The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2000-03-28 --- - ---- --~- CITY COUNCIL Wit;! 0/ AGENDA ~ 8f/)l(Mtde Michael A. Lady Mayor Rick TerBorch Interim City Manager Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Thomas A. Runels Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Steve Tolley Council Member Jim Dickens Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: BOY SCOUT TROOP 489 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR GEORGE LEPPER PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, ARROYO GRANDE 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 5.a. Proclamation - Honoring Five Cities Youth Basketball 5.b. Proclamation. Month of the Child 5.c. Proclamation - RecognizinQ Ella Honeycutt as the Honoree in the 2000 San Luis Obispo County Women of Distinction Awards 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6A. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.a. Development Impact Fee Study and Ordinance (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Ordinance repealing Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and adding a new Article 6, Chapter 2, Title 3; and 2) Adopt Resolution establishing development impact fee amounts. 7.b. Planned Sign Program No. 00-001: 955 Rancho Parkway. Trader Joe's (McCANTS) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS: Persons in the audience may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to all communication but, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. Upon completing your comments: . You may be directed to staff for assistance; . A Council. Member may indicate an interest in discussing your issue with you subsequent to the Council meeting; . The Council may direct staff to research the issue and subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of a memorandum or staff report); or . No action is required or taken. 9. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 9.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Approve the listing of cash disbursements to vendors for the period March 1, 2000 through March 15, 2000. 9.b. Minutes of City Council MeetinQ of March 14.2000 (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve minutes as submitted. - ----- -~~- - --,,- AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 3 9. CONSENT AGENDA (continued): 9.c. Award of Bid - Rancho Grande Park Design and Construction Documents (HERNANDEZ) Recommended Action: Award bid to RRM Design Group in the amount of $78,16.5 for the Rancho Grande Park Design and Construction documents. 9.d. Affordable Housing Requirements Ordinance (McCANTS) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending Title 9 by adding Chapter 19 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to establish mandatory affordable housing requirements consistent with the General Plan. 9.e. City Participation in a ReQional Commercial RecyclinQ Education Program (McCANTS) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution to participate in the regional commercial recycling education program. 9.f. Grand Avenue. Elm Street to Halcyon Road. Proiect No. 60-70-90-98-6. Proaress Payment No.8 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize progress payment in the amount of $67,588.71 to Whitaker Contractors, Inc. 9.g. CUP 99-011. EI Helou. 121 East Branch Street - Agreement Affecting Real Property. (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize Mayor to sign Agreement Affecting Real Property for 121 East Branch Street. 9.h. Water for Grading Operations - Tract 2265 (Village Glen) (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Authorize the use of potable water for grading operations. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Open Space and Conservation Committee Appointments (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Appoint two residents to serve on the Open Space and Conservation Committee. 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Appeal of Reduction of Fee Waiver Request by Harvest Bag. Inc. (HERNANDEZ) Recommended Action: Deny the appeal by Harvest Bag, Inc. of the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision to reduce facility rental fees. AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 4 NEW BUSINESS: (continued) 11.b. General Plan Amendment Reauests (McCANTS) Recommended Action: 1) Provide direction to staff with regard to the disposition of those requests which are not annexations or conversions from agriculture and which are not currently reflected in the Draft General Plan; 2) Set the date and time for the following workshops: a) Disposition of General Plan Amendment requests requiring annexation or conversion from agriculture to amend it to urban use; and b) Scope of issues to be included in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update; and 3) Direct that the April 6, 2000 workshop with the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission be used to determine the focus for the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR MICHAEL A. LADY: (1 ) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (2) Other (b) MAYOR PRO rEM TONY M. FERRARA (1 ) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (4) Economic Development Task Force (5) Other (c) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (3) Other (d) COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE TOLLEY: (1) Long-Range Planning Committee (2) South County Youth Coalition (3) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA) (4) Other -~.---~--~,-,---- ,-_..,..~....,-_.. ---- -------'---- AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 5 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (continued): (e) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1 ) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) Economic Development Committee/Chamber of Commerce (3) Community Recreation Center Subcommittee (4) Economic Opportunity Commission (5) Other 13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 14. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Information for the City Council as presented by the Interim City Manager. 15. ADJOURNMENT -----~ AGENDA SUMMARY - MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 6 * * * * * * * Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473- 5414. * * * * * * * In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * * * * * * * Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www.arrovoqrande.orq --.. ------- ..",-----, ,_.._~----- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - ABBREVIATIONS revised 1 rJ/2fj/gij A Agricultural Preserve JPA Joint Powers Authority AB Assembly Bill LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission ADA Americans with Disabilities Act LOCC League of Califomia Cities AG General Agriculture LLA Lot Line Adjustment AGMC Arroyo Grande Municipal Code LUE Land Use Element AGPOA Arroyo Grande Police Officers' Association MER Lot Merger APN Assessor's Parcel Number MF CondominiumITownhouse APCB Air Pollution Control Board MFA Apartments APCD Air Pollution Control District MHP Mobile Home Parks ARC Architectural Review Committee 0 Office Professional ASCE American Society Civil Engineers OCSD Oceano Community ServIces DIstrIct ASD Administrative Services Department OSCE Open Space and Conservation Element AWWA American Water Works Association PC Planning Commisaion BD Building Division PD Police Department CA City Attorney PF PubliclQuasi Public CC City Council PPR Plot Plan Review CCC CaUfornia Conservation Corps PRD Parks & Recreation Department CCCSIF Central Coast Cities Self-Insurance Fund PRE-APP Pre-applicatlon CD Community Development PSHHC Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp. CDBG Community Development Block Grant PSP Planned Sign Program CE Circulation Element PUD Planned Unit Development CEC CaHfornla Energy Commission PIN Public Works Department CEQA CaHfornia Environmental Quality Act RE Residential Estate CIP Capital'lmprovement Program RFP Request for Proposals CIWMP California Integrated Waste Management Plan RFQ Request for Qualific8tions CM City Manager's Office RH Hillside Residential CMC California Men's Colony RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan CMP Congestion Management Plan RR Rural Residential COC Certificate of Compliance RS Suburban Residential CPI Consumer Price Index RTA Reversion to Acreage CUP Conditional Use Permit RWQCB Regional Water QuaIIy Control Board DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education SAC Staff Advisory Committee DC Development Code SB Senate Bill CEA Drug Enforcement Administration SCAT South County Area Transit E.C. Election Code SEIU Service Employees International Union EDD Economic Development Department SF Single Family EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit SLO San Luis Obispo EIR Environmental Impact Report SLOCOG San Luis Obispo CouncU of Governments EIS Environmental Impact Statement SLOHA San Luis Obispo Housing Authority EVC Economic VItality Corporation SLONTF San Luis Obispo Narcotlca Task Force FAU Federal Aid Urban SLORTA San Luis Obispo Regional TnntIt Authority FD Fire Division SLOWRAC San Luis Obispo County Weer Resources Advisory FDAA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration Committee FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SR Senior Housing FID Financial Services Department SSLOCOWA South San Luis Obispo County Water AssocIation FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District FTA Federal Transit Administration SRRE Source Reduction & Recyclng Element FY Fiscal Year SWRCD State Water Resources Control Board G.C. Govemment Code TPM Tentative Parcel Map GC General Commercial TT Tentative Tract Map GF General Fund TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee GP General Plan TUP Temporary Use Permit GPA General Plan Amendment UBC Uniform Building Code HCD CaHfornla Department of Housing and Community UFC Uniform Fire Code Development USA Underground Service Alert HOP Home Occupancy Permit VAR Variance HUD Housing and Urban Development Dept. VC Village Commercial I Industrial and Business Park VSR View Shed Review ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation ZONE 3 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 3 (Lopez Project) -- --- _.---'.~-----'------ I... PROCLAMATION HONORING FIVE CITIES YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE WHEREAS, the Five Cities Youth Basketball League represents the joint endeavor of the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, the Five Cities Youth Basketball, and the San Luis Obispo County YMCA; and WHEREAS, nearly 1,200 children, first through eighth grade, registered this season, and 135 teams were formed, a 15 team increase over last season; and WHEREAS, the transition of program operation and its success would not have been possible without the excellent work and commitment of staff, particularly Doug Perrin, Recreation Supervisor, Joe Sorenson, Program Coordinator, and Alison Neff, Administrative Secretary; and . WHEREAS, the Five Cities Youth Basketball Board of Directors, and the San Luis Obispo YMCA are to be congratulated and commended for the volunteer time commitment and support necessary for the program to be successful; and WHEREAS, awards were presented to Vard Ikeda, Stan Ikeda, Randy Voss, Steve Brehm, and Kathy Montgomery, of the Five Cities Youth Basketball League during the Park and Recreation Department Volunteers Banquet; and WHEREAS, the Five Cities Youth Basketball League program concluded March 12th, with over 1,000 people attending the awards ceremony, demonstrating the great success of the program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Michael A. Lady, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby honor the FIVE CITIES YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE, for the League's excellent work, dedication, and contribution to the youth of the Five Cities area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 28th day of March, 2000. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ~ ttONOAAIZ-Y 'P1Z-Ot:U\MI\TION ~ m IZ-f,t:OG.NIl..ING. I\'PIZ-IL 1.000 p..~ m "MONTH OF THE, l:HILD11 r:Jj m ~ WHEREAS, Saturday, April 8, 2000 will commemorate the 22nd annual "Day of the Child" celebration during Children's Day in the San Luis Obispo Mission Plaza; and m m WHEREAS, in San Luis Obispo County, there are 31,334 children under the age of 12 who need access to comprehensive, integrated services and 11,432 are eligible for subsidized child care while their parents are working; and ft] m WHEREAS, quality child care is no longer a fringe benefit, but a necessity for working parents to be productive and happy employees, and local employers need to be ~ m champions in supporting the many challenges facing these working parents and families; and m WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande recognizes that every moment in a child's life Is ~ an opportunity for that child to learn, and that the early years determine whether a child succeeds in school and in life, and that all children need at least one caring and m m loving adult in their lives; and WHEREAS, the activities of this month will provide an opportunity to acknowledge ft] m quality youth and early childhood programs, their dedicated staff, -and to applaud their efforts to improve the quality, availability, and accessibility of such programs; and m WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Child Care Planning Council, the Family Child Care ~ Association of San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Association -for the Education of Young Children, and the County Commission on Children and Youth work m cooperatively to coordinate the events and activities of the "DAY AND MONTH OF THE m CHILD"; and WHEREAS, all citizens are encouraged to do what they can at work, home, and within ~ m the community to assure all children, youth, and families have the opportunity and support to thrive, and may we remember to listen to and watch children around us and m remember to have patience and allow them to enjoy the journey of childhood. ft] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Michael A. Lady, Mayor of the City of r:J(J Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim Aprit2000 as the m "MONTH OF THE CHILD", and April 8, 2000 as the "DAY OF THE CHILD", and m encourage all citizens who use child care services to acknowledge and show appreciation to their child care providers on this special day of recognition . m ft] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 28th day of March, 2000. ~ ft] r:J(J r:J(J ._----.--.--- _.._~>..._-,..,. .. ,-"'...._-. S.c. ~~ 1J~tbJII ~~ &ef4~~ 46 tk ~tNUJIeee tie tk 2000 Sale ~rd4 ()~ ~tl1 1(J~ tJj- f'~ ~~ "'Hf,~P\~, f,I,..LA HONf,YaJ1T of Arro'fo Gtrand~ i6 tM ru.ipi~nt of th~ . l.ommunit'f and 'Pub\ic. ~rvic.~ "ward, Vo\untur l.at~gor'f a6 tM bonoru for tM 2.000 ~n L.ui6 Obi6po l.ount'f "'om~n of Di6tinc.tion "ward6; and "'H~P\~, f,I,..LA HONf,YaJ1T i6 r~c.ogniud for her vo\untur ~ffOrt6 and her d~votion to tb~ ~nvironm~nt; and "'H~"~, . f,1,..LP\ HONf,YaJ1T 6erv~d a6 a vo\untur dir~c.tor on tb~ t500ard of th~ l.oa6ta\ ~n I,..Ui6 146oUrc.~ l.on6ervation Di6tric.t for ov~r 2.0 'fear6; and "'Hf,Itf,P\~, f,1,..LP\ HONf,Yl.U1T ba6 ta~~n an ac.tiv~ int~r~6t in tb~ ~nvironm~nt and wat~r avai\abi\it'f for aU c.itiul16; and "'Hf,~P\~, f,LLA HONf,Yl.U1T ba6 giv~n amaz.ing tim~ and ~..r91 in d~voting to tb~6~ t.aU6~6. and c.ontinu~6 to do an out6tanding job on "ba\f of aU of U6. NO"'. THf,~fO~. t50f, IT ~'&OLVf,D, tbat I. Mic.ba~\ P\. Lad'f, Ma'for of tb~ l.if1 of Arro'fo Gtrande, on beba\f of tbe l.it'fl.ounc.i\, do henb'f c.omm~nd and bonor f,LLP\ HONf,Yl.U1T upon being c.bo6en ru.ipi~nt of the l.ommunif1 and 'Pub\ic. ~rviu P\ward. Vo\untur l.at~gol"f for tb~. 2.000 ~n L.ui6 Obi6po l.ount'f "'om~n of Di6tinc.tion P\ward6. IN "'ITNf,~~ "'Hf,ltf,Of. I hav~ bereunto 6et m'f band and t.a~ th~ ~a\ of tM l.it'f of Arro'fo Gtrand~ to b~ affiy.ed thi6 2.&tb cIa'f of Marc.b. 2.000. Mll.HP\f,L ". LADY. MP\YOIt -'.'~-~--- 7... CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande to consider the following item: ESTABLISHING NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND A REVISED RATE STRUCTURE FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande PROPOSAL: The Council will consider increasing development impact fees collected for street improvements and traffic signals, and establishing development impact fees for fire protection, park development, recreation facilities, and police facilities. REPRESENTATIVE: Financial Services Director Any person affected or concerned by the proposal may submit written comments to the Office of the City Manager before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the proposal at the time of the hearing. Any person interested in the proposal can contact the Financial Services Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, or by telephone at (805) 473-5430 during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The proposal will be available for public inspection at the above address. If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative .body for which the notice was given. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande.City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Kell~tA~ Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City.Clerk Publish 2 times, March 10, 2000 and March 17, 2000 -~.,,_.._,'-', , ..~--_..... --...'''~'...'-_." ...._- MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES '1 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . Adopt an Ordinance repealing Article 5, Chapter 3 of Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code adding thereto a new Article 6, Chapter 2 of Title 3; and . Adopt the attached Resolution establishing development impact fee amounts. FUNDING: There is no expected impact on revenues for the 1999-2000 Fiscal Year. DISCUSSION: On March 14, 2000, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance repealing Article 5, Chapter 3, of Title 3, of the Arroyo Grande Municipal adding thereto a new Article 6, Chapter 2, of Title 3. This public hearing considering the adoption of a Resolution establishing new impact fees is required under the Government Code. At the request of City Council, Police Facility Fees were recalculated using statistics based on police calls for new developments that have been subject to the City's design review process and the Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED) process. This recalculation resulted in a reallocation of the Police Facility Fee to residential development. The reallocation more closely reflects expected future police activity for new residential development. The current impact fees are identified in three places in the Municipal Code with amounts set by two resolutions and one ordinance. Modifying the fees by ordinance is costly, time consuming, cumbersome, and is generally considered an outdated means of operation. The Municipal Code should establish the overall framework for the program/policy while implementation measures are established by resolution. The attached Ordinance repeals previous legislation, establishes a revised framework for the collection of impact fees, and allows the City Council to modify the fee rates by resolution. IMPACT FEE STUDY PAGE 2 A new Article 6 of Chapter 2, Title 3, of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code has been structured to eliminate all references to the dollar amounts of fees. This structure allows a yearly update using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index. By adopting the fee amounts by resolution, the dollar amount of the fees may be adjusted yearly with one City Council legislative action. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: - Approve staff recommendations; - Deny staff recommendations; - Modify staff recommendations and approve; - Provide direction to staff. ORDINANCE NO. 515 C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REPEALING ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 3, TITLE- 3 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW ARTICLE 6, OF CHAPTER 2, TITLE 3 WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has analyzed the impacts of development on certain capital facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City wishes to maintain an acceptable level of service for the present and future residents and businesses of the City of Arroyo Grande; and WHEREAS, a reasonable nexus and relationship exists between new development and the public facilities needed to maintain the existing level of public services for existing and future residents and businesses in the City of Arroyo Grande pursuant to California Government Code Section 66QOO, et seq.; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed development impact fees; and, WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety. I SECTION 2: There is hereby added to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Article 6, Chapter 2, Title 3, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause of phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unlawful or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the ORDINANCE NO.. 515 C.S. PAGE 2 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 5: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of ,2000. -- -"---'-'---~-'---'-"'---- ORDINANCE NO. 515 C.S. PAGE 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RICK TerBORCH, INTERIM CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY , EXHIBIT "A" Article 6. Development Impact Fees Section 3-2.601 Purpose The Council declares that the fees required to be paid hereby are established for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare, and implementing the policies of the General Plan, by providing for the provision of adequate public facilities to support orderly development. Section 3-2.602 Definitions Unless otherwise required by the context, the following definitions shall govern the construction of the article: (a) "Commercial development" means the development or use of land for any retail, office, service commercial or other business purpose. (b) "Council" means the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande. (c) "Development" or "development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development, and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate. (d) "Dwelling Unit" means a structure, or portion of a structure that is used for separate residential occupancy by an individual, a family or group of unrelated individuals. (e) "Impact fee" means a monetary exaction charged to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a part of the cost of the public facilities related to the development project. This definition does not include fees specified in Section 66477, Government Code, or fees for processing applications for permits or approvals. (f) "Imposition of Fees" occurs when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. (g) "Multi-family residential development" means development or use of land for residential purposes involving more than one dwelling unit in a single structure. (h) "Public facilities" means public improvements, public services or community amenities. (i) "Single family residential" means development or use of land for residential purposes involving no more than one dwelling unit in a single structure. Section 3-2.603 Fees - Imposition and Application This article establishes development impact fees which are imposed as a condition of . approval upon all development projects for which a building permit is issued on or after , the effective date of this ordinance. Those impact fees are hereby established for the following public facilities: (a) Fire Protection Fees (b) Police Facility Fees (c) Community Center Fees (d) Park Improvement Fees These impact fees are established in order to pay for the capital costs of public facilities reasonably related to the needs of new development in the City. At least once every five years, the Council shall review the basis for the impact fees to defermine whether the fees are still reasonably related to the needs of new development. In establishing these fees, the Council has considered the effect of the fees with respect to the City's housing needs as established in the housing element of the General Plan. ----- Section 3-2.604 Fees to be Set bv Resolution The amount of fee assessments shall be determined by resolution adopted by the City Council. Fees shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in conformance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The factor for the adjustment of the fees shall be calculated and established each January by City Council resolution as recommended by the Director of Financial Services, by the following formula: Factor = 1 + Current Index - Base Index for Date of Adoption Base Index for Date of Adoption Section 3-2.605 Payment of Fees Except as otherwise provided in Section 66007 of the Government Code, impact fees shall be paid to the City at the time a building permit is issued. In cases where payment of all. or part of the required fee is deferred at the time of building permit issuance, the Director of Community Development may require that the applicant, at the applicant's . expense, execute a contract with the City to pay all deferred impact fees prior to final inspection and/or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. The contract shall specify the amount of the unpaid fee and a legal description of the property affected. It shall be recorded in the office of the County recorder, and shall constitute a lien for the payment of the fees, which shall be enforceable against the successors in interest of the property owner. When impact fees are paid in full, the City, at the expense of the applicant or property owner, shall execute a release of any lien securing those impact fees. Section 3-2.606 Protests Any party subject to the fees established by this chapter may protest the imposition of those fees by meeting all of the following requirements: (a) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to ensure performance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition of the fee. --"- (b) Serving written notice of protest on the City Council which notice shall contain all of the following information: 1. A statement that the required payment is tendered under protest. 2. A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (c) Serving the written notice of protest no later than ninety (90) days after the date of the imposition of the fees. The City Council shall consider that protest at a hearing to be held within sixty (60) days after the filing of the appeal. The decision of the City Council shall be final. Section 3-2.607 Exemptions The fees imposed under this article shall not apply to the following: (a) The United States or to any agency or instrumentality thereof, the State of California or any County or other political subdivision of the State of California. (b) Remodeling or alteration of an existing residential building, but only if the number of dwelling units is not increased or the use changed. (c) That portion of a structure that existed before the addition of dwelling units or the enlargement of floor area in a non-residential structure. If a structure is destroyed or demolished, and replaced within two years from the date of demolition, the impact fees shall be based on the service requirements of the new development less the service requirements of the development which it replaced. ---.'-'-,,--_.,,- ---- Section 3-2.608 Credits and Reimbursement If the applicant for approval of any development project is required by the City, as a condition of approval, to construct facilities whose cost has been used in the calculation of impact fees which apply to that project, the applicant shall receive a credit against those impact fees, up to the amount charged for the same type of facility. If the cost of the improvements constructed by the applicant exceeds the amount of the impact fees charged to the development project for the same type of facility, the excess cost shall be reimbursed to the applicant from other impact fee revenues within a reasonable time. To qualify for reimbursement, the applicant must enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City, and any such agreement must specify the amount to be reimbursed and the approximate schedule of the reimbursement. Section 3-2.609 Disposition and Use of the Fees The Director of Financial Services shall establish a separate fund or account for each . type of facility listed in Section 5-2.603. All impact fees collected by the City shall be deposited in the fund or account established for the specific type of facility for which the fee is collected. Any interest earned on funds deposited in a fund or account shall be deposited in that fund or account. Funds deposited in those accounts shall be used only to pay for design and construction, including construction administration, of projects identified in resolutions adopted pursuant to Section 3-2.603 as the basis for the impact fees, or for reimbursements as provided in Section 3-2.608. Section 3-2.610 Refunds If impact fees collected by the City have not been expended or designated .for the intended purpose within five (5) years following their collection, the City shall either refund those fees as provided in Section 66001 of the Government Code, or make findings as required by the Section to retain the fees. The refund provision of this chapter shall apply only to monies in possession of the City and need not be made with respect to any bonds, letters of credit or other items given to secure payment at a future date. RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 515 C.S. establishing Development Impact Fees for Fire Protection, Police Facilities, Community Centers, and Park Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 461 C.S. establishing Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees for all new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 346 C.S. establishing Traffic Signalization Development Fees for construction of traffic signals as a result of additional vehicular traffic generated by new and additional residential, commercial, and industrial development within the City; and . WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution establish fees pursuant to the above referenced Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the fees set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption per Government Code Section 66017. 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 ,2000. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY . ~-~-_.._- -----'------ EXHIBIT "A" Definitions: Development Tvpes -Residential and commercial development divided into sub- categories. Units of Development - A standard measure of the cost to provide services. The acre is the fundamental unit measure, which is divided into a smaller component, the dwelling unit (DU). Asset Cost Per Acre - The calculated cost to provide additional services/facilities to new development. Calls Per Unit - The nu'mber of yearly additional police calls generated by new development. Facilitv Cost Per Call - The cost per call to expand current police facilities to accommodate new development. Persons Per Unit - The number of persons expected to reside in the unit of development. Costs Per Capita - The cost of new or additions to the current community center, on a per person basis, to maintain the current level of service of recreation facilities. Impact Fee Per Unit - The fee to be levied per unit of development in order to recover future cost of new or expanded facilities. (a) Fire Protection Fees: Impact Fees per Unit of Development-Fire Protection Development Units of Acres Asset Cost Impact Fee Tvoe Development Per Unit Per Acre Per Unit Residential-Estate Acre 2.50 $1,154.41 $2,886.02 Residential-Hillside/Rural DU 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Residential-Suburban DU 0.40 ~ 1,154.41 461.76 Residential-Single-F amilyNillage DU 0.20 1,154.41 230.88 Residential-Planned Developmen1 DU 0.33 1,154.41 380.95 Residential-Multi-F amily DU 0.09 1,154.41 103.90 Commercial-General Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Commercial-Village Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Commercial-Highway Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Office-Proffessional Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Industrial-Light Manufacturing Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 (b) Police Facility Fees: Impact Fees per Unit of Develo ment-Police Facilitv Fees Development Units of Calls Facility Cost Impact Fee Tvpe Development Per Unit Per Call Per Unit Residential-Estate DU 0.25 96.37 24.09 Residential-Hillside/Rural DU 0.25 96.37 24.09 Residential-Suburban DU 0.25 96.37 24.09 Residential-Single-F amilyNillage DU 0.58 96.37 55.89 Residential-Planned Developmen DU 0.81 96.37 78.18 Residential-Multi-F amily DU 1.32 96.37 127.42 Commercial-General DU 43.11 96.37 4,154.96 Commercial-Village Acre 25.26 96.37 2.434.30 Commercial-Highway Acre 23.90 96.37 2,303.54 Office-Proffessional Acre 1.24 96.37 119.04 Industrial-Light Manufacturing Acre 0.68 96.37 65.53 (c) Community Center Fees: er Unit of Develo ment-Communit Centers Units of Persons Costs Per Impact Fee Develo ment Per Unit Ca ita Per Unit Residential-Estate DU 2.80 $31.64 $88.58 Residential-HiUside/Ru ral DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential-Suburban DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential-Single-F amilyNillage DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential-Planned Developmen DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential-Multi-F amily DU 2.00 31.64 63.27 (d) Park Improvement Fees: er Unit of Develo ment-Park 1m rovement Fees Units of Persons Cost Per Impact Fee Develo ment Per Unit Ca ita Per Unit Residential-Estate DU 2.80 $546.00 $1,528.80 Residential-Hillside/Ru ral DU 2.80 546.00 1.528.80 Residential-Suburban DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 Residential-Single-F am ilyNillage DU 2.80 546.00 1.528.80 Residential-Planned Developmen DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 Residential-Multi-F amily DU 2.00 546.00 1.528.80 .- , (e) Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees as authorized by Ordinance 461 C.S.: er Unit of Develo ment-Traffic Miti ation 1m act Fees Units of Pk Hr. Trips Cost Per Impact Fee Develo ment Per Unit Pk Hr. Tri Per Unit Residential-Estate DU 1.20 $1,216.21 $1,459 Residential-Hillside/Rural DU 1.00 1,216.21 1,216 Residential-Suburban DU 1.00 1,216.21 1,216 Residentiaf-Single-F amilyNillage DU 1.00 1,216.21 1,216 Residential-Planned Developmen DU 1.00 1,216.21 1,216 Residential-Multi-F amily DU 0.70 1,216.21 851 Commercial-General DU 49.00 1,216.21 59,594 Commercial-Village Acre 49.00 1,216.21 59,594 Commercial-Highway Acre 32.00 1,216.21 38,919 Office-Proffessional Acre 21.60 1,216.2.1 26,270 Industrial-Light Manufacturing Acre 12.00 1,216.21 14,595 (f) Traffic Signalization Fee as authorized by Ordinance 346C.S.: er Unit of Develo ment- Traffic Si nals Units of Pk Hr. Trips Cost Per Impact Fee Develo ment Per Unit Pk Hr. Tri Per Unit Residential-Estate DU 1.20 $424.50 $509 Residential-Hillside/Rural DU 1.00 424.50 424 ' Residential-Suburban DU 1.00 424.50 424 Residential-Single-F amilyNillage DU 1.00 424.50 424 Residential-Planned Developmen DU 1.00 424.50 424 Residential-Multi-F amity DU 0.70 424.50 297 Commercial-General DU 49.00 424.50 20,800 Comme~cial-Village Acre 49.00 424.50 20,800 Commercial-Highway Acre 32.00 424.50 13,584 Office-Proffessional Acre 21.60 424.50 9,169 Industrial-Light Manufacturing Acre 12.00 424.50 5,094 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Table of Convents TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Organization of the Report S -1 Facilities Addressed in This Report 5 -1 Development Data S -2 Impact Fee Analysis S -2 Summary of Impact Fees S -4 Implementation S -5 Recovery of Study Cost 5 -5 Section I - Introduction Legal Framework 1 -1 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology 1 -5 Facilities Addressed in This Study 1 -8 Section 2 - Development Data Background and Setting 2 -1 _ Study Area and Time Frame 2 -2 Land Use Categories 2 -2 Units of Development 2 -3 Demand Variables and Impact Factors 2 -4 Development Data 2 -6 Section 3 - Street Improvements/Traffic Signals Service Area and Time Frame 3 -1 Demand Variable 3 -1 Level of Service 3 -2 Facility Needs 3 -2 Impact Fee Calculation 3 -4 Projected Revenue 3 -6 Section 4 - Fire Protection Service Area and Time Frame 4 -1 Demand Variable 4 -1 Level of Service 4 -2 Facility Needs 4 -2 Impact Fee Calculations 4 -3 Projected Revenue 4 -4 March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page i City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Tab /e of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1. Section 5 - Parks and Recreation Service Area and Time Frame 5 -1 Demand Variable 5 -1 Level of Service 5 -1 Facility Needs S -3 Impact Fee Calculations 5 -3 Projected Revenue 5 -5 Section 6 - Po /ice Service Area and Time Frame 6 -1 Demand Variable 6 -1 Level of Service 6 -2 Facility Needs 6 -2 Impact Fee Calculations 6 -3 Projected Revenue 6-4 Section 7 - Implementation Adoption 7 -1 Administration 7 -1 Training and Public Information 7 -6 Recovery of Study Cost 7 -7 March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page li City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Arroyo Grande retained DMG - MAXIMUS to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of development on certain capital facilities, and to calculate de- velopment impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the data, methodology, and results of that impact fee study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitu- _ tion, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). ORGANIZATION Of THE REPORT Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses legal re- quirements for establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees. Section 2 contains information on existing and planned land uses and development in Arroyo Grande, and organizes that data in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 6 analyze the im- pacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 7 discusses procedures and legal requirements for imple- menting an impact fee program under California law. It addresses adoption, ad- ministration, and training. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT The types of public facilities covered in this report are listed below, along with the report sections in which they are addressed. • Street Improvements and Traffic Signals (Section 3) Fire Protection Facilities (Section 4) • • Parks and Recreation Facilities (Section 5) Police Facilities (Section 6) • March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 5-1 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Pee Study Executive Summary DEVELOPMENT DATA Forecasts of future development used in this study are intended to represent all ad- ditional development in Arroyo Grande from December 1998 to buildout of the City under the current General Plan. It is not necessary for purposes of this study to forecast the time at which buildout will occur. Information on existing devel- opment and development potential used in this study was originally developed by the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department for use in the City's Water System Master Plan and is based on the current Arroyo Grande Gen- eral Plan. Other data on development and demographics were taken from the 1990 _ Census and California Department of Finance Population estimates. It should be noted that an update to the City's General Plan is underway. Although the City staff does not anticipate major changes, this study should be reviewed after the update is complete to determine whether any revisions are needed to maintain consistency with the updated General Plan. As shown in Section 2 of this report, Arroyo Grande's population is projected to increase by 12.5% from the current level of about 16,000 to approximately 18,000 at buildout. Developed acreage is slated to increase by 18 %, police calls by 23%, and traffic generated in the City by 20%. This report addresses the facilities needed to serve that future development. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Each type of facility addressed in this report was analyzed individually. In each case, the relationship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various catego- ries of development. For each type of facility, a specific, measurable attribute of development was used to represent the demand for additional capital facilities. For example, in the case of— street improvements, the number of additional peak hour vehicle trips generated by new development is used to measure the impact of that development. Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized in Table S -1 at the end of this summary. The impact fees calculated iri this report cover only capital costs for facilities. Impact fees may not include costs for mainte- nance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type of facility _ Section 3 — Street Improvements and Traffic Signals. The impact fees calculated in Section 3 are intended to cover the cost of all arterial street improvements and traf- - fic signals needed to serve future development. The total cost of street improve- ment needs identified in this study is $6.23 million. Of that amount, impact fees March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page S - City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Executive Summary are projected to cover $5.5 million. The cost of additional traffic signals is esti- mated to be $2.18 million, with impact fee revenue projected to cover $1.92 mil- lion. All of the foregoing amounts are in current dollars. • The relationship between development and the need for additional street capacity is defined in the study as a function of p.m. peak hour trips (PHT) generated by development. Calculated impact fees for street improvements and traffic signals are summarized by development type in Table S -1 on page S -4. Section 4 - Fire Protection Facilities. Fire protection impact fees calculated in this study are based only on the need for expansion of the City's existing fire station. The estimated replacement value of existing facilities and apparatus was added to the estimated cost of the fire station expansion to arrive at an estimated current — value of approximately $3.34 million for all fire protection assets needed to serve both existing and future development. Those asset costs were then allocated to both existing and future development on the basis of gross acreage to determine the share of total costs attributable to future development. Acreage is used in this study to allocate fire protection facility costs, because the size of the area to be cov- ered is the most important factor in determining the number of fire stations needed — to serve a particular area. Impact fee revenue from new development is projected to be about $495,000 in — current dollars. That amount is about 62% of the estimated $800,000 cost of the proposed fire station expansion. Calculated impact fees for fire protection facilities _ and equipment are summarized by development type in Table S -1 on page S -4. Section 5 - Park and Recreation Improvements. This study calculates impact fees — for neighborhood and community park improvements as well as for recreation fa- cilities. It assumes that land for additional parks will continue to be acquired through the existing requirement for park land dedication or fees in lieu of dedica- — tion under the Quimby -Act. The impact fee for park and recreation improvements was based on the cost of improvements needed to meet the City's adopted standard of 4.0 acres of neighborhood and community parks per thousand residents. The current ratio is 3.42 acres of developed parks per thousand residents. Using the 4.0 -acre standard, will require the City to fund the development of 9.5 acres of ad- ditional park land from non -impact fee sources. Since the need for parks and recreation facilities is driven by population, the impact — fees for park improvements and recreation facilities will apply only to residential development. The calculated impact fees would produce a projected $888,000 for park improvements and $51,000 for recreation facilities. Those fees are summa- — rized by development type in Table S -1, on page S -4. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 5-3 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Executive Summary Section 6 - Police Facilities. The impact fees for police facilities assume that the existing Police Building is adequate to serve existing needs, and that some expan- sion will be needed to serve future development. Calls for service are used as the measure of development impacts, and the existing ratio of building area to calls for service is used to project future expansion needs. Impact fees calculated on that basis are projected to generate approximately $352,000 in current dollars. Calcu- lated impact fees for police facilities are summarized by development type in Table 5 -1, below. SUMMARY Of IMPACT FEES Table S -1, below, summarizes the impact fees calculated in later sections of this re- port. Fees shown in Table S -1 are for one unit of development, by facility type and land use category, and are rounded to the nearest dollar. Total fees for one unit of development in each land use category are shown in the right -hand column. For residential development types, fees shown in Table 5 -1 are for one dwelling unit. For commercial, industrial, and office development types, the fees shown in Table S -1 are for one gross developed acre. For example, the total of all calculated im- pact fees for one dwelling unit in the Suburban Residential category is $3,743.00. The total fee for one acre of General Commercial is $85,704. Assuming 10,000 square feet of building area per acre, which is typical for new commercial develop- - ment, the General Commercial fee equates to $8.57 per square foot of building area. Table S -1 Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development Development Dev Arterial Traffic Fire Park Recreation Police Total Type Units Streets Signals Facilities Improvmts Facilities Facilities Fees Residential- Estate DU 1,459 509 2,886 1,529 88 24 $ 6,496 Residential- Hillside/Rural DU 1,216 424 1,154 1,529 88 24 $ 4,436 Residential - Suburban DU 1,216 424 462 1,529 88 24 $ 3,743 Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 1,216 424 231 1,529 88 56 $ 3,544 Residential- Planned Development DU 1,216 424 381 1,529 88 78 $ 3,717 Residential - Multi- Family - DU 851 297 104 1,092 63 127 $ 2,535 Commercial - General Acre 59,594 20,800 1,154 4,155 585,704 Commercial- Village Acre 59,594 20,800 1,154- 2,434 583,983 Commercial- Highway Acre 38,919 13,584 1,154 2,304 555,961 Office - Professional Acre 26,270 9,169 1,154 119 $36,713 ` Industrial -light Manufacturing Acre 14,595 5,094 1,154 66 $20,908 A share of costs for some types of facilities were allocated to public land uses in this study, in order to calculate equitable fees. Those costs cannot be collected as im- pact fees, so Table S -1 shows only impact fees for private development. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page S - C /ty of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Executive Summary IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. — Section 7 of.this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding requirements, up- dating of fees, and staff training. From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made — regarding the share of facility costs to be funded by impact fees, and other sources of funding to be used for those facilities not funded by the fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum impact — fee amount justified by this analysis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those calculated in the study. In that event, it is important that the Council identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and the share of total cost to be recovered through the fees. It should also be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars. To the extent that costs for capital improvements escalate over time, the impact fees should be adjusted to keep pace with that inflation. We recommend annual — adjustments based on changes in the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index. If the fees are not escalated for inflation, the City could experience a significant shortfall in anticipated funding over several years. — RECOVERY OF STUDY COST — We do not recommend adding an administrative fee to impact fees to cover the costs of administering the impact fee program. Those costs should be included in -- the processing fees charged to developers and builders. However, it is reasonable for the City to recover the cost of this study through the impact fee program. Once the City Council decides what impact fees to impose, it is a relatively simple matter — to calculate an adjustment to cover the cost of the study. Assuming the impact fee study will be updated every five years, the cost of this study can be divided by the amount of revenue projected over the next five years to determine the percentage by which fees should be increased to cover the cost of the study. Total impact fee revenue projected in this study is approximately $9 mil- lion. If the City builds out over ten years, it would collect something like $4.5 mil- lion in impact fees over five years if the fees are adopted as calculated in this study. — If this study costs $28,000, the fees shown in Table S -1 would be have to be in- March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 5 -5 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Executive Summary creased by six - tenths of 1% to recover the cost of the study over five years [28,000 / (4,500,000) = 0.006]. That increase would equate to $0.60 per hundred dollars on the impact fees. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 5-6 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Introduction SECTION I • INTRODUCTION The City of Arroyo Grande has retained DMG - MAXIMUS to prepare a study ana- lyzing the impacts of development on certain types of capital facilities, and calcu- lating development impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the — data, methodology, and results of the impact fee study. The methods used to cal- culate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements gov- erning such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Con- stitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Gov't Code Sections 66000 et seq.). LEGAL FRANMEWORK In general, the legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifically granted by statute, or it may be found in the police power or home rule powers ex- ercised by local governments under state constitutions. California's impact fee stat- utes do not contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties in this state depend on the police power for their authority to establish and impose such fees. U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private — property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against — regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and - welfare by ensuring thai development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. _ The U. S. Supreme Court has found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and — the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden cre- — ated by development. Dolan is less significant for impact fees than for some other types of exactions (e.g. mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees. In addition, the Dolan decision — March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 1 -1 — ~ City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Introduction appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions. California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes im- posed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. That objection could be the valid if fees exceeded the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If that were, the case, however, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee statutes originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time the impact fee statutes have been amended from time to time, and in 1997 were officially designated the "Mitigation Fee Act" Unless oth- erwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government ~ Code. The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improve- ments, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifi- - cally addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or op- erating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs only. The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its recently added official title. Nor does it use the more common term "impact fee." The Act simply uses the word "fee," which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, ... that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development projeci for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ...." To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely- accepted term "impact fee," which should be understood to mean "fee" as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and im- posing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees, and require annual reports and peri- odic re- evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 1 -2 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Introduction discussed in the Implementation Section of this report. Certain fees or charges re- lated to development are exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Among them are fees in lieu of park land dedication as authorized by the Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement or developer agreement, and fees for processing development applications. Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing — or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the devel- opment project. (Applies only upon imposition of fees.) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below. Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public fa- cilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the con- struction of certain capital improvements identified in this report. Those im- provements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in the City, and thereby prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund the needed improvements. Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee are probably sufficient if they state the purpose as financing development - related public facilities in a broad category, such as transportation or water supply. Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to fi- nance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identi- fied in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. If a capital improvement plan is used to identify the use of the fees, it must be updated annu- ally by resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. Impact fees calculated in this study are based on specific capital facilities identified elsewhere in March 23, 2000 DMG- MVOMUS Page 1 -3 I City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Introduction this report, which is intended to serve as the public document identifying the use of the fees. Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demon- strated between: 1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; 2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, 3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute parallel the three elements of the "rational nexus" standard which has evolved in the courts _ to test the constitutional validity of development exactions. Those elements are, "benefit," "impact," and "proportionality," respectively. The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by the courts. Of course, the higher standard controls. We will use the nexus terminology in this report for two reasons: because it is more concise and descrip- tive, and also to signify that the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy the more demanding constitutional standard. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development- related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are im- - posed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relation- ships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level -of- service standards. This report contains all information needed to demonstrate this element of the nexus. Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for March 23, 2000 DMC- MAX/MUS Page 1-4 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Introduction which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with im- pact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees. _ Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fees Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expedi- tiously or refunded. All of those requirements are intended to ensure that devel- opments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues. Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development- related facility — costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. In this study, the demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the — need for police facilities is measured by the number of police calls for service gen- erated by a particular type and quantity of development. In calculating impact fees, costs for development - related facilities are allocated in proportion to the service needs created by different types and quantities of devel- opment. The following section describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees in ways that meet the proportionality standard. Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees may be used to pay for existing facilities, provided that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so, given relevant level -of- service standards. In ocher words, it must be possible to show that the fees meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has ad- vantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable. — March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 1 -5 — City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Introduction Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of development - related improvements, and allo- cating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied. Plan -based Impact Fee Calculation. The plan -based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified set of developments. The improve- ments are identified by a facility plan and the development is identified by a land use plan. Facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in pro- - portion to the amount of development and the relative intensity of demand for each category. Demand is represented by an appropriate, quantifiable indicator. For example, demand for street improvements is typically measured by the number of vehicle trips generated by development. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to cal- .. culate a cost per unit of demand. Then, that cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per unit of development. This method implicitly assumes that the entire service capacity of the specified fa- cilities will be absorbed by the planned development, or that any excess capacity is unavoidably related to serving that development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but that development may not use all of the added capacity. Assuming that the im- provements in question are needed only to serve the new development paying the fees, it is legitimate to -recover the full cost of the improvements through impact fees. The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where actual service usage is difficult to measure (as is the case with administrative facilities), or does not directly drive the need for added facilities (as is the case with fire stations). It is also useful for facilities, such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. This method is relatively inflexible in the sense that it is based on the relationship between a particular facility plan and a particular land use plan. Consequently, if the land use plan changes significantly, the fees may have to be re- - calculated. March 23, 2000 DMG- MA)0MUS Page 1 -6 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Pee Study Introduction Capacity -based Impact Fee Calculation. This method can be used only where the _ capacity of a facility or system is known, and the amount of capacity used by a par- ticular type sand quantity of development can be measured or estimated. This method calculates a rate, or cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship be- tween total cost and total capacity. It can be applied to any type or amount of de- velopment, provided the capacity demand created by that development can be es- timated and the facility has adequate capacity available to serve the development. _ Since the fee calculation does not depend on the type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans. Under this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development, so — unused capacity would not be covered by impact fees if it is not absorbed by devel- opment. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems. — To calculate a capacity-based impact fee rate, facility cost is divided by facility ca- pacity to arrive at a cost per unit of service. To determine the fee for a particular development project, the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed by that project. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on _ standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of service needed, on average, by those units of development. Standard -based Impact Fee Calculation. The standard -based method is related to the capacity-based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of service. The difference is that with this method, costs are defined from the out- set on a generic unit -cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of service or capacity to be provided for each unit of development. The standard -based method is useful where facility needs are defined directly by a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is com- mon for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. In addition, the cost per acre for, say, neighborhood parks can usually be estimated without knowing the size of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for facilities such as libraries, where it is possible to es- timate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One advantage of the standard -based method is that a fee can be established without — March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 1-7 - City of Arroyo Grande - impact Fee Study Introduction committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs, thereby avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that this method is not well suited to specialized recreation fa- cilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS STUDY Impact fees for the following types of facilities and improvements will be addressed in this report: • Street Improvements and Traffic Signals • Fire Protection Facilities • Parks and Recreation Facilities • Police Facilities • March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX /MUS Page 1-8 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Land Use and Development SECTION 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Both existing and planned development must be addressed as part of the nexus analysis required to support the establishment of impact fees. This section of the report organizes and correlates information on existing and planned development to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent sections of the report. The information in this section forms a basis for defining levels of service, analyzing facility needs, and allocating the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development, and among various types of new development. Data on land use and development used in this study were provided by the City of Arroyo Grande Department of Community Development, and were prepared at the end of 1998 for use in the City's Water System Master Plan. Demographic data are from the 1990 Census and California Department of Finance population estimates. Data on existing and planned development used in this study represent the best available estimate of existing and planned development as of December, 1998. — BACKGROUND AND SETTING Arroyo Grande is located in Southern San Luis Obispo County. Figure z A p �'• Arroyo Grande Population (1990 -1999) The City borders the incorporated 20,000 , _- cities of Pismo Beach and Grover 18,0001 Beach on the west, and adjoins 12000 unincorporated County territory 8000 along its other boundaries. a According to the California Depart- — ment of Finance (DOF) Demo- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 graphic Research Unit, Arroyo Year Grande's estimated population, as of - — January 1, 1999, was 16,007. That • is an increase of 10.9% from 14,432 at the time of the 1990 Census. Only about 1% of the City's population is in group quarters, such as nursing homes, which is not significant for purposes of this study. The chart in Figure 2 -A depicts the City's population year -by -year from the 1990 — Census through the DOF estimate for January 1, 1999. The compounded annual growth rate for the period shown in the chart is approximately 1.2 %. However, the year -to -year picture varies from an increase of only 0.34% in 1991 to an increase of more than 3% in 1997. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 2 -1 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Land Use and Development STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The study area addressed in this report encompasses the existing City and its sphere of influence as currently defined. The time frame for this study extends from the present to buildout of the study area. The term "buildout" is used to describe a condition in which all currently undeveloped land in the study area has been developed as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The time required for buildout depends on the rate at which development occurs. This study does not project a target date for buildout, because, in general, the rate and timing of development do not affect the impact fee analysis. An exception is the situation where debt financing has been, or will be, used for facilities funded by impact fees. Where such cases arise, the rate of development during the financing period will be addressed in the impact fee analysis. An update of the Arroyo Grande General Plan is currently underway, and although the City staff does not anticipate major changes, this study should be reviewed following completion of the update to ensure consistency with the updated General _ Plan. Impact fee studies should be reviewed and updated every five years. In this case staff strongly recommends the study be reviewed upon completion of the General Plan update. LAND USE C4 TEGOR /ES Residential Land Uses. The City's land use plan classifies residential development into a number of land use categories. Several of those categories allow only single family detached houses, while others allow attached units such as townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The intensity of residential development is limited either by allowable density or by minimum lot size. Some categories, which have similar characteristics in terms of service demand for facilities addressed in this study, have been combined. The categories used in this study are listed below. Abbreviations used in this study are shown in brackets. Agriculture is listed with _ the Residential land uses because it is the residential component of that land use that is significant for purposes of this study. • Agriculture [A/AG] • Residential- Estate [RES -E] • Residential - Hillside/Rural [RES -H /R] • Residential- Suburban [RES -S] • Residential- Single FamilyNillage [RES -SF/V] • Residential - Planned Development [RES -PD] • Residential - Multi- Family [RES -MF] (Includes Mobile Homes) March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 2 -2 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Pee Study Land Use and Development Private Non- residential Land Uses. As with residential development, non- residential development is broken down into land use categories. The categories used in this study are listed below, again with abbreviations shown in brackets. • Commercial - General [COM -G] • Commercial - Village [COM -V] • Commercial - Highway [COM -H] • Office - Professional [O -P] • Industrial -Light Manufacturing [IND -LM] Public/Quasi- public Land Uses. In some cases, to calculate reasonable impact fees, — it is necessary to account for the fact that public or quasi - public facilities such as schools, hospitals, parks, and government facilities absorb capacity in other public facilities such as streets. Although the City may or may not actually recover the — share of costs associated with that capacity, the demand related to those uses must be accounted for in certain types of fee calculations to ensure a fair allocation of costs. That is specifically the case when the plan -based method is used to calculate impact fees. The other methods described in Section 1 are not affected by demand attributable to public facilities, because they result in fees that are based only on the cost of capacity actually used by the development paying the fees. Only one category is used in this study for public and quasi - public land uses. That category is listed below, with its abbreviation shown in brackets. • Public and Quasi- Public [PUB] UNITS OF DEVELOPMENT The impact fees calculated in this study are stated in terms of dollars per unit of development. For all residential development, the standard unit of development is the dwelling unit. For private, non - residential development (commercial, industrial and offices) and public/quasi public development, the standard unit of development is one gross acre (See Table 2.1). For consistency, and to facilitate the analysis, those standard development units must sometimes be converted into other measures of development. Various units of development and conversions from one — to another are discussed below. Acres (AC). Acreage is a fundamental attribute of all types of development. An -- acre is used in this study as the standard unit of development for all non - residential land use categories. As used here, acreage is defined as gross acreage (representing the total acreage of a development site before rights -of -way are dedicated). — Dwelling Units (DU). A dwelling unit is the most commonly used measure of residential development, and is the standard unit for residential development in this — study. The relationship between dwelling units and acreage is referred to as March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 2 -3 _ City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Land Use and Development "density," and is defined by the average number of dwelling units per acre for a particular type of residential development. That relationship can be used to calculate both units per acre or acres per unit if needed to calculate impact fees. DEMAND VARIABLES AND IMPACT FACTORS In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and urban development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (e.g., acreage, population, vehicle trip generation) are used in those formulas as "demand variables" to reflect the impact of different types and amounts of development on the demand for specific public services, and the facilities that support those services. Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with demand. For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of a ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain the desired standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate yardstick for measuring the impacts of development on the need for additional parks and would be an appropriate demand variable for that facility type. Similarly, the need for capacity in a street system depends on the volume of traffic the system must handle. Thus the vehicle trip generation rate (the number of vehicle trips generated by one unit of development) would be an appropriate demand variable to represent the impact of development on the street system. Each demand variable has a specific value per unit of development for each land use category. Those values may be referred to as demand factors or impact factors. For example, on average, one single - family detached dwelling unit generates about 1.0 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. Consequently, the peak -hour traffic impact factor for single family residential development is 1.0 trips per dwelling unit. Other land use categories would have different impact factors. Some of the impact factors used in this study are based on widely- accepted standards (e.g., the trip generation rates), while others are based on local conditions (e.g., population, police calls). • The specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below and the actual values of impact factors for each land use category are shown in Table 2.1 on the next page. Population per Unit of Development. Population per unit of development is used as a demand variable to calculate impact fees for certain types of facilities in this study. Because population is tied to residential development, the value of this variable for all non - residential land uses is zero. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 2 -4 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Land Use and Development It is important to emphasize that, rather than using actual population estimates, cost allocation in this study is based on a projected "full- occupancy" population. That device is intended to account for the fact that actual population estimates for existing development are affected by a vacancy factor. The "full- occupancy" projections better reflect the service demand placed on the City by additional _ development because they reflect the fact that once a residence is constructed, the City is committed to serving it and must commit the service capacity needed to do so. Future population is also projected on a full- occupancy basis. Full- occupancy - population estimates are established by applying an average persons - per - dwelling factor to the actual number of existing dwelling units, or the projected future dwelling units, in each residential land use category. Persons - per - dwelling factors - are based on an analysis of 1990 Census data. For certain public facilities, such as parks and libraries, population is a useful -- measure of service demand, and can be used in setting service levels and allocating facility costs. However, for most public facilities, resident population accounts for only a portion of demand, and does not, alone, represent the impact of all - development on those facilities. Table 2.1 - -- Impact Factors Land Use Unit Pop/ Pk Trips/ PD Calls/ Acres/ _ Category Type Unit t Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Agricultural Acre 2.80 1.2 0.03 1.00 Residential- Estate DU 2.80 1.2 0.25 2.50 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 2.80 1.0 0.25 1.00 Residential - Suburban DU 2.80 1.0 0.25 0.40 Residential - Single- Family/Village DU 2.80 1.0 0.58 0.20 Residential - Planned Development DU 2.80 1.0 0.81 0.33 Residential - Multi- Family DU 2.00 0.7 1.32 0.09 Commercial - General Acre 0.00 49.0 43.11 1.00 Commercial - Village Acre 0.00 49.0 25.26 1.00 - Commercial- Highway - Acre 0.00 32.0 23.90 1.00 Office - Professional Acre 0.00 21.6 1.24 1.00 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 0.00 12.0 0.68 1.00 Public/Quasi- Public Acre 0.00 27.0 2.67 1.00 1 Based on a DMG-MAXIMUS analysis of 1990 Census data. 2 Based on Traffic Generators pub. by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 3 Based on City of Arroyo Grande Police Department records. Calls for low- density residential development categories are averaged. 4 Source: Arroyo Grande Community Development Department and DMG- MAXIMUS. ._ Peak -Hour Trips per Unit of Development. Traffic generation in terms of peak hour trips is used here to measure the impact of development on the City's street - system. Peak hour traffic rather than average daily traffic determines the need for March 23, 2000 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2 -5 ..— City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Land Use and Development street capacity. The trip ge rates used in the City's Circulation Element and in this study are based on Traffic Generators, published by the San Diego — Association of Governments (SANDAG). Police Calls for Service per Unit of Development. Demand for Police Department services are represented in this study by the average number of calls for service per year generated by a typical unit of development in each land use category. The factors are based on an analysis of actual calls for service for 1998 by the Arroyo — Grande Police Department. — DEVELOPMENT DATA Tables 2.2 through 2.4 present data on existing and planned development in the study area, (the existing City and its sphere of influence) by land use category, based on the current General Plan Land Use Element. Table 2.2 shows existing development as of December, 1998. Table 2.2 Existing Development in Study Area (As of December 1998) Land Use Unit Gross Res Popula- Peak Hr Police Category Type Acres t Units 2 tion 3 Trips ° , Calls $ Agricultural Acre 355 36 99 43 11 Residential- Estate DU 35 14 39 17 4 Residential- Hillside/Rural DU 220 220 616 220 85 Residential- Suburban DU 247 618 1,730 618 124 Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 510 2,550 7,140 2,550 2,827 4. Residential- Planned Development DU 288 874 2,447 874 709 Residential - Multi- Family DU 204 2,266 4,532 1,586 2,996 Commercial - General Acre 148 7,252 6,381 Commercial- Village Acre 50 2,450 1,263 Commercial- Highway Acre 31 992 741 Office - Professional Acre 34 734 42 r , Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 25 300 17 Public/Quasi- Public Acre 293 7,911 781 Totals 2,441 6,578 16,604 25,547 15,980 Note: Columns may not sum precisely due to rounding. • 1 Estimates of existing development provided by the Arroyo Grande Community Development Dept. u. 2 "Full - occupancy" population based on persons per household factors in Table 2.1 3 Estimated peak hour trips based on trip generation rates in Table 2.1. 4 Estimated calls for service based on impact factors in Table 2.1 Table 2.3 presents a forecast of future development to buildout. Table 2.4, on the following page, summarizes all development in the other two tables, and represents a forecast of ultimate development at buildout. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 2 -6 • City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Land Use and Development Table 2.3 Potential Development in Study Area (As of December 1998) Land Use • Unit Gross Res Popula- Peak Hr Police Category Type Acres t Units 2 tion 3 Trips 4 Calls 5 Agricultural Acre 0 0 0 0 0 — Residential-Estate DU 3 1 3 1 0 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 242 242 678 242 61 Residential- Suburban DU 8 19 53 19 5 Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 6 31 87 31 18 Residential- Planned Development DU 79 240 672 240 195 Residential- Multi- Family DU 6 67 134 47 89 Commercial - General Acre 72 3,528 3,104 — Commercial - Village Acre 4 196 101 Commercial- Highway Acre 3 96 72 Office - Professional Acre 6 130 7 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 0 0 0 Public /Quasi- Public Acre 22 594 59 451 600 1,626 5,124 3,710 Note: Columns may not sum precisely due to rounding. See footnotes at Table 2.2. Development data used in this study represent the best available information on existing and future land uses in the study area. Estimates of existing development were updated to December 1998. Table 2.4 Ultimate Development in Study Area (At Buildout) Land Use Unit Gross Res Popula- Peak Hr Police Category Type Acres 1 Units 2 tion 3 Trips ° Calls s Agricultural Acre 355 36 99 43 11 — Residential - Estate DU 38 15 42 18 4 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 462 462 1,294 462 146 Residential- Suburban DU 255 637 1,784 637 129 — Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 516 2,581 7,227 2,581 2,845 Residential- Planned Development DU 368 1,114 3,119 1,114 904 Residential- Multi - Family DU 210 2,333 4,666 1,633 3,085 Commercial - General Acre 220 0 10,780 9,485 Commercial - Village Acre 54 0 2,646 1,364 Commercial- Highway Acre 34 0 1,088 813 Office - Professional Acre 40 0 864 49 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 25 0 300 17 Public /Quasi - Public Acre 315 0 8,505 840 2,891 7,178 18,231 30,671 19,690 Note: Columns may not sum precisely due to rounding. See footnotes at Table 2.2. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 2 -7 — City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Signals SECTION 3 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS This section of the report addresses street improvements and traffic signals needed to serve future development in Arroyo Grande. Fees calculated in this report update the Traffic Facility Impact Fees adopted in 1994 and the Traffic — Signalization Impact Fee adopted in 1986. The analysis contained in this section is based on the 1986 General Plan Circulation Element. An update of that element is currently underway, and although the City staff does not anticipate major changes, this analysis should be reviewed after the new Circulation Element is adopted to determine whether the impact fees for streets and traffic signals need to be updated for consistency with that plan. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME — The overall study area addressed by this analysis encompasses the City of Arroyo Grande and its sphere of influence. For purposes of calculating impact fees for street improvements and traffic signals, the entire study area will be treated as a — single service area. Because the rate of development varies, the impact fee analysis is not tied to a specific time frame. Rather, it assumes that the street improvements and traffic signals identified in this section will allow the City's circulation system to accommodate all additional development contemplated to buildout. Variations in the timing of development do not affect the calculation of impact fees, except where debt financing is used to pay for improvements. That is not the case here. DEMAND VARIABLE As discussed in Section 2, the demand variable used to allocate improvement costs for street improvements in this study is peak -hour trips (PHT) per unit of development. Peak -hour trips are used instead of average daily trips (ADT) because peak traffic determines the amount of system capacity required to maintain a certain level of service. The Circulation Element uses tables from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication, Traffic Generators, as the basis — for traffic projections. Trip generation factors used in this report are also based on the SANDAG tables, specifically the p.m. peak -hour rates. Those rates are shown in Table 2.1, in Section 2 of this report. — The rates shown in Table 2.1 for various' categories of development are intended to reflect the trip generation characteristics of all development in a category, and do — not necessarily correspond to any specific development type. Those rates are used March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 3 -1 — City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Streets and Traffic Steals in this study primarily to project the number of peak -hour trips that will be generated by all future development. In calculating impact fees, that trip total is divided into the total cost of eligible street improvements to determine the cost impact of each added peak -hour trip. The impact fee charged to a particular development project, then, is determined by the number of peak -hour trips generated by that project. This method results in a proportional allocation of costs, so that the share of street improvement costs charged to a particular development project equals the share of new traffic generated by that project. Thus, a project that creates 1% of the traffic added by new development will pay a fee equivalent to 1% of the cost of improvements needed to serve new development. It should be emphasized that the trip generation rate assigned to any category of development in this study may be different from the rate for a specific type of development in that category. That is especially true of commercial development. When imposing impact fees on a particular project, the City should use a rate that reflects, as nearly as possible, the actual trip generation characteristics, which is to say the actual impact, of that project. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service for streets and intersections is described in terms of traffic flow _ characteristics. Level of service (LOS) categories range from A to F. LOS A, the highest level, is characterized by free - flowing traffic and no delays. LOS F, the lowest level, is characterized by severe congestion and long delays. The adopted _. level -of- service standard is significant because it determines the amount of street capacity, and thus the cost of improvements, needed to accommodate a certain volume of traffic. Arroyo Grande's General Plan contains a policy establishing LOS C as the City's desired standard (See the Land Use Element, Policy Statement 8.1). At LOS C, roadways exhibit stable traffic flows with volumes not exceeding 75% of capacity. Intersections experience light congestion and occasional back- - ups. The City's adopted Circulation Element identifies the components of the street system that are needed to serve development through buildout of the Gen- eral Plan at the desired level of service. FACILITY NEEDS Street Improvements. Table 3.1, on the next page, lists the street improvements needed to serve future development in Arroyo Grande, along with the estimated costs of those improvements. The street improvements addressed in this analysis are based on a recent update of the project list originally developed at the time the City established Traffic Facility Impact Fees in 1994. That list is based on the 1986 Cir- - culation Element. It has been updated to reflect completed projects and other changes since the Traffic Facility Impact Fees were adopted in 1994. The costs March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 3 -2 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Signals _ shown in Table 3.1 do not include City administration or right -of -way acquisition costs. The City expects to obtain much of the needed right -of -way in exchange for the improvements. • Table 3.1 Street Improvements and Costs — Improvement/ City Street Location Cost 1 Brisco Road Widen undercrossing (w/ SLOCOG and Caltrans) 1,610,000 — El Camino Real Widen to 3 lanes/Oak Park Blvd to Brisco Road 938,600 West Branch Street Construct sidewalks/Oak Park Blvd to Camino Mercado 30,000 West Branch Street Widen to 5 lanes/Brisco Road to Grand Ave 1,295,300 — Oak Park Blvd Widen to 4 lanes/ Sierra Dr to Hwy 101 146,800 Traffic Way /Branch Street Reconfigure intersection and related improvements 382,200 . Valley Road Realign curve at Arroyo Grande High School 125,000 — Fair Oaks Avenue Widen to 5 lanes/Traffic Way to Valley Rd (w/ Caltrans) 528,400 Huasna Road Widen to 4 lanes/ Stagecoach Rd to Vard Loomis Ln 747,900 Elm Street Acquire ROW and spot widening 201,100 Halcyon Road Acquire ROW and spot widening 226,200 — Total $6,231,500 Source: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department 1 The total cost of a project may exceed city costs. Non -city costs, if any, are not subject to the impact fee — Traffic Signals. The traffic signals covered by this analysis are based on an update of a signalization plan adopted in in 1986, when the City first adopted a traffic signal impact fee. The signalization plan, which was based on the Circulation Element, identified 16 intersections that would need signals as a result of planned _ development. Table 3.2 Traffic Signals and Costs Since then, signals _ have been con- Signal strutted at 10 Location Cost intersections, in- W Branch St/Camino Mercado (4 -way) 175,000 cludtng five not Reconstruct Grand Ave/Halcyon Way (4 -Way) 175,000 Grand Ave/Barnett St (3 -way) 150,000 identified on the Grand Ave/W Branch St (4 - way) 175,000 original signaliza- E Branch/Bridge/Nevada (4 -way) = 175,000 — tion map. Eleven E Branch/Huasna/Hwy 227 (3 -way) 150,000 signals remain to Corbett Canyon Rd/Hwy 227 (3 -way) 150,000 be constructed, in Traffic Way /Station Way (3 -way) 150 — Traffic WayNelson St (3 -way) 150,000 addition to one Traffic Way/Fair Oaks Ave (3 -way) 150,000 existing signal that Fair Oaks Ave/Valley Rd (3 -way) 150,000 will be reconstruc- Elm St/Farroll Rd (4 -way) 175,000 — ted to accommO- Traffic Signal Interconnect (Grand Avenue) 250,000 date development- Total $2,175 related traffic. Source: City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department March 23, 2000 DMG- MAAIMUS Page 3 -3 — Ciry of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Signals _ Those signals and their costs are shown in Table 3.2. Costs shown in Table 3.2 do not include any intersection reconfiguration or right -of -way acquisition costs. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Street Improvements. Impact fees for street improvements will be calculated using the plan -based method described in Section 1 of this report. In keeping with that method, development - related improvement costs are allocated to all future development on the basis of peak hour trips per unit of development, which is the demand variable selected for this analysis. As shown in Table 3.3, the total cost of ,_ future street improvements Table 3.3 is divided by the number Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Street Improvements of peak hour trips that will be generated by future Total Street Added Peak Cost per development to arrive at a Improvement Cost t Hour Trips t Peak Hr Trip unit cost per peak hour $6,231,500 5,124 $1 ,216.21 — trip, which is the basis for 1 See Table 3.1 the impact fees. 'See Table 2.3 To calculate the impact fee per unit of development for each type of development, the cost per peak -hour trip is multiplied by the number of peak hour trips generated by one unit of development in each land use category. The impact fees resulting from that calculation are shown in the right hand column of Table 3.4. — Table 3.4 Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Street Improvements Development Units of Pk Hr Trip s Cost per Impact Fee Type Development Per Unit Pk Hr Trip Per Unit Residential - Estate DU 1.20 1,216.21 $1,459 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 1.00 1,216.21 $1,216 Residential- Suburban DU 1.00 1,216.21 $1,216 Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 1.00 1,216.21 $1,216 Residential- Planned Development DU 1.00 1,216.21 $1,216 Residential -Multi- Family DU ° 0.70 1,216.21 $851 Commercial- General Acre 49.00 1,216.21 $59,594 Commercial - Village Acre 49.00 1,216.21 559,594 1— Commercial- Highway Acre 32.00 1,216.21 $38,919 Office- Professional Acre 21.60 1,216.21 $26,270 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 12.00 1,216.21 $14,595 Public/Quasi- Public Acre 27.00 1,216.21 $32,838 Sec Table 2.1 2 See Table 3.3 March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 3-4 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Signals In cases where a proposed project does not fit into any of the categories used in Table 3.4, an impact fee can be calculated specifically for that project by applying the cost per peak hour trip from Table 3.3 to the number of peak hour trips projected for that project. Traffic Signals. Impact fees for traffic signals will be calculated in the same manner - as the impact fees for street improvements. In Table 3.5, the total cost of needed traffic signals is divided by the number of peak hour trips that will be generated by future development to arrive at a unit cost per peak hour trip. Table 3.5 _ Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Street Improvements Total Traffic Added Peak Cost per Signal Cost � Hour Trips 2 Peak Hr Trip - $2,175,000 5,124 $424.50 See Table 3.2 2 See Table 2.3 To calculate the impact fee per unit of development for each type of development, - the cost per peak -hour trip for traffic signals is multiplied by the number of peak hour trips generated by one unit of development in each land use category, as was done for street improvements,. The impact fees resulting from that calculation are - shown in the right hand column of Table 3.6. Table 3.6 - Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Traffic Signals Development Units of Pk Hr Trips Cost per Impact Fee Type Development Per Unit Pk Hr Trip 2 Per Unit Residential- Estate DU 1.20 424.50 $509 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 1.00 424.50 $424 Residential - Suburban DU 1.00 424.50 $424 - Residential - Single- Family/Village DU 1.00 424.50 $424 Residential - Planned Development DU 1.00 424.50 $424 Residential - Multi- Family DU ° 0.70 424.50 $297 Commercial- General Acre 49.00 424.50 • $20,800 Commercial - Village Acre 49.00 424.50 $20,800 Commercial- Highway Acre 32.00 424.50 $13,584 _ Office - Professional Acre 21.60 424.50 $9,169 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 12.00 424.50 $5,094 Public/Quasi - Public Acre 27.00 424.50 $11,461 See Table 2.1 2 See Table 3.5 March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 3 -5 _ Ciry of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Signals As was the case for street improvements, in cases where a proposed project does not fit into any of the categories used in Table 3.6, an impact fee can be calculated specifically for that project by applying the cost per peak hour trip from Table 3.5 to the number of peak hour trips projected for that project. PROJECTED REVENUE Street Improvements. The street improvement impact fees shown in Table 3.4 can be applied to anticipated future development to project the total revenue that will be generated by those fees through buildout— assuming that future development occurs as projected in this study. Table 3.7 shows the revenue projections for the street improvement impact fees calculated in this section. Table 3.7 Projected Impact Fee Revenue for Street Improvements Development Units of Impact Fee Projected Projected Type Development Per Unit Units Revenue Residential- Estate DU 1,459.45 1 1,459 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 1,216.21 242 294,323 Residential- Suburban DU 1,216.21 19 23,108 Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 1,216.21 31 37,703 Residential- Planned Development DU 1,216.21 240 291,891 Residential - Multi - Family DU 851.35 67 57,040 Commercial- General Acre 59,594.34 72 4,290,792 Commercial - Village Acre 59,594.34 4 238,377 Commercial- Highway Acre 38,918.75 3 116,756 Office - Professional Acre 26,270.16 6 157,621 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 14,594.53 0 0 Public/Quasi -Public Acre 32,837.70 22 0 Total $5,509,071 See Table 3.4 2 See Table 2.3 As shown in Table 3.7, the street improvement impact fees calculated in this section would produce approximately $5.5 million in revenue through buildout, if development occurs as anticipated in the General Plan. This report assumes that development in the Public/Quasi- Public category would not pay impact fees, so the revenue from that category is shown as zero in Table 3.7. The costs allocated to that category amount to approximately $722,000. As a result, projected impact fee revenue does not cover the entire cost of development - related improvements identified in this analysis. Traffic Signals. The traffic signal impact fees shown in Table 3.6 can be applied to anticipated future development to project the total revenue that will be generated March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 3 -6 Ciry of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Streets and Traffic Signals by those fees through buildout— assuming that future development occurs as projected in this study. Table 3.8 shows the revenue projections for the traffic signal impact fees calculated in this section. -- Table 3.8 _ Projected Impact Fee Revenue for Traffic Signals Development Units of Impact Fee Projected Projected Type Development Per Unit' Units Revenue Residential- Estate DU 509.40 1 509 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 424.50 242 102,728 Residential- Suburban DU 424.50 19 8,065 — Residential- Single- Family/Village DU 424.50 31 13,159 Residential- Planned Development DU 424.50 240 101,880 Residential- Multi - Family DU 297.15 67 19,909 — Commercial - General Acre 20,800.40 72 1,497,629 Commercial- Village Acre 20,800.40 4 83,202 Commercial- Highway Acre 13,583.93 3 40,752 Office - Professional Acre 9,169.16 6 55,015 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 5,093.98 0 0 Public/Quasi- Public Acre 11,461.44 22 0 Total $1,922,848 — See Table 3.7 2 See Table 2.3 — As shown in Table 3.8, the traffic signal impact fees calculated in this section would produce approximately $1.92 million in revenue through buildout, if development occurs as anticipated in the General Plan. This report assumes that development in the Public/Quasi- Public category would not pay impact fees, so the revenue from that category is shown as zero in Table 3.8. The costs allocated to that category amount to approximately $252,000. As a result, projected impact fee revenue does not cover the entire cost of development - related improvements identified in this analysis. All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with change price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation. See the Implementation Section for more on inflation adjustments. _ — March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 3 -7 _ City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study The Protection SECTION 4 -- FIRE PROTECTION This section of the report addresses fire protection facilities needed to serve future development in Arroyo Grande. The impact fees calculated in this section of the report are intended to provide funding for expansion of the existing fire station to — serve future development. The Arroyo Grande Fire Department is a mostly volunteer organization, with four — full-time paid staff including the Fire Chief. The need for more paid staff is likely to grow over time as the volume of calls increases with growth. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The overall study area addressed by this analysis encompasses the City of Arroyo Grande and its sphere of influence. The entire study area will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire impact fees. Because Arroyo Grande has only one fire station at present, that station has a Citywide service area. Even in cities with several fire stations, fire protection is provided by an integrated system of facilities, equipment, and personnel. Even though individual fire stations are assigned first -in responsibility for designated areas, development throughout the City depends on the whole system for protection. Each fire station typically houses at least one engine company, but ladder trucks and other specialized equipment normally are not available in every station. Fire departments also use automatic aid and mutual aid agreements to enhance the effectiveness of the overall system. -- The time frame for this study is not defined as a fixed number of years, but as the time required to build out all additional development planned for the study area. No time frame is needed for this analysis, because the method used to calculate these fees does not depend on the timing of development. DEMAND VARIABLE The first - response coverage provided by a fire station is limited by the distance that can be traveled within response time standards, so the number of fire stations needed to serve a particular area is determined primarily by the size of the area to be served. Thus, area is the attribute of development that is most significant in determining the need for fire stations. For purposes of this analysis, area is defined as gross developed acreage, and that variable is used in this section to allocate the cost of fire protection facilities. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 4 -1 — Ciry of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Fire Protection LEVEL OF SERVICE Typically, level of service for fire stations is discussed in terms of response time and running distance, which determine the number of stations needed to meet the standard set by the community. However, Arroyo Grande currently has only one fire station and no specific timetable for the location and construction of a second station. Although response time from the current station to some parts of the community exceeds the usual five - minute standard, this analysis assumes the Department will continue to operate from one fire station. The existing station has adequate space for apparatus, but like many stations designed for volunteer fire departments, it does not have the training and living facilities (e.g., day room, sleeping areas, restrooms and showers) needed to accommodate full -time staffing. Since current service demand is approaching the maximum capabilities of a mostly volunteer department, there is a need to upgrade the existing fire station to provide facilities for more full -time staff, so the City can maintain an acceptable level of service. In terms of apparatus, the Arroyo Grande Fire Department has two engines for structural fire suppression and one for wild land fires. The Department also has one ladder truck and a heavy rescue squad. That complement of apparatus is adequate to serve the entire City, as long as the Department operates out of one fire station. FACILITY NEEDS The existing fire station is 7,500 square feet in size, and consists primarily of apparatus bays and offices. The replacement cost of the building is estimated to be $937,500 excluding land. The replacement cost for apparatus owned by the department is approximately $1.3 million. The Fire Department estimates that an additional 5,000 square feet of training and living space is needed to make the station suitable to meet future needs. The total cost of the additional facilities is estimated to be $800,000. Table 4.1 summarizes costs for existing and future assets (facilities and major apparatus). • March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 4 -2 • City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Table 4.1 Existing and Future Facilities and Apparatus Existing Est. Replacement Assets Cost 1 Existing Fire Station (7,500 SF) 937,500 Fire Station Site 300,000 Structural Engines (2) w/ Equip 500,000 Wild Land Engine w/ Equipment 200,000 _ Ladder Truck w/ Equipment 500,000 Rescue Squad 100,000 Subtotal 2,537,500 _ Future Estimated Needs Cost' Fire Station Expansion (5,000 SF) ` 800,000 Subtotal 800,000 - Total 3,337,500 Costs estimated by the Arroyo Grande Fire Department 2 Cost includes design, engineering and contract administration IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Because Arroyo Grande's fire station will serve both existing and future development in the City, this report calculates impact fees by allocating costs for both existing and future assets to existing and future development, using the same demand variable. In that way, fees paid by future development reflect a fair -- allocation of costs between existing and future development. This approach is a version of the plan -based method discussed in Section 1. Since acreage is used as the demand variable in this analysis, the next step in calculating impact fees is to divide the total cost of existing and future facilities by the gross acreage of all existing and future development to arrive at an average cost per acre. That calculation is shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Asset Cost per Developed Acre Total Asset Gross Acres of Asset Cost Per Cost Development 2 Acre $3,337,500 2,891 $1,154.41 1 See Table 4.1 2 See Table 2.4 March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 4 -3 — City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Fire Protection To calculate the impact fee per unit of development, the average cost per acre from Table 4.2 can be applied to any type of development project, based on the amount of gross acreage occupied by each unit of development. The impact fees resulting from that calculation are shown in right hand column of Table 4.3. Of course, in categories where an acre is used as the unit of development, the fee per unit of development equals the cost per acre. 4 Table 4.3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Fire Protection Facilities Development Units of Acres Asset Cost Impact Fee Type Development Per Unit ' Per Acre 2 Per Unit Residential- Estate Acre 2.50 1,154.41 2,886.02 Residential- Hillside/Rural DU 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Residential- Suburban DU 0.40 1,154.41 461.76 Residential- Single- Family/Village DU 0.20 1,154.41 230.88 Residential- Planned Development DU 0.33 1,154.41 380.95 Residential- Multi - Family DU 0.09 1,154.41 103.90 Commercial- General Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Commercial - Village Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Commercial- Highway Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Office - Professional Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 ,. Public/Quasi -Public Acre 1.00 1,154.41 1,154.41 See Table 2.1 2 See Table 4.2. In cases where a proposed project does not fit into any of the categories used in Table 4.3, an impact fee can be calculated specifically for that project by applying the per -acre asset cost from Table 4.2 to the acreage of the project. PROJECTED REVENUE Finally, the impact fees shown in Table 4.3 can be applied to anticipated future development to project the total revenue that will be generated by these fees through buildout, assuming that future development occurs as projected in this study. Table 4.4, on the next page, shows the revenue projections for the fees calculated in this section. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 4 -4 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Table 4.4 Projected Impact Fee Revenue for Fire Protection Facilities Development Units of Fee Projected Projected Type Development Per Unit t Units 2 Revenue Residential- Estate DU 2,886.02 1 $2,886 - Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 1,154.41 242 $279,367 Residential - Suburban DU 461.76 19 $8,774 Residential - Single- FamilyNillage DU 230.88 31 $7,157 Residential - Planned Development DU 380.95 240 $91,429 Residential - Multi- Family DU 103.90 67 $6,961 Commercial - General Acre 1,154.41 72 $83,117 Commercial - Village Acre 1,154.41 4 $4,618 Commercial- Highway Acre 1,154.41 3 $3,463 Office- Professional Acre 1,154.41 6 $6,926 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 1,154.41 0 $0 Public/Quasi- Public Acre _ 1,154.41 22 $0 Total $494,699 See Table 4.3 2 See Table 2.3 As shown in Table 4.4, the impact fees calculated in this section would produce approximately $494,699 in revenue through buildout, if development occurs exactly as anticipated in this report. That revenue would amount to about 62% of the estimated $800,000 cost of the proposed fire station expansion. No revenue is projected for the Public/Quasi- Public category because fees typically cannot be collected from development in that category. Costs allocated to that category amount to approximately $25,400. All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with changing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation. See the Implementation Section for more on inflation adjustments. 4 March 23, 2000 DMG MA,17M(l5 Page 4 -5 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Parks and Recreation SECTION 5 PARKS AND RECREATION This section of the report addresses neighborhood and community parks as well as recreation facilities needed to serve future development in Arroyo Grande. The - impact fees calculated in this section of the report are intended to include only the cost of park and recreation improvements. The City will continue to acquire land for future parks and recreation facilities through dedication or payment of in -lieu fees by developers under the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The overall study area addressed by this analysis encompasses the City of Arroyo Grande and its sphere of influence. Because level -of- service standards are set on a citywide basis, and all parks are available to all residents, the impact fees for park and recreation improvements will be calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of the City. The time frame for this study is not defined as a fixed number of years, but as the time required to build out all additional development planned for the study area. No time frame is needed for this analysis, because the method used to calculate — these fees does not depend on the timing of development or the total amount of development to be served. DEMAND VARIABLE The need for parks and recreation facilities is almost universally defined in terms of - population, and that is-the case in Arroyo Grande. The level -of- service standards defined in the City's General Plan and ordinances are based on ratios of park acreage to population. Consequently, population will be used as the demand variable in this analysis. Actual population factors (persons per dwelling unit) used in the impact fee calculations are shown in Section 2 of this report and in the _ summary of impact fee calculations at the end of this section. LEVEL OF SERVICE — Park Improvements. The City's level -of- service standard for parks is shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and in Section 9.14.060 of the _ Municipal Code, which establishes standards for park land dedication and fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to the Quimby Act. That standard is a total of 4.0 acres March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 5 -1 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Parks and Recreation of neighborhood and community parks per thousand residents. Neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code allocates a specific share of that standard to neighborhood or community parks, and this analysis will use the combined area of neighborhood and community parks in calculating impact fees. Although the City's adopted level- Table 5.1 of- service standards serve as a useful Exi sting Parks starting point, we must also examine the actual level of service Neighborhood Improved that exists in the City at present. Parks Acreage Table 5.1 lists the City's existing Elm Street Park 5.00 Terro del Oro Park 3.40 parks along with their improved Ki • park 3.30 acreage. Rancho Grande Park is Tiger Tail Park 0.35 treated as an existing park because Woodland Park 0.35 the City has committed the funds Hoosgow Historical Park 0.31 needed to complete improvements Village Green and Gazebo 0.25 at that park site. As shown in Table Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 12.96 5.1, the total improved area of the Community Parks City's existing neighborhood and Strother Community Park 7.21 community parks is 56.74 acres. Community Sports Complex 26.57 That figure is used below to Rancho Grande Park 10.00 establish the current level of service Subtotal Community Parks 43.78 for improved parks in Arroyo Total 56.74 Grande. Table 5.3, on the next page, shows the relationship between the existing population and existing acres of developed parks. That table computes the existing level of service for neighborhood and community parks in terms of acres per thousand population. Recreation Facilities. This section of the report will also calculate impact fees for recreation facilities. The City's current complement of recreation facilities consists of two community centers. Those facilities are listed, and their rentable area is shown, in Table 5.2. The level of service for recreation facilities is established in Table 5.2 Table 5.3 in terms of square feet of Existing Recreation Facilities building area per thousand popu- lation. Recreation Rentable Facility Floor Area The level of service calculations in Elm Street Community Center 2,700 SF Table 5.3 are based on a current Woman's Community Center 2,800 SF population of 16,604, as shown in Total Area 5,500 SF Table 2.2. That figure is slightly above the official Department of March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 5 -2 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Parks and Recreation - Finance population estimate for Arroyo Grande, because this study uses an estimated full occupancy population (See explanation in Section 2). Table 5.3 Existing Level of Service — Parks and Recreation Facilities Facility Existing Current Facilities /1000 Type Facilities' Population Population Neighborhood/Community Parks 56.74 Acres' 16,604 3.42 Acres /1,000 Community Centers 5,500 SF 2 16,604 331 SF /1,000 ' See Table 5.1. 2 See Table 2.2. Population figures used in this study are based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units. FACILITY NEEDS As indicated in Table 5.3, the existing level of service for neighborhood and community parks in Arroyo Grande is 3.42 acres per thousand population, compared with an adopted standard of 4.0 acres per thousand. This study uses the adopted standard rather than the existing ratio to calculate impact fees. The current deficiency (relative to the adopted standard) amounts to 0.58 acres per thousand residents, or a total of 9.5 acres of developed park land. To maintain — equity between existing and future development, the City must make up that deficiency using non - impact fee funds. At 4.0 acres per thousand residents, an additional 6.5 acres of developed parks will be required to serve a projected 1,626 — new residents through buildout. Because the City has no adopted service standard for community centers, the — existing ratio of 331 square feet per thousand residents will be used to calculate impact fees. Based on that ratio, 542 square feet of additional space will be needed to serve the projected future population. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Impact fees for parks and recreation facilities are calculated using the plan -based method discussed in Section 1. Because population is being used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for both park improvements and recreation facilities, those fees are based on per capita costs. Park Improvements. As shown above, the adopted level of service for neighborhood and community parks is 4.0 acres per thousand population. Table 5.4 , on the next page, establishes the per- capita cost to provide that level of service for new residents. The per- capita costs shown in Table 5.4 are based on cost March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXMUJS Page 5 -3 ale Ciry of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Parks and Recreation estimates by the Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department which show that the average per -acre cost for neighborhood and community parks in the City is $136,500 per acre, at current prices. Table 5.4 Cost per Capita - Neighborhood and Community Park Improvements Acres Acres Improvement Cost Cost Per Thousand t Per Capita Per Acre 2 Per Capita 4.00 0.004 $136,500 $546.00 Adopted standard. See the Recreation Element of the General Plan. 2 Cost estimate by the Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department. Table 5.5 converts the per capita costs from Table 5.4 into impact fees per unit of development by development type for park improvements. To make that conversion, per- capita costs are multiplied by the average number of people per dwelling unit for each type of development. Note that since population is used as the demand variable for these fees, the fees calculated here apply only to residential development. Table 5.5 Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Park Improvements Development Units of Persons Cost Per Fee Type Development Per Unit' Capita 2 Per Unit Residential - Estate DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 Residential- Hillside/Rural DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 Residential- Suburban DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 Residential - Single- FamilyNillage DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 ,. Residential- Planned Development DU 2.80 546.00 1,528.80 Residential - Multi - Family DU 2.00 546.00 1,092.00 t See Table 2.1 2 See Table 5.4. Recreation Facilities. The City has not constructed any new community center facilities recently, so specific costs are not available for that type of facility. As noted above, the size of the additional facility that will be needed to maintain the current level of service through buildout is 542 square feet. Since such a small facility is likely to be constructed as an addition to an existing facility or in a City park, rather than as a free - standing building on a separate site, we will not include land costs in this analysis. Our estimate of a reasonable cost per square foot for construction comparable to the existing community centers is $95 per square foot, March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 5 -4 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Parks and Recreation -" including design costs. That estimate will be used in calculating an impact fee for community centers. Once again, "population is being used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for recreation facilities, so we must determine the per- capita cost of the needed - facilities. Table 5.6 establishes the cost per capita to maintain the existing level of service for community center facilities, as shown in Table 5.3. Table 5.6 Cost per Capita - Community Centers Square Feet Square Feet Improvement Cost Cost Per Thousand 1 Per Capita Per Square Foot 2 Per Capita 333 0.333 $95 $31.64 1 See Table 5.3 2 Estimated by DMGMAXIMUS. Table 5.7 converts the per cap costs from Table 5.6 into impact fees per unit of development by development type. To effect that conversion, per- capita costs are multiplied by the average number of people per dwelling unit for each type of development. Table 5.7 shows the impact fees for community centers. As for park improvements, the fees calculated here apply only to residential development. Table 5.7 Impact Fees permit of Development - Community Centers Development Units of Persons Cost Per Fee - Type Development Per Unit Capita 2 Per Unit Agricultural Acre 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential - Estate DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 _ Residential- Hillside /Rural DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential- Suburban DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential - Single - Family/Village DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential- Planned Development DU 2.80 31.64 88.58 Residential - Multi - Family DU 2.00 31.64 63.27 1 See Table 2.1 x See Table 5.5. PROJECTED REVENUE Finally, the impact fees shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.7 can be applied to future - development to project the total revenue that will be generated by the fees through March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 5 -5 Chy of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Parks and Recreation buildout, assuming that future development occurs as projected in this study. Tables 5.8 and 5.9 show the revenue projections for the fees calculated in this section. Table 5.8 Projected Impact Fee Revenue for Park Improvements Development Units of Fee Projected Projected Type Development Per Unit 1 Units 2 Revenue Residential- Estate DU 1,528.80 1 1,529 Residential- Hillside/Rural DU 1,528.80 242 369,970 Residential- Suburban DU 1,528.80 19 29,047 Residential - Single - FamilyNillage DU 1,528.80 31 47,393 Residential- Planned Development DU 1,528.80 240 366,912 Residential - Multi- Family DU 1,092.00 67 73,164 Total $ 888,014 See Table 5.6 r See Table 2.3 As shown in Table 5.8, the impact fees calculated in this section have the potential to produce about $888,000 for park improvements — enough to improve 6.5 acres. Table 5.9, below, shows that the potential revenue from the community center impact fees would amount to approximately $51,000. Table 5.9 Projected Impact Fee Revenue for Community Centers Development Units of Fee Projected Projected Type Development Per Unit 1 Units 2 Revenue Residential- Estate DU 88.05 1 88 Residential- Hillside/Rural DU 88.05 242 21,307 Residential- Suburban — DU 88.05 19 1,673 Residential - Single - FamilyNillage DU 88.05 31 2,729 Residential- Planned Development DU 88.05 240 21,131 Residential -Multi- Family DU 62.89 67 . 4,214 Total $ 51,142 See Table 5.7 2 See Table 2.3 The costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with changing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation. See the Implementation Section for more on inflation adjustments. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 5 -6 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Po /ice Facilities SECTION 6 POLICE FACILITIES This section of the report addresses police facilities needed to serve future development in Arroyo Grande. The impact fees calculated in this section of the report are intended to provide funding for expansion of the existing police facility to serve future development. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The overall study area addressed by this analysis encompasses the City of Arroyo — Grande and its sphere of influence. The City has only one police facility which serves all of Arroyo Grande. Consequently, impact fees for police facilities will be calculated on a citywide basis. — The time frame for this study is not defined as a fixed number of years, but as the time required to build out all additional development planned for the study area. No time frame is needed for this analysis, because the method used to calculate these fees does not depend on the timing of development. _ DEMAND VARIABLE Based on our experience with a number of impact fee studies for police facilities, we believe that the number of calls for service generated by different types of development represents the best single measure of the impact of various types of development on the need for police facilities. Consequently, we use calls for service (CFS) as the demand variable when calculating impact fees for police facilities in this study. _ During 1998, the Arroyo Grande Police Department logged just under 16,000 calls for service. For this study, the Department provided detailed data on calls for service by type of development. To establish the number of calls per unit of development, we have divided the number of calls generated in each category of — development by the number of existing development units in that category. The resulting factors, originally presented in Table 2.1, Section 2 are shown again in Table 6.1. It should be noted that units of development for residential categores are dwelling units, while the units of development for non - residential categories are acres. As a result, the impact fees for residential development cannot be compared _ directly with impact fees for non - residential development. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MU5 Page 6 -1 _ City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Police facilities Table 6.1 ,. Police Calls for Service per Unit of Development Development Development Calls for Service/ Type Units PerUnit/Year' Agricultural Acre 0.03 Residential — Estate DU 0.25 Residential — Hillside/Rural DU 0.25 Residential — Suburban DU 0.25 Residential — Single- Family/Village DU 0.58 Residential — Planned Development DU 0.81 Residential — Multi - Family DU 1.30 Commercial — General Acre 43.1 Commercial — Village Acre 25.3 Commercial — Highway Acre 23.9 Office — Professional Acre 1.20 Industrial — Light Manufacturing Acre 0.70 Public/Quasi -Public Acre 2.70 I See Table 2.1. Factors based on1998 calls for service by development type provided by the Arroyo Grande Police Department. Due to the small number of calls reported, figures for Estate, Hillside/Rural, and Suburban residential types have been averaged. The figure for Agricultural was estimated by DMG- MAXIMUS based on the same data adjusted for population density. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level of service provided by police departments can be measured in a number of ways. However, service levels for police agencies are commonly measured in terms of performance, and do not translate directly into the need for facilities. The need for facilities is driven largely by the number of personnel in the department. The number of personnel needed to provide a certain level of service depends, in turn, on the level of demand. As discussed above, calls for service are used as the measure of demand in this analysis. Essentially, the level of service underlying this analysis is the existing level of service provided by the Arroyo Grande Police Department, in terms of the relationship between facilities and calls for service. The facility needs discussed below are based on maintaining the current level of service as the City grows. FACILITY NEEDS Arroyo Grande's existing 7,700 square foot Police facility was remodeled in 1989- 90 and is adequate to serve existing needs. The Police Department plans to expand March 23, 2000 DMG- MA?OMUS Page 6 -2 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Po /ice Facilities that facility to serve the needs of future development. Specific areas to be expanded include locker room facilities, dispatch, the emergency operations center, and evidence /recovered property storage. The Department estimates that approximately 2,000 square feet of additional building area will be required at an estimated cost of $200 per square foot in current dollars. Table 6.2 shows the existing relationship between building area and calls for service, and projects the additional building area required to maintain the current ratio. The additional area needed to maintain the current ratio is 1,797 square feet. Although that figure is about 10% smaller than the Department's planned expansion, it will be used to calculate the impact fees. Table 6.2 Existing Level of Service and Future Facility Needs Existing Facility 1998 Calls Square Feet Per Projected Future Future Facility Size (Sq.Ft.) t for Service t Call for Service Calls for Service 2 Needs (Sq.Ft.) 7,700 15,980 0.482 3,726 1,795 Source: Arroyo Grande Police Department 2 See Table 2.3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS The estimated cost for the planned addition to the Police facility is $200 per square foot. Using that cost, and the square footage factor from Table 6.2, we can calculate the facility cost attributable to each additional call for service generated by new development. That calculation is shown in Table 6.3. Table 6.3 Facility Cost per Call for Service Facility Cost Square Feet Per Facility Cost Per Per Square Foot I Call for Service 2 Call for Service $200 0.482 $96.37 • Estimate by Arroyo Grande Police Department 2 See Table 6.2 To calculate the impact fee per unit of development, for each type of development, the unit cost from the right hand column of Table 6.3 is multiplied by the number of calls for service generated by one unit of development in each land use category. The resulting impact fees are shown in the right hand column of Table 6.4 on the next page. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 6 -3 Gity of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Po /ice faci /it/es u. Table 6.4 Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Police Facilities Development Units of Calls Facility Cost Fee Type Development Per Unit 1 Per Call 2 Per Unit Agricultural Acre 0.03 96.37 2.89 Residential- Estate DU 0.25 96.37 24.09 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 0.25 96.37 24.09 Residential- Suburban DU 0.25 96.37 24.09 Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 0.58 96.37 55.89 Residential- Planned Development DU 0.81 96.37 78.18 Residential- Multi- Family DU 1.32 96.37 127.42 Commercial- General Acre 43.11 96.37 4,154.96 Commercial- Village Acre 25.26 96.37 2,434.30 Commercial- Highway Acre 23.90 96.37 2,303.54 Office- Professional Acre 1.24 96.37 119.04 Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 0.68 96.37 65.53 Public/Quasi- Public Acre _ 2.67 96.37 256.88 I See Table 2.1 z See Table 6.3. PROJECTED REVENUE - Finally, the impact fees shown in Table 6.4 can be applied to anticipated future development to project the total revenue that will be generated by these fees through buildout, assuming that future development occurs as projected in this study. Table 6.5, on the next page, shows the revenue projections for the fees calculated in this section. As shown in Table 6.5, on the next page, the impact fees calculated in this section would produce approximately $352,000 in revenue through buildout, if devel- opment occurs exactly as anticipated in this report. No revenue is projected for the Public/Quasi- Public because fees normally cannot be collected from development in that category. Costs allocated to that category amount to only w about $5,600, so the loss of revenue is not significant. ,- March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX7MUS Page 6 -4 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Po /ice facilities Table 6.5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue for Police Facilities Development Units of Fee Projected Projected Type Development Per Unit 1 Units Revenue Agricultural Acre 2.89 0 0 -- Residential- Estate DU 24.09 1 24 Residential - Hillside/Rural DU 24.09 242 5,830 Residential- Suburban DU 24.09 19 458 _ Residential- Single- FamilyNillage DU 55.89 31 1,733 Residential- Planned Development DU 78.18 240 18,762 Residential- Multi- Family DU 127.42 67 8,537 Commercial- General Acre 4,154.96 72 299,157 Commercial - Village Acre 2,434.30 4 9,737 Commercial- Highway Acre 2,303.54 3 6,911 Office- Professional Acre 119.04 6 714 — Industrial -Light Manufacturing Acre 65.53 0 0 Public /Quasi- Public Acre 256.88 _ 22 0 Total $ 351,863 _ 1 See Table 6.4 x See Table 2.3 -' The costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with changing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation. See the Implementation Section for more on inflation adjustments. March 23, 2000 DING- MANMUS Page 6 -5 — City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Implementation SECTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a development impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code — Sections 66000 et seq.). ADOPTION The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically, it is desirable — that specific fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Section 66016. Such fees do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the Governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Section 1 of this report. ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California _ Government Code. — • Application of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this — report are calculated initially in terms of a cost per unit of service, and then converted into fees per unit of development. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation, which are used to represent — demand for various types of public facilities. To implement impact fees, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by a certain development project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facilitate cost estimating by builders and developers, it is useful to convert impact fee rates into fees for common units of development- -e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for commercial development. All impact March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 7-1 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Implementation fee rates calculated in this study have been converted into fees per unit of development for the land use categories defined in this study. However, with respect to impact fees for for street improvements and traffic signals, we recommend that the impact fees be adopted in a manner that allows the flexibility to calculate impact fees for certain projects based on the cost per peak hour trip instead of using the schedule of flat fees per unit of development. That approach provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a development project has demand characteristics that vary significantly from the norms used to characterize the land use categories in this report. It should be noted, however, that many commercial and industrial buildings change occupants over time, and we believe that, in most cases, the City is justified in applying fees based typical demand characteristics for a development category, regardless of how a new building may be used by its initial occupants. The fact that the initial user of a new building may have below average demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly low demand. An exception would be buildings designed for a very specific purpose, such as fast food restaurants. Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, when the City imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make findings to : 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; — b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and thtfacility cost attributable to the development project. Most of those findings would normally be based on an impact fee study, and this study is intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the fee (a., above) may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document. This study is intended to serve as a public document identifying the use of the fees. In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 7 -2 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Implementation project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated in this report, the improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon _ final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions do not apply to non - residential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected -- upon issuance of building permits, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project, for that type of facility, should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be paid by the development for that type of facility, the City may wish to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential — service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 7 -3 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Implementation the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development. Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited _ with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that would make it exceedingly difficult to accumulate enough funds to construct any improvements funded by impact fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, traffic signals, or park improvements), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach. Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: 1. The amount of the fee; 2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; 3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned; 4. Identification of €ach public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the per- - centage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; 5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 6. A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the im- provement on which the transfer or loan will be expended; March 23, 2000 DMG- MAX/MUS Page 7 -4 Ciry of Arroyo Grande - Impact fee Study Implementation 7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed — that requirement in material ways. Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: 1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put; 2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; 3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financ- ing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; 4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to com- plete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an • incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the — public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in the statute. — Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting March 23, 2000 [WC- MAXIMUS Page 7 -5 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Implementation for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing development applications. Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities to be funded by impact fees, we believe it is to the City's advantage to use this report as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. In that event, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002. Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in current dollars. Fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation. The level of the Building Cost Index as of December 1999 was 3497.2. Updates of This Study. The impact fees contained in this report were calculated spreadsheets designed specifically for that purpose. Those spreadsheets will be provided to the City and they can be used to update fees in the event the City's land use plans and/or facility plans change significantly. The fees should be reviewed and updated about every five years, unless significant changes in land use or facility plans make it necessary to update the fees more often. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts which provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear. March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 7 -6 City of Arroyo Grande - Impact Fee Study Implementation Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. RECOVERY OF STUDY COST — We do not recommend adding an administrative fee to impact fees to cover the costs of administering the impact fee program. Those costs should be included in _ the processing fees charged to developers and builders. However, it is reasonable for the City to recover the cost of this study through the impact fee program. Once the City Council decides what impact fees to impose, it is a relatively simple matter to calculate an adjustment to cover the cost of the study. Assuming the impact fee study will be updated every five years or so, the cost of this study can be divided by the 4Enount of revenue projected over the next five years to determine the percentagay which fees should be increased to cover the cost of the study. That percentage typically represents a very small increase in the — fees. For example, if the study costs amount to $28,000 and the City expects to collect $4.5 million in impact fees over the next five years, the fees calculated in this study would be have to be increased by 0.6% to recover the cost of the study over five years [28,000 / 4,500,000 = 0.006]. The necessary adjustment should be made before the fees are actually adopted by the City Council. • March 23, 2000 DMG- MAXIMUS Page 7 -7 7.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande to consider the following item: CASE NO. Planned Sign Program 00-001 APPLICANT: Trader Joe's LOCATION: 955 Rancho Parkway - Five Cities Center Phase II ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines REPRESENTATIVE: Roger A. Moss, Investec The City Council will consider an application for the installation of three (3) 100.5 square foot signs on building uK" of the Five Cities Center. Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the Community Development Department before the City Council hearing, or appear arid be heard in support of or opposition to the project at the time of hearing. Any person interested in the proposal can contact the Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The project application will be available for public inspection at the above address. If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, March 28,2000 at 7:00 P.M. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 /Jt~tUO.VZ- re, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk Publish one time on Friday, March 17, 2000 ~---_.....------'- MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ;/d FROM: KERRY McCANTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR L, SUBJECT: PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 00-001; 955 RANCHO PARKWAY; TRADER JOE'S DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The applicant seeks to amend the approved Planned Sign Program for the Five Cities Center to place three (3) wall signs on building ilK" and add their name to the monument sign located at the entrance to Phase II. Building ilK" was originally approved for up to thirteen (13) individual inline shops, and therefore thirteen (13) signs are currently permitted on the front of the building. The applicant intends to occupy the entire 12,000 square foot structure, and place a sign on each of the north, west and south elevations. The proposed wall signs are each 100.5 square feet in size and made of individual channel letters. The letter faces are red with bronze returns, and each letter is internally illuminated with red neon tubing. The approved Planned Sign Program for the Five Cities Center would allow Trader Joe's to place signs on the north and west elevations of building ilK" with an Administrative Sign Permit. The purpose of the proposed Planned Sign Program is to allow a sign on the south side of the building facing Highway 101. The existing Planned Sign Program for the center specifically prohibits signs on the rear of buildings. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) discussed the project on March 6, 2000 and recommended approval provided that the sign on the south elevation be relocated from the center of the building to the southwest corner. The objective was to center the sign under the existing roof projection where the eye is naturally drawn and to cluster all three signs on the western end of the building. The applicant has since revised the plans to comply with this request. The project plans have also been City Council Trader Joe's PSP 00-001 March 28, 2000 Page 2 revised to show the main entrance relocated from the west end of the north elevation to the center of the building, and therefore the wall sign has been relocated as well. The Planning Commission heard this item on March 21, 2000 and recommended denial of the Planned Sign Program, concluding that an approval would set an unfavorable precedent for other buildings in the center. The Commission discussed alternatives to the proposed wall sign on the south side, such as installing a monument sign along the Highway 101 embankment, but chose not to continue the item (see Attachment 2 for Draft Meeting Minutes). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and has found that the project is exempt per section 15311 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, staff does not anticipate that this project will have an adverse effect on the environment. Alternatives The following alternatives are presented for Council's consideration: - Uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny Planned Sign Program 00-001 ; - Approve Planned Sign Program 00-001; - Modify as appropriate and approve Planned Sign Program 00-001; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval 1 ) Location Map 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2000 3) Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of March 6, 2000 - -'-----.._-------,~-- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 00-001, APPLIED FOR BY TRADER JOE'S, LOCATED AT 955 RANCHO PARKWAY (FIVE CITIES CENTER - PHASE II) WHEREAS, Trader Joe's has filed an application to amend Planned Sign Program No. 96-118 for the Five Cities Center to place three (3) wall signs on building ilK" and add their name to the monument sign located at the entrance to Phase II; -and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001; and WHEREAS, as part of its consideration of the application, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information that were part of the public record; and WHEREAS, after due study, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2000, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001 in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. The proposed Planned Sign Program is not consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the existing Planned Sign Program for the Five Cities Center which prohibits signs on the rear of buildings in the Five Cities Center. 2. The physical location and placement of the sign on the south elevation is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001 based on the above findings incorporated herein by this reference. RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 of 3 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2000. . -~ RESOLUTION NO. Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: , KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~~ RICK TerBORCH, INTERIM ITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO.' 00-001, APPLIED FOR BY TRADER JOE'S, LOCATED AT 955 RANCHO PARKWAY (FIVE CITIES CENTER - PHASE II) WHEREAS, Trader Joe's has filed an application to amend Planned Sign Program No. 96-118 for the Five Cities Center to place three (3) wall signs on building uK" and add their name to the monument sign located at the entrance to Phase II; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001; and WHEREAS, after due study, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2000, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001 in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearing, the staff report and other information that are part of the public record; and . WHEREAS, the City Council finds after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: 1. The proposed signs are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. 2. The proposed signs conform to applicable development standards and provisions of the Development Code, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The physical location or placement of the signs is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and do not pose a safety risk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001 based on the above findings and subject to the conditions in the attached "Exhibit A", both of which are incorporated herein by this reference. RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 of 5 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2000. -- RESOLUTION NO. Page 3 of 5 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE, SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Q2~T~~R APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY --'-- RESOLUTION NO. Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT II A II CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 00-001 955 Rancho Parkway Trader Joe's GENERAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This approval authorizes the placement of three (3) "Trader Joe's" wall signs on building "K" of the Five Cities Center. Each sign shall not exceed 1 00.5 square feet in size, and shall be placed on the north, west and south elevations as illustrated in Exhibits "B 1 - B5". This approval also authorizes the placement of the "Trader Joe's" lettering on the existing monument sign locate at the entrance to phase" as illustrated in Exhibit "B6". This approval applies only to building "K" of the Five Cities Center. 1. The appHcant 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 Planned Sign Program Case No. 00-001. 3. This application shall automatically expire on March 28, 2002 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 March 28, 2090 and marked Exhibits "B1 - B6", incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City~ its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. -- - ---______"____n__ RESOLUTION NO. Page 5 of 5 DEVELOPMENT CODE 6. Development shall conform to the PD 1.2 zoning requirements and the Sign Ordinance except as otherwise approved. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - 7. The UL listing label shall be located on the top of the sign so that it is not visible from below. BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITION 8. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 9. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the City's Fire and Building Department, as determined by the Chief Building Inspector. '1. -(,) u E~\,,\\6\1' 6'\ -0 6 is .-- ------ !it o ~ 0 g , ~ ~ '" t p <':' u \P '0 :08 o3o.iiC. .... .' _.- ....- ... ~ - c ~ Ci 0 .' 0> E-o ~" ~~ i~ 00 ----- ~~ o "i::{.Z \ \@1 Ul g ~t ~ 00 ~ ?:::~ \ ~~ ..... c.:l 0 '$ \JJ 0 ~W s- . ~O ~j o ~ ':.~ \ ~ti 'it u.1 C::t () ~ ..'" ~c ~ .,.. =:.. %~ cc. I;::~ u_ \ -. (,)'Z 0- 1:;'" 0 \\ c.) \i~ ~\- u ,. ~..,'i ..'" 0 ~~u C.- .' ,.i~ ~ e 'H~ ? ~u~ \ ~ ~\~ -- - 0 ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~l - ~ " .\S') III OeO' 'U q , ~- .::o~ "i u.! Z . UCO r- t ~u:...c. o'8o-<to "{ c .<: C u.!U1a ::::.O'co t ~ u.! IX "" 1"1;; .~ '< ~1~ ,gu~"" "( ~ z-< c -r-r- ( tC) ~ ~ u~:c: ~ ~ -'~ ( <: ~ -'- ....~ .' )( - ~u.!t<') ~,g~ 0 ?, ~ 'r- Z ~. T""on~~ ~:t:~ ----- f:I- N\-Z 0 Z~~ . ~ ~~? ~ u.! ~?-""" ~ _ .-lZ <00 _ u.! ! ~ \O~Z _u d 3: :::l C, \,ll ?<~~ ~ S u.! i;::J. ~ ~ .-l':t , (5) ~ Z 'r- .J \O~u.! u.! .J mNd (5) uJ ~Z- ,-. z ~~'S ~ e, ~ u.! -Z o.~O ~ :<( ~u.!,,"" ~ :c. .' t\l. -ID Z U ~u.!OO """ u.!~\-~ ~ tOO(5):.(. ? -")\-~~ f:I-~ -< D u.lu.:?:; .. ~ @S ~~W::1 ~ Z '6 ~u...~- ~ Z t" (5)- ----- \ V . --------- EXHIBIT B2 ~ ~. z ~ S ~ l\.. U1 \0- f U) .- ... 0 . ~', . ~~ii~{.:.o:.;" o . ~'.'(iA~ - ...~ .~>....~ "C: ... ...,Z'. . =>. '-.f:; 0: ... ,."'...,.....'..,..-.... .. -w~ .'; ..' I~. . '. J'L.. 61 ~ r'. ]1';1 i o-~ 'S* .10 ..:I~ .2~~~ .i i jr:: E.~fi'.i _ c -.~.:. -9;: ! ! :! ~""llj .' ...._...,.-1.J,~~ . .......,~ ; ~".'. f. .....~ '")) ." ;"~'- --.'fI ~f : ~. .,J.';. ~..,~ '5'''''. . ~~ '.'.'1'!i' :J!1! "~'li ,. ',', .;: ' :.:~>':.:\.'i j. . - * .... .;~t >... ...... ~.' . ...-.)';~':}~:' '. '~~;;1fr': t .. ----- .... ... o G o '0 ;'/fI..c. - >0 3 t) 0 0 :TB ct~"O ev\-UB\ ~ -5 6 ~l' .. c: i; Oct 0 0 c ~ Oifi>-o.... .....'SOJ:lg Ci \) :; :. "" "O~_...._ g ~ :. ~ 00 ~ at "III 0;; "5 ct i1 00 \@ \ \\ \ ~~ 'i... ..... . eO ~~ <1_ \ \ \\ i,; i~ \ \ ~\\ \ '!:t... \ ;-~ % '= ti '!1'i ~ O~! o 0" aH <<jf ~ c: ~ ..c. g ..c. 0 o ~ .-0'. \ ~ ~. . .- d) . ' ~ gq, L-\' \ ~~c~, \ 0..<>..: ~o GO", a. 0- ,,< : 4.'<'.- \ % u. t:: '::- o c _ " en 0 )It -"'C;.; 0 ~OQ)u.. ,..... en ...... . ~ ~ 5 1M ~ "II fu ~ u1~ t) ( ~ C , ------------- , ' \ \ \1 ,":.- '. --, % EXHIBIT 84 ~ H \ I I <> .~~ \ . ," '!~' , \ I:'" · >0' I ' ,." 'IOo~ \' ii' ~ ~,..i8 \ I! ~ ~.. ...... , ,,0' · i - C \ \ \ E - C:i 01 \ I " ! ~ 81 " 0 I I I' ! \ \' \ ! I \ 1: ,I i ~, \ \ IJ' I I@! i i \ '. . I ' i ~. ~.. " I " ..~ , . " .. , > " . \ \ \" ~~ , ' ' - ~ .. \ \ Sj..... .....,, ~3 \ \ .' ., i \ : \ ~% ! .' o. , 1 '. " fi- , > . '" ..., c' i I . . " , . .= I , ' "" I ' \ ~g , I '., \ ' \ ~..; .' \ ' :"' bi ! ' \ ,!=::: . I ' .. =,. .' . 0 .,. 0> ; ~ I ~%~ <n' > . > .<t _, I I 0 ." I ' ~ ., ,,011 , I " ..; i ' ;!i A " " . ' . . I I ., i \ i ) l \ \ \ i a , ~ E 1 ., C 0 \' I .. '.' ". ~oq . " '. . ~ '" . \ \ '2 0'" 5 . _ ()-o~q~ I ' G~~- \ \ I i~ $ $ ~ , . .. :;;-:;;- Ji I I ,,0.-- C I , .c~~o , ," ~ 0 ~~ " I ! CI!1 :i"a -" ~ ~ \ \ 0 ,..;;;:!~~ \ ,; \ ~ \ ~ ~' \ \ ~--- . " ~ ' \ . \ . ... I 11'\ -~ .... . -\ Q \ i Cl \ \ .-,--- \ i I ... \' I \ ~" : \ ~', \ \ i ~ : \: : \ I' \ I I' I \ \ f \ \' z \ : ;: 0 \ \ \!' - ; \ \ 'r-:::cC I ' .' \ I ' , .. . '" :> i , I I, Ul I i \ ,....1 . I \; Ul ; ! ' I J: ' \ \ !; '-- ! \ \'- i ' . ::) \ \ '5S .,- , EXHIBIT B5 LO '0 .. C'I S 1 ]I .r: ~ '" at It) C'I '- ~ ' ~ 1 ., I b : '6 ~ I E .! ' . I P _ Q i P . I ~ 5~ . h ~ j r- I..~ 'p ;;; >~ 'b u~. " .>~ '\ p ~~C b 'toe ' · " '3~0 ! .:., ~"g.8~ ' "''''A'' I ., -"t:cti5 ~ "'.,..<..... I ._ D~ .... ~ '::!i -c ' ....0 ..." , ...n .~ ! ~ '.. ~ e~ og I ': cO J! ~ Q i j \. i : " 1t:J1, ' , h ''e). ' , .. , : ; I: ' . I. ... ' I 'I ", ' 'j OJ , : I . I · ii ~; , I " .. i ~' 'L- .; i I~] 1\ ~II I "1-.J " . ' .- I' . i i d , .~ I ! i' I ~" . I 'I yo. I , I' ~'3 ' " UU I I '\ ' 'ijO I " <; ~.. ' ',. ~ ..1 ' 1 I' > .u! ! i.... ,! I ~ I!. I I "'i' ~QO = : !.. Ii 01 _.w i _0' i '. 0.... 1 I 1 I. t \' !!!i ~ II e ! ! J -"'1' C ~I ' .... _. =>':: . I Itj , ..... ;._.. , .. 0 I '-" 0 "'9, \ Ip '-II eJi..\>\;:j ! \ -" o~Qo"" ' ., .c'. _0", , ' " ,."'~<< J ' '- I, o(j"'_, I I ....:11 z c"O:::t:.: I I '0 .!!.~.., " J "-{\ ~ ''-c.:.:)(o~ ' "-., .0" ! I I -h < i!!;;~~. ! I I: > I " '.. w I 'I --+t.~-...,~,,". Lrl ~. U 1 I · ":r: , i 'I I- , I, CL 1 t I 0 ' J i I z \ t ! ,. i . EXHIBIT B6 .,.--., ". .. ...',.'...,... '. . '. " -.. ... - '-. "'~ .' ,'..- ,. . "~'-' '_., " u._ ~ -- . .. .. - ." ~. . -. , '... - '.,- .,"-:.. . '.: . ...~.... . ~~'. r"':': .~>~;:: ~:.'~)':~E~.:' -..~....'~.~:-:~: ;~\~(.:':-.-.'.-:"~:./ ;:~';::~;:_:,'~: ',c'_ '.... '___:,.', .. --;" ". .',. . '.:-, :...::~L" ~. . :-' . EXISTING. MONUMENT SIGN wI NEW SIGN project 144-8 TRADER JOE'S _.1 AI\IID ~... . -.;. . -=- AlA 955 RANCHO PARKWAY M'CtnI!>~f ~f t,,~ o,...."c"" ;,..,titul", oOf of<:ht\e-:h A,.ttoOf\)' .Jor'I"oes O,.ucc. AlA Alctolt.H. t ~80:5? 481-S166 1125 GRAND AVE ph: ARROYO GRANDE, CA GROVER BEACH CA 83433 tax: 805 481 -0060 Af:'Ct-411EC'uF[ F L /I. II II' la C CfO'AFHICS "..'[F.O": MAR . 20lIO .~ "" I I """,nIYII;I.. I I ~fu ft. .- f) .. tt ' ~. ;. ~ . Jl ik -1'. ,..) .. rr: ":!; j 'n (~ tU ~.. . ~ !!j C) ? .,,;..~ r= ;j;, () z ::;,~o: i ~ . I U..~O- ~ ~u o -.. 0.. . ~ ~J= <( :--.; III I _Z 0::1 ':E Iii ;E I- n ~ ',J 0 ,- 0 ,'- ! >- Ie( ,j ~ I j::t: :~ I~ ~ J I , 4 ~It i ~'4~ ,~ ! i ~h~ , n , .. ~fj~ I I I i I ~HI' f I I 11m i ~i\ ~ V'J p.. ~ ~~r z;: , < ~~ t ~~~I ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION A TT ACHMENT 2 MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 DRAFl PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL L Commissioner Costello lL Commissioner Keen lL Commissioner London ABSENT Vice-Chair Parker lL Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Keen and by a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of March 7, 1999 were approved as amended. ITEM I. I..A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Response letters to General Plan Amendment requests for John French and Don Ritter. 2. Memorandum to Planning Commission from David Crockett, Code Enforcement Officer concerning the status of neon signs and neon architectural detail at the Quarterdeck Restaurant. ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II. A. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 00-001; LOCATION - 955 RANCHO PARKWAY - FIVE CITIES CENTER PHASE II; APPLICANT - TRADER JOE'S Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission and stated that the applicant was requesting an amendment to the approved Planned Sign Program No. 96-118 for the Five Cities Center. Trader Joe's was asking to be allowed to place three (3) wall signs on building "K", and to add their name to ~he monument sign located at the entrance to Phase II. The proposed wall signs are each 100.5 square feet in size and are made of individual, Plexiglas, channel letters. The letter faces are red with bronze trimcap edges, and bronze returns. Each letter is internally illuminated with clear red neon tubing. Ms. Heffernon further explained that Trader Joe's intended to occupy the entire 12,000 square foot building, which was originally intended for individual inliPle shops. The approved Planned sign Program for the Five Cities Center allows for one sign per building frontage. "Frontage" is defined as "building front or side, which directly abuts a public - -~~.. --- ,- ~---- ------,- ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT' MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 PAGE 2 street or parking area, or as may be specifically approved by the Planning Commission or City Council, as applicable. Therefore, based on the above definition, building "K" has frontage on both the north and west sides. Placing one sign on each of these two elevations would be allowed with an approved Administrative Sign Permit. Ms. Heffernon stated that the proposed Planned Sign Program, submitted by Trader Joe's, is to allow a third sign on the south elevation facing Highway 101. The existing Planned Sign Program specifically prohibits signs on the rear of buildings within the Center. Furthermore, Ms. Heffernon stated that the ARC had reviewed the project on March 6, 2000. The Committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the three- (3) signs with the following two (2) revisions: 1. Relocate the ,sign on the south elevation from the center of the building to the southwest corner. 2. The sign on the west elevation is allowed only if an entrance was established on this side. The Committee further stated that their recommendation is for building "K" only, and is not intended to set a precedent for other buildings in the shopping center. Finally, the applicant has just submitted one revision for the north side of the building that proposes the Trader Joe's sign be centered in the middle of the building. Ms. Heffernon concluded by saying that the ARC and staff both recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project and adopt Resolution No. 00-1739. Commissioner London asked if the sign on Exhibit E-4 was the sign that was being moved to the southwest side of the building? Ms. Heffernon stated that it was. Commissioner Costello asked for some clarification of where the Planned Sign Program fit into the Development Code. Ms. Heffernon explained that the Development Code is much more general in how it describes what it will and will not allow. The Planned Sign Program is tailored to the Five Cities Center and also the Development Code. Chair Greene and Ms. Heffernon discussed the west side of the building and what plans existed to build an entrance on that side of the building. They also discussed that the definition of the term "frontage" in the Planned Sign Program took precedent over the term "frontage" in the Development Code and even without an entrance, the applicant would be allowed to install a sign on this side of the building. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 PAGE 3 Mr. Greene and Ms. Heffernon discussed that, in order for a sign to be placed on the south side of the building facing the freeway, the Planning Commission or the City Council would need to take some action. Chair Greene asked what controls, could be created that would allow Trader Joe's to place their sign on the freeway side of a building but would deny other stores the same right, especially with regards to building "J"? Ms. Heffernon stated that it was an applicant's prerogative to come before the Planning Commission and City Council with another application for that or any other building. This would be done on a case by case basis. Ms. Heffernon said that she believed that the reason the original PSP was specific about not allowing signs on the backs of buildings was that the building was originally approved for small, inline shops. The City did not want a large number of small signs facing the freeway. If only one tenant moved into building "J", it would be a similar situation as Trader Joe's and they could ask for a sign on the back of the building. Ms. Heffernon reminded the Planning Commission that this application concerned only building "K" and not the entire center. Mr. Greene then asked if staff would be able to distihguish the occupants of building "K" from "J"? If someone came in and occupied building "J" and wanted to put a sign in the back there would be no rational bases to deny that application. Mr. McCants replied that staff would not be able to distinguish one from the other if there was a single occupant to building "J". The essential difference ih staff's assessment of this is that there would be only three signs versus approximately 14 signs. Mr. Costello stated that if this was the case for building "J" and ilK II then what difference would it be for any of the major buildings in the Center. If a single tenant occupied any of those buildings, then they could asked to be able to put signs on the back of their buildings as well. Mr. McCants stated that: 1. The buildings Mr. Costello was referring to were very specifically dealt with in the PSP. 2. The buildings Mr. Costello was referring to had a significantly greater exposure to the residential properties at the rear of those buildings. Commissioner Costello was very concerned about setting a precedent that would allow signage on the backs of the other major buildings in the Center. Mr. McCants stated that this situation, given the Planned Sign Program, allows the Planning Commission and the City Council the discretion to make the decision on an individual basis and this is in fact the control. If the Commission chooses to accept that it establishes an precedent in its subsequent decisions, then that will be the case. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 PAGE 4 Commissioner Keen stated that he felt, just because the Commission said that it doesn't set a precedent by doing this, it really would set a precedent. He also pointed out that building "J" not only has its back toward the freeway but one end of the building also faces it. What would be allowed there? Chair Greene opened the Public Hearing. Tonv Orifice, RMO Architects, 1125 Grand Avenue, spoke briefly to the Planning Commission and showed them exactly where the three (3) signs would be located. Roaer Moss, Investec Real Estate Company, stated that he wanted to clarify a few things for the Commission. He explained that beyond the regime imposed by the City at the Five Cities Center, the developer has his own criteria that begins with the City's and gets more restrictive. They would not enter into a lease agreement with small space users for building "J". They also do not want signage on the backs of the buildings. The only situation where signage would be allowed would be for a single user. Chair Greene stated that he noticed in the ARC minutes that Trader Joe's was adamant about having this freeway sign. Did Mr. Moss have any information he could add to this? Mr. Moss stated that Trader Joe's is one of the most sought after, tenants in the North America. They have many opportunities to go wherever they want and only go places that they choose to go. Arroyo Grande is very lucky that they have decided to come here. So, they only go places where they get their deal and the key issue for them is "freeway signage". They will not come here if they do not get the sign that faces the freeway. Commissioner Keen stated that historically, Trader Joe's does not go into new buildings and that they usually do not have freeway access or signage. He wanted to know if he was wrong about this and did they know about the Rite Aid store that was empty? Mr. Moss replied that in recent years Trader Joe's has changed and has started moving into more "premier" settings that also have freeway access. He also stated that they have been offered the Rite Aid building but they wanted to be in the Five Cities Center. Mr. Moss again stated that Trader Joe's has imposed a deadline on Investec to have everything worked out, that is why he is anxious to have this decided tonight. Heather Jensen. Chamber of Commerce, stated that having gotten Trader Joe's to consider coming to Arroyo Grande is really a coup. She stated that this would be an asset to the residents, a compliment to the business community, as well as a real contribution to the City's coffers. Ms. Jensen stated that she realized that the Planning Commission was between a "rock and a hard place" with this decision because of the Planned Sign Program. She would encourage them to do whatever they could to make this work. ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 PAGE 5 Finally, she stated that it was very important to continue the business friendly attitude for businesses. The Camber of Commerce has worked very hard to develop this rapport and if this should not work out with Trader Joe's, it would send the wrong message to other vacancies within the City. Chair Greene closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Costello stated the following: . He would like to see the Trader Joe's here in Arroyo Grande. . He does not have a problem with the two signs. . He does have a problem with the sign on the south side of the building because he feels it would be setting a precedent. Once we establish this precedent for this Center, any business would have the right, upon request, to put a sign on the back of their building. . Mr. Costello stated that he is not a policy maker, that is a job for the City Council. If the Planning Commission approves this, they would be setting policy. Commissioner Keen stated that: . He has a problem with the sign on the back of the building. . He definitely believes that it will set a precedent. . In the same ARC minutes from March 7th, there was another store in the same Center asking for two signs and they were denied. . When the original Planned Sign Program was being discussed, Hollywood Video was denied a sign on the back of their building. . He is very concerned about not sticking to the PSP that was so diligently worked on by the Planning Commission and City Council. . Phase II is off to the side by itself and has no monument sign that is visible from the front. Mr. Keen made a suggestion that, rather than having a sign on the back of the building, a monument sign be installed with the designations of all the stores in Phase II to give them some recognition from the freeway that they don't have. He would rather have this done than to put a large, precedent setting sign on the back of the building. He feels it is a better solution. Commissioner London stated that in spite of the threat that they may not come to Arroyo Grande if they don't get their sign, he sees this as a business decision on Trader Joe's part. All of the other stores in the Center, because of their location and large signs on the front of the stores, have freeway exposure. Trader Joe's deserves the save advantage of freeway visibility. Because of this, he has no problem with the sign proposal. Chair Greene stated that no issue before has troubled him as much as this request because of the consequences involved in approving or denying the applicant's request. He was involved in the original Planned Sign Program hearings and they lasted weeks with a lot of ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 PAGE 6 contention. Many people in the Community were very unhappy with the Five Cities project. Mr. Greene stated that one of the main complaints he hears now is about the prominence of buildings "J" and "K". Building "J" can be seen several miles down the freeway. Therefore, how the building is "signed" is of major importance. On the other hand, the success of the project is of critical importance. Attracting high quality tenants is in the best interest of the Community and having a successful tenant there may revitalize that phase of the Center. A tenant such as Trader Joe's could make this project succeed. Chair Greene went on to say that he felt like the Planning Commission was between a "rock and a hard place". He stated that he resented being put in the position of having only a week to make a decision and also being told that if the decision is not made, Trader Joe's is may choose to leave. He does not feel this is the way to do business. He felt that these things need to be evaluated and considered carefully. Mr. Greene stated that the plans that he has does not even show where the signs are supposed to go on the buildings and he is very uncomfortable with that. He understands that there are time frames involved in the process but he felt that he was being asked to make a decision that would effect the project with the next 50 years without all the information. Mr. Greene stated that he felt Mr. Costello was correct when he said that there was no rational way to say to a tenant in building "J" that, even if they have the whole building, they cannot have a sign on the back of the building. Just because the City likes Trader Joe's, it does not mean that a decision should be made based on that fact alone. He would like to see Trader Joe's come in but, he also does not like Trader Joe's telling him that the decision has to be made their way, or not at all. Finally, he felt that Mr. Keen had raised a very interesting issue with his suggestion of another monument sign to advertise all businesses in Phase II. Mr. Greene stated that originally the Planned Sign Program had shown a monument sign in the corner where the property met Branch Street and the school, but it was withdrawn. So, Mr. Keen's $uggestion that Trader Joe's get their freeway sign by having a monument sign is a good one and worth some consideration. Mr. Greene stated that he did not feel comfortable doing anything at this point and felt that the Planning Commission should continue the item to the next meeting, giving the Planning Commission some time to think. Mr. Moss, Investec, discussed the options that he felt the Commission had, and gave them some more information. He felt it would be best to either approve or reject the applicant's request at this meeting. Commissioner Keen stated that he had spoken to Lynda Snodgrass, the Financial Services Director, and had obtained some information on the amount of revenue that may be ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 21, 2000 PAGE 7 generated by a Trader Joe's store. He shared this information with the Planning Commission. After further discussion, Commissioner London moved that the Planning Commission adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 00-1739 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 00-001 ,APPLIED FOR BY TRADER JOE'S, LOCATED AT 955 RANCHO PARKWAY including Exhibit A, and Exhibits B '-7 with modifications to Exhibit 84 and the modification of the south elevation sign consistent with the suggestions made by the applicant and City staff. Commissioner Keen seconded the motion. The motion was denied with the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE NO Commissioner Costello NO Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London AB~ENT Vice-Chair Parker NO Chair Greene ---,-~ Notes DRAFT A TT ACHMENT 3 ARC Meeting March 6, 2000 Page 9 of 1 4 D. TRADER JOES, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 00-001, located at 955 Rancho Parkway, Five Cities Shopping Center, Representative Roger A. Moss, Investec Kellv Heffernon introduced the project and told the Committee that Trader Joe's proposes to occupy the entire building ilK". At this time buildings "J" & ilK" are vacant. Building ilK" was originally slated to be up to ten individual inline shops, and Trader Joe's would like to have three signs on the building. Basically they are asking to have two more signs than what the approved Planned Sign Program (PSP) for the Five Cities Center allows. This would be a modification to the PSP and will go to the Planning Commi$sion and the City Council. The approved PSP does not allow any signs on the back of the buildings facing the freeway. In addition, the maximum square footage per sign is 100 square feet and Trader Joe's is asking for 100.5 square feet per sign. Because this is a PSP, there is plenty of discretion as to what is allowed. Trader Joe's decision to move into this site is largely contingent on them obtaining approval for the freeway sign because of the high visibility. There are different ways to look at this. On the North elevation, there could be up to 10 individual signs, and they are aski.ng for just one sign. There is also the issue of setting a precedence for building "J". Tonv Orefice, architect, said Trader Joe's had originally wanted four signs on the building and he had suggested they go with three. I have not seen their leasehold improvement plans, but they do plan on having an entrance on the west elevation. Warren Hoag said there is not even enough room for a walkway in that area, unless they are going to do something different with the slope. Kellv Heffernon said there are no doors on the west side, and that they will probably have to redo the front because there are 10 doors on that elevation. Tonv Orefice said he does not know what they intend to do yet, but every Trader Joe's store that he has seen has been very well done and he was surprised to see the red neon behind the red sign which gives a softer color. Kellv Heffernon said we will need to know what they, are doing with the entrance and doors before this goes to the Planning Commission. Warren Hoae said he remembered that originally we were very concerned about having multiple signs on the backs of the buildings in the Five Cities Shopping Center and we even offered the alternative of having space on the monument sign. At the time I think we did not envision having one single tenant in the whole building. Having said this I do understand the dilemma, and we are not talking - ~_._---~------~----_.--'------- -,----- Notes DRAFT ARC Meeting March 6, 2000 Page 1 0 of 1 4 about multiple tenant signs here, we are talking about three signs for a 12,000 square foot building. I am concerned about setting a precedent, and if the City ultimately approves these signs, I think the precedent that should be set for building "J" is for one sign only. Kellv Heffernon said building "J" might very well be offices. Warren Hoae: I hate to think that not getting this sign may be the deal breaker for Trader Joe's coming in. I think the issue is that they want a sign that is visible from the freeway. Tonv Orefice said there was some discussion about moving the sign on the southwest to one side or the other, so there is a little freedom to do that, but they are pretty adamant about having 3 signs. Warren Hoae commented that there are some uses that don't need identification, but a Trader Joe's may have some spontaneous passerby's from out of the area that may make a point of stopping next time when they see the sign. He asked where the monument sign is? Kellv Heffernon explained that the monument sign has spaces for two signs and is not visible from the freeway. Joe Tavlor said his experience with Trader Joe's is that you look for them and thought that one sign should be enough in addition to the one on the monument sign. He said that he did not think it was esthetically pleasing to have the freeway sign. Jamie Ohler said he agreed from a design standpoint it does not belong on the back of the building, but as a business man he agreed he would want a sign on the back of the building. Tonv Orefice stated that the corporate people will not sign a lease until this is approved. Chet Kielan suggested placing the southwest sign toward the corner and the other signs and the parking lot if this would be acceptable. Warren Hoae agreed that if we do have the sign on the back of the building he liked Chet 'Kielan's idea of moving it toward the southwest corner, but wondered if it could be seen from the southbound 101 Hwy. In addition, the sign that is facing west should only be allowed if there is a legitimate entrance on that side of the ~-_.._-'-- ___---.-J Notes DRAFT ARC Meeting March 6, 2000 Page 11 of 1 4 building. Trader Joe's would be an asset to the community and maybe it would be wise not to base our decision purely on design and functionality. Tonv Orefice said he would like to add that Trader Joe's typically does not add hanging signs and "daily specials" signs in their windows. Warren Hoao asked if they intended to leave all the windows in along the parking lot side? Tonv Orefice said he would not know until he sees the lease agreement. Kellv Heffernon said the elevation does not show the lights along the back of the building. Tonv Orefice said there are five lights and one would have to be moved and it would not make a difference to the functionality of the building. Warren Hoag made a motion, seconded by Jamie Ohler, to approve the three (3) signs, with sign C being reluctant, and being moved to the southmcorner in approximately the same location as sign A would be, and that the side sign only be allowed if there is an entrance, and that this not be a precedent setting decision for building "J". With the following roll call vote: AYES 4 NOES: 0 PRESENT: 4 -. MIDSTATE BANK, ADMINISTRATIVE SI~N PERMIT 00-007, located on Building , ive Cities Shopping Center, Representative Neal Mizuki, Design Co. Kellv Hefferno described the project saying that with the original Planned Sign Program with the ky/Sav-On there was a Bank of America secondary sign that was to go in. With th eing approved Albertson's came in with their Planned Sign Program which we revi d. This sign is basically filling the same space as the Bank of America, but is actua mailer. Warren Hoao said if they put it where the how it there is a projection on the building where the sign begins. Neal Mizuki said the sign will be moved and will be centere ithin the projections of the building. He handed out a faxed copy of the amended ign that he had recently received from Albertsons. __ _____._~__~.. "m, ________ .jj 7.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICK TerBORCH, INTERIM CITY MANAGE SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 7.B. - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 00-001: 955 RANCHO PARKWAY. TRADER JOE'S DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 The attached letter and phone messages were received subsequent to the distribution of the Council agenda on March 24th. c :\supp.memo .agenda .032800 -~------- -re . d It:::IlOl e 5.. -T~A b<:~w" -Oe\~ . MA 27 AH. ~ ~.. ~ /Jt:-edy e~,-:; '1'73- oS!16 F//;E E I/E~OJ1e..- tJe. Know "JtfiHls T~..J)M. J"ve5 hllJl'e. 1ft &0_, t~~ (// 2!!11 'I- Follow 'f1{e. ?~HH;'I"if COMI'1(SS/fJ"Y\..~s' o};S4rJ "tee [)N"1&vd"h~. ~/$ /.s " tf)MMMrCIrlt- t!:ttto'f- ~ Cll'~ -MLI41J t1~-~ tel tJ,4/- Hd/.,,-..f b"'//1 I Ok. I Jdv IIr e.i!f~l!d ~~~ .cJA.z.-. 'ff<e-;e... J.(,M:S('''''''M~~ ttN-~I/e.rs7' ~f 1>1 ~er- dbes tJke-.. ~~ 15. /Vo ~ '1 t::'o""tYo,.-vsl; ;(- 1()/,A.. h/tve... i1>) Yhe ('r;J<1J1'1.~7 ;..;~ 7;!",..?Je..r Joes-, wt M'e -hhl!. tTf h"..IIN! -Iv ~ iv SLo -fov -#J4-be: r:D~~ / v,cll1 J)lM c..rt.'I. If JJJj ~ tYfY -It:> /1 v.,-/z ~. N~ '-"e. ~ ,4-,1 ~ ~Mf'.s ~r '11<.i5 .5-10 r-e, 1ft $- / !H4J)ef .d-oe}; (is, kJ~r--H- 0(Ae- (OMIYf)N;S~ iYJ I~r 5iv-S/~~ Y'u Ie, >. itV' U\5\~ !7-C-- I T0'd 98~OC~t;>6 ~..\.A.J~ ~~ 01 - n" r_ . 1. t') IJ ..-:> Hl1\::f3H 1\::f1N3W . OJ . os WGI.::I 80 . .0T eooc-o:!Z-~ PHONE MESSAGE RECEIVED MARCH 27, 2000 (BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF) MESSAGE FROM: DIANE AND CAREY JAMES 285 MILLER WAY ARROYO GRANDE In complete favor of Trader Joe's no matter how big or little the sign is, and the back of the building is just fine with me. Please let Trader Joe's have their sign. They (Trader Joe's) will enhance Arroyo Grande by: 1) increasing property values; 2) more variety for shopping; 3) more jobs; 4) great food selection and prices. I drive to San Luis Obispo weekly - keep dollars here in Arroyo Grande. ~ ,-,---,-------,- -----~~ --^-----_....,--- PHONE MESSAGE RECEIVED MARCH 28, 2000 (BY THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE) MESSAGE FROM: PA TRICIA TYLER OCEANO 489-9197 Very much in favor of Trader Joe's coming to Arroyo Grande. Calling to voice support of the project from herself and several friends. Shops at Trader Joe's in San Luis Obispo frequently and would much rather see a Trader Joe's here in the South County. Please support this needed project/business. --------- ----~ RECE\\'ED March 25, 2000 cttY OF ARROYO GRANDE 00 MAR 28 PH It: 21 Trader Joe's Marketing Development 538 Mission South Pasadena, California 91031 Dear Sir or Madam: My husband and I retired and moved from the Covina area to Santa Maria on the Central Coast. The area is beautiful and the weather is the very best, a tad windy at times, but that's OK by us. The one loss we encountered was the lack ofa Trader Joe's (whom we are addicted to), we can go 40 miles to the north and shop at the one in San Luis Obispo and/or drive 70 miles to the south and shop at the one in Santa Barbara, but at the present the Milpas Street is a bit of a mess. We were elated to hear of the possibility of one opening in the Arroyo GrandelFive Cities area. We are also curious why the Santa Maria area was not being considered. It is almost half way between the two previously mentioned stores and the Santa Maria Valley has over 100,000 in population much larger than the Five Cities area. To me it seems like an area that's begging for a Trader Joe's. But, if you do not consider Santa Maria, then please do everything you can to obtain the final approval at the Planning Commission on Tuesday night, March 28th, I can assure you I will be waiting anxiously for that store to open, so please hurry up and get it opened. It is needed badly. Thank you, Robert & Maryalice Miller 1466 Tatum Court Santa Maria, CA 93455 millerI996@earthlink.net 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~ SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period March 1 - March 15, 2000. FUNDING: There is a $735,991.07 fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A - Cash Disbursement Listing ATTACHMENT B - March 3, 2000 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT C - March 10,2000 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT D - March 10,2000 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks - ---,-- ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS 'JM tie 'PeWJd oI1Ita1td 1 7~1Ita1td 15, 2000 March 28, 2000 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period March 1 to March 15, 2000. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. March 3, 2000 Accounts Payable Cks 94450-94503 B 132,246.97 March 10, 2000 Accounts Payable Cks 94504-94608 C 359,792.87 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks D 243,951.23 603,744.10 Two Week Total $ 735.991.07 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GENERAL FUND (010) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS City Government (Fund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213) 4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee 4002 - City Clerk Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222) 4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fund 4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225) 4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System 4120 - Financial Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230) 4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax 4130 - Community Development Police Grant Fund (Fund 271) 4131 - CommUnity Building (CDBG) 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant 4140 - Management Information System 4203 - Federal COPs Hiring Grant 4145 - Non Departmental 4204 - Federal Local Law Enforcement Public Safety (Fund 010) 4201 - Police ENTERPRISE FUNDS 4211 - Fire SewerFund(Fund61~ 4212 - Building & Safety 4610 - Sewer Maintenance 4213 - Government Buildings Water Fund (Fund 640) Public Works (Fund 010) 4710 - Water Administration 4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4711 - Water Production 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4712 - Water Distribution 4304 - Street Lighting Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4305 - Automotive Shop 4750 - Lopez Administration Parks & Recreation (Fund 010) 4420 - Parks CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 4421 - Recreation 5501-5599 - Park Projects 4422 - General Recreation 5601-5699 - Streets Projects 4423 - Pre-School Program 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects 4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects 4425 - Children in Motion 5901-5999 - Water Projects 4430 - Soto Sport Complex 4460 - Parkway Maintenance Dept. Index for CounciLxIs ATTACHMENT B VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 03/01/00 08:36 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94450 03/03/00 101609 3M FIREFIGHTING FOAM 010.4211.5255 464.00 464.00 94451 03/03/00 000234 A & R WELDING SUPPLY OXYGEN 010.4211.5206 28.97 28.97 94452 03/03/00 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST PHONE 010.4211. 5403 17.86 17.86 94453 03/03/00 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP GLOVES/PVC YELLOW 010.4420.5255 57.59 94453 03/03/00 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP SAFETY GLASSES/GLASS HOLDERS 010.4420.5255 221. 54 279.13 94454 03/03/00 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS DELGADO SVCS-2/20 220.4303.5303 608.00 94454 03/03/00 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS WILLOUGHBY SVCS TO 2/4 010.4120.5303 774.80 94454 03/03/00 100897 AMERICAN TEMPS WILLOUGHBY SVCS TO 2/10 010.4120.5303 602.88 1,985.68 94455 03/03/00 004212 AMERICAN WATER WORKS AS RENEWAL BACKFLOW TEST-GLENN 010.4420.5501 60.00 60.00 94456 03/03/00 100492 JENNIFER ANDERSON REF. PARK DEPOSIT-ANDERSON 010.0000.4354 62.50 62.50 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MISC SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 24.84 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EQUIPMENT SHOW FEE 010.4420.5501 15.05 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MISC. SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 29.66 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE EQUIPMENT SHOW FEE 010.4420.5501 12.00 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PHOTO PROCESSING 010.4130.5201 16.91 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4301. 5501 13.00 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MEETING SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 21. 40 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GREEN BAR PAPER 010.4120.5201 28.00 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REIMB.MILEAGE 612.4610.5501 7.68 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REIMB.MILEAGE 010.4130.5201 10.88 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MEETING SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 24.76 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN MAPS 010.4130.5303 10.68 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MEETING SUPPLIES 010.4001.5504 9.87 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN MAP 010.4130.5303 16.01 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COLOR COPIES 010.4130.5303 15.93 94457 03/03/00 101044 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE OFFICE SUPPLIES 284.4103.5201 26.75 283.42 94458 03/03/00 016302 CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY CMC CREW-1/00 220.4303.5303 3,498.50 3,498.50 94459 03/03/00 021762 CENTRAL COAST PRINTING PRINT VEH/VENDING LABELS 010.4120.5201 375.38 375.38 94460 03/03/00 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY FLOOR FINISH 010.4211.5255 64.35 94460 03/03/00 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY P.TOWELS/LINERS/SPONGES 010.4420.5605 139.43 203.78 94461 03/03/00 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 15.00 94461 03/03/00 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 15.00 94461 03/03/00 026286 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 15.00 45.00 . 94462 03/03/00 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CUESTA CONSULT SVCS-JAN 010.4130.5303 5,485.00 5,485.00 94463 03/03/00 027534 D.G.REPAIR REPR.COOLER LINE 220.4303.5601 59.13 94463 03/03/00 027534 D.G.REPAIR SCAN ENGINE/WIRE SET 010.4211.5601 135.76 194 . 89 94464 03/03/00 101612 DMEC, INC. WORK PROGRAM-MODIFIED DUTY 220.4303.5501 85.00 85.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 03/01/00 08:36 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94465 03/03/00 100968 DMG-MAXIMUS PROF. SVCS-ST.MAND. COST 010.4145.5303 2,550.00 2,550.00 94466 03/03/00 100465 EDEN SYSTEMS,INC. BUSINESS LICENSE BAR CODE 010.4140.5303 700.00 94466 03/03/00 100465 EDEN SYSTEMS,INC. BUSINESS LICENSE BAR CODE 010.4120.5303 300.00 1,000.00 94467 03/03/00 031824 ELECTRIC MOTOR REWINDIN REPR.MOTOR 612.4610.5610 544.04 544 . 04 94468 03/03/00 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN BOLT COUPLINGS 640.4712.5610 68.64 94468 03/03/00 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN VALVE FITTINGS/GASKETS/COUPLIN 640.4712.5610 979.64 94468 03/03/00 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN VALVE FITTINGS/GASKETS/COUPLIN 612.4610.5273 22.28 1,070.56 94469 03/03/00 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC DUP.KEYS 640.4712.5604 55.00 94469 03/03/00 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC MASTER LOCKS 640.4712.5255 58.87 113.87 94470 03/03/00 101613 FRESNO CITY COLLEGE TACTICAL INST-SOUZA 010.4201.5501 383.00 383.00 94471 03/03/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PORTABLE 010.4211.5403 36.78 94471 03/03/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-ENG.1 010.4211.5403 18.35 55.13 94472 03/03/00 101236 DAWN HUDSON POTTERY CLASSES-HUDSON 010.4424.5351 114 .15 114.15 94473 03/03/00 050504 LAUTZENHISER'S STATION RECORD BOOKS 010.4130.5201 348.19 94473 03/03/00 050504 LAUTZENHISER'S STATION RECORD BOOK SHIPPING/HANDLING 010.4130.5201 11. 97 360.16 94474 03/03/00 053092 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES PHONE MAINT 010.4211.5403 25.60 25.60 94475 03/03/00 056580 MID STATE BANK ACH DISTRIB-2/09/00 010.4145.5319 31.20 31. 20 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE FUNNELS 010.4430.5605 10.38 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE AWL/BIT 640.4712.5273 12.63 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BUILDING SUPPLIES 010.4211.5273 54.44 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE BOLT SET/NEVER-SEEZ LUBE 010.4213.5604 7.92 . 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CIRCLE BLADE/CORNER BRACE 010.4211.5255 11.88 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CR:NEVER-SEEZ LUBE 010.4213.5604 3.74- 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CAULKGUN/LIGHTER/ROOF CEMENT 010.4305.5255 15.50 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/LIGHTBULBS 010.4211. 5605 77 .84 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE LABELER TAPE 220.4303.5255 12.40 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PAINTING SUPPLIES 010.4211. 5273 30.71 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE CORNER BRACES/CONTACT GLUE 010.4211.5273 36.73 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SHELF/ELASTOMERIE/FLINT STRIKE 220.4303.5613 22.58 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE MISC. HARDWARE 640.4712.5604 18.93 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SIMPLE GREEN 640.4712.5604 13.72 94476 03/03/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE SWEEPER NOZZLE/DUSTER 640.4712.5604 9.42 331.34 94477 03/03/00 057134 MIRACLE RECREATION TODDLER CLIMB & SLIDE 350.5509.7001 1,926.21 1,926.21 94478 03/03/00 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 24.62 94478 03/03/00 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 010.4213.5604 18.86 43.48 94479 03/03/00 100945 JESSICA MORENO REF. PARK DEPOSIT-MORENO 010.0000.4354 75.00 75.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 03/01/00 08:36 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94480 03/03/00 058072 CITY OF MORRO BAY INFO.TECH SVCS-10/16-1/7 010.4140.5303 2,702.42 2,702.42 94481 03/03/00 101012 NICKSON'S MACHINE SHOP, REMETALIZE MOTOR 612.4610.5610 313 . 15 313 .15 94482 03/03/00 100714 NIXON-EGLI EQUIPT.CO. PARTS FOR PAVER 220.4303.5603 172.40 172.40 94483 03/03/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL DATA LINE 473-0379 010.4140.5303 109.21 94483 03/03/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-1935 640.4710.5403 36.45 94483 03/03/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4145.5403 18.09 94483 03/03/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2345 010.4211.5403 40.29 94483 03/03/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 473-5400 010.4145.5403 1,697.93 1,901. 97 94484 03/03/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 126.89 94484 03/03/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 118.68 94484 03/03/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC-L/SCAPE TRACT 1769 217.4460.5355 7.29 94484 03/03/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC-PD SUB 010.4145.5401 18.70 94484 03/03/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 133.39 94484 03/03/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC-PUMP 640.4711.5402 192.90 597.85 94485 03/03/00 101610 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' PERS ACTUARIAL STUDIES -010.0000.2003 200.00 200.00 94486 03/03/00 075660 SAN LUIS PAINTS WEATHERCOAT PAINT/BRUSHES 010.4430.5605 121. 50 121. 50 94487 03/03/00 077142 JOYCE SARUWATARI REIMB.PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 41. 31 41. 31 94488 03/03/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. FILTERS 010.4211.5601 37.07 94488 03/03/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 147.44 184.51 94489 03/03/00 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC SENSUS SYSTEM SUPPORT PROGRAM 640.4712.5303 804.38 804.38 94490 03/03/00 080106 SMITH AND LOVELESS,INC SEAL HOUSING SEAL 612.4610.5610 1,366.98 94490 03/03/00 080106 SMITH AND LOVELESS,INC SEAL ASSEMBLY/GASKETS 612.4610.5610 526.73 1,893.71 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER HOOKUPS-1/00 760.0000.2305 10,000.00 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT SEWER SVC COLL-1/00 760.0000.2304 47,750.98 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN DIST-214 E.BRANCH 010.4145.5401 19.63 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN DIST-215 E.BRANCH 010.4145.5401 13.47 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN DIST-208 E.BRANCH 010.4145.5401 13.47 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN DIST-211 VERNON 010.4145.5401 13.47 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN DIST-140 TRAP. WAY 010.4145.5401 13.47 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 1-1 SAN DIST-STROTHER R/R 010.4145.5401 13 .47 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-12/99 HANDLING ACCOUNTS 010.0000.4753 4,518.48- 94491 03/03/00 080808 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 7-12/99 HANDLING-HOOKUPS 010.0000.4753 88.50- 53,230.98 94492 03/03/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY SPARK PLUGS/LAMPS 010.4213.5601 130.32 130.32 94493 03/03/00 082134 STATEWIDE SAFETY & SIGN SIGNS 010.4420.5605 51. 32 51.32 94494 03/03/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS REPL.MIC 220.4303.5601 118.44 118.44 94495 03/03/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010,4420.5601 15.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 03/01/00 08:36 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94495 03/03/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010.4305.5601 15.00 94495 03/03/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010.4201.5601 97.50 94495 03/03/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 010.4301. 5601 15.00 94495 03/03/00 083226 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH CAR WASHES 640.4712.5601 30.00 172.50 94496 03/03/00 084474 TELEGRAM TRIBUNE TT SUB-FIN.SVCS 010.4120.5503 37.50 37.50 94497 03/03/00 086346 TROESH READY MIX CONCRETE/ASPHALT 220.4303.5307 186.63 186.63 94498 03/03/00 087672 UNITED RENTALS PROPANE 220.4303.5613 7.70 94498 03/03/00 087672 UNITED RENTALS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP 010.4420.5603 350.21 357.91 94499 03/03/00 100208 VISIONARY SYSTEMS,INC. FIREHOUSE SOFTWARE SUPPORT 010.4140.5303 960.00 960.00 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. UG STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT 350.5401.7301 301. 30 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DON ROBERTS FIELD 350.5501.7301 56.74 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BIKEWAY PROJECT ONE 350.5606.7301 220.78 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CREEKSIDE PATH 350.5607.7301 32.50 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CREEKSIDE PATH 350.5607.7501 360.20 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. OAK PARK BLVD. WIDENING 350.5609.7301 591.23 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 350.5613.7701 32.50 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. BRISCO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5615.7301 1,051. 00 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. EL CAMPO/101 INTERCHANGE ALTS 350.5616.7301 48.75 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER 350.5617.7301 616.25 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. MONTEGO STREET SIDEWALKS 350.5622.7301 170.05 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. PARKING LOT BEHIND CITY HALL 350.5623.7301 194.75 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. ROUTE 227 RELINQUISH. STUDY 350.5628.7701 295.50 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. FAIR OAKS RECON/VALLEY TO TRAF 350.5630.7501 1,966.25 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. LOS OLIVOS SIDEWALK 350.5633.7301 178.75 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. NEWSOM SPRINGS 350.5754.7701 75.00 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998 (DR-1203) 350.5755.7301 357.50 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. DISASTER SVCS 1998 (DR-1203) 350.5755.7501 351. 00 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE/ELM TO HALCYON 350.5806.7301 21,040.94 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GRAND AVE/ELM TO HALCYON 350.5806.7401 181. 50 94501 03/03'/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. RESERVOIR NO#l DESIGN 350.5903.7501 4,661.41 94501 03/03/00 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC. GENERAL CONSULTING SVCS 010.4301.5303 10,076.26 42,860.16 94502 03/03/00 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/TIRES 640.4712.5601 203.72 94502 03/03/00 0.90480 WAYNE'S TIRE WINDSHIELD WIPER 640.4712.5601 13.27 216.99 94503 03/03/00 094146 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES ANNUAL SIGN ORDER 220.4303.5613 2,356.08 94503 03/03/00 094146 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES STREET NAME SIGN BLANKS 220.4303.5613 498.07 94503 03/03/00 094146 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES U BRACKETS 220.4303.5613 444.02 3,298.17 TOTAL CHECKS 132,246.97 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 03/01/00 08:36 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 26,313.30 217 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 7.29 220 STREETS FUND 8,068.95 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 72 .91 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 34,710.11 612 SEWER FUND 2,780.86 640 WATER FUND 2,542.57 760 SANITATION DISTRIBUTION FUND 57,750.98 TOTAL 132,246.97 ATTACHMENT C VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 1 03/08/00 13:38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 220 03/01/00 088218 UNITED STATES POSTMASTE MAILING-MEASURE C 641.4750.5612 783.74 783.74 221 03/02/00 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGERS SVCS 010.4425.5255 92.00 221 03/02/00 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGER SVCS 010.4305.5303 20.00 221 03/02/00 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGER SVCS 640.4712.5303 20.00 221 03/02/00 010998 BETTER BEEP PAGER SVCS 220.4303.5303 10.00 142.00 223 03/03/00 100758 DON SPAGNOLO LOCC W/SHOP-SPAGNOLO 010.4301. 5501 362.00 362.00 94504 03/10/00 000468 A T & T-L/DIST SVC. L/DIST FAX 473-0386 010.4145.5403 49.99 49.99 94505 03/10/00 005850 A.G. FIRE FIGHTERS ASSN RETIREMENT/MOTIVATION CONTRIB 010.4211.5124 7,500.00 7,500.00 94506 03/10/00 068127 AG PRINT N COPY COPIES 010.4102.5306 59.89 59.89 94507 03/10/00 101616 RANE AGUILAR REF.BUS.LIC-136 S.HALCYON 010.0000.4050 29.00 29.00 94508 03/10/00 002340 JOHN ALLEN CSAIA SPRING TRAINING-ALLEN 010.4201. 5501 20.00 20.00 94509 03/10/00 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP EMERGENCY BLANKETS 010.4201. 5255 54.70 94509 03/10/00 003120 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUP KNIT RAGS 010.4201.~ 37.00 91.70 S'~~5 94510 03/10/00 004680 STEVE ANDREWS POLICE PURSUITS 010.4201.5501 40.00 94510 03/10/00 004680 STEVE ANDREWS REIMB. GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 96.77 136.77 94511 03/10/00 005772 ARROY.Q GRANDE COMM. HOS PHYSICAL-HOLMES 010.4425.5315 52.00 94511 03/10/00 005772 ARROYO GRANDE COMM. HOS PHYSlCAL-S.SANTOS 010.4425.5315 47.00 99.00 94512 03/10/00 101617 AUTO GLASS CENTRAL VEHICLE MAINT 010.4201. 5601 304.55 304.55 94513 03/10/00 101389 BC ELECTRIC INSTL.BALLAST 010.4213.5303 306.59 94513 03/10/00 101389 BC ELECTRIC INSTL.CONDUIT/WIRES/LlNES 010.4201.5303 1,256.18 1,562.77 94514 03/10/00 012168 BOXX EXPRESS SHIPPING 010.4201. 5201 124.71 124.71 94515 03/10/00 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER VENTS/SCREENS/SAW BLADE 010.4420.5605 16.48 94515 03/10/00 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER SAND PAINT 010.4420.5605 27.84 94515 03/10/00 On026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER SAND PAINT/STEEL WOOL PADS 010.4420.5605 16.04 94515 03/10/00 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER BEARING 010.4420.5605 7.25 94515 03/10/00 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER SAFETY TIPS/PLAY EQUPT.TOOLS 010.4420.5605 26.17 93.78 94516 03/10/00 101619 ROB BURT B/BALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL-BURT 010.4424.5352 48.00 48.00 94517 03/10/00 100301 RYAN BURT B/BALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL-R.BURT 010.4424.5352 48.00 48.00 94518 03/10/00 021940 C.COAST TAXI CAB SERVIC TAXI SVCS-FEB.16-29 225.4553.5507 1,297.25 1,297.25 94519 03/10/00 018330 CA. ST. DEPT. OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINT APPS 010.4201. 5324 37.00 37.00 94520 03/10/00 018408 CA. ST. DEPT. OF MOTOR VEH APP FEE-VEHICLE TITLE 220.4303.5601 7.00 7.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 2 03/08/00 13:38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94521 03/10/00 016692 CALIF.PEACE OFFICER'S A REGIS-STEVE ANDREWS 010.4201. 5501 592.00 592.00 94522 03/10/00 023322 CHRISTIANSON CHEVROLET GASKET 010.4211. 5601 20.67 20.67 94523 03/10/00 023478 CITY CLERKS ASSN OF CAL REGIS-WETMORE CCAC CONFERENCE 010.4002.5501 285.00 285.00 94524 03/10/00 024832 COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS EXCHANGE RADIO 612.4610.5303 540.00 540.00 94525 03/10/00 024870 COMPUSERVE INC. JAN 2000 COMPUSERVE 010.4140.5607 49.72 49.72 94526 03/10/00 101611 CPOA-REGION VII STANDARD OF CONDUCT 010.4201.5501 150.00 150.00 94527 03/10/00 100631 CUESTA CONSULTING CONTRACT PLANNING SVCS-FEB 010.4130.5303 4,639.00 4,639.00 94528 03/10/00 028548 DAYS TAR INDUSTRIES STREET SWEEPING 612.4610.5303 4,937.63 4.937.63 94529 03/10/00 030186 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE C 2000 I.D.CHECKING GUIDES 010.4201.5255 26.75 26.75 94530 03/10/00 030576 GREG DUTRA B/BALL LEAGUE SCORER-DUTRA 010.4424.5352 21.00 21. 00 94531 03/10/00 101352 EAGLE INDUSTRIES UNLIMI TACTICAL EQUIPMENT/VESTS/MISC 010.4201.5272 391.18 94531 03/10/00 101352 EAGLE INDUSTRIES UNLIMI TACTICAL EQUIPMENT-SRT VEST 010.4201.5272 477.90 869.08 94532 03/10/00 031824 ELECTRIC MOTOR REWIND IN MOTOR REPAIR 612.4610.5610 421.25 421.25 94533 03/10/00 100147 ENVICOM CORP. PROF.SVCS-GENERAL PLAN-JAN 010.4130.5303 15,862.87 15,862.87 94534 03/10/00 101614 ENVIRONMENTAL HORTlCULT REGIS-ROCHA ENVIRO HORTlCULTUR 010.4420.5501 150.00 150.00 94535 03/10/00 033150 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP FED EX MAILING TO INS. COMPANY 010.4101.5201 16.25 16.25 94536 03/10/00 033462 JOHN FERDOLAGE STANDARD FOR CONDUCT-FERDOLAGE 010.4201. 5501 60.00 60.00 94537 03/10/00 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN. GATE VALVE/FITTINGS/COUPLINGS 640.4712.5610 366.60 366.60 94538 03/10/00 101355 FIRST BANK OF SLO GRAND AVE/ELM-RETENTION 350.5806.7001 27,787.24 27,787.24 94539 03/10/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES SUBSCRIPTION-ENG 010.4301. 5255 42.00 94539 03/10/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 61300 010.4130.5301 78.00 94539 03/10/00 100691 FIVE CITIES-TIMES LEGAL 65303 010.4002.5301 48.00 168.00 94540 03/10/00 100700 G & M MOBILE SERVICE BATTERY/MASTER SWITCH 010.4201. 5601 401.70 401. 70 94541 03/10/00 101577 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC. MARK OFF CLEANER 010.4420.5605 279.15 279.15 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-430 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-438 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-440 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-446 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-451 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-454 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 3 03/08/00 13 :38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-459 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-462 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-467 NOE~ 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-470 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-475 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-478 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-483 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-486 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-491 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-494 NOEL 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-448 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-456 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-464 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542. 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-472 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-480 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-488 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1371 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1374 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1375 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1378 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1379 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1382 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 94542 03/10/00 039312 CITY OF GROVER BEACH SWR-1386 DIXS 7/1/99-12/31/99 612.0000.4751 39.00 '1.131.00 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-SPAGNOLO 010.4301.5403 30.68 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PKS SUPER 010.4421.5602 109.63 03/10/00 036426 . 94543 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-PKS DIR 010.4421. 5602 126.94 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-F.CHIEF 010.4211.5403 18.63 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CONST.INSPECT 010.4301. 5403 52.19 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-CM 010.4145.5403 78.38 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-RDA 010.4145.5403 43.50 94543 03/10/00 036426 GTE WIRELESS CELL PHONE-ENG 1 010.4211. 5403 16.78 476.73 94544 03/10/00 100335 DANIEL HERNANDEZ CA.P&R CONF-HERNANDEZ 010.4421.5501 160.00 160.00 94545 03/10/00 042174 HIGGINS ASSOCIATE, INC PROF.SVCS 010.4130.5303 3,710.00 94545 03/10/00 042174 HIGGINS ASSOCIATE, INC WORK BEYOND SCOPE 010.4130.5303 1,350.00 94545 03/10/00 042174 HIGGINS ASSOCIATE, INC WORK BEYOND SCOPE-PLANNING 010.4130.5303 1,650.00 94545 03/10/00 042174 HIGGINS ASSOCIATE, INC TRAVEL 010.4130.5303 238.00 6,948.00 94546 03/10/00 043914 JOSEPH IANNEO REIMB. INDEXES 010.4201. 5201 95.35 95.35 94547 03/10/00 043954 JOSH IANNEO B/BALL LGE.SCORER-J.IANNEO 010.4424.5352 42.00 42.00 94548 03/10/00 100947 SHELLY IANNEO B/BALL LGE.SCORER-S.IANNEO 010.4424.5352 21. 00 21. 00 94549 03/10/00 044050 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS,I COPY USAGE/MAINT 010.4421.5602 152.04 152.04 94550 03/10/00 044304 IMPULSE MFG. REPR.SVC BODY/BED PLATE 640.4712.5601 600.08 600.08 94551 03/10/00 101615 INA REF.C/B DEPOSIT-INA 010.0000.2206 250.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 4 03/08/00 13 :38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94551 03/10/00 101615 INA BLDG.SUPER-INA 010.0000.4355 120.00- 94551 03/10/00 101615 INA BLDG.SUPER-INA 010.0000.4355 100.00- 30.00 94552 03/10/00 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES INFO.SVCS ON LINE 010.4201. 5606 31. 80 31. 80 94553 03/10/00 046098 J C LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE MAINT. 010.4420.5303 380.00 94553 03/10/00 046098 J C LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE MAINT. 217.4460.5356 120.00 500.00 94554 03/10/00 046176 J J'S FOOD COMPANY SUPPLIES-ECON DEV.TASK 284.4103.5201 7.26 7.26 94555 03/10/00 046956 JOBS AVAILABLE INC. DISPLAY AD-CITY MANAGER 010.4101.5316 346.50 346.50 94556 03/10/00 100716 JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES PROF. ASSISTANT CITY ENG 010.4301. 5303. 407.90 407.90 94557 03/10/00 101604 BARBIE JONES SNACK REIMB-JONES 010.4425.5259 97.19 94557 03/10/00 101604 BARBIE JONES REIMB.SNACK SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 30.83 128.02 94558 03/10/00 047300 BLAIR JUAREZ B/BALL LGE.SCORER-JUAREZ 010.4424.5352 140.00 140.00 94559 03/10/00 048750 JOSEPH KIENLY DRUG INFLUENCE-KIENLY 010.4201. 5501 90.00 94559 03/10/00 048750 JOSEPH KIENLY BASIC TRAFFIC COLLISION-KIENLY 010.4201.5501 100.00 190.00 94560 03/10/00 050180 LASER TECHNOLOGY INC. MARKSMAN/SCOPE-RECERT 010.4201. 5603 133.75 133.75 94561 03/10/00 100521 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CI 2000 ANNUAL DUES-CITY MANAGER 010.4145.5503 50.00 50.00 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-CEBULLA 010.4130.5303 195.00 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-VIOLA 010.0000.2353 162.50 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-VIOLA 010.0000.2356 162.50 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-VIOLA 010.0000.2351 146.25 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEWS-CASTLEROCK 010.0000.2350 162.50 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-CHESNUT 010.0000.2354 162.50 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-CHESTNUTT 010.0000.2354 162.50 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-LITTLE 010.0000.2455 130.00 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-LITTLE 010.0000.2355 178.75 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-LITTLE 010.0000.2355 162.50 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-LITTLE 010.0000.2341 130.00 94562 03/10/00 101075 LEMUS ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REVIEW-DORFMAN 010.0000.2498 178.75 1,933.75 94563 03/10/00 052270 LIGHTNING POWDER CO,INC NIK TEST U,BOX OF 10 TEST 010.4201.5255 71.40 71.40 94564 03/10/00 100985 DOUG LINTNER B/BALL LEAGUE OFFICAL-LINTNER 010.4424.5352 128.00 128.00 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER POSTAGE 010.4201. 5201 4.52 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER JAIL LAUNDRY 010.4201. 5323 2.98 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER SCHEDULED MEETINGS 010.4201. 5501 26.58 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER DICTAPHONE TAPES 010.4201. 5255 20.00 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER CITIZEN/TEEN ACADEMY 010.4201. 5504 53.86 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER TRAVEL 010.4201. 5501 12.68 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER PARKING FEES 010.4201. 5501 25.00 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER GASOLINE 010.4201.5608 12.00 . VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 5 03/08/00 13:38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER K-9 TRAINING AIDS 010.4201. 5322 25.89 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5201 35.49 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER TRAINING EXPENSES 010.4201.5501 32.00 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER REIMB.PHONE CALLS 010.4201. 5403 11.54 94565 03/10/00 052455 SUSAN LINTNER COMMUNITY ADVISORY MTG 010.4201.5504 13.16 275.70 94566 03/10/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE OIL FILTERS 010.4201. 5601 27.28 94566 03/10/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE MIDAS GOLD BATTERY 010.4201. 5601 85.79 94566 03/10/00 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE U-JOINT/ALIGN/BRAKES 010.4201. 5601 392.41 505.48 94567 03/10/00 056784 MIDSTATE ELECTRONICS FUSES/SHRINK 010.4211.5603 41. 89 41. 89 94568 03/10/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PVC PIPE 010.4420.5605 6.20 94568 03/10/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE PVC CAPS 640.4712.5610 4.90 94568 03/10/00 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE NIPPLES/ELBOW/UNION 640.4712.5601 29.97 41. 07 94569 03/10/00 057272 MIKE MITCHELL B/BALL LEAGUE OFFlCAL-MITCHELL 010.4424.5352 48.00 48.00 94570 03/10/00 101620 MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE REGIS-MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE 010.4201. 5501 400.00 400.00 94571 03/10/00 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE REMOVAL COTTONWOOD TREE 010.4420.5303 337.50 94571 03/10/00 059124 MUSTANG TREE CARE ASH TREE REMOVAL/TRIM TREES 010.4420.5605 450.00 787.50 94572 03/10/00 100281 JEFFREY NIEMEYER B/BALL LGE.OFFICIAL-NIEMEYER 010.4424.5352 48.00 48.00 94573 03/10/00 100997 NTOA NTOA DUES-2000/E.ALLEN 010.4201.5503 35.00 35.00 94574 03/10/00 101618 STATE OF OREGON PHOTO-OREGON-DMV 010.4201.5324 6.50 6.50 94575 03/10/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL FAX L/DIST.473-0386 010.4145.5403 22.97 94575 03/10/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-2174 010.4201. 5403 36.96 94575 03/10/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 473-5100 010.4145.5403 811.27 94575 03/10/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 473-9523 010.4201. 5403 71. 60 94575 03/10/00 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 489-9867 010.4201.5403 50.72 993.52 "" 94576 03/10/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 780.05 94576 03/10/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4712.5402 195.11 94576 03/10/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 640.4711.5402 737.08 94576 03/10/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 612.4610.5402 641. 66 94576 03/10/00 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4145.5401 3,311.42 5,665.32 94577 03/10/00 066690 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE METER RENTAL TO 6/30/0 010.4101. 5602 311.61 311.61 94578 03/10/00 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS FORM PRINTING 010.4201.5201 352.60 94578 03/10/00 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS COLOR COPIES 010.4201. 5201 134.51 94578 03/10/00 067548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS GO COVERS PRINTED 010.4201. 5201 153.08 640.19 94579 03/10/00 100143 QUAGLINO ROOFING CHECK ROOF/SEALED PIPE 010.4213.5303 185.00 185.00 94580 03/10/00 070590 RICHETTI WATER CONDITIO WATER COND-JAN/FEB 010.4201. 5604 30.00 30.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 6 03/08/00 13:38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94581 03/10/00 071682 GREG ROSE B/BALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL-ROSE 010.4424.5352 240.00 240.00 94582 03/10/00 076440 SANTA CRUZ ASSOC.LTD. ELECTRIC GUN LOCK KEY 010.4201. 5603 172.41 172.41 94583 03/10/00 077532 ALLEN SCHOFIELD ELECTRI INSTL.IRRIGATION CONTROLLER 010.4420.5605 137.00 137.00 94584 03/10/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 010.4201. 5608 1,269.03 94584 03/10/00 078156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. DIESEL FUEL 010.4211.5608 234.81 1,503.84 94585 03/10/00 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC TOUCH READ METERS 640.4712.5207 5,616.47 94585 03/10/00 078468 SENSUS TECHNOLOGIES,INC TOUCH READ HOUSING ASSEMBLYS 640.4712.5611 233.29 5,849.76 94586 03/10/00 101556 DIANE SHEELEY CALIF RDH-SHEELEY 284.4103.5501 120.00 120.00 94587 03/10/00 101586 SHERIFF'S ADVISORY COUN REGIS-JOE KIENLY 010.4201.5501 105.00 105.00 94588 03/10/00 101621 TOM SHIFFRAR B/BALL LEAGUE OFFICIAL-SHIFFRA 010.4424.5352 176.00 176.00 94589 03/10/00 075114 SLO CNTY GENERAL HOSPIT DRUG TESTING DIVERSION 010.4201. 5324 504.00 504.00 94590 03/10/00 100124 SLO CNTY OFFICE OF EDUC LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING 010.4201. 5324 48.00 48.00 94591 03/10/00 100983 AMANDA SMART B/BALL LGE.SCORER-SMART 010.4424.5352 140.00 140.00 94592 03/10/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY BATTERY CABLE 010.4201. 5601 3.44 94592 03/10/00 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY EXACT FIT WIPE 010.4201.5601 20.31 23.75 94593 03/10/00 100758 DON SPAGNOLO PROF.CIVIL ENG.LIC.RENEWAL 010.4301.5503 160.00 160.00 94594 03/10/00 082040 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201. 5201 737.53 94594 03/10/00 082040 STAPLES HOLIDAY INSERT 99 BINDER 010.4201.5201 21. 24 758.77 94595 03/10/00 082328 STERLING COMMUNICATIONS MOTOROLA ANTENNA 010.4201.5606 11.27 11.27 94596 03/10/00 084474 TELEGRAM TRIBUNE TT SUB-ENG.DEPT. 010.4301.5255 144.00 144.00 94597 03/10/00 085878 TRANS-KING TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION SERVICE 010.4201.5601 114 .24 114.24 94598 03/10/00 087242 ULTRA- CHEM, INC BIO-MATIC 010.4213.5604 102.26 102.26 94599 03/10/00 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. HUNTER SPRINKLERS 010.4420.5605 194.14 194.14 94600 03/10/00 088296 UNITED STATES POSTMASTE METER POSTAGE 010.4145.5201 2,000.00 2,000.00 94601 03/10/00 100220 VHS MEDICAL CLINICS,INC PRE-EMPLOY-HOUGHTON 010.4425.5315 15.00 94601 03/10/00 100220 VHS MEDICAL CLINICS,INC PRE-EMPLOY-J DIXON 010.4425.5315 185.00 200.00 94602 03/10/00 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE TIRES 010.4201.5601 316.43 94602 03/10/00 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE ALIGN/LUBE/OIL/FILTER 010.4201.5601 62.14 94602 03/10/00 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE REPR.FLAT TIRE 010.4305.5601 12.00 390.57 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 7 03/08/00 13:38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 94603 03/10/00 091026 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CA CODE UPDATES 010.4003.5503 84.73 84.73 94604 03/10/00 091874 WHITAKER CONTRACTORS,IN GRAND AVE/ELM STREET 350.5806.7001 250,085.19 250,085.19 94605 03/10/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO ENVELOPES/PAPER 010.4102.5255 264.09 94605 03/10/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER 010.4102.5255 236.49 94605 03/10/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO ENVELOPES/COVER/TEXT 010.4102.5255 392.81 94605 03/10/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO ENVELOPES 010.4102.5255 314.67 94605 03/10/00 100431 WILLARD PAPER CO PAPER/NCR 010.4102.5255 378.69 1,586.75 94606 03/10/00 092864 SCOTT WIRZ HAZ-MAT CLASS 010.4211.5501 123.00 123.00 94607 03/10/00 093366 J.F. WRIGHT SLING KITS/HOLSTER EXTENDERS 010.4201. 5272 237.77 237.77 94608 03/10/00 093794 SHARON YOUNG PROF.SVCS-SEXUAL HARASEMENT 010.4145.5501 400.00 400.00 TOTAL CHECKS 359,792.87 . VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 8 03/08/00 13:38 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 09 FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 GENERAL FUND 64,100.15 217 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 120.00 220 STREETS FUND 17.00 225 TRANSPORTATION FUND 1,297.25 284 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND 127.26 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 277,872.43 612 SEWER FUND 7,671.54 640 WATER FUND 7,803.50 641 LOPEZ FUND 783.74 TOTAL 359,792.87 ATTACIL.\1ENT D CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 2/18 TO 3/02/00 03/10/00 FUND 010 214,725.69 Salaries Full time 135,017.08 FUND 220 10,727.63 Salaries Part-Time 30,125.29 FUND 284 4,149.01 Salaries Over-Time 9,019.70 FUND 612 3,982.48 Holiday Pay 4,606.30 FUND 640 10,366.42 Sick Pay 4,057.09 243,951.23 Annual Leave Pay - Vacation Buy Back - Sick Leave Buy back Vacation Pay 2,237.61 Comp Pay 1,822.37 Annual Leave Pay 2,975.27 PERS Retirement 15,190.21 Social Security 13,669.79 PARS Retirement 220.05 State Disability Ins. 346.83 Health Insurance 19,260.14 Dental Insurance 3,468.92 Vision Insurance 739.74 Life Insurance 519.84 Long Term Disability - Uniform Allowance - Car Allowance 200.00 Council Expense 375.00 Employee Assistance - Motor Pay 100.00 Total: 243,951.23 --".."---_.., .... I.b. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 14,2000 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: X Council Member Runels X Council Member Tolley X Council Member Dickens X Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara X Mayor Lady Staff Present: lLJnterim City Manager/Chief of Police 1L-City Attorney 1L-Director of Administrative Services 1L-Director of Building and Fire 1L-Director of Community Developm~nt lL....Pirector of Public Works _Director of Parks and Recreation 1L-Director of Financial Services xyarks and Recreation Supervisor 3. FLAG SALUTE Matthew and Crystal Costa from the United South County Boys and Girls Club led the flag salute. 4. INVOCATION Father Joseph Butters, St. Patrick's Catholic Church and Arroyo Grande Fire Department Chaplain delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. PROCLAMATION - GRAND JURY AWARENESS MONTH Helen Summerfield and Gloria Stevens, members of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury, accepted the Proclamation declaring March 2000 as Grand Jury Awareness Month. -------'-- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14,2000 5.b. PROCLAMATION - ABSOLUTEL Y INCREDIBLE KID DAY Members of the Camp Fire Club "Raining Kitties" accepted the Proclamation declaring March 16, 2000 to be Absolutely Incredible Kid Day in Arroyo Grande. 5.c. PROCLAMATION - RECOGNIZING POLICE CHIEF RICK TERBORCH AS HONOREE OF THE "JOE MOLLOY MEMORIAL AWARD" Mayor Lady presented the Proclamation to Chief TerBorch. 6. AGENDA REVIEW None. 6.a. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES READ IN TITLE ONLY Council Member Dickens moved, Council Member Runels seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.a. PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Director of Financial Services Snodgrass highlighted the staff report. She stated the Council would be considering the second reading of an Ordinance to revise the City's purchasing policies by replacing Chapter 4 of Title 2 of the Municipal Code. Staff recommended after the required public hearing, that Council adopt the Ordinance, and adopt a Resolution establishing levels of purchasing authority for the bidding, ordering, and payment authorization for all types of City purchases. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and upon hearing no comments from the audience, closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Tolley moved to adopt an Ordinance repealing Chapter 4 of Title 2 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and adding thereto a new Chapter 4. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 Council Member Tolley moved to adopt a Resolution establishing levels of purchasing authority. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. - Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 7.b. CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM YEAR 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS Director of Community Development McCants highlighted the staff report. He stated in January the Council gave preliminary approval to an allocation of funds for various CDBG projects. He explained that since that .approval, the County had recalculated the amount of money available to the City and had reduced the amount from $152,000 to $146,474. He stated that staff made modifications to the program by reducing allocation of funding for Program Administration and the Code Enforcement program. Mr. McCants explained that aside from the reallocation of funding, the program was the same as what Council had previously approved. Council questions and discussion included clarification on the current source of funding for the Code Enforcement Officer position and the proposed request to use a portion of the block grant funds to fund activities of the Code Enforcement Officer within the redevelopment area and low-income areas of the City. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing. Dana Lilley, representing the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department, introduced himself as the coordinator of the CDBG program and acknowledged making the error in the calculation of the City's allo~ation of available funding. He said he and his staff were available to answer questions on federal rules applicable to the program. Dee Kroge, Shell Beach resident, spoke as an employee of Pasos de Vida Life Steps, a six-month treatment facility for women. She spoke as a representative of the supportive housing consortium and implored the Council to be aware of the need for affordable housing in the County. . Hearing no further comments from the audience, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved to adopt a Resolution approving the projects to be funded with the City's allocation Program Year 2000 Community Development Block Grant funds. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 8. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS None. 9. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Tolley requested that Item 9.f. be pulled. Council Member Runels moved and Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.1, with the exception of Item 9.f., with the recommended courses of action. a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Approved. b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Approved. c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Sewer Facility Fund. Approved. d. Cost Allocation Plan. Approved. e. Minutes of City Council Meeting of February 22, 2000. Approved. g. Landmark Tree Designation - 547 Palos Secos. Adopted Resolution No. 3437. h. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Uniform Rental and Related Services. Approved. i. Authorization to Solicit Bids - Oak Park Boulevard Widening Project - Project No. PW-2000-1. Approved. j. Fair Oaks Avenue Waterline Improvements, Project No. 60-98-5, Notice of Completion and Release of Retention. Approved. k. Authorization to Distribute Request for Proposals (RFP) - Update of Division of Fire and Emergency Services Staffing needs and Options. Approved. I. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Agreement for the Berry Gardens Project. Approved. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14,2000 Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.f. Resolution Opposing Senate Bill 402, Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Police and Fire Employees. Council Member Tolley stated he had been following SB 402 and requested that Interim City Manager/Chief of Police TerBorch address the issue. Interim City Manager/Chief of Police TerBorch gave an update on the status of SB 402. Council Member Tolley moved to adopt a Resolution opposing SB 402 which mandates a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for police and fire employees in resolving collective bargaining disputes. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. CONSIDERATION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE Director of Community Development McCants highlighted the staff refort. He explained that Council had continued the item from the February 22n meeting and had directed staff to contact the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, Peoples' Self-Help Housing, and the Economic Opportunity Commission to receive input on the proposed Ordinance. He stated that was accomplished and the agencies' responded in favor of the Council adopting the Ordinance as proposed although there was some concern about the fees being too low. Council and staff discussion included: 1) clarification that the Ordinance exempts projects of four or less units, as currently reflected in the General Plan Housing 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 Element; and confirmation that the Housing Element would have to be modified in order to change provisions in the proposed Ordinance; 2) that the proposed Ordinance was consistent with the goals and objectives as stated in the General Plan Housing Element; 3) that it was appropriate to use funds in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing projects in the redevelopment area of the City; and 4) that CDBG grant funds could be used to supplement the affordable housing fees on future projects. Mayor Lady opened the discussion to the public and upon hearing no comments, bought the issue back to the Council for consideration. Council Member Dickens moved that the proposed Ordinance amending Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19 to establish mandatory affordable housing requirements is consistent with the General Plan; introduced for first reading an Ordinance amending Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code by adding a Chapter 19 entitled "Affordable .Housing Requirements"; and directed the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk to file a "Notice of Exemption" with the County Recorder. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion. _Voice Vote lRolI Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY AND ORDINANCE Director of Financial Services Snodgrass highlighted the staff report. She introduced Consultant Joe Colgan from DMG-MAXIMUS. Mr. Colgan explained the approach used to calculate fees to cover all of the costs of facilities needed to serve future development. He stated that the Study was based on the existing General Plan. Council Member Tolley expressed concern about why the Police Facilities fee was higher for single-family residential than for other residential uses. Council and staff discussion included: 1) how the Study would integrate with the General Plan Update with the potential of land use changes; 2) the frequency of reviewing development impact fees; 3) the last review of development impact fees in the early 1990's; 4) the standards used to establish the fees, such as calls for 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 service for police facilities; trip generation figures for street and signal fees; the adopted General Plan standard for park development; and existing level of service for fire facilities; 5) clarification that the standards were based on Arroyo Grande statistics and local conditions in terms of calls for service in public safety; 6)'clarification that the fees can be reviewed in-house on a more frequent basis; and 7) that the proposed Resolution allows the fees to be updated annually based on the Engineering cost of living. Council Member Tolley stated he could not support the Police Facilities impact fee for Single-family ResidentialNillage because it was much higher per unit than for other residential uses. He suggested that the impact fees under Police Facilities for residential development be added up and averaged so that it was fair and equitable for all residential development types. There was further discussion about new development as related to calls for service. Mr. Colgan suggested that he meet with the Chief to review calls for service in newer development, make necessary adjustments to the fees based on recent data, and document the findings in the Study. Mayor Lady opened up the discussion for public comments, and hearing no comments brought the discussion back to the Council. Council Member Tolley moved to receive and file the Impact Fee Study Final Draft dated January 12, 2000; and introduce for first reading an Ordinance repealing Article 5, Chapter 3 of Title 3 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and adding a new Article 6, of Chapter 2, Title 3, with the stipulation that the Consultant and Police Chief review the Police Facilities impact fees in regard to residential housing and make the appropriate adjustment based on Council comments, and return with the results when the Council addresses this issue at the next meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara seconded the motion. _Voice Vote LRolI Call Vote Aye Lady Aye Ferrara Aye Runels Aye Tolley Aye Dickens There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS . Mayor Lady reported that the City of Morro Bay had taken a position to oppose any change of the 805 area code for San Luis Obispo County and was requesting the City take a similar position. He suggested sending a letter on . 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 14, 2000 behalf of the Council to the California Public Utilities Commission to oppose an area code change. . Council Member Runels thanked the voters on behalf of Zone 3 for supporting Measure C. . Mayor Lady acknowledged a letter received from the Oceano Community Services District regarding downstream water releases and reported that Zone 3 has addressed the issue. Council agreed not to agendize this issue. . . Council Member Dickens reported he had represented the City of Arroyo Grande at Cuesta College's Women in Distinction Awards Luncheon, at which local resident Ella Honeycutt recetved an award. 13. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS . Interim City Manager TerBorch gave a brief update on the status of the City Manager recruitment. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara moved, Council Member Dickens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting. Time: 8:13 p.m. MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR! DEPUTY CITY CLERK 8 9.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION ~ SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID - RANCHO GRANDE PARK DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council award RRM Design Group the bid for Rancho Grande Design and Construction Documents for the amount of $78,165. It is further recommended that the City Council allocate an additional $70,000 from Park Development Funds (Fund 213) to cover the cost of construction documents. FUNDING~ There is currently $80,000 designated in Park Development Funds (Fund 213) for costs associated with the development of Rancho Grande Park. Only $10,000 was budgeted in the current fiscal year to cover the cost of construction documents. DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted the Schematic Plan for Rancho Grande Park at the February 23, 1999 Council meeting. This plan recommended a park with amenities similar to Strother Park. A total of two bids were received for Design and Construction Documents. RRM Design submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $78,165, with David Evans and Associates submitting a bid for $98,164 (Attachment 1). RRM has also provided assistance in finalizing the Schematic Plan that was eventually adopted by the City Council. Should the City Council award the bid to RRM Design Group, staff will begin meeting with their representatives to move this project forward as soon as possible. Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; - Reject staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments - Attachment 1 Bid Opening Log sheet Attachment 2 Proposal -- -----,---- -,- A TT ACHMENT 1 BID OPENING LOG SHEET CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BID OPENING: March 7, 2000 Rancho Grande Park Design & Construction Documents BIDDER'S NAME, CITY TOTAL RRM Design Group $78,165 San Luis Obispo David Evans and Associates, Inc. $98,164 Ontario ~ . \.. {;J; )/A1,<.lhL-- Kelly etmo , Administrative Services Director/Deputy City Clerk c: Parks and Recreation Director City Manager ---,...~~ 9.d. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL KERRY MCCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR J~ FROM: SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 19 TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . adopt Ordinance No. 514 C.S., amending Title 9 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code by adding Chapter 1 9 to establish mandatory affordable housing requirements, consistent with the General Plan. FUNDING: Subject to the approval of the City Council, the proposed Ordinance provides for the payment of a fee in lieu of meeting on-site Affordable Housing requirements. The fees collected would be deposited in a seperate fund to be used solely to increase the supply of affordable housing units within the City. DISCUSSION: The City Council, at its meeting of March 14, 2000, introduced for first reading, without modification, Ordinance No. 514 C.S. It is recommended the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 514 C.S. Alternatives The following alternatives are presented for Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Do not approve staff's recommendation; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. . - ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A CHAPTER 19 ENTITLED "AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS" WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has a responsibility, pursuant to California state law (Health and Safety Code sections 50000 et seq.), to address the needs of its residents, as well as residents in the region, from all social and economic groups for decent, affordable housing, while at the same time maintaining an economically sound and healthy environment; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted on June 22, 1993, provides for affordable housing programs to address the needs for decent and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, according to the 1990 census, 36% of all Arroyo Grande households (or 2,092 households which equate to 5,188 residents) are of low or moderate income; and . WHEREAS, according to the 1990 census, the median sales price of a house in Arroyo Grande was $207,700 which is indicative of the high cost of housing and limited ability for low income households to own homes in Arroyo Grande without assistance; and . WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the majority of new housing units being constructed in the City of Arroyo Grande are not affordable to persons of low income, and that the current requirements placed on new housing developments are inadequate to assure sufficient numbers of new housing units are available to persons of low income; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has conducted environmental review for adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to provide for the development of affordable housing in the City of Arroyo Grande, and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed affordable housing requirements will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the proposed document and staff report, as well as public testimony presented at the hearing and make the following findings of fact: A The proposed affordable housing requirements are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. B. The proposed affordable housing requirements will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. PAGE 2 C. The proposed affordable housing requirements are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 9. D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed affordable housing require- ments are insignificant. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Title 9 is hereby amended to add Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Section 9-19.010'Purpose. To provide a continuing supply of affordable housing units to meet the needs of existing and future Arroyo Grande residents in all income categories pursuant to the requirements of California state law, and as outlined in the City's adopted Housing Element. Section 9-19.020 Definitions. The definitions of this section and of Chapter 9-18 shall govern this Chapter. "Affordable housing units": Units governed by a legal covenant or other restriction enforceable by the City restricting the availability of said units to lower income and very low income residents, which units are rented or sold to lower income or very low income households, as defined in this subsection. "Developer": An applicant for an approval or a permit required for a residential subdivision or to construct a residential development project. "Housing unit": One or more rooms, designed, occupied, or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with full cooking, sleeping, and bathroom facilities for the exclusive use of a single household. . "Lower income households": Those households defined in section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. . ORDINANCE NO. 514C.S. PAGE 3 "In-Lieu Fee": A fee paid to the City by a developer subject to this Chapter in lieu of providing the required affordable housing units. "Project": A residential development or land subdivision proposal for which City permits and approvals are required. 'Very Low Income Household": Those households defined in section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. Section 9-19.030 Applicability. This Chapter shall apply to any residential development project or the construction of such project or any portion thereof, and shall also apply to any development that results from the conversion of any square footage from an exempt use to a non-exempt use. Section 9-19.040 Provision of Housing, In-Lieu Fee, or Dedication of Land. The developer shall meet affordable housing requirements by providing on-site affordable housing units meeting the standards set forth in this Chapter, or paying a fee in lieu of providing such housing, or dedicating land to the City to be used for development of affordable housing. Payment of an in-lieu fee or the dedication of land shall be allowed pursuant to this Chapter if the City Council finds that any of the following circumstances apply: A. The provision of the required affordable housing units on the site is impractical for physical reasons, including but not limited to the following: utility infrastructure limitations, traffic safety or traffic capacity limitations, site design constraints which preclude the development of t~e property to City standards at the density permitted pursuant to the General Plan or zoning district in which the property is located; or The City Council determines that the payment of in-lieu fees or the dedication of land will provide a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the General Plan; or The payment of in-lieu fees or the dedication of land to the City will provide an equivalent level of mitigation to that of on-site production of the required affordable housing units. ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. PAGE 4 Section 9-19.050 Calculation of Housing or In-Lieu Fee. Projects must provide for the number of affordable housing units as set forth below. In all cases where, at the property owner's request, the City Council amends the General Plan and/or zoning designation of a property, which results in an increase in the allowable residential density above that authorized by the adopted version of the City's General Plan and/or Zoning Map, the requirement shall be as follows: 1. At least 25% of the units or lots approved for development on the subject property shall be affordable for lower income households; or 2. Payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to 2.5% of the value of new construction for each unit within the development as computed for building permit purposes. 3. Projects where fewer than 12 units are allowed after amend- ment of the General Plan and/or rezoning increasing the allowable density of the affected property shall be subject to payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to 2.5% of the value of new construction for each unit within the development as computed for building permit purposes. B. In all other cases, the requirement shall be as follows: 1. Projects of less than 25 units shall pay an in-lieu fee equiva- lent to 1 % of the value of new construction for each unit within the development as computed for building permit purposes. 2. Projects of 25 to 49 units. a. Provide at least 5% of the units or lots as affordable to lower income households. In all such cases the developer shall be entitled to a density bonus of 5% of the allowable density for the property; or b. Pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to 1 % of the value of the new construction for each unit within the development as computed for building permit purposes. . ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. PAGE 5 3. Projects of 50 or more units. a. Provide at least 10% of the units or lots as affordable to lower income households. In all such cases the developer shall be entitled to a density bonus of 10% of the allowable density for the property; or b. Pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to 1 % of the value of the new construction for each unit within the development as computed for building permit purposes. 4. Projects subject to Section 9-19.050 B.2. and 8.3. may meet the requirements of this Chapter by dedicating land to the City when land dedication is deemed suitable by the City Council, pursuant to Section 9-19.040. Such land shall be offered in fee to the City or to another public or non-profit agency approved by the City. 5. Projects of four (4) or fewer units or lots shall be excepted from the provisions of this Chapter. Section 9-19.060 Implementation. 1. A written housing development agreement, in a form approved by the City, shall be entered into between the City and the developer prior to final approval of a subdivision map, or-issuance of a building permit, as applicable. This agreement will set forth the developer's plan to meet the requirements of this Chapter, and the City's approval of that plan. 2. All affordable housing units in a project and phases of a project shall qe constructed concurrently with or prior to the construction of other units, unless the City finds that extenuating circumstances exist. 3. All affordable housing units shall be sold or rented to lower income . or very low income households as certified by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo or such other entity approved by the City Council, and shall remain affordable for a term of not less than thirty (30) years. 4. Unless the City finds compelling reasons to the contrary, the affordable housing units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the development, shall contain on average the same number of ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. PAGE 6 bedrooms as the other units in the development, and shall be compatible with the design of the market rate units in terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality. 5. The in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. Payment may be made for each phase of a phased project before the issuance of the grading or building permit for such phase, as applicable. 6. If the number of units required for a project includes a fraction of a unit, the developer shall provide either a whole unit or a pro-rata in- lieu payment on account of such fraction of a unit. Section 9..19.070 Affordable Housing Trust Fund - Establishment. Fees paid pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and used solely to increase the supply of affordable housing units. Section 9..19.080 Affordable Housing Trust Fund - Administration. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund shall be administered under the general supervision of the Community Development Director, and pursuant to such rules, regulations, and guidelines as the City Council shall adopt and/or amend from time to time. The Community Development Director shall make annual reports to the City Council regarding the administration and status of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Section 9..19-090 Project Approvals. No new housing project, residential subdivision, general plan amendment and/or rezoning of land for residential purposes, or other land use authorization related thereto, may be approved unless the requirements of this Chapter have been met. Section 9-19-100 Guidelines. The City Council shall adopt guidelines for the operation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby directs the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk to file a "Notice of Exemption" with the County Recorder. ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. PAGE 7 SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitu- tional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published . and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/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 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of ,2000. ORDINANCE NO. 514 C.S. PAGE 8 MICHAELA. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK \ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~E~~R APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY .... MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL J~ FROM: KERRY McCANTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CITY PARTICIPATION IN A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution and participate in the regional commercial recycling education program. FISCAL IMPACT: The City is eligible to receive $ 5,000 per year in grant funds under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. DISCUSSION: Last year the California Bottle Bill was modified by SB 332. This Bill added several new items to the list of containers which required a deposit. For example, plastic water bottles are now included in the California Redemption Value list of containers. Another change created by SB 332 was the inclusion of a block grant program to cities and counties. The funding provided to each jurisdiction is based on population with a minimum amount of $5,000 per year. This funding must be used on either beverage container recycling or litter control. The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (lWMA) held a meeting with staff from the member jurisdictions to discuss how to use these funds. The consensus from the meeting was to establish a commercial (including multi-family housing and schools) recycling education program. A representative from the local recycling program would meet with the commercial establishments to either start or expand the recycling program. The IWMA would enter into the necessary contracts with the local recycling companies to implement this program. In addition, the IWMA would apply for the funds and manage the grant. City Council Regional Commercial Recycling Education Program March 28, 2000 Page 2 The IWMA Board approved the commercial recycling program at its March 8, 2000 meeting. Regional funding is expected to be about $70,000 per year. Attached is the Resolution required by the California Department of Conservation. After approving this Resolution, the IWMA will be able to apply for the grant funding. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: It has been determined pursuant to Section 1 5061 (b) (1) of the CEOA Guidelines that the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378. Alternatives The following alternatives are presented for Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Do not approve staff's recommendation; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. -~- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY INTEGRA TED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO REQUEST GRANT FUNDING ON THE CITY'S BEHALF TO ESTABLISH A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act that provides funds to cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures for cities and counties or their designees under the program; and WHEREAS, per Section 14581 (a)(4)(E) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, the eligible participant must submit the Funding Request Form by the due date and time in order to request funds from the Department of Conseryation's Division of Recycling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby authorizes the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority to submit the Funding Request form to the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling on its behalf. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager of the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority is hereby authorized and empow~red to execute in the name of the City of Arroyo Grande all necessary forms hereto for the purposes of securing payment to implement and carry out the purposes specified in Section 14581 (a)(4)(A) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, and provide information regarding this program to the Division upon request. The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority will be the responsible party to provide records to the Division should an audit be performed. RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 of 3 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 , 2000. --.--- - _____n____,________ __._______________.. , RESOLUTION NO. Page 3 of 3 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY .... MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER~ SUBJECT: GRAND AVENUE, ELM STREET TO HALCYON ROAD PROJECT NO. 60-70-90-98-6 - PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.8 DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize Progress Payment No. 8 in the amount of $67,588.71 to Whitaker Contractors, Inc. for the Grand Avenue, Elm Street to Halcyon Road, capital improvement project. FUNDING: On June 22, 1999, the Council awarded the construction contract for the Grand Avenue, Elm Street to Halcyon Road Project, to Whitaker Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $1,707,535 and authorized a contingency of $170,750 to be used for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project ($1,878,285 total available funding). DISCUSSION: Staff receiyed an application for Progress Payment No. 8 for work completed between February 7, 2000 and March 6, 2000 from Whitaker Contractors, Inc. As of March 6, 2000 the contract was 99% complete and $1,763,403.03 of the $1,878,285 available funds have been requested by the Contractor. Attachment: Application for Progress Payment No. 8 -- c{;ty of Avvoyo-Gv~ Public Works Deparbnent Application for Progress Payment Contract Name: Grand Avenue, Elm St to Halcyon Rd Contract No: 6()"7()"9()"98-6 Progress Payment No: 8 City Account No: 35()"5806-7001 = S 67,588.71 To Escrow Account- s 7,509.86 Payment Date: 03/06/00 Bid Estimate Amended Estimate J>.v to Oate Bid UIiI Qoscri"'on otv UriI Otv UriI UnIt Percent lIem PrIce Amo<ri PrIce Amo<ri 0Iv PrIce Amo<ri ComIIIete I 1 lS MobiIz8Iion AIowonce 1 $ 10000.00 $ 10.000.00 1 $ 10000.00 $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10000.00 $ 10000.00 100% 2 lS TraftlcConlrol 1 $ 60 000.00 $ 60 000.00 1 $ 60 000.00 $ 60 000.00 1.00 ~ 60 000.00 $ 60 000.00 loo~ 3 lS TIIIICh ShuIInn. ShorIna or Bred"" 1 $ 16875.00 $ 16875.00 1 $ 16875.00 $ 16875.00 1.00 $ 18875.00 . 16875.00 100% 4 lS ConstructIon SUvIN IS 17 900.00 $ 17900.00 1 ~ 17 900.00 $ 17 900.00 1.00 ~ 17 900.00 17900.00 100% 5 IF 4' PVC Class 150 C900 WeI... Moin 45 $ 29.00 $ 1 305.00 45 $ 29.00 $ 1 305.00 50. 29.00 $ 1 450.00 111~ 6 IF 6" PVC Class 150 C900 Wet... Main 185 $ 24.60 $ 4 551.00 185 $ 24.60 $ 4 551.00 202 $ 24.60 $ 4 968.20 lOW 7 LF 8' PVC Class 150 C900 WeI... Meln 42 $ 78.00 $ 3 276.00 42 $ 78.00 $ 3 276.00 5 $ 78.00 $ 390.00 1~ 8 LF 10" PVC Class 150 C900 WeI... Moin 146 $ 66.00 $ 9 636.00 146 $ 66.00 $ 9 636.00 146 . 86.00 . 9 638.00 100% 9 LF 12" PVC Class 150 C900 Wat... Moin 3013 $ 46.00 $ 144 624.00 3013 $ 48.00 $ 144624.00 3013 $ 48.00 $ 144 624.00 100% 10 EA 4' GoteV__ 1 $ 625.00 $ 625.00 1 $ 625.00 $ 625.00 1 $ 825.00 $ 825.00 100% 11 EA 6" GoteV__ 4 $ 625.00 $ 2,500.00 4 $ 625.00 $ 2 500.00 4 $ 825.00 $ 2 500.00 100% 12 EA 8" GoteV_- 1 $ 3,190.00 $ 3 190.00 1 $ 3190.00 $ 3 190.00 1 $ 3190.00 $ 3190.00 100% 13 EA 100UoirftvV_As- 2 $ 1 975.00 $ 3,950.00 2 $ 1 975.00 $ 3 950.00 2 $ 1 975.00 . 3 950.00 100% 14 EA 12"U......V_ 9 $ 1,990.00 $ 17910.00 9 $ 1 990.00 $ 17.910.00 9 $ 1 990.00 . 17910.00 100% 15 EA Replace l' Wetor SorIItce end Mot... Box 35 $ 1,350.00 $ 47.250.00 35 $ 1,350.00 $ 47,250.00 34. 1.350.00 $ 45.900.00 97% P... ConstrucIIon Note I-1M 16 EA Replace 2" Wotot SorvIce end Motor Box 2 $ 1,890.00 $ 3,780.00 2 $ 1.890.00 $ 3.780.00 2.0 $ 1,890.00 $ 3,780.00 100% P... ConstrucIIon Note 2-w) 16(b) EA RopIoce 2" Wet... SorIItce end I" Mot... Box 5 $ 1,700.00 $ 8,500.00 5 $ 1,700.00 $ 8,500.00 6.0 $ 1,700.00 $ 10,200.00 120'!4 Per ConstrucIIon Note 2-w) 17 EA Now l' Wotot SorIItce end Mot... Box 2 $ 1,860.00 $ 3,760.00 2 $ 1.860.00 $ 3.760.00 2.0 $ 1,860.00 $ 3,760.00 100~ P... ConstrucIIon Note II.WI 18 EA Replace l' DuplexWat... SorIItce end 2 4 $ 2,000.00 $ 8.000.00 4 $ 2.000.00 $ 8,000.00 4.0 . 2,000.00 $ 8.000.00 100% Mot... Boxes IP... ConstrucIIon Note &oWl 19 EA Replace l' Wet... SorIItce 6 $ 1,450.00 $ 8,700.00 8 $ 1.450.00 $ 8.700.00 6.0 $ 1,450.00 $ 8,700.00 loo~ Por ConstrucIIon Note 3-WI 20 EA Replace 4' WeI... SorIItce Manifold and 1 $ 3,600.00 $ 3.600.00 1 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 1.0 $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 100% 4 Mot... Boxes / Per ConstrucIIon Note 6-WI 21 EA Replace 4' Wet... SorIItce Mllifold end 1 $ 3,700.00 $ 3,700.00 1 $ 3,700.00 $ 3,700.00 1.0 $ 3,700.00 . 3,700.00 loo~ 5 Mot... Boxes 'Por ConsInx:Iion Note 6-IM 22 EA ~:::; ::':~:...~or:.:u-:O:':;:'IM 1 $ 3,930.00 $ 3,930.00 1 $ 3,930.00 $ 3,930.00 1.0 . 3.930.00 $ 3.930.00 100% 23 EA _ existing wet... mot... 14 $ 775.00 $ 10,850.00 14 $ 775.00 $ 10.850.00 15.0 $ 775.00 $ 11,625.00 107... P... ConstrucIIon Note 7-IM 24 EA Fire Hydrort Assembly 6 $ 2,860.00 $ 17,160.00 6 $ 2,860.00 $ 17,160.00 9.0 $ 2,860.00 $ 25.740.00 150'1(, P... ConstrucIIon Note 5-IM 25 EA Remove Fira Hydrort 2 $ 1,480.00 $ 2.960.00 2 $ 1,480.00 $ 2,960.00 2.0 $ 1,480.00 $ 2,960.00 100% P... ConsINction Note 8-IM 26 EA Replace FIre Hydrort Assembly 9 $ 3.000.00 $ 27,000.00 9 $ 3.000.00 $ 27,000.00 9.0 $ 3.000.00 $ 27,000.00 100% P... Construction Note 4-w) 27 lS Abondon existing WII.... System Feditie. 1 $ 8,620.00 $ 8,620.00 1 $ 8,620.00 $ 8.620.00 1.0 $ 8,620.00 $ 8,620.00 100% ncludM Construction NotelG-WI 28 IF 8' PVC SDR 35 _ Moin 932 $ 65.00 $ 60 580.00 932 $ 65.00 $ 60 580.00 932 . 65.00 $ 60 580.00 100% 29 IF 10" PVC SOR _ Main 1697 $ 83.00 $ 140 851.00 1697 $ 83.00 $ 140 851.00 1697 $ 83.00 $ 140 851.00 100% 30 LF 1~...~:=~~n 389 $ 87.00 $ 33,843.00 389 $ 87.00 $ 33,843.00 389 $ 87.00. $" 33,843.00 100% 31 EA _M.- 7 $ 2 500.00 $ 17500.00 7 $ 2 500.00 $ 17500.00 8.0 $ 2500.00 $ 20 000.00 114... 32 EA _ [)mn M.- SIll 12+78 1 $ 2 350.00 $ 2,350.00 1 $ 2 350.00 $ 2 350.00 1.0 . 2 350.00 $ 2 350.00 100% 33 EA M<Vffv ExI...... M.- et Sta 10+04 1 $ 1 950.00 $ 1 950.00 1 $ 1 950.00 $ 1 950.00 1.0 $ 1 950.00 $ 1 950.00 100% 34 EA M"""" ExlstiNl MonhoIe et st. 26+94 1 $ 1 840.00 $ 1,840.00 1 $ 1,840.00 $ 1 840.00 1.0 . 1 840.00 . 1 840.00 100% 35 EA M M.-II. Sta 27+24 1 $ 1 840.00 $ 1,840.00 1 $ 1 840.00 $ 1 840.00 1.0 . 1 840.00 $ 1 840.00 100% 36 EA Modfv ExI!IIno M.- et Sta 37+80 1 $ 1 625.00 ~ 1 625.00 1 T 1 625.00 $ 1 625.00 1.0 S 1.825.00 ~ 1 625.00 100% 37 EA Replace 4' _ Lot..... with PVC SDR 35 53 $ 925.00 $ 49.025.00 53 $ 925.00 $ 49,025.00 53$ 825.00 . 49,025.00 100... P... ConstructIon Note 4-5) 38 EA R-ce 6" _lll...... with PVC SDR 35 1 $ 1 487.00 $ 1,487.00 1 $ 1487.00 $ 1 487.00 1.0 $ 1 487.00 . 1 487.00 100% 39 EA Now 4' PVC SDR.35 _l.t..... 1 $ 1,480.00 $ 1,480.00 1 $ 1,480.00 $ 1,480.00 1 $ 1,480.00 . 1,480.00 100% Por ConstrucIIon Note 7-$1 40 lS Abondon ExlsiiM_ S\IOIem Feditie. 1 $ 4656.00 $ 4 656.00 1 $ 4656.00 $ 4 656.00 1.00 ~ 4 656.00 $ 4 656.00 100% 41 CY Class II """"""'te Bese 4800 $ 48.90 $ 234 720.00 4800 $ 48.90 $ 234 720.00 4378 $ 48.90 $ 214 084.20 91~ 42 TONS Class"8~ Concrete 6950 $ 43.60 $ 303 020.00 6950 $ 43.60 $ 303 020.00 7002.15 . 43.60 . 305 293.74 101% 43 IF RooIace Exlstinil Concrete CIItI .nd GUt... 2150 $ 24.80 $ 53 320.00 2150 $ 24.80 $ 53 320.00 2148 $ 24.80 $ 53 270.40 100... 44 lS Concrete Modln 1 $ 77 900.00 $ 77 900.00 1.0 $ 61207.10 $ 61 207.10 1.0 $ 61207.10 $ 61 207.10 100% 45 lS Mod.n ~e end Irri_on 1 $ 36 261.00 $ 36.261.00 1.0 $ 29,881.90 $ 29 881.90 1.0 $ 29881.90 $ 29 881.90 100% 46 SF Concrete Cross GUt... end SDoncftIs 1800 $ 6.00 $ 10800.00 1800 $ 6.00 $ 10800.00 2 378.5 $ 6.00 $ 14 259.00 13~ 47 EA Concrete Hand"". Rorno-CIItI Rotwn 3 $ 1 900.00 $ 5 700.00 3 $ 1,900.00 $ 5,700.00 4 $ 1 900.00 . 7 600.00 133~ 48 lS R-ce Frames end Covers 1 $ 7 650.00 $ 7 650.00 1 $ 7 650.00 $ 7 650.00 1.0 . 7 650.00 $ 7 650.00 100% 49 lS Pe_D.....otion 1 $ 16400.00 $ 16400.00 1 $ 16400.00 $ 16400.00 1 . 16400.00 $ 13120.00 80~ 50 LF CIItIP.lnII 326 $ 1.00 $ 326.00 326 $ 1.00 $ 326.00 326 $ 1.00 $ 326.00 100% 51 IF R.....nt CIItI Pelnll l-coon 1131 $ 1.00 $ 1131.00 1131 $ 1.00 $ 1131.00 1131 ~ 1.00 $ 1131.00 100% 52 IF UtIItv Trench 720 $ 12.20 $ 8,784.00 720 $ 12.20 $ 8,784.00 1276 $ 12.20 $ 15567.20 177... 53 IF 4-In UtIIIV ConcUI 1280 $ 1.70 $ 2,176.00 1280 $ 1.70 $ 2 176.00 3267 $ 1.70 $ 5 553.90 255... 54 IF 2... UtIIIV ConcUI 320 $ 0.70 $ 224.00 320 $ 0.70 $ 224.00 227 $ 0.70 $ 158.90 71'" Stntm T ~ Irmrnvemont. 265 $ 73.00 $ 19,345.00 265 $ 70.45 $ 18,669.25 259 . 70.45 $ 18,246.55 98... 55 IF 18' PVC stntm Drain Pipe, Series 46 Bid Estimate Amended Estimate ~o Dele Bid OescttDlion Unit Unit UriI Percent Rem Unit 0Iv Price AmoI.r1t Qty PrIce AmoI.r1t 0Iv PrIce AmoI.r1t CamoIeIe 56 LF 24' PVC Storm Orein Pine SerIes 28 415 $ 142.00 $ 56 930.00 415 $ 134.16 $ 55 676.40 396 $ 134.18 $ 53127.38 95% 57 LF 24" HDPE Storm Drein ""'e 175 $ 84.00 $ 14 700.00 175 $ 84.00 $ 14700.00 178 $ 84.00 S 14952.00 102% 58 EA Storm er.in MeMoIe 5 S 2.580.00 $ 12900.00 5 S 2,580.00 S 12900.00 8.0 S 2 580.00 S 15480.00 120% 59 EA Storm Drein Drop Inlet, 3 S 4,575.00 S 13,725.00 3 S 4,575.00 $ 13,725.00 3.0 S 4,575.00 S 13,725.00 100% Per DeteiI M8 W= 7ft 80 EA Storm Drein Drop Inlet, 1 $ 5,300.00 S 5,300.00 1 S 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 1 S 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 100% P... 0eIei1 8118, W= 14ft 81 EA Storm Drein Drop Inlet, 1 $ 4.950.00 $ 4,950.00 1 S 4,950.00 $ 4,950.00 1 S 4,950.00 S 4,950.00 100% Per DWG 301-AG 62 EA Replace existing CeIch Basin with Drop Inlet 2 S 6,647.00 $ 13,294.00 2 S 6,647.00 S 13,294.00 2 S 6,647.00 S 13,294.00 100% Per 0eIei1 M8 W=7 63 EA M Inlet et 9+60 1 S 2 550.00 $ 2 550.00 1 S 2550.00 S 2550.00 1 S 2 550.00 S 2 550.00 100% T 64 LS _on of OptIceI Detection Devices 1 S 11,750.00 $ 11,750.00 1 $ 11,750.00 S 11,750.00 1 S 11,750.00 S 11,750.00 100% on HoIcvon Road end Elm Street et Gnlnd Ave. 65 LS R-ce Treme 81-1 L~s 1 S 18500.00 S 18500.00 1 S 18500.00 S 18500.00 1.0 S 18500.00 S 18500.00 100% 1 LS Remove end ReoIoce Ex. 14-1n wetenno -1 celender dev 1 S 7 129.34 S 7129.34 1 S 7129.34 S 7 129.34 100% 2 LS R- Ex. 8-in VCP Sewer MeIn 1 S 1 035.48 S 1 035.48 1 S 1 035.48 S 1 035.48 100% 3 LS Locale Ex. Tosco 011 Uno 1 S 551.59 S 551.59 1 S 651.59 S 551.59 100% 4 LS R~r of Ex. 2-In c..- ServI... Tmlle UcHs 1 S 139.49 S 139.49 1 S 139.49 S 139.49 100% 5 LS Decrease 0u0NIv fer BId Roms No. 44 end No. 45 See Amended QuentiIIes for Bid Rem No. 44II1II No. 45 100% 6 LS R_ UriI PrIce fer Bid Roms No. 55 end No. 56 See Amended Unit PrIces for Bid Rem No. 65 end No. 56 100% 7 LS AdcItIonoI Da"" for HoI~- 7 ceIender ~ 1 S - S - 1 S - S - 100% 8 LS SIe.... for Wr ServIces' XIra AC Grind"'" SS Laterol Exton - 3 celender deve 1 S 7734.78 S 7734.78 1 S 7734.78 S 7734.78 100% 9 LS DemoIIion of SSMH' R&R SSMH' MNIfu SD cetch bosin - 5 ceIender devs 1 S 7 069.05 S 7 069.05 1 S 7 069.05 . 7 069.05 100% 10 LS Exx:av. For trame """",. RoIoc. Wr Meter; R&R of HC relm: New Treffte Conduits - 3 ce_ devs 1 S 7 120.35 S 7120.35 1 S 7120.35 S 7 120.35 100% 11 LS RoIoc. Of I.....; E>dnI'1IIIIv ConGiIs; E>dnI Pecbel Conduits - 11 celendar devs 1 S 3 344.07 S 3 344.07 1 S 3 344.07 S 3 344.07 100% 12 LS __ ~ Dave for ceo No. 1- 2 ce_ davs 1 S - S . 1 S - S - 100% 13 LS R...... of _... seovIces PCC si_1e end Drivewevs. rein dev for Jen. 2000 . 20 calender deve 1 S 24151.68 S 24,151.68 1 S 24151.68 S 24151.68 100% 14 LS PCC""" for ......._lslends.R-ce Lendsceoe'!'>wo'Reln ~ for 2&3/2000 -14 ClI. nave 1 S 21087.77 S 21 087.77 1 S 21 087.77 S 21087.77 100% 1 S 1 S TOTAL I S 1 707,535.00 's 1 759 897.23 1$ 1 763 403.03 100.20% - :J - ~ () - t(X)cJ Date Total Pay to Date S 1,763,403.03 3. /1. ;:Jt:lJO T otaJ Retention S 176,340.30 Previous Payments S 1,519,474.02 Date Previous RetentiON S 168,830.45 Lv .8 - 2./- f/7) IThis Payment I: 67,588.71 I This Itetention 7,509.86 Date Contract Start Date: 19-Jul-99 Original Contract Days: 180 Adjusted Contract Days: 66 City Manager Date Adjusted Contract End Date: 2()-Mar-OO Send PaYment Amount to: Whitaker Contractors Inc. PO Box 910 22985 El Camino Real Santa Margarita, CA 93453 Send Retention Amount to: (Escrow Account It 281-396293\ First Bank of San Luis Obispo PO Box 1249 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 - ~ "'~-.- I.g. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEE~ SUBJECT: CUP 99-011, EL HELOU, 121 EAST BRANCH STREET AGREEMENT AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement Affecting Real Property at 121 East Branch Street. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: On October 19, 1999 the Planning Commission approved CUP 99.011 to construct a two-story, 2,679 square foot commercial building and improve the existing pedestrian access way located between East Branch Street and the Parking Corral. Three separate access easements totaling thirteen (13) feet in width make up the pedestrian access way. Since the proposed plans showed the structure built over one of these easements, the applicant was required to obtain City relinquishment of the easeme1nt as a condition of approval. The applicant has instead submitted revised plans showing the structure outside of the pedestrian mall easement, and hence the building three (3) feet narrower. The applicant also proposes to modify the second floor balcony located on the east side of the building. The revised plans show a three (3) foot wide balcony along the full width of the building, which is an additional foot wider than the approved plans (reference Attachments 2, 3 and 4). The City Attorney reviewed the proposal with regard to the balcony extending over the pedestrian mall easement, and determined that the overhang can be allowed subject to a legally binding agreement that runs with the land permitting the City to remove the balcony if deemed necessary. This agreement is attached. ------~~ Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve staff's recommendations; . Do not approve staff's recommendations; . Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; . Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Agreement Affecting Real Property 2. Site Plan 3. Floor Plan 4. Elevations , Attachment 1 Recording requested by: City of Arroyo Grande And when recorded, return to: City Clerk City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550,214 East Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 AGREEMENT AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY APN: 7-192-057 THIS AGREEMENT, entered into , 2000, by and between AD NAN I. EL-HELOU and DOROTHY V. EL-HELOU, Trustees of the ADNAN I. AND DOROTHY V.EL-HELOU TRUST AGREEMENT dated March 15, 1997 ("Owner"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation ("City"): RECITALS A. Owner is the fee owner of that certain real property (the "Property") generally described as 121 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, Californiar as more specifically described as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. On July 28, 1999, Owner applied for a conditional use permit to construct a commercial building on the Property (the "Project"). C. The Property is subject to an easement in favor of the City for the . construction, maintenance, and usage of a public pedestrian mall, public utilities and drainage, planters and landscaping affecting the easterly three (3) feet of the Property, 1 which easement was recorded August 4, 1969 in Book 1526, Page 231, of Official Records of San Luis Obispo County (the "On-Site Easement"). Adjacent to the On-Site Easement are additional easements in favor of the City for purposes that include public pedestrian mall and parking lot access, which easements were recorded August 4, 1969 in BO?k 1526, Page 229, and August 4, 1969 in Book 1526, Page 233 of Official Records of San Luis Obispo County (the "Off-Site Easements"). D. On October 19, 1999, City's Planning Commission approved the Project by the adoption of Resolution No. 99-1 710. E. Condition No. 34 of Resolution No. 99-1710 requires Owner to record a deed restriction agreeing to maintain the On-Site and Off-Site Easements. F. Condition No. 13 of Resolution No. 99-1710 requires Owner to obtain approval from the City to release its interest in the On-Site Easement encumbering the Property. G. On February 1, 2000, City's Planning Commission considered and approved a modified project, as requested by Owner, subject to Owner ~ntering into a recordable'agreement, acceptable to the City Attorney, requiring Owner to remove a balcony overhang projecting into the On-Site Easement upon 90 days prior written notice from City directing such removal. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Property shall be held, conveyed, used, occupied, sold, and improved subject to the following conditions and restrictions for the benefit an.d protection of the parties to this Agreement, the same to run with the land and to be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Property, to inure to the benefit of and be binding upon each successor and assignee in interest of the parties. Any conveyance, transfer, sale, or assignment made by either party of any portion of the Property shall be deemed to incorporate by reference and be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 1. Pedestrian Mall Landscaoe Maintenance: Owner and its successors in interest shall, at their sole cost and expense, maintain and cultivate the landscaping within the On-Site and Off-Site Easements, together with all irrigation facilities serving such landscaping, as described in the improvement and landscaping plans to be approved by City. 2. Balconv Overhana: The parties acknowledge and agree that part of Owner's intended development of the Property includes a balcony overhang projecting into a portion of the On-Site Easement. Owner and its succes,sors in interest shall be permitted to contract and maintain such overhang, conditioned on Owner, at its 2 expense, maintaining and keeping the balcony overhang in good and safe condition and. repair. Provided, however, that City shall at any time have the right to require Owner or its successors in interest to remove all or any portion of such balcony overhang at the sole cost and expense of Owner and its successors, upon 90 days prior written notice by City directing such removal. 3. Indemnitv. Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Owner's performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the Agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the proven sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. i 3 .IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY: OWNER: ~r~ioM<< MICHAEL LADY, Mayor AD NAN I. EL-HELOU, Trustee of the AD NAN L. AND DOROTHY V. EL- HELOU TRUST AGREEMENT (Signature must be notarized) ATTEST: JJ6~~1.1t. <-(j tl- ,tJWf>> DO~OTHY . EL-HELOU, Trustee of the ADNAN L. AND DOROTHY V. EL- HELOU TRUST AGREEMENT (Signature must be notarized) KELL Y WETMORE Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk As holder(s) of a record interest in the Property, we consent to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and APPROVED AS TO FORM: its recordation. LlENHOLDER(S): TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY (Signature must be notarized (Signature must be notarized) 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss COUNTY OF MONTEREY ) On IQn.vr~J q,I., , 2000, . .: 11''1 a Notary Public, personally appeared < .- t =e. L" I , personally known to ~ (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in ~ authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~, Y7(}lltJ~ ---.oQ..~ 4.. ~ -- - 1 r~.!) '. BEVERLY j,. MARTlH~' .. .-", COMM.I'!\40721 ~ : ~ Notary PubMo-CaIton* . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) L~. ~~~~~2OO1wJ : ss COUNTY OF MONTEREY ) On rr\D ("(1)., (1 H. , . rYi i'fi, a Notary Public, personally appeared CI I D , p.ersonally known to ,me (or proved to me on the asis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she ~_. executed the same in his/tler authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. ~. !)~~.-BMmMA. tD;-"1 ~~.::~._. .~\ COMM 1i14n7?1 :;. ~t:t-. ". 'i Notary PubCc-Cat(..1mf' i~., > \V~:-j.'.I M'JOtarllY Coun1y ~\ l~~~5~!.:~:~~~~-': WITNESS my hand and official seal. [SEAL] C1$C-'l."i~J . )-}(tL Lt~ a:u:: c.' ... A -..---....... -~.~] !) BEVERl'1 J. MARTIN r~-.. " COM.M. #1140721 . ... ~ ~ ttotary ~ > ~ t MOn_ CouAtr 5 l.~....::'~ J ~~~~~~~J STATE OF CALIFORNIA } : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO } On , 2000, before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in 'his/her authorized capacity, and tttat by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } : ss COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO } On , 2000, before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [SEAL] . 6 " EXHIBIT A Legal Description APN: 007-192-057 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Lot 15 of the Buena Vista Tract, in the City of Arroyo. Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, according to the map filed October 2, 1885 in Book A at Page 58 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; Excepting therefrom the Southwester1y 18 feet, a portion of which was reserved by William M. Vaugh and Lucille H. Vaugh, husband and wife in deed recorded September 13, 1963 in Book 1260 at Page 75 of Official Records of said County, and a portion of which was conveyed to A. Phillips, et. aJ., in deed recorded January 17, 1902 in Book 50 at Page 323 of Deeds of said County; Also excepting therefrom the Northeaster1y 6 feet of said Lot conveyed to Oscar L. Phillips, et. ux., by deed recorded January 13, 1936 in Book 187 at Page 321 of Official Records of said County; Also excepting therefrom the Northwester1y 60 feet of said Lot conveyed to the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation in Gift Deed recorded February 18, 1966 in Book 1386 at Page 319 Official Records of said County; And containing 1472 square feet more or less and as shown on attached Exhibit B. END DESCRIPTION Prepared by: ..'"~-Tf:n-~ .,' x\) l-..", Sup. " ..'-::...,........- II",~ .<~~:,?\\~M R.?'.:-y~ .'......~..~':; :t~\~\ . './1.::,-. -:p > !~ ' Date: 12.}14}QQ ;, ;' ~~1ifo/Q3 .,V,. ~~ I ~\";~!'!"r' ~~' .......:".. {)r: Cr.\ \~ "'"'''~r...~:'';';''' i . ATTACHMENT 2 1~11iI1 HI - -. '. - I i' if , nil I'll' IIi il =nnl r Ii =~Utll .. ... 0- :0-' .... :.... .,.....\. ." ....- ~"".._; "': ....... ~...r . '::')or:::." .... ~.,-r. .~IIIIII .. . ", . I;- - I~I In! ..~ t . ..... .- . ... II II 1/ II 1-. , ., II i! II . .-- 1/, ti " - II . ..","-:,. 01 .- ~ II 1.1 ~ Iii 1:1 ~I .. 1;1 ~. . . . ~ /"I ~. i ,II .:> II ~ 1 .0 II ;::1 II .f ~ ...---- :~ II "~ . . ." ~..' ... ~ . 1"1 i\ ,. "C II \ \ .5" , .. 1/ I I) 1/ 'I .~ - ~ -.z:::-~ w..... ...... _.... ------.- _co- . - .--- ---- Attachment 3 - 1 1 o. r ~ i' - . - - . c.... .:.; . :i: '.";:"~' '''''':''~';''':'.' . -. . - f 1 . - . I ~-;I ~ ~ ~ . - 5 i - , . r~ fi . . - ....~---....!~~. ---- --...... @ Attachment 4 _.--- --- rDO!'"ua . . --- t........ ..........." - , \ ! ..- I -1 I -~ I .1 .. I ~ ~ . ~ j - .. - - \ I I I I I I ! ~ . ~ . EXHIBIT B I Reference Map APN: 007-192-057 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I ~ I CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1 N 5715'00. E 1 laOoT"54~ / 1 I I 1 I 01 l 1 I I/) ~ I~ I :I:~ C)-' I I I/) 1 1 ~::! I <:I: I I a.. 1 I I > a.. lw~1 I ~ ~I ~ ~ 0 20' I ,!"')I I~ I f ~I rN I I :1 I~ I I I II/) I f I I I ~ _1l!00' I 2~~~___ S 57'15'00" W EAST BRANCH STREET :~ ~_._---'-- . . Order No: 251075A -WRB 1 DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: Lot 15 of the Buena Vista Tract, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed October 2, 1885 in Book A at page 58 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southwesterly 18 feet, a portion of which was reserved by william M. Vaughn and Lucille H. Vaughn, husband and wife in deed recorded September 13, 1963 in Book 1260 at page 75 of Official Records, and a portion of which was conveyed to A. Phillips, et al., in deed recorded January 17, 1902 in Book 50 at page 223 of Deeds. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northeasterly 6 feet of said lot conveyed to Oscar L. Phillips, et ux, by deed which recorded January 13, 1936 in Book 187 at page 321 of Official Records. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northwesterly 60 feet as conveyed to the .City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation in Gift Deed which recorded February 18, 1966 in Book 1386 at page 319 of Official Records. PARCEL 2: An easement for driveway purposes over and across the Northeasterly 6 feet of Lot 15 of the Buena Vista Tract, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed October 2, 1885 in Book A at page 58 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. ; DI!SCRSO - 12/04/91 AA 9.h. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER r/l6 SUBJECT: WATER FOR GRADING OPERATIONS - TRACT 2265 - VILLAGE GLEN DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the use of potable water for grading operations for Tract 2265, Village Glen. FUNDING: The revenue reCeived from the use of the City's potable water is estimated to average $550.00 per day, and will depend upon how much water is used and the weather conditions during the time of grading operations.. Total revenue for the use of potable water for the duration of the project could range from $49,200 to $65,600. Total revenue receiYed if the nonpotable water from the Soto Drainage Basin is used would range from $29,000 to $38,600. The developer will execute a Subdivision Agreement with the City to cover costs associated with checking, inspecting and processing the project. This agreement would include any provisions for the use of potable water for grading operations. DISCUSSION: Tract 2265, Village Glen, is the proposed deyelopment of 40 single family homes and an elementary school on a total of 64 acres of land. According to information .fumished by the developer (see Attachment 1), grading for the project will entail moving 400,000 cubic yards of dirt. It is estimated that the construction water needed for the project would be approximately 7,000 gallons per hour, or 56,000 gallons per day. This equates to approximately three water trucks per hour and twenty-three water trucks per day, on an average day, entering and exiting the site to obtain water from the City's nonpotable supply located at the Soto Drainage Basin. Due to this volume of truck traffic, it would be appropriate to consider other arrangements for an on-site water supply. Grading is expected to last between 90 and 120 days. The developer is requesting that the City allow the use of an on-site fire hydrant to supply potable water in order to alleviate truck traffic, reduce wear and tear on City streets, and reduce traffic safety concems attributed to truck traffic. Previously, the Council took action on November 27, 1990 to restrict the use of water for construction projects to nonpotable water. (Minutes attached.) This action was precipitated primarily due to the drought conditions in effect at the time. On October 17, 1997, the Council approved exceptions to this policy to allow the Five Cities Center to use potable water for grading operations. The Village Glen developer is requesting Council authorization for an exception to the policy restricting the use of potable water for grading purposes. This exception will address the special circumstances of the Tract 2265 (Village Glen) project and will be of benefit to the City by reducing truck traffic on local streets and reducing impacts related to truck traffic. Alternatives The followi~g alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve staffs recommendations; . Do not approve staffs recommendations; . Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; . Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Letter from Gary Young dated March 6, 2000 2. City Council minutes of November 13, 1990 3. City Council minutes of November 27, 1990 - ~->,..,- Attachment 1 Village Glen Homes March 6, 2000 Mr. Don Spagnolo Public Works Director City of Arroyo Grande 208 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject: Request to Use City Water for Grading of Tract 2265 - Village Glen Homes Dear Mr. Spagnolo; We anticipate commencement of grading for Village Glen Homes and the elementary school site later this month. It is estimated that 400,000 cubic yards will be moved on-site to grade the site. The City prefers that water for grading purposes be picked up at the City corporate yard on Ash Street and trucked to the site. As a result of the large quantity of soil to be moved, ample water will be needed for recompaction and dust control. Unfortunately, our project site is located approximately three miles from the corporate yard. Furthermore, our site can only be accessed via roads within residential neighborhoods. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council allow us to connect to a fire hydrant adjacent to the site. This would prevent truck traffic and the associated noise from negatively impacting residential areas, especially those on James Way, Canyon Way, and Rodeo Drive. We believe that this request is necessary in order for us to be a good neighbor to the surrounding residential area during construction. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~ Village Glen Homes LLC CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MAR 6 2000 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Attachment 2 32~ "- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13. 1990 B.F. PROPERTY TRANSFER - FIVE ACRES No Report. 9.A. PETITION BY HAROLD AND GEORGIA BARR AND EDWARD AND MARIANNE MAUSS FOR CONTINUED USE OF CITY WATER OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS Mr. Christiansen referred to three letters requesting that the City Council provide water to Sebring Kennels, which is located outside of the City and whose water service was discontinued by the City October 24, 1990. Il'he letters were from Rhea Benko, Bob Pollack and Mrs. Morris Mahan. Council Member Olsen suggested that the families request water "'"'\ i service from the Oceano Community services District, and that they i speak directly to the OCD Board of Directors. She said people I living outside of Zone 3 , which runs with Arroyo Grande ci ty limits, are not entitled to use water from Lopez Lake. She said it is against the agreement drawn up when the water district was formed. HAROLD BARR of 1119 N. Thompson, said he had a well go dry this year, and even with the serious water shortage, the County had approved. east of his property 3B acres of green houses, 100 acres of lemons and 70 acres of avocados. Mayor Millis said the City is responsible to sell water to residents of Zone J only. He suggested a small water district be . f9rmed by those needing water, and a deep well dug, or that land with water be purchased and water piped iri. supervisor-Elect Brackett said that creating a water company takes quite a bit of time. She said she would look into the matter of serving the residents with county water, and suggested that the City prov~de water. to the families for a short period of time until they can find water sources. During the further discussion of the problem, one member of the audience said that building contractors who were asked to get water for him when his well went dry said, "We can't get it from Nipomo, but we can get it from Arroyo Grande. We just get it like we are going to sprinkle it on a construction site and then we'll sell a load to you for $100." Upon questioning by the Council, Mr. Christiansen said the only people who can legally draw from a City hydrant are those who are using the water within the corporate limits. Mayor Millis said we need to cut off the whole practice of issuing water meters for construction because this is not the first time he has heard of people selling water as far away as San Luis l . Obispo. . He said there should be no more Lopez water used to compact soil. Other Council Members agreed. Mr. Karp said the community needs to use water for its own necessary projects, erosion control,.and water system flushing and , disinfection. Mr. Christiansen agreed. Council Member Olsen said she had heard of Arroyo Grande water being used allover the County for things like fish ponds, swimming pools and to water livestock. . A member of the audience said one can get Arroyo Grande water for use outside of the City by applying for a construction meter. Council Members said that is fraudulent use of the ci ty' s water. A member of the audience said her land is surrounded by aqriculture, and gave a brief history of water sources near her , 331 I i CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 1990 the developers would have to return to the board with an Environmental Impact Report and an alternate access route for the project. 8.0. WATER UPDATE - HYDRANTS Council Member Olsen reported that by the end of 1991, the City would have to stop using Lopez Lake as a drinking water source if there is no wet season. She said the neighboring cities have said they will not honor the "gentlemen' agreement" with regard to underground water. She discussed a possible cloud seeding program which may be undertaken by San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Grover ( ci ty and Pismo Beach. Hr. Christiansen said if Arroyo Grande participated in the cloud seeding program the City's cost would be $25,000 through Zone ~. Council Member Olsen said there would be a joint meeting at 1:30 P.M. December 5, 1990 of the Water Resources Advisory Commi ttee and the South County Water Association at the city/County . Library, 995 Palm street, San Luis Obispo. Hr. Christiansen said that all construction water meters have been removed from hydrants in the City, as per Council direction. He said that contractors have called him to request permission to draw water from the hydrants for compaction of dirt at construction sites. Mayor Pro Tem Smith explained that the Council had directed that all meters be removed from water hydrants because there had been told of some abuse of the system, and that water was being sold outside the City. Requesting that they be allowed to use the water from hydrants to finish the projects on which they are currently working were BILL PAPPICH of 606 Prince Road and ROGER ORMONDE of Grover City, . grading' contractors: . ARTHUR BIELECKI, owner of property under construction, and SID WHITE, whose son-in-law has a house under construction. There was extensive Council discussion about the matter, with Council Members Moots and Olsen expressing concerns about the City's short supply of water, and setting a precedent for other projects currently under construction. Council Members Smith and Dougall said the City should let the contractors finish their present projects because the City requires the contractors to use water for compaction and erosion control. . With the assistance in the wording by the City Attorney, it was moved by Dougall/Smith that those contractors who on or before November 27, 1990 at 5:00 P.M. had already pulled City grading ~ permits for grading projects within the city of Arroyo Grande may I II buy City water from metered fire hydrants onl.y to complete that grading project. The motion passed with Smith, Dougall and Moots voting aye, Olsen voting no, and Hillis absent. The Council discussed the proposed cloud seeding project. It was moved by Hoots/Dougall, and the motion passed, to pay Arroyo Grande's Zone 3 share (up to $25,000) for the cost of Cloud Seeding before April 1, 1991, with the provision that the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover City and San Luis Obispo participate in the project. B.E. PROPERTY TRANSFER - FIVE ACRES No report. 2 I 10... MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE~ SUBJECT: OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council appoint two citizens to serve on the Open Space and Conservation Committee. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. DISCUSSION: On January 11 th the City Council approved the formation of a committee to seek and evaluate proposals for the use of approximately $50,200 collected for land conservancy issues. The committee will consist of two City Council Members (Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara and Council Member Dickens), the Parks and Recreation Director, the Community Development Director, a Department of Fish and Game representative (Drew Brandy), and two citizen-at-Iarge representatives. The City Council specified that one citizen-at-Iarge is to be appointed from the Rancho Grande development, since the land conservancy funds were collected from this development. Staff issued a press release announcing the formation of the Open Space and Conservation Committee and the committee membership. An advertisement was placed in the local papers requesting citizen participation on the committee and City representatives personally contacted members of the public to secure volunteers. From this effort, three "Reservoir of Citizens to Serve" forms were received. Of the three volunteers, only Ms. Janis Scott resides in the Rancho Grande development and is therefore qualified to fill the Rancho Grande citizen-at-Iarge position. The other two volunteers, Mr. Carter Hooker and Mr. C.Z. Brown, are both qualified to serve in the one remaining citizen-at-Iarge position. The completed "Reservoir of Citizens to Serve" forms are attached for City Council review and determination of an appointment. Attachments: - Carter Hooker, Reservoir of Citizens to Serve form. - C.Z. Brown, Reservoir of Citizens to Serve form. - Janis Scott, Reservoir of Citizens to Serve form. --~~--- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE PI . C .. RECEIVED -+ annmg ommlss~on . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Y Parks and Recreation Commission - Traffic Commission 00 JAN 25 PH ~. 18 Years Lived in Arroyo Grande 1 V Senior Advisory Commission . Registered Voter:,of Arroyo Grande Z Special Committees (Architectu~1 Review, ~~c.) r... ' If. Yes -L No_ Op.e.nSpCLLL 4-Con.servCctfQ1l\~tTeG. _ NAME (3 A-IC-Ic?/Z Z, J/ /?tJ/:t?/l- JrZ. HOME ADDRESS 3 80 Sf'/) /10"/ J'/I $0 ~ J 4-/1/;: PHONE 80 J -- f/ tf /-~ e ~ '7 cAC.) PRESENT ~ PRESENT EMPLOYER I\e; /~O POSITION .~ A- OFFICE BUSINESS // ADDRESS ~ / A TELEPHONE r'A- EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High SchOol/college / L J C r ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONALlNFORMATION A $./ 41/f-,/f/t4&~A4~jv7 /J1J1~ It) /,/V~ t.f .1> ./2 t-/ ~cC--It74 t f ~ S'vP/;/Z-r/t.J'/d,-N /U A-~ftd e-/1.t'~,.v'f / I / ' COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS $t?'S'''/L v j1A-ft~r-5 k-C46"A-77d~ /r/'" j) SC=.,A/ /tJ/t- S" / ., ,,/ ~?7 /// /7erY The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. ~ D~7 J'I f'j/CE 3 7 r .5;.#~.r# ~S..f ,/,+-/1/6 I 2. 3. ARE YOU WilLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes ~ No ~ Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes I No Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes ---L No --;:7" Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes..L No_ Special Committee O.e. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting /' times and dates b/if?;V ~"vtcotJ '7,;/'lv frl7l!# Yes~ No_ Signature (!~ ~~ I Date /- ~jL~ t1 .1 The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) --~,-------,-- - , CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission RECEIVED _ Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - !-- _ Traflic Commission Years Lived i~e ( ~enio~ Advisory Commission ReQ8tdAH i e'. Grande Y-Spectal com~illees (Architectural Review. etc.) klt1,d ""~ Yes _ No_ NAME ~ 7 ~DLJAJ o~ .; HOME ADDRESS 31' 0 . OL d (K '1\ ruct ({.J PHONE 1-/ ~ J... OJ Jt PRESENT ~(;Y/ I f{ Ie cL- PRESENT EMPLOYER POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School College It (/- <., -t 61-ACf. QI.. ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS of- , ~/~/ (/J1/ULtf7- . C(~'1 LUld.k. (j5Lt.tC CS A-I.. (-r: V The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NORtl NAME ADDRESS 1. ~ f{rvrL- r;#(;~d~J J-fP9- ~3j~ 2.31. (r( AO?AtUO . , /-(7.J- J'\! (j\ J6 f 0 3. A A {I-(LLj b(lr<-6 IV (7 ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Special Committee Q.e. Architectural Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting Yes / No timesanddat~ ( / l-' 7:tvov Signature. ~ Date ( ( The Arroyo Grande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02/98) I 'L . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE _ Planning Commission RECEIVED:;" RECEIVED' _ Parks and Recreation Commission CITY OF ARROYO GRANDI.. CITY OF ARROYO GRAtWE 4 - Traffic Commission 0 MAR 11 PH 3" t.6 Years Lived in Arroyo Grande. Senior Advisory Commission 0 · RegG&HIA'~t'Jr elf".... 'rande 1 Special Committees (Architectural Review, etc.)(~.5~t:<"" (i..~ ff<<)Yes ~ No_ ~ . Con -rvp...+tCI'"J QltWtl NAME Au ( S 5c.-o -r"T HOME ADDRESS S 20 J t'~ J f\ G.IA.Z {L D PHONE -4 €>l- 44M PRESENT S~LF PRESENT y{ (2A. T€.fl- EMPLOYER - POSITION OFFICE BUSINESS ADDRESS - TELEPHONE - EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School ---- College ~"e.Iw-IIJf,5"L~tJ LAJj;v 6~A-'!L t"'J~ i.Top .TL-. ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION J COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS iiltVti~-rI~G- As1\2.t.A.c..-T( t);::; J a...{M. f. i t'I ~ ~Q.VV'\ e l:) ~$.s. -t\l~nDA~kL- ~;lP~ , : ) The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: NAME ADDRESS 1. N Ih)~ ~lLZ-R- I l '2- 7 . '\( Pr-(2.. f::> lo CJ j\A.:.so -- ~~ '7bl1 v '''A, ~6-1J~ 2. lD,.}1 3. M. \' 1C...f.. ~A-D V\ '/30 O~IL L~ ~b , ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No - Traffic Commission, Monday Previous to Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. Yes - No - Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 6:00 p.m. Yes - No Special Committee (Le. Archite ral Review Committee, etc.), Various meeting Yes / No_ times and d tes Date ..3 ' It; . ro The Arro ande City Council requests information about your interest (and education, if applicable), in serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, or a Special Committee. Please note such information on the reverse side of this form. Thank you for your interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED (11/02198) ~ 3/zdoo 4J '- / I,~, Members of the Council: When you cast your vote tonight on this agenda item concerning the waiver of fees for the use of the Women's Club Hall by Harvest Bag's Craft Faire, please keep in mind the following: HARVEST BAG- X Provides food and other essentials year round to the working poor, senior citizens, and families with children in this area. X Provides snacks and treats for Arroyo Grande's Parks and Recreation child development program. X Helps with the preparation and assists with the annual Easter Egg Hunt. X Participates and supports community-sponsored parades, festivals, and comparable events. X Provides candy canes each year to our Village Santa and the police department's program. X Works with Arroyo Grande High School's rehabilitation program for disabled students. X Donates hot dogs and buns to A. G.'s Parks and Recreation Depart- ment for their fund-raisers. Considering all these services provided by Harvest Bag, we look at ourselves as a City entity that provides needed services that are either overlooked or not budgeted by this Council for whatever reason. Therefore, we should be considered by this Council as part of this City's services and thereby, these usage fees should be waived. -- ---'--~~---'--- 11.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION D4" SUBJECT: APPEAL OF REDUCTION OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST BY HARVEST BAG INCORPORATED DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council deny the appeal by Harvest Bag Incorporated of the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision to reduce facility rental fees of the Woman's Community Center from the 50% reduction to a full 100% waiver of fees for facility rental. FUNDING: Upholding the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission would result in a loss of rental fees for the Woman's Community Center of $250. Reversing the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission would result in a loss of $500 in rental fees to the General Fund. DISCUSSION: At the September 14, 1999 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a revised policy for fee waiver requests (Attachment 1). In the revisions, the Council adopted a policy whereby organizations that do not meet the minimum five (5) criteria in the Fee Waiver Request Form (Attachment 2) are eligible for consideration of a fee waiver of up to 50% of rental fees. Harvest Bag Inc. meets a total of four (4) criteria, which under the policy would entitle them to no more than a 50% reduction in rental fees. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the waiver request at their March 8th meeting. At the meeting, the Commission voted 4-0 to award the maximum 50% allowable as per policy adopted by the Council. A letter was mailed out the week of March 13th explaining the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission (Attachment 3). It was emphasized that the decision not to waive the full rental fee of 100% was not a reflection of the outstanding work Harvest Bag does for the community, but was in adherence to current City policy. On March 10th, the City received a letter from Herman Olave, President of Harvest Bag Inc., requesting the Council consider an appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision (Attachment4). Alternatives The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Modify and approve staff's recommendation; - Reject staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1 - City Council Report Sept. 14, 1999 Attachment 2 - Fee Waiver Request Form Attachment 3 - Letter to Harvest Bag Inc. Attachment 4 - Letter from Harvest Bag, Inc. A TT ACHMENT 1 . MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO FEE WAIVER POLICY DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the following Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for revisions to the existing fee waiver. policy for facility rentals: 1. Increase the amount of fee waiver the Parks and Recreation Commission can approve from the current $200 to $500. 2. Set a maximum amount any individual group can receive in fee waivers at $750 annually (calendar year). 3. Establish a policy whereby an organization or agency that does not meet the minimum five (5) criteria in the Fee Waiver Request Form is eligible for consideration of a fee waiver of up to 50% of rental fees. FUNDING: Fee waivers vary from year to year. Based on FY 1998-99 waivers, proposed policy would result in a net increase of approximately $1 ,250 to the General Fund. DISCUSSION: The City Council, at it's meeting of June 22nd, directed staff to review the current fee waiver policy and return to the Council with reco~mended changes. The current policy in effect for fee waivers is that any waiver of over 5200 requires approval from the City Council. Waivers of under $200 are approved/denied by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission action may be appealed to the City Council. Both the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission reserve the right to reduce the required fee waiver amount.. The majority of waivers currently granted is for a full day rental ($250) and security deposit (5250). The policy regarding appeal to the City Council will not be altered. There is currently no maximum for the amount of fees waived for anyone applicant in a calendar year. In most agencies, there is generally a limit for the amount of fees waived in a year. It is recommended that the total aggregate amount that can be waived for anyone applicant in a calendar year be established at $750. This would cover 2 all day rentals. and 1 security deposit. The $750 annual limitation on waivers provides a uniform figure for all charities/non-profits. If the $750 in aggregate fee waivers is determined by an applicant to be insufficient over the course of a calendar year, the recently approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, once initiated, will provide additional opportunities for charities/non-profits to secure funding (for fee waivers or other uses) from the City. Finally, the Commission discussed the use of the Fee Waiver Request Form (Attachment 1). It was decided that a full award should only go to an agency or organization that meets the requirements for a full waiver, which is at least five (5) of the established criteria. Any organization that does not meet this minimum should not receive the maximum. waiver/reduction. In many situations, these groups do not receive any waiver. In the event a fee waiver is granted, only a partial reduction would be awarded. After further discussion, it was decided to recommend to the Council that a 50% reduction would be the maximum allowed to groups not meeting the minimum criteria, but are awarded a waiver. Alternatives: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation; - Modify the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation; - Reject the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Fee Waiver Request Form (Attachment 1) ... .' ... s:\StaffRpt\CCFeeWaiverRev.824 ._-_.~ , . ATTACHMENT 2 FEE WAIVER OR REDUC'IIUN ~t<11 CF\IM I V"... Name: I/i r c.:. Addms: ?,,/3(J'}c'~~~i.sIl(J Phone#:!f7J-I?/'t- Type of Fee Requested to Be Waived: If. L . Total Fee Amt. To B8 ConsIdered: $ J-5tJ .~. W . .' .. .' < " (MaxinUn $750 per cafendar year) . AIVER?F FE.ES: All groups/orgamzations/sponsors requesting a waiver of fees must submit a completed Fee Waiver (r Red~ctio~ Cnte~Ja Form. with a leiter stating: (a) ~e.faCllity requested', <!>) event. (c) which fees should be waived, and d) venfi~tion of .Infor~ation requested on the critena form (e.g., organizatiOn donates SO% of it$ budget.supporting programs In the Five CIties area). Please include aD additional information ona separate sheet of peper along with your lett~(' of request.Alrforms and letters should be submitted as fonows: . For Reouests for Fees Totalino S500 or less: . ' For Reouests for Fees TotaJi2o S5010r More: Parks and Recreation ~mission ' Arroyo Grande City CounCil cia Parks and Recreation Office - Attention: Adminis1rative SeMces Director Post Office Box 550 Post Office Box 550 1221 Ash Street 214 East BranCh Street ~~~~~~1 ~G~~~ .Check bel w ach item th ties to 0 r u n'za': " . 1. local Arroyo Grande.based non-profit group or organization # rf':-} rr /11h {provide.I.D~ number}. }/p 2 "Lacer Is defined as 50% membership ~ the City of Arroyo Gi-ande. Non-profit group/organization services youth .only, ages 6 - 18; and no spedfic program fees are charged -' youth (other than registration fee). Number of youth served: .'. Registration fee charged to youth: . . v IPS . ' _3. The group/organization donates 50% of its budget supporting programs/aCtivities within the City of Arroyo Grande or the Five C~ area. Examples of programslactivi~ ' supported: .~4. ;'Jd',/,/U 13/J,T)Ht' (PP kY ~ G.1'TIZEN5" .J-IIARffJ'-i,'f Oltr4l,,:z~-rID . The facility/activity requested and aR proceeds will be used for a specific City of MOYO Grande/Five Cities area public tQject, benefit.. or cause. ' Example- of' speci service/project: I? ~/)v t;. ,q" e Pi 'Co.p: 1& IIIc.L6 'P. . #0 .' The event proposed is open to th~ public, and the organization/sponsor Is f,tOt r.~questing . a ~on~tion !:If ._5. charging a fee for entry or to participanfs {vendors. speakers, etc.)?,flc f1"tAf ~ifr 1?fl11-' J?A.~.$ ~6. Group or organization provides a yearly donation {equipment, monetary, serviceS-in-kind} to the City of Arroyo Grande. Specific donation: . Date of ~on: . No 7 ) .. Mid-week or shared scheduling of facility. The group has requested a date during the week (Monday - . -' Thursday), and another organization wiD be meeting at the same time. 1- TOTAL NUMBER OF CRITERIA ITEMS WHICH APPLY. aUALlFICA TlONS:' Groups meeting ~eria items 1 - 7 above score 1 point each. A. scOre of 5 or more points qualifies a group for a waiver or reduction of fees. Groups scoring less than 5 points may be eligible for a waiver of up to 50% of the fu~ ' DETERMINATION: All requests for the'reduction or waiver of fees for uses that require a Fublic Safety .and Welfare Permit or Police Department Auxiliary Police Services (e.g., fees established by City. Ordinance or Resolution) must be approved by the City CounCil Field rental fees (excluding toumaments.lighting, and field preps) shaU be waived for aD youth sport activities scoring five (5) points or more on a fully completed Fee Waiver or Reduction Criteria Form. "Youth sport activities" sha" be defined as any league/team roster having members under the age of 18. with the exception that a maximum of three ~3) members may be 18 or older, at the time the roster Is submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department FOR FEES TOT AUNG $500 OR lESS FOR USE OF A CITY FACilITY: Waiver or reduction of the fees can be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. AD decisions made by the Parks and Recreation Com~ission can be appealed to the City Council. . FOR FEES TOTALING S501 OR MORE FOR USE OF A CITY FACILITv: WaNer or reduction of fees must be approved by the City Council. . THE MAXIMUM ANY INDIVIDUAL GROUP CAN RECEIVE IN WAIVERS IS $150 ANNUALLY (Calendar vear): ThiE maximum may not be appealed. ...... '_.01. nl'??!QCI\ -"-- l . COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY USE AGREEMENT. - <:ity of Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Department ..... .: ...; . - .... ... . .~... '. ..post Office. Box 550, Arroyo Grande,CA 93421. . (805}473~548~-'or':(805) 47~5;i71; . .'.;< ........... .... ..... .... . . .,;i Organization/GrouplUser '~ h t. R :/E~'i- 'jjt. i:-"1:Jl.'; 'N~~~~;fit"rt;.';r;!j{~::;jii/7;7~t~;:,; ?' , ., .; e.,' i,f~~i~~~~~;'~ar;'i~~,q#;;'~'%~/~'?,Jj;.!t '}<-;~7f~~~r;;~!~::~"~~'~;';')~<'~'" ',:,'Mailing Addre~~" 1113.-:, y ~j;/..p .....,... · . ,.. .>....:..'... t.'. City: .1,,~.';'~i;",~',':'0.1<, ""2.ip:1!7"t' C ,. :-,-:::,,:":"';-.,' <:',/",;,'.:",'::;t.,:i::::,;'-,' ,'_ ::.:,'.,,' '- :,," ',Hbme Phone: -1,f ~.. /;7 ,~~; W~rkPhon~: I.f-:] - 5'f'/"+ . .Appiox.~~p~o~e .~ed:';~:( (i ':" ' "-, , ' '-.':'f? . ~ ,-.::-",~...',/--- _T_:,.i:.;-r:,':~:~~--_-::,<,::~,~/ J , Purpose.ofuse (i.e., meetin ',seminar,,yrorkshop, dinri~':, etc.) t; , ,A ,..--: '\ i A oj' .'.~' ";.' '"J." ...... Date(sffor ~se: 0 '~" '-'" '". Time Requested (include set-up/dean-up): From: J... ~ To: ./~;-; 9.~ : r I ROOMS/AREAS REQUESTED I FACILITY Check each item a ble USE FEE '"') -~ ;n I Small Classroom (caPacnr.40 ppl) I G)._ I G).c ~ J:::.s~ Large Classroom (capacity:75 ppl) I fl)Ec< . I. Entire Facility I EEG)..- '--. " -OON Wu ~ f Cleaning/Security Depos~ I I Sma~ Room (capacity: 50 ppl) I I G) I "C.Q~..... I Large Room (capac~ 175 ppl) c:G)CI) eoc~ C) G)- '!?- ftJ 0 vi I Entire Facirlty by the Day I, o E'- C ~ c~ ~O-CI) ~~E> \/ I Kitchen and Barbecue. o"CE::: ~c oN Ylp.A System .- ca U No charge U \ . Cleaning/Security Deposit $250 Refundable. Deposit ($125 Min. Pyml .; R uired to Secure Reservation DATE RECEIVED: GROUPSIORGANIZA TlONS: ~ i Supervision Fee Non-profit Groups: $5. OOIhr 2 hr. min. ~ t. 'Mon - Fri before 5 p.rn. profit Groups: $9.OOIhr. o~ Gj-= Supervision Fee Gj:J LL.:d Fri atter5 p.m. -Sun $9.00lhr. ..".- .(1) ~E . ., ... .~ = 0 . ,- (1)01:: - . r TOTAL DUE . $ . . I, the undersign:d. have read, understand, a~d agree to the above fees and terms of this FacililyUse AgreejenJ. .,q( ~~ z..'/':.: ('~J d Ji / '.. (. '/1' i ,..) SIgnature:' ",~n.. /0'?'/<,'~r1.;'.. r.~, ~U,'; I, ('\i-t!J. .:: . ..':"7/ Date:' /. . - / '.~ I / / " " FOR STAFF USE ONLY: .., Claim Date for refund (of deposit) Claim Amount S ... ATTACHMENT 3 'flit:! 0/ P.O. Box 558 ~ 8f~ 1m AlIa Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93411 PItone: (805) 473-5474 PARKS AND RECREATION FAX: (105) 473-5479 E-MaD: .Ity@.....oy....nde.o... March 10,2000 Harvest Bag,lnc. Attn: Herman Olave PO Box 628 Oceano, CA 93445 DearMr. Olave, At the March 8th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed your organization's fee waiver request for use the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center on March 18th and October 14th, 2000. . The Commission approved a 50% fee waiver. Revisions to the fee waiver policy were adopted by the City Council on September 14, . 1999 and took effect January 1, 2000. Based on these revisions, a group must meet a minimum of five (5) criteria on the fee waiver request form in order to receive a full waiver. Your organization does not serve youth only, therefore, it does not meet criteria #2. Criteria #5 states that "the event proposed is open to the public, and the organization/sponsor is not requesting a donation or charging a fee for entry or to participants (vendors, speakers, etc.). Your organization requests a donation from the vendors and, as a result, does not meet this criteria. The dates you have requested for use of the Woman's Club Community Center are both full Saturdays thus not qualifying for criteria #7. Your organization met four (4) criteria, resulting in a maximum waiver of 50%. The fact that a full waiver was not approved in no way reflects negatively on the outstanding work your organization does for our community. If you have further questions, I can be reached at (805) 473-5474. Sincerely, ~ t3 rl- DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ Director of Parks and Recreation -.'. . . ATTACHMENT 4 , criJe C){vv~st 'Bi\<<J.. Jpc. P.O. 'Bo~ 628/ Oceano/ C9l93445 RECEIVED CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE %f. (805) 489-4223 00 MAR 13 PM 5: 00 ~~~' March 10, 2000 ~~~~, 1" ~ij~ ~ 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Council Members: On March 8, at their regular meeting, I met with the Parks and Recreation Commission to request a full fee waiver for the use of the Women's Club for our spring Craft Faire on March 18 and again in the fiill on October 14th. There seemed to be a negative attitude about the value of the services provided to this community by Harvest Bag.. At any rate, our request was denied. The only recourse is to appeal to you, the Council members. I am therefore requesting this matter be on your agenda at the earliest date. I would like to present to you facts supporting our request that were provided the Parks and Recreation Commissioners. Harvest Bag does not receive State nor Federal money. We rely on donations ftom the folks in this community and upon the two fund-raisers listed above. Our request is based on the following items. 1. Harvest Bag has distributed food and other essentials to senior citizens, the working poor, handicapped persons, and social services cases for over twenty years. A large percentage of these donees are residents of your city. 2. Harvest Bag ftequently provides snack items to the Parks and Recreation Pre-School program. 3. Harvest Bag provides candy canes for the Village Santa Claus. 4. Our members have prepared eggs and volunteered to help with the annual Easter Egg hunt and activities. 5. Harvest Bag has provided on numerous occasions hot dogs for the Parks and Recreations fund- raising events. Considering the dollar amount ofa full fee waiver for the use of your hall and the value of the service provided to this community by Harvest Bag, our service will far outweighs the amount we are requesting to be waived. Harvest Bag respectfully requests that this matter be a part of your agenda at the earliest date. Sincerely, Herman Olave, President -'"-.-.,..-..--.--.,,-- 11.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT J f--- FROM: KERRY MCCANTS, COMMUNITY DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1) Provide direction to staff in regards to the disposition of those General Plan Amendment requests which are not annexations or conversions from agriculture and which are not currently reflected in the Draft General Plan; and 2) Set the date and time for the following workshops: a. Disposition of General Plan requests requiring annexation or conversion from agriculture to amend it to urban use; and b. Scope of the issues to be included in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update; and 3) Direct that the April 6, 2000 workshop with the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission be used to determine the focus for the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update. DISCUSSION: On February 22, 2000 staff was directed by the City Council to distribute the Draft Land Use Element and the Draft Agriculture/Open Space/Conservation Element for a 60-day public review period, which would include two workshops. Staff was also directed to prepare and circulate a Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report and set March 28, 2000 as the date for City Council to discuss General Plan Amendment requests which are not annexations or conversions from agriculture and which are not currently reflected in the Draft General Plan. On February 29, 2000 staff received an annotated list of the 25 General Plan Amendment requests prepared by the City's consultant, Envicom. Attached is a summary of how each request relates to the Draft General Plan. Staff has sent letters to the parties who submitted General Plan Amendment requests, indicating whether or not their request is reflected in the City's Draft General Plan as of this date. The letters also state that a workshop will be held on March 28th to discuss those requests which are not annexations or conversions from agriculture and which are not currently reflected in the Draft General Plan. Staff is recommending that one of the additional workshops be devoted to those requests, which involve annexations or conversions from agriculture. The other workshop would be devoted to receiving input from the public and agencies related to the scope of the Environmental Impact Report. The process of determining the scope, focus, and content of an EIR is known as "scoping" . Scoping helps to identify the range of actions, alternatives, environmental effects, methods of assessment, and mitigation measures to be analyzed in depth, and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are not important to the decision at hand. Scoping is also an effective way to bring together and resolve the concerns of interested federal, state, and local agencies; the proponent of the action; and other interested persons, including opponents of the project. Formal scoping meetings are not required by CEQA when a Lead Agency has decided to prepare an EIR. However, scoping meetings with Responsible and Trustee Agencies, and other Interested agencies or the public, may be a useful opportunity for obtaining information about the scope and content of an EIR. Staff also recommends that the April 6th joint workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic Commission focus on a discussion of the Circulation Element. The firm that was originally preparing the Circulation Element for the General Plan Update is no longer available to complete the work. Envicom is proposing that the firm Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) complete the element. The April 6, 2000 workshop would provide an opportunity for the new firm to become familiar with the City's perspective and focus on the key issues in preparing the Element. Requests before the Council APN No. 07-011-044. Jensen, Heather: Request is for review of best use of property. Proposed designation, Community Facility (CF), is essentially the same as previous designation, Public Facility. APN Nos. 07-781-012, 07-781-041, 07-781-052, and 07-781-053. Kirk, Kirkpatrick, Nooker, and White: Request is to retain Residential Estate designation, which carries a density of 0.4 units/acre. The proposed designation, Single Family - Very Low Density (SFR-VL), carries a density of 1.0 unit/acre. There are no proposed designations, which carry a density of less than 1.0 unit/acre. Alternatives The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: - Approve staff's recommendations; - Do not approve staff's recommendations; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1) Summary of Requests 2) Request information - APN No. 07-001-044 3) Request information - APN Nos. 07-781-012, 07-781-041, 07-781-052, 07-781-053 4) Response letters to General Plan Amendment requests 5) Draft General Plan Documents 6) March 3, 2000 Draft Land Use Policy Map P\I . I"\VI ....-. - - '.. .~ ~ ~ ;.( .. Po e tf.) I. f;) .2" . Po U~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ .(" Ii <("\ U U on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I"": ,. r- .... 0 ,.... << r- . 0 r- C'1 ...; 0 0 0 .0 on ....N N N .... on on .... .... .... .... on I ~ 'E ~ I.. '(ij t>O e = . I e U3 ~ '>' U ~ .' -5 0 U - 0 -5 \0 I.... ~ .~ ~ - I; ,-.. I' 0 ~ i !J ~ U ~': is I I u -5 ~ Cd ~ I'. -5 ~ .~ fJ)r;;l g . '.~. :E .(" ~ ~Z r.., 00 .= Cd 'S ... fJ)~ ~ I .~ ~ Cd 0 ';;; t; .~ ,I:> 'E ~ ~o .. - Cd .g - g u ~ III ~ ~ .~ III .... ~ ~~ = ..s ~ ~ ';;; ca .g .~ " g 00 .... - ~ Cd ~ ~ u - = u 3 rt .... 1a ~ ~ .g~ go .~ '-s I%< oJ) ~ ~ Cd ~ U ~ ... u ~ ~~ .- ...... Po ~ 00 ~ .~ oJ) oJ) .~ ~~ ... ';;; ~zo z ~ "u 0 ~ ~ = ... ~ ~ U3 II) 0 IJ.o o 0 -5 !; ~ <~~ ... ... p.., .~ - - a u oJ) oJ) u u u 'O;g 0 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ oJ) U ~ "Do - 9 ... ... ~ u u ~~~ U";3 g ~ ~ = EE f! .~ 0 !; B u ~ .... U3 :;:; !; I oJ) oq- - ~.~ .~ =' - ~ ~ :3 :; ~~~ g ~ g () u g :: ~ .~.~ oq- . = u 0 =' ... I: Z u ec; .~ .~ () g< I%< 0 ... B << >'-1: .~ ,..;1< I: . ~ I%< II) g --u "; =' ... < < rt ... u u g .... .... os e .:::'C < ~~r;;l ...( t>O ~ ... ~ o 0 a u ~ ~ 0 ~C'1 = .~ ~~ e u ~ U3 .~ '~ 00 r-. ... ... ... ~,..;I~ 0 r- >< 0 oJ) ~ r-O g 0 r..: ~ < e - <~ 0 0 .N on on .... .... on ~r. .... u ~ N N ~ ~t>o Po~ t>o~ u t>o ~ \~ >< t>O j ~ go... t>O Z ~ !~ 8 8 ~ ~ u ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ U oS: ~. 0 ~ 50 III + oS: ~r;;l~ ';:)'" UI%< U U U I~ ~ i ~O' r-. 0.... \0 ~ ~~ oJ) oq- NN ~~ ~ !2 tf.) 00 ~ . . U ~ on .... .... ~~ .':,' z ~ ?z \0\0 ~ r-r- U .... c5 ~ . . " ~ g r-r- ~ 0 ~e h ~ 00 rh -5 cr:.{ ~ \.'-;, ~ on = 5 1 ~ ,..;It:3 ~ r- ~ l~~t .~ . ',: = oS: ~ .... r-. III -g ~ U ~ I..: 5 ~ ~ ~ 5 u ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 <.... ~....N .~ .... ~("\("\ u -5N .3 >,-0 >'- 0 e e co IE ~ e~ = q q uoq- ~~ u ,..J b'q oJ).... ~Nr- ~S ::aCT &i ~ h .B.!a ~cr 00 e cr 00 . . - . ~~ 0........ :>~ u.... 1%<1%< 0:;; 0........ r-o .... 1%<.... >'-"" .... 'O::I: ~ L o~ r-N IENN .... .~ ",\0 ("\\0 ,*00 ",cr \0 .... ...("\ ~\O\O o U . cor;- r-r;- ::I:,A,A on on ' .... ~ I,,, . r- ....N '~8 ~BB ~<S .... r- Nr- r-r- ",r- tI) 0 ~o .... .... ....0 ....0 I' = ;, -5 1'( .9 ci tf.) ~ :! !; "'. 100 os - 9 100 oS: '13 tf.) ..( III U III ~~ 1 t; :8 = ~ p.; = ~ ~ ~ -.( ',a 0 ... ... 0 Cd u ... ~ ~ B :> u rh~!- U ~ 0 Ii ~ :3 c; Ii u~ ~ .... I:ti 'E ~ is u ~ ~ 1 ,g 8 "" ;~ g 1"U u~ 00' ~ III p.., -0 .... ~ 8 -€ :a 0 ...~ ~"d .... p.; Ci5 10\ ~ on 0 '" ~ u ~~ 0 t ~ > 0 ~ 1'1' ~ o II) -5 on n .... 0 .... ~~ ~~ on ~ N 1';:', ' ~ t: ... ~ u 1 .... ... ~ -0 ffi '(G ~ ~ ~~ a 0 =' OJ III ; tf.) ~.... 0 ~ ::I: > 'S; h ~ ;~ .' 0 .... .... N ("\ oq- "" \0 r- eo '" .... .... >< e . Po . . >c: Po. ~ ~ e < ~ So So g; cd So ~ Po < . Po ..... <..... go < <3 <3 en 0 0 <3 0 0 0 3 < <0 < < 0 < g < <<< ..... ~ -...< -... <'! ~ C! .,.) "'1 \0"'11": N 0 Z.,.. Z I' 0\..... N N .,.. .......... ~ -a >.-a o+: ..... ~._ U) 0 ::. 0 U .- D ;> 1-4 Oh >c: S ~ u s:: ~ S .- ~ r.;j u 0 ::x: 0 0 ~ U ~ U ..... ~ .- ~.- ~ 13 ~ ~ ~ .~ . -a 5 . 5 -a -a ~ 0 a'j 0 t:!- '': '': u s:: ~ s:: I u 5 d "0 .- .- - ~ "0 U ._ .... .~.... t<I,...., ..... "0 UJ .... "'+004.... "- en .- U 0 .- 0 -a 15 -au ~ p:: .~ ~'~'': u s:: p:: P:: ,?;> e- ~ e- -a 5:E .9 >. ..... .~ .... .... ..... _ U) .....- .--. (,) ...... (,) +J -...... V "-...... :;:: 0 .a 0 5 'U; ~ -g ~ ~ ~ 0 - 0 "0 2 >. 0 ~ it I 0 ~ 11)'- ~ - U ~ :fi S ..s s ~ ,?;>.~ _..2 ..2 ;:j 0 u 0 P:: .- t;j .~ CI) ~ ::E ::x: ;g::x: u ~ ~ 15.S .- 0 "0 ..... "0 ~ ~'': O.g 00 00 ..... d U) d"'" I -= ,.,._ 0 Cd Q.) Cd'-'-"" ...... rn .... 13 :3 --.;>.. ,J::) .....:> ~::E u u -a ..... ..... .. t: u t<I ::E -.d ~ ..... t. ~ u'': 15 ~ S .... 81 \0 u ... :- >. U) 5 u >. 8 u 8 .,.. Ob -a -~ a :-~;:j "0 :E :;:: 0 S 0 s:: d..... ~ ;j t;.u; U) I=i US U 0 0..... .~ w ~ U U u 1iI 0 i U) 00........ ~ u~,J::) ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ u<350 o o;:'^ ~ u ~ u -a ..... u t.f! ::s ..... ~:;:: 0 :;:: '2 ..c: "'1 ~ I": N 00 e.;::I u,~ P:: ~ .- > ~ > '8 0..... P:: ..... u uPooo~... uU 00 U U UI';; I'u U i i ~ ~ 3'3 i ~ ~ i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ..c: .z::rn""::l..... U ..c:o .......c:..c:..c:o -..c:1iI..c: U U::s <i.,.,.. ~ UU < U U uu < u~u N-N~N~""'N .,..\01' .....'<t.,...,.. OONN 0\ ggg ~;g 0000 0000 0 I I I I I I I I I f I I I I.................... M \f") ,......................... ........................ 'V 000 N\O .-, 00000000 ~~~~ I' .,...,...,....... VI.,.. <( 17t;-~r-;- '9\0"9'9 ~ I I I..... , I U 1'1'1'1' I' 'I'I' \0 1'1'1' "0 1'1' . 00000800 0 000; 00 ti5 ~ . 8 ] _ . "0 U) .., ......... w' . . ..... ... dOO >.>. >...... -..........0. . Cd t, Z 0 -5 -d-d-d-d ~~ ~ ~ ti5 -5-5-5 ci < 51' '<tl' r;::;....; P::P::P::P:: 00 >'0 0..... ...0\ ~ ;;; p., u u ..c:o~o~ ~~ ~~~~ ~s~s -a;g~;g ~ ............ ~ <1':: U I "0 ' s:: "'S::'S::'8'2 ~ t. ~ r:: ; ~ ~ ~ ::: J: J: Po. p., ~ ~ ~ E-< rn ~ '0 0:: ~ ~ ~ ~ p., -€::E ..... ";I 00 "';" ~ 0 q .,.. I' t' ~ 0 0 ~ 0 oo.r-;' p., "';".,.. 00 N 0 ~ >. '<t .....1'001'~ Ol'~~'<too ......,..~o ~I' ~I' 0 NNN 0 """'~ 000.....1'..... '<to 1'1'1'1' 1'1'..1'.....1'......0 N VI"""" """I' ~ CI) U >. .S ~ ~ ;g o u 0 ~ ~ ::x: . "0 d .s- -5 ~ fa 0 0 s:: . u.o U) ..... ::x: 0 U o t......... ..... 0 .-. Cd co P:: .:;;a .: !i= ~f!~ ....:= ~ ...cf u.i ~ u u u.S - e.. ..2 U~ -. U) 0 .~.... . -..... i ~.- ..... ,~ "' U) u ._ ::. ,. ......... .:::'''''' 1: ~ ~ 0.- QJ ~ i ~ ~ ::x: ~:;;a~ :1 ~::E ~8~ t75 ~ ~ N ~ '<t.,.. \0 I' 00 0\ 0"'" N ~ .... ,..... .................... ....... ........... N N M N ----_..~~- .- ~ ~ ~ g: ~ -< ..... ~ ~ .;, 8 0 0 V'I ..... N -=t "'a ~ u ~ '~ ~ od ~ '()i :;. ~ ~ .~ IJ.< ~ g u .~ ~ on u .~ .S :s r.n '" & g :;. ~ ~ ~ 't .~ .~ r.n -0 IJ.< g '! u on ~ .C= .~ a (/) ~ g ~ .g ~ '! r.n .~ ~ g ~ .~ ... ... '" IJ.< :;. IJ.< ~ ~ ~ bD 0 .S '" ..... ~ rn u u ~ u'" ~ ~n j % '8 u 8~ 1/'\ 0 ",,,, q 8~ ..... . I 1/'\ .......... C1 ~~ t- I · t- t-t- t-t- <Ii ~ < ,.j.J ~8 rnrn ~ ~~ .g.g 1 ,<'< -o~ t-'" I/'\t- -ot- IJ.< t-O MM .~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 9 ~ u .... cD 0' > ';:> ~ , ~ U '0 ~ '" Q) 0 .!!! r.n ';:> b ~ ct ~ 1/'\ .:0 M M ATTACHMENT 2 November 14,1997 . To: An-oyo Grande City Council and Planning Commission Re: General Plan Update It seems it would be a goot! time to review the agreement with the Y.M. CA. and the City, to see what progress has taken place and if the time line is still on track. . If the Y.M CA. is not moving forward with t~eir facility OIJ. the 5 acre parcel on West Branch Street, this would be a good time fOT the City to look at the best use for that ' property. Thankyouforyourconnderado~ . Heather Jensen 569 May'Street A"oyo Grande . ^ ----."_-. . 1'_ '\ ,. !' r JENSENf'YMCA SITE" 400 W. BRANCH STