirements to the Dishict, 2)asbestos Cherry Creek Development November 9, 2004 Page 3 of 5 survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3)applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please contact Tim Fuhs of the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 for further ' information. Naturallv Occutrine Asbestos The project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occumng Asbestos(NOA), which has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board(ARB). Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to anv EradinQ activities at the site the proiect uroponent shall ensure that a Qeolo¢ic evaluation is conducted to determine if NOA is nresent within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present an exemption request must be filed with the District(see Attachment 11. If NOA is found at the site the aoplicant must complv with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the District. Please refer to the District web page at http://www.slocleanair.org/6c�siness/asbestos.asp for more information or contact Karen Brooks of our Enforcement Division at 781-5912. Developmental Bumine Effective February 25, 2000, the District nrohibited developmental burninQ of veaetative material within San Luis Obispo Countv. Under certain circumstances where no technically feasible alternatives are available,limited developmental buming under restrictions may be allowed. This requires prior application,payment of fee based on the size of the project,District approval, and issuance of a bum permit by the Dish-ict and the local fire department authority. The applicant is tequired to fumish the District with the study of technical feasibility(which includes costs and other constraints)at the time of application. If you have any questions regarding these requirements,contact Karen Brooks of our Enforcement Division at 781-5912. Portable E ui ment Permit or Registration Reouirements Portable equipment used durine construction activiHes mav require California statewide portable equipment reeistration(issued bv the California Air Resources Board)or a District permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. • .Portable generators • IC Engines • Concrete batch plants • Rock and pavement crushing • Tub grinders • Trommel screens To minimize potential delays,prior to the start of the project,please contact David Dixon of the Dish-ict's Engineering Division at(805)781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. II. Operational Phase Emissions District staff conducted a screening level air quality impact assessment for the operational emissions from this project based on the information provided in the project referral. The screening data indicated the project wili likely exceed the District's CEQA Tier I significance threshold(10 lb/day). This nroiect needs to im lement all a licable Standard Miti ation Measure and at least three 3 Discretionarv A AP 2 � ) Measures outlined below. Cherry Creek Development November 9,2004 Page 4 of 5 On the project referral it is noted that the majority of the lots are accessed by a private 15 foot wide dirt road. San Luis Obispo County is designated nonattainment for particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter(PMio). Areas designated nonattainment for PM�o,must implement measures to achieve and maintain the standards. All access roads to this development should be uaved to reduce the Qeneration of fu¢itive dust. Standard Mitieation Measures (Include all applicable Standard Mitieation Measures below) �./�}1 • Link cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Include traffic calming modifications to project roads, such as narrower streets, speed platforms, D' - bulb-outs and intersection modifications designed to reduce vehicle speeds, thus encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel. �• Include easements or land dedications for bikeways and pedesh-ian walkways. �- Provide continuous sidewalks separated from the roadway by landscaping and on-street parking. Adequate lighting for sidewalks must be provided, along with crosswalks at intersections. • � Increase the building energy efficiency rating by 10%above what is required by Title 24 `� requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways(increasing attic,wall or floor insulation, etc.). Discretionarv Miti2ation Measures (Include at least three Discretionarv Mitisation Measures below ." If the project is located on an established transit route, improve public transit accessibilityby ' providing transit tumouts with direct pedestrian access to project. /• Increased street tree planting. • Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. �� Secure on-site bicycle parking for multi-family residential developments. • Increase number of bicycle routes/lanes. • Build new homes with intemal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting,teleconferencing, and teleleaming to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. •'= Provide pedeshian signalization and signage to improve pedesh-ian safety. -- • Shade tree planting along soutnem exposures ui buildings tu reduce sun,mzr coo:ing�eeds. —• Use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star�rating to reduce summer cooling needs. -- • Use high efficiency, gas or solaz water heaters. � • Use built-in energy efficient appliances. J j��• Use double-paned windows. --• Use low energy street lights (i.e. sodium). • Use energy efficient interior lighting. ?- ;'• Use low energy traffic signals(i.e. light emitting diode). • Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and�vindows are not available. • Install high efficiency or gas space heating. Wood Bumine Devices In addition to the mitigation measures the following rule will apply if wood buming devices are included as part of the project. Under District Rule 504, onlv District approved wood burnina devices can be installed in new dwelline units. District approved devices include: Cherry Creek Development November 9, 2004 Page 5 of 5 • All EPA-Certified Phase II wood buming devices; � • Cataly[ic wood buming devices which emit less than or equal to 4.1 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA-CeRified but have been verified by a nationally-recognized testing lab; ' • Non-catalytic wood buming devices which emit less than or equal to 7.5 grams perhour ofparticulate matter which are not EPA-Certified but have been verified by a nationally-recognized testing lab; • Pellet-fueled woodheaters; and • Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. If you have any questions about approved wood buming devices,please contact Tim Fuhs of our Enforcement Division at 781-5912. Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions or comments, or if yo��vould like to receive an electronic version of this letter, feel free to cnntact me at 781-4667. Sincerely, r�.�,�� � .��,._.-- � Melissa Guise Air Quality Specialist MAG/sll cc: Tim Fuhs, SLOAPCD Enforcement Division Karen Brooks, SLOAPCD Enforcement Division David Dixon, SLO APCD Engineering Division Attachment: Attachment 1,NOA Conshuction&Grading Project-Exemption Request Form �:bis�plan4espanse�2953.EOC . Attachment 1 Naturally Occurring Asbestos — Construction & Grading Project — Exempfion Request Form Send To: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 3433 Roberto Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ,��,�. ��� �' :a ; w r.,. �, Fax: (805) 781-1002 `; -- y Appiicant Informationl Property Owner Project Name• Address Project Address and /or Assessors Parcel Number City,State,Zip City,State,Zip Phone Number Date Su6mitted Agent Phone Number - I The District may provide an exemp6on from Section 93105 of the California Code of Regulations-Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure For Construction. Gradinq. Quarrving. And Surface Mininq Operations for any property that has any portion of the area to be disturbed located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit; if a registered geologist has conducted a geologic evaluation of the property and determined that no serpentine or ultramafic rodc is likely to be found in the area to be disturbed. Before an exemption can be granted, the owner/operator must provide a copy of a report detailing the geologic evaluation to the District for consideration. The District will approve or deny the exemption within 90 days. An outline of the required geological evaluation is provided in the District handout "ASBESTOS AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, QUARRYING, AND SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS — Geological Evaluation Requirements". ' �?�.,�tP�a�,�'.�r.'� `°°e��+�*.>L��x�".t��+��� z � x:.-�-. : r` `". ° +��-o`�?u.tek2, blfia.�r.d a .ess;,aaPYSa-rn?r: > .. , �=a-,;� . . as� . �..r :"� t�'�'tc�:...AFF1[CANT�If11f1ST SIGN:BELO...;�,sa�t�r?;_..r��ae*��� .�.^��.w�� I request the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District grant this project exemption from the requirements of the ATCM based on the attached eolo ical evaluation. Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature: Date: �-��-�.-a�:� . ... . , � ....��.`.. , ._ �„ _... _ � �,-�<� . ,�-�� �.r..,�.,.�,�r���w-:�;����OFF..ICEr;pSEONLY..;AP�D Re._qv_ed;�lerriept„GeoCo"�cal_Evaluafio�r,,�=,.,.,.��,,��r�.-� APCD Staff: Intake Date: OIS Tracking Number: Approved Not Approved APCD Staff: Date Reviewed: Comments: ' hMnfcmVaren\wortPkEmr�asOestos�alanko�utruclq2de�cyevertyMOrmEx ATTACHMENT D ry DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .' ��I�\� LOS ANGELES DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS � i 9 � , ! � VENTURA FIELD OFFICE ` ��, � � � 2151 ALESSANDRO DRNE,SUITE 110 ��� VENTURA,CALIFORNIA 93001 � REPLYTO � , _ nrreNr�oNOF; November 9, 2004 � _-_ ..-_,,, , _ _ �`:`.. . � ; . Office of the Chief _ � � , ' ���- • -,;.,,.. ,.. - Regulatory Branch � ; - _ .. ..... . : . .. .1''- Kelly Heffernon City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande,California 93421 Dear Mrs. Heffernon: We are I receipt of the"Project Referral for Neighborhood Plan 04-001;Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002; Planned Unit Development 04-002 (Cherry Creek)" dated October 29,2004. It has come to our attenHon that you plan to develop 39 residenHal units near the Arroyo Grande Creek at in the City of Arroyo Grande,San Luis Obispo County,California. This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. Unfortunate due to our heavy permit workload we are unable to provide details comments on the document at this Hme. However,please be advised the proposed project may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, especially in regards to any acHvity in Arroyo Grande Creek and other waters of the United States that may be temporarily of permanently impacted by way of fill material of conshuction equipment. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include,but are not limited to, 1. creating fills for residential or commercial development,placing Uank protecHon, I temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material,building road crossings,backfilling for urility Line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams,levees, groins,weirs;or other structures; 2. mechanized landclearing,grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States; 3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States; i -2- 4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. You will find a permit applicaHon form and information that describes our regulatory program on the Corps Los Angeles District webpage at www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory. If you have any questions,please contact me at(805) 585-2140. Please refer to this letter and 200500165-HW in your reply. Sincerely, ! ��� Heather Wylie Project Manager Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �LOS ANGELES DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS � VENTURA FIELD OFFICE 215�ALESSANDRO DRIVE,SUITE 110 VENTURA,CALIFORNIA 93007 REPLY TO � ATfENT10N OF: AUgl.1St ZS� ZOO6 ���'� ED OEfice of the Chief Regulatory Branch UG'!`� ���b` �',�������?i?RpyO r{: !�f. DamienMavis ���YD��� ��E P.O. Box 12190 . NT San Luis Obispo, C?. 93406 Deaz Mr.Mavis: We are in receipt of the Initial Study Summary for East Village Neighborhood in Cherry Creek, dated April 4, 2006. Unfortunately, due to our current permit workload we are unable to provide detailed comments on the document at this time. However,please be advised the proposed project may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pemut, especially in regards to any acHvity in Cherry Creek and other waters of the United States that may be temporarily or permanenr.ly impacted by way of fill materiai or construcrion equipment. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include,but are not limited to, 1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material,building road crossings,backfilling for utility lins crossings and consructiz:g eutfal? st:vctures, dams, l�vees, gro:�ts, weirs, or other stnxctures; 2. mechanized landclearing; grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States; 3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States; 4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. You will find a permit application form and a pamphlet that describes our regulatory program on the Corps Los Angeles Disctrict webpage at www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory. -2- If you have any questions,please contact me at (805)585-2140. Please refer to this letter and 200601313-HW in yourreply. Sincerely, ' '✓``p���/��,1,� � �n�11�X, �� D Heather Wylie Project Manager ATTACHMENTE SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO GOUNTY SANITATIOl\' DISTRICT IOperations Address: Business Address: 1600 Aloha , Post Office Box 339 Oceano, California 93445 Oceano, California 93445 (805)489-6666 _ , .. , '•� TO: Kelly Heffernon . City of Arroyo Grande • � -• - - - _ .t,r. ,:_- "� _ FROM: Tom Zehnder � , � ,'. _- �� '- DATE: November 10, 2004 SUBJ: Neighborhood Plan 04-001; Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002; Planned Unit Development 04-002 (Cherry Creek) Attached you will find the completed Project Referral and documents supporting our answer to Part II -Are there significant concerns, problems or impacts in your area of review? M:\026-SSLOCSD\026-001 District Admin\13-Admin\Development RevievATMTL re project referral.doc MEMORANDUM �_s� Date: October 13, 2004 �^1A1.LACE GROUP To: Tom Zehnder CIVIL ENGINEERING From: Raymond Dienzo�Steve Tanaka CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Subject: Cherry Creek—Tract 2653 n"a�°i ECTURE MECHANICAL TOfTI, ENGINEERING Additional flows from Tract 2653 were compared to the future flow ailocations projected PLANNING in the_Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (AGWWMP)to determine impacts to PUBLIC WORKS the SSLOCSD Trunk Sewer System. Wastewater flows from Tract 2653 are tabulated ADMINISTRATION � be�OW. SURVEYING / GIS SOLUTIONS � WATEA RESOURCES Housing Development No. of Flow Allocation NTERNATIONp�50N Units Peak Flows (gpm) Single Family (SF) 23 7.5 Cluster Home lots (MF) 12 3.9 Pocket Parks 2 0.9 Estate Lots (SF) 2 1.7 Total Additional Peak Flow 14 - SF and MF are estimated at 2.4 person/du (per AG General Plan Land Use Element) - Wastewater flows esGmated at 65 gpcd(AAF), per AGWWMP. - Estate Lots estimated at 400 gpd(AAF) Peak flows are 3.0 x AAF These flows will enter the SSLOCSD Trunk System at the Cherry Ave Trunk line and wiil be conveyed to the WWTP by the Southside Trunk lines. These flows were not accounted in the future flow allocation in the AGWWMP, but will add peak fiow of 14 gpm. The SSLOCSD trunk system in this area has capacity for these extra flows. The only area of concern is the Fair Oaks Ave trunk line near Hwy 101 which is owned and maintained by the City of Arroyo Grande. This stretch of 12" trunk line is presentiy at 100% capacity, as identified in the AGWWMP and is slated as a Capital Improvement WALLACE GROUP Project. Once implemented, this reach will have sufficient capacity for all anticipated A GalVtarnla Corporation bUI�C� OUt f�OWS. 4115 BROAD ST SUITE B-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO RCD:SGT:rcd CAUFORNIA 93401 T 805 544-4071 f 805 Saa-4294 M:W26-SSl0050�026-0OI Us1Atl Engineenng1026-002 Majar GrojMS4SSLOCSD Trunk Sewer Irtpad memo\Clierty Creek Tr 265]mert+o.EOc www.wallacegraup.us SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Operalions Address: Business Address: 1600 Aloha Post Office Bor 339 Oceano,California 93445 Oceano,California 93445 (805)489-6666 (805)481-6903 ' June 30, 2004 Mr. Don Spagnolo P.E. City of Anoyo Grande, Public Works Department P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93421 Subject: Cherry Creek Tract 2653 - Development Review Dear Mr. Spagnolo, We have reviewed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2653 for the Cherry Creek Development in the City of Anoyo Grande and find that it will not have insignificant impacts on the District's trunk collection lines. The Developer of this Tract will need to pay all applicable fees related to the District's current ordinances. There is an existing 15-inch and 12-inch City sewer collection line interconnected to the District's tnmk collection system in the area of Fair Oaks Avenue between Highway 101 and Valley Road that is identified as at capacity and should be replaced and enlarged to 18 inches. This development will add approximately 8750 gallons of flow to this line. If you have any questions please call Craig Taylor or me at 544-4011. Sinc y, L�/ Tom Zehnder, P.E. District Engineer cc: Kelly Heffemon, City Planning , M:\026-SSLOCSD\026-001 Dis[rictAdmin\I3-Admin�DevclopmentReview\ChcrryDevelopmentdoc ATTACHMENT F CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NEWSOM SPRINGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILITY REPORT : "' . --�� I WALLACE GROUP 4115 BROAD STREET, SUITE B-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 T 805 544-4011 F 805 544-4294 Job Number: 0232.5754 July 27, 2005 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NEWSOM SPRINGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILITY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION...........................................................................................................................................1 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS................................................................................:........................................1 REVIEWED AND APPROVED:..............................:.....................................................................................1 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................2 PURPOS E................................................................................................:....................................................2 AREA WATERSHEDS..................................................................................................................................2 POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS................................................................................................................4 EXISTINGHYDROLOGY..........................................................................................................................:...4 HYDROGRAPH.........................................................................................................................................5 ACRES..............................:.......................................................................................................................5 STORMWATER RUNOFF (CFS)..................................................................................................................5 COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS..........................6 BASINMODELING.......:.........................:.....................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 —Watershed Areas.......................................................................................................3 Figure 2— Potential Basin Locations...........................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES � Table 1 — Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Analysis .......................................................5 Table 2— Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area............6 � Table 3- 190 x 510 feet basin performance (2.2 acre site).........................................................7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A— Simplified Existing Conditions Model With Hydroflow Hydrograph Input � Parameters Appendix B — Existing Conditions and Hydroflow Hydrograph Input Parameters Appendix C — Alternatives Considered WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 1 CERTIFICATION Preparation of this report included efforts by the following persons: Craig A. Campbell, Principal Engineer Cheryl A. Lenhardt, Civil Engineer Professionat Engineers This report was prepared by, or under the direction of the following Professional Engineer's in accordance with the provisions of Section 6700 of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California. Civit Engineer: QROFess�oN /' ��Q��y��.LE,yh,y�F�G/ �"L.� SZ..�.�.,.G�r c� z�v �a m �l �' Z' `'�� � � G 65306 F Cheryl A%Lenhardt, Civil Engineer * ExP 5_3-g-.�� * PE 65306 S�. CIVII ���Q'� � qTFOFCA��F�� ' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: � 7- Z.7- oS' � ; _';�•30•� ':' Cr A. ampbell, Principal Engineer , P 344Q5 ., � . lNG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 ' Newsom Springs Basin Feasi6ility Study Page 1 ' SUMMARY The intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande is subject � to flooding in large storm events. Prior studies have identified altemative drainage projects to convey flood flows safely to Arroyo Grande Creek. This report evaluates the feasibility of using an upstream detention basin as a component of the Newsom Springs Drainage Project. Locations at Branch Mill Road and upstream were evaluated in the field and by computer modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained, our analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the available basin depth. With basin depths of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow is marginai. However, with the basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34 percent) can be achieved. Whether or not this depth can be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey. Based on a field observation, it appears questionable. Therefore if the project is to proceed further we recommend a topographic map be prepared. If the basin were installed as part of the Newsome Springs Drainage project, it can be expected to have the following effects: • Downstream facilities can be smaller. • The properties between Branch Mill Road and Cherry Lane Extension would receive some flood control benefit. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a detention basin upstream of a reoccurring flooding problem at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande. AREA WATERSHEDS Three undeveloped watersheds converge at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mili Road as shown in figure 2. WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 2 Figure 1 —Watershed Areas � ...:.. . �,• � . - . ��'._.._. � � ' � .,— "'•�. . . �l�r � _i,i:;'�1�`^1--• • s; _ ._ . �1�� '''�iJ � �� �' �/.•��t�-� "+ i� � , �-- = ,:•.;_ - , ' � � . „� �, ��;� � �!/ � a ,�5 �, . , , :_ �:�J¢ ��� '�>��' .� � ,K ;, ; ; ; _���. ' �� ��'-" :�,�� . . , �::�� ; ��' � � � � � a i:, ---� :' �i � ,��': � t �.3�tl � ��' � V ��� f . . ...� I :a � , � � � � :. � � a� °�^ �:_ "; a,� , _ � ',♦ �;. f �� � p �• i • N W U i�� � _[ L �? �\ 1, • I � . 4 � � .a � \� �,r t ` �' �� ` ,: ti1 ' a ' � ' ��' - ��' '�:�� , , . '` . ' �; a��F � �a , , .� ti; , x�X � � -� , , . : � � � � �', ' �� , � ! :a �� a = h � ���'��11$ ., `L � ��� ? ��` � �.� � <3 i � t � e a- -X \ ii 1 �1�.^ L � .�• v �r— ' � W + C ' � . ,�` � �' .. '. ,.r �s �u 3 � / � � Ct 1'� � o°o i ��(� � ' � �.� �� �l` I� zu ;%� � �t�� ..'� ° ' h 1� �' 2� '�'� �° )3 `� _ ��.'�iV' 'J.�� � �� ���^� i . @ ~ : ;\ i.p \.; ,�' , �' ;� 3 ,�. ! - � U d, o. l ;: , .� -� - �� ;� �� ,�, � � ,�� \ b — , �— I T E'' �� / �s C . s a ,� 1 'C �:;��� 4 •�� � � :� �. _�I �:� �. �r�, � -�,; ,Jf: �'� - :''• }{ ; �-<. , . , �;. o ..�'e � u ` ;�� �:, °.�`€s���� � '� .. �,y�.. � - - •• _ ; �', `j tr:�,- 6'�`�. , �� '�- r, ' •d _ �. : V .•' `� . \' \ 1�� �.. : n.� _ + � K _ - 6,.. . �`.\y` '• ��\ � � .•9j � � ' ;`� �.� � 5 1 � -. � r''=Ji:`' . :'• .1' ^y ���e... `,``� ` :.. -.`;\, ...- ��,r /�- �7" �' .�li�..-'. . ... ` �`�'�.�� l . The largest of the three watersheds is 1,116 acres and collects runoff from Newsom and Guaya Canyons. In a 100-year storm, this watershed will generate about 854 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill road and into the City limits through an 8ft x 4ft culvert and traveis north through a roadside channei. Adjacent to, and just down stream of, the first watershed is a smaller steep mountainous watershed of 51 acres. The runoff from these two watersheds converges at the "stone culvert." This combined flow contributes to flooding problems within Tract 139 (Luana Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific Coast Christian Schooi, and further downstream at Valley Road. Excess flows are not diverted through the stone cuivert. The excess flow travels in a roadside ditch that runs parallei to Branch Mill Road (See Figure 3, yeilow) until is reaches the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. At the ditches terminus, the runoff WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 3 generated from flat, irrigated cropland of approximately 73 acres, combines with the two previous watersheds, resulting in a 100-year runoff of approximately 1080 cfs. As a result, the homes within Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding. POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS Installing detention basins upstream of flooding problem has the potential to store the peak flow and meter out a flow at a lower rate. Based on a site review, two areas were identified as possible locations for basins. These areas were chosen for evaluation because they were currently undeveloped, were relatively flat, and were at the base of the largest contributing watershed. They are shown with red boundaries in Figure 3 and are both along the flow path of Newsom Canyon. The rectangular area analyzed south of Branch Mill Road is the larger site at 2.27 acres while the area north of Branch Mill Road is 1.72 acres. In addition to being larger, the southerly site has more usable vertical room. Therefore, the southeriy site is considered for additional analysis in this report. Field review was also determined that areas further upstream of Branch Mill Road are too constrained by the canyon walls and existing home sites to be considered for a basin. Figure 2— Potential Basin Locations Y�C' ' L<l•rJ -� / • 8 '�1� f��� .. * �{`v �i7� i�+���.� '.r. S.+ �. •'N�,, p ' ' a �� r ' �I � ♦ .'� axYS°r . �•�.i �f C� .� � ���.. �T�� •e:. �' s ��. � .�.T� ct. r.��' S' ��.� • �ts ! - I.G�y?'rs" �.�'it,• �•� � � i %� �l � .. .4i� � 1'�'.� ��. ' r ,�. �' •;� ' _ . , � �. ��a� ��_ I,z`s'�f ��"�.t a� �..�s.�r�'". � ,. t t . S s� f iR���F'` t'E�3, � / � '�� : y y �' � �' � � �� �♦ ��� ���1LJy�y#y,���� ��V' ��51 � � . 1 ,fYtS �.�i.T .,� . `� . �] FT..'�3� t'), /\ ' f� �q Y. t�.tF' ` ;�� `tr � �..� ,�,5.. d; �:; �,'�'� , �r q.! 4' �' �, � S:. S Fl f= r. . , -I �� K`S ��b 4 1 ���� [J �1 F � ' S � 1 l � ✓« �f+i 'x' � ` A' , �✓ \�w.. h eRn.'k't ,wv1 Y J.::�J- Y � t � '� � , T. � _ , e*�'L'1�t^ ` i,�-i'.) ' .�, , .�.t`Y.:, �r . • � EXISTING HYDROLOGY A previous analysis of existing conditions was presented in April of 1998. The analysis performed at that time was generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method program (SBUH). The current analysis was performed with the 'Hydroflow Hydrographs' application with the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method selected for the hydrograph routing option. The `Hydroflow Hydrograph' application is an improved modeling software package that allows the routing of the hydrograph information generated by the SBUH application. The existing conditions of both programs were compared using the same rainfall parameters to verify the consistency of the models with each other. The results of each program run are consistent with each other and are shown in the columns labeled `previous' and 'in-kind WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 4 evaluation' of Table 1. The third column of table 1, 'updated model,' was the results generated by the new 'Hydroflow Hydrographs' program which now can reflect the travei time realized in the system. The SBUH modeis previousiy developed required that the three hydrographs converge together at the same location. However in reality, hydrograph 1 discharges into a 2,760-foot long ditch located along the north side of Branch Mill Road, south of the agricuitural fieids [hydrograph 4]. Flow travels northward and is combined with the runoff associated with Hydrograph 2 at the stone culvert located at the intersection of Huebner lane [hydrograph 5]. The combined flow of hydrograph 1 and 2 travei northward in a 611-foot long roadside located along the eastern shoulder of Branch Mill road [hydrograph 6]. This roadside ditch currently discharges the combined flows at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue. The runoff associated with the agricultural fields, or hydrograph 3, also discharges to the southwestern corner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue [hydrograph 7�. A second model was developed using the upgraded software to more accurately reflect the existing conditions. As a result, the peak discharge for a 100-year event was reduced to 968 cfs, or 500 cfs per square mile. The decrease of peak flow by 112 cfs is attributable partly due to the travel time realized in the roadside ditches, and partly due to a more defined rainfall distribution in the new modei. ' Table 1 —Comparison of Prior Analysls to Current Analysis , ,. . , . .. ::; " ,. ` ' HYDROGRAPH "„'_ . , ACRES °' STORIUIWATER RUNOFF;{CFS), „ ' Previous = Current Q10b . . ` - .`` �:. , : � droflow Hydrograph Program) � , Q100 ' �Hy.. # Descriptwn - �ssuH,: In Kind � Updated : , Program) ,, . � . ` ' ` ' `� '' Evaluation Modei. _. 1 Newsom Springs Creek to 1116 891 854 854 Branch Mill Road 2 Hillside area Tributary to 51 60 62 62 Branch Mili Road 3 Agriculture area between 73 73 164 164 Branch Mill Road — Cherry Ave 4 Open Channel from Branch 811 Mill Road to Stone Culvert 5 Stone Culvert (Hydrographs 2 863 and 4 combine) 6 Open Channel from Stone 859 Culvert to Cherry Avenue 7 Combined flows from 968 agriculture and channei flows (Hydrographs 3 and 6) Flow to Arroyo Grande Creek 1240 1024 1178 968 WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasi6ility Study Page 5 The overall system time of concentration was increased by 9 minutes. The parameters entered are provided in Appendix A. While a graphical representation of the model, tables of the input parameters and subsequent results are provided in Appendix B. The restrictions of the box culverts at the outlets of hydrograph one and two were not considered but it is anticipated that they would serve to further decrease the peak flow observed at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue. COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS As shown in table 2, the Hydroflow Hydrograph program resuits for hydrographs one and two are fairiy consistent with other studies performed in the area. However, the new hydrograph for the agricultural area, hydrograph 3 reflects a doubling of the peak flows realized in a 100-year storm event. The primary reason for this increase in peak flow is a result of a decrease in the time of concentration. In the previous study, the time of concentration was set at 32.4 minutes. The new study, based upon sheet flow principles, assessed the time of concentration to be only 13.9 minutes. The time of concentration calculations are provided in appendix A. Table 2—Comparison of Runoff Rates Caiculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area qREA, CALCULATED ' - STUDY.SPONSOR; ` DESCRIPTION OF AREA SQUARE PEAK FLOW - ` MILES : PER.SQUARE ' YEAR OF,STUDY . ` ` �' ~ _ ' . ,_. ` MICE ,. .. City of AG— Waliace Group 2005 Newsom Springs to Branch Mill 8 1.94 500 Cherry Rd Intersection FEMA study for SLO CO Meadow Creek at US 101 4.4 591 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 FEMA study for SLO CO Carpenter Canyon Creek at 1.0 600 Unineorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 confluence with Cofbit CB�yon Creek FEMA study for SLO CO Corbit Canyon Creek upstream 3.9 . 590 � Uninwrporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 confluence with Poorman Canyon Creek FEMA study for SLO CO Deleissigues Creek at confluence 2.5 600 Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 with Corbit Canyon Creek FEMA study for SLO CO Los Berros Creek at confluence with 26.9 409. Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 Arroyo Grande Creek � Corps of Engineers study of San Corbit Canyon Creek 4.7 510 to 660 Luis County streams, 1987 FEMA study of Arroyo Grande North Fork of Los Berros Creek 2.6 461 flood insurance rate maps, 1984 WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs 8asin Feasibility Study ' Page 6 BASIN MODELING A model was created to analyze the effect, if any, on the construction of a detention basin upstream of the area prone to flooding. The basin analyzed was situated at the north end of the tributary associated with hydrograph 1 on the south side of Branch Mill Road. The availabie depth at the sites appears to be about 15 feet. This would be obtained by a combination of excavation below grade and berms above grade. This available depth is limited by the need for freeboard, and an overflow weir. In order to convey the 100-year peak runoff of 854 cfs, a 50 feet wide overflow weir would flow approximately 3.1 feet deep. Adding one foot of freeboard, and the top 4.1 feet of the basin must be reserved for overFlow capacity and freeboard. ' Basin depths ranging from 10 feet to 15 feet were considered for a basin with 1:3 side slopes and top dimensions of 190 feet by 510 feet. For each case, the basin outflow was restricted (by using smaller outfiow pipe), and by trials, the pipe size was determined that would maintain the 100 year water surface elevation below the spillway. The results of this evaluation are shown below in Table 3. Table 3-190 x 510 feet basin performance(2.2 acre site) , ;. , ; , : `. 100 YEAR FLOW(CFS�: .., DEP7H , , . . , _ _ OF s "WEIR PIPE SIZE ` ' ,. , ' TOTAL AT � . POND ECEV ' (IN) ` ` ' {FT) INFLOW ' OUTFLOW CHERRY. REDUCTION ,. , AVENUE 10 ft 6.3 5-60 854 745 828 26 12 ft 7.8 3-66 854 703 779 75 15 ft 10.9 2-60 854 546 527 327 , WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study ' Page 7 . � APPENDIX WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasi6ility Study "'" Page 8 APPENDIX A SIMPLIFIED EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL WITH HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS Ail watersheds shared a hydrologic soil group of'D" and a Type 1 Storm with rainfall rates that are consistent with NOA Maps of the area. The SCS Curve Numbers (CN) for each of the watersheds were assigned as follows: Hydrograph SCS Curve Number 1. A composite curve number of 74 was generated for the area associated with hydrograph 1. It was generated by assigning a SCS Curve Number of 77 to the estimated 279 acres associated with the western slopes of the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are densely forested, a SCS Curve Number of 73 to the estimated 826 acres associated with the west facing slopes of the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are non- � developed brush lands in good condition and a SCS Curve number of 98 to the estimated 11 acres of impervious area (roads, buildings, etc). 2. An SCS curve number of 77 was assigned to hydrograph two because a dense canopy of oak trees characterized the area. 3. An SCS curve number of 88 were assigned to hydrograph three because row crops characterize the area. The time of concentration for each watershed was determined by the SCS TR-55 method for hydrographs 1 and 2. Hydrograph 3 used the SCS average velocity method. WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 1 TR55 Tc Worksheet 3 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 1 Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.130 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 20.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 10.10 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.10 Shaliow Concentrated Flow � Flow length (ft) = 600.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 33.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ff/s) = 9.27 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 1.08 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.08 Channel Flow X sectionai flow area (sqft) = 0.01 1.00 7.00 I Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.03 4.00 9.00 Channel slope (%) = 18.20 4.03 1.00 Manning's n-value = 0.040 0.025 0.018 Velocity (ft/s) = 7.61 4.73 6.99 Flow length (ft) = 1100.0 14900.0 600.0 Travel Time (min) = 2.41 + 52.54 + 1.43 = 56.38 TotalTravel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 67.60 min t 3 TR55 Tc Worksheet HydraFlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 Hiliside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd Description , A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.400 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 200.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 15.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 20.14 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 20.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 1300.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 18.50 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 6.94 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 3.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 3.12 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 7.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 9.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.018 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.99 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 600.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 1.43 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.43 Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 24.70 min � � Project: NL�.u:c�•� �������� Project No� ^ �2 - Calculated By: C.�� y Date: Scale: � Checked By: Date: Sheet of �--� i � i � . _ I %iNCi ic;.,�r-?t;-. � " i WALLACE GftOUP ' A I} ' \ + .I•1 1 r_ r ; _ Y CIVILENGINEEftING A I �r-� "r',/.': �t�-._ . . . , C.� �'. �. i C��^'J/? , - � � � , i CONSTRUCTIOPI i AIANAGEMENT i L = I.L� '�TI-^' � LANDSCAPE I . .' . � _. ='. i :• . : r° ' SI��? � VQ IOC! i -� '�- I ARCHITECTUAE I I MECHANICAL ! I ENGI�EERING i � _.�:C I L� R � �^' � � .^ r. PLANNING I' A �,: id: k, _ � = �. �" = � > ._ = �,-,� ' � C �C v � ^ f.fD 1 . PUBLIC WORKS � ADMINISTRATION I SURVEYING / r GIS SOLUTIONS I �c� k �. - �55��>nie -k'�o:, � .f�0��.? UP �Oc�h, a r � ;�'!=°'' i . , - . WATER RESOURCES WALLACE SWANSON IMTEANATIONAL i � �d_ a70 � . ��. � � .G (Gt� ' Y1^.... j . 0 � � � I I I I I � si is gaoAO sr suiTE a-; I SAM WIS GBISPO CALiFOFAIIA 93407 � I I j i T BOi Si4-4071 . F 805 5-4-4294 133J AF.HOLD CB SUITc 21S � , �.IP.Rii`I?Z CALIF�a�IIA 34ii3 T 525 t2d-:�01 F "s?i ?:d-io0- wvr�cwa Ilacegrou p.a s APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL AND HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 I� Newsom Sprrngs Basin Feasi6ility Study Page 2 . 1 2 3 � � � �� A . S,mP ���e � Ex �s-��� O�ea�� _ � � �� c�s k,P = � ao M;., � �reasa d f� -For H � � �2 �eqend Q pp a k = S o I c-Fs Hvd. Oriain Descriotion � - � �ODn W't��Yl 1 SBUH Runo(f Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing 2 SBUH Runoff Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff Farm Area behveen Branch Mill Rd&Cherry Ave 4 Combine Combined Flows appr Braneh Mill&Cherry Intsctn • � Hydraflow Hydrographs Model Project: Simplified exisitng Newsom Springs Drainage.g �'ihursday, Jun 9 2005, 10:13�AM 1 Hydrograph Summary Report � Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph . :�o. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storege description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (acft) (ft) (ack) 1 SBUH Runoff 854.37 1 601 257.533 — — — Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 — — — Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25220 — -- — Farm Area behveen Branch Mill Rd& 4 Combine 1178.06 1 720 240.583 1,2,3 — -- Combined Flows appr Branch Mill& Simplified exisitng Newsom Springs �d: 100 Year Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 2:04 PM T; t HydraFlOw Hydrographs by Intelisolve 1 Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Hydrogreph Peak Time Time to Votume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrogreph Vo. type flow Interval , peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origtn) (cfs) (min) (min) (ack) (ft) (acft) � 1 SBUH Runof( 594.68 1 610 257.532 — — — Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH RunoH 59.85 1 599 12.947 — — — Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25220 — — — Farm Area behveen Branch Mill Rd 8 4 Combine 801.12 1 600 295.700 1,2,3 — — Combined Flows appr Branch Mill& existing Newsom Springs Drainage i �#r�dii-Fi�ath#�cd�fe,�ow Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 2:10 PM :� I _ HvdraFlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve 1 2 3 � 4 �:��.• � . � I I � � ' � 5� 6 I � 7� C . /"tU5� �2a,r�.�1C �XiSf�nq Moc�o J Le end `� �eal< �oa - Q(o $ c-�5 ___3__ . Hvd" Oriain Descriotion ^�� _ � �t� r,.� n 1 SBUH Runoft Newsom Springs Cr at 8ranch Miil Rd Xing 2 SBUH Runo(f liillslde Area trib to 8ranch Mili Rd 3 SDUH Runoff Farm Area belween Branch Mill Rd&Cherry Ave 4 Reach Branch mill roatl channel lo stone culvert 5 Combine Stone Culvert � 6 Reach From Stone CulveA lo Cherry Ave , 7 Combine tntersection o(BH Rd and Cherry Ave Hydrafiow Hydrographs Model Project: Existing Newsom Springs Drainage using chan eTt�prtsday, Jun 9 2005, 1:56 PM 1 Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Timeto Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph .o. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage descriptton ' (orfgin) (cfs) (min) (min) (acft) (R) (acft) t SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 — — — Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 — — — Hiliside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25220 — — — Farm Area behveen Branch Mill Rd & 4 Reach 811.48 1 610 257.533 1 -- ---- Branch mill road channei to stone cul 5 Combine 863.05 1 610 270.480 2,4 — — Stone Culvert 6 Reach 858.89 1 613 270.480 5 — — From Stone Cuivert to Cherry Ave 7 Combine 967.99 1 609 295.700 3,6 — — Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av Existing Newsom Springs Drainage ��eeb�pAAO Year Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 1:56 PM � _ / 1 n Hydrefow Hydrographs by Intelisolve APPENDIX G ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005 Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 3 1 2 3 �.:r�-' � t.�.�•." 4 I 5 I \ � }Z � c�e�-I-l� �'.rs�n s�`� Q 2.a+� - �'� � �'. P 9.I c, � 7 I �'P = v:'> 2 �,., �, � � ( `J � � e��n �o. 5 � n L�Ce e"—d W� " '� Z r C�'� , 8 JO;a.F( " Ja � Hvd• Orlain Descdption / 1 SBUH Runofl Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing L� �O �-' �� %�` , 2 SBUH Runoft Hiliside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff Farm Area between Branch Mitl Rd&Cherry Ave 4 Reservoir South of Branch Mill R 5 Reach Basin to stone culvert . " 6 Combine Stone Culvert 7 Reach From Stone CulveR to Cherry Ave 8 Combine Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Ave . Hyd�aflOw Hyd1'Og�BphS MOdel Project: basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gpw Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:42 PM 1 Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrogreph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (acft) (ft) (acft) 1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 — — — Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Milt R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 — — — -Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25.220 — -- — Farm Area behveen Brench Mill Rd& 4 Reservoir 703.06 7 627 257.464 1 197.25 18.774 South of Branch Mill R 5 Reach 695.50 1 634 257.464 4 — — Basin to stone culvert 6 Combine 728.92 1 632 270.471 2, 5 — — Stone Culvert 7 Reach 727.51 1 635 270.410 6 — -- From Stone Culvert to Cherty Ave 8 Combine 779.18 1 632 295.631 3,7 — — Intersection of BH Rd and Cherty Av �� °� sia x �z � basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gp Return Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:17 PM j I _ _ Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve _ Hydrograph Plot 2 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday.Jul 27 2005,4:17 Ph1 Hyd. No. 4 South of Branch Miil R Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 703.06 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 197.25 ft Reservoir name = 12 foot depth Max. Storage = 18.774 acft Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume=257.464 acft South of Branch Mill R Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4- 100 Yr Q (cfs) 861.00 � 861.00 738.00 I 738.00 — -- -- .. .... _......_ _ — - _... __ ...._.__..._ _ _ .... 615.00 615.00 492.00 I 492.00 ---._.. _........ __ __ _ .. _._ ---. ._ _ - 4- _.......__ 369.00 I 369.00 246.00 � I 246.00 I 123.00 � , 123.00 _ I I �. O.00 \`^ O.00 0 3 5 S 11 13 16 19 21 24 27 Time (hrs) — Hyd No. 4 — Hyd No. 1 Pond Report 3 HydraFlow Hydrogrephs by Intelisolve Wednesday,Jul 27 2005,4:77 PM Pond No. 1 - 12 foot depth Pond Data Bottom LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side slope = 3.0:1 Bottom elev. = 190.00 ft Depth = 12.00 ft Stage 1 Storage Tabie Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storege(acfti Total sto2ge(acft) 0.00 190.00 96,900 0:�00 0.000 0.60 190.60 99,433 1.352 1.352 1.20 19120 707,992 7.387 2.739 1.80 791.80 104,577 1.423 4.762 2.40 192.40 107,187 1.458 5.620 3.00 193.00 109,ffi4 1.495 7.115 3.60 193.60 112.487 1.531 8.646 410 194.20 115,775 1.568 10.214 4.80 194.80 117.889 1.605 11.819 5.40 195.40 120,630 1.643 13.462 6.00 196.00 123,396 1.681 15.142 6.60 196.60 126,188 1.719 16.861 7.20 19720 129,006 1.758 18.619 7.80 197.80 131,850 1.797 20.415 8.40 " 198.40 134,720 1.836 22.25t 9.00 199.00 137,616 1.876 24.126 9.60 199.60 140,538 7.916 26.042 1020 200.20 143,485 1.956 27.998 10.80 200.80 146,459 1.997 29.995 11.40 207.40 149,459 2.038 32.033 12.00 202.00 152,484 2.079 34.112 Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures IAl IBI I�l I�] IA] IB] I�l Iol Rise(in) = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span(in) = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest E�.(ft) = 197.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 3 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33 Invert EI.(ft) = 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Broad - - - Length(k) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MuItiSWge = No No No No Slope(%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .013 Orif.Coefl. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 MultlStage = n/a No No No E�Itration= 0.000 iNhr(Wet area) Tailwater Elev.= 0.00 R Nota:CuIVeNOMCa ouNOVn�ave Deen analyieA�nCer inlat aiW ouUet conW I. Stsge(ft) Stage i Discharge sta9e�n� 14.00 � . . t4.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 , 10.00 . _ _... ................ .. .......... ............ .. .. ........_ ._. 8.00 8.00 i 6.00 I 6.00 4.00 4.00 i 2.00 i I . 2.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 7600.00 t800.00 2000.00 2200.00 . Discharge(ds) �' - Total� -- I 1 Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrogreph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage descriptlon (origin) (efs) (min) (min) (ack) (k) (acft) 1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 257.533 — — — Newsom Springs Cr at Branch MiII R 2 SBUH Runoff 61.92 1 599 12.947 -- — — Hillside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd 3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 1 598 25220 — — — Fartn Area behveen Branch Mill Rd& 4 Reservoir 54624 1 650 257.471 1 200.85 30.164 South of Branch Mill R , 5 Reach 544.82 1 657 257.411 4 — — Basin to stone culvert 6 Combine 497.16 1 665 270279 2,5 — — Stone CulveR 7 Reach 497.00 1 668 270.279 6 — — From Stone Culvert to Cherty Ave 8 Combine 527.03 1 659 295.499 3,7 — — Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av ��0 )< C�p : ib � � basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gpwReturn Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 2:39 PM � Hydrafiow Hydrogrephs by Intelisolve _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � , 2 Hydrograph Piot HydraFlow Hydrogrephs by Intelisolve Wednesday,Jul 27 2005,2:39 PM Hyd. No. 4 South of Branch Mill R Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 546.24 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 200.85 ft Reservoir name = 15 foot depth Max. Storage = 30.164 acft � Storage Indication method used. Hydrogreph Volume=257.471 acft South of Branch Mill R Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4-100 Yr Q (cfs) 861.00 861.00 738.00 738.00 _...- ....._..... ...._._._.. _.._. _. _ __ .. . ......._ .._ _ . --....... 615.00 615.00 � � 492.00 492.00 369.00 369.00 246.00 246.00 123.00 123.00 _ _ 1 ! 0.00 ` 0.00 0 3 5 8 11 13 16 19 21 24 27 29 Time(hrs) — Hyd No. 4 — Hyd No. 1 � , �= F�ond Report 3 ,I Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve , Wednesday,Jui 27 2005.2:39 PM Pond No. 1 - 15 foot depth �'I Pond Data I Bottom LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side slope = 3.0:1 Bottom elev. = 190.00 ft Depth = 15.00 ft I Stage/Storage Tabie SWge(ft) Elevation(ft) Contourarea(sqft) Incr.Storage(acft) Totat storage(ack) 0.00 790.00 96,900 0.000 0.000 0.75 790.75 100,070 t.696 1.696 1.50 191.50 103,281 1.751 3.446 2.25 19225 106,532 1.806 5.252 3.00 193.00 109,824 1.863 7.715 3.75 193.75 113,t56 7.920 9.034 4.50 194.50 116,529 1.977 11.012 �� 525 19525 119,942 2.036 13.047 6.00 196.00 123,396 2.095 15.142 i�� 6.75 196.75 126,890 2.155 17297 7.50 197.50 130,425 2.215 19.512 �'�� 8.25 19825 134,000 2.276 21788 �j 9.00 799.00 137,616 2.338 24.126 h 975 19975 141,272 2.401 26.527 q 10.50 200.50 144,969 2.464 28.991 ;� 17.25 20125 148,706 2.528 31.520 12.00 202.00 152,484 2.593 34.112 '� 12.75 202J5 156,302 2.658 36.777 ,,� 13.50 203.50 160,161 2724 39.495 14.25 204.25 764,060 �2.791 42.286 ��� 15.00 205.00 168,000 2.859 45.145 � Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures IAl LBl I�] I�l IAl IB] [�l . I�l Rise Qn) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span(in) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Ei.(ft) = 200.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 2 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33 � Invert EI.(ft) = 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Broad - - - � Length(ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MultlStage = No No No No � Slope(%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .013 i Orif.Coeft. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 MultiStage = n/a No No No Exfiltretion= 0.000 iNhr(Wet area) Taihvater Elev.= 0.00 R Nole:CuWeNOMCa w�flawa have been analyzeE unEer inlel ark autlet anvol. Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft) 75.00 15.00 '��, 12.00 12.00 ! � i 9.00 . 9.00 ' 6.00 6.00 + 3.00 3.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 `400.00 600.00 800.00 t000.00 7200.00 1400.00 1600.00 7800.00 Discharge(cfs) � - Total Q . ' - - - - - - - - - -- �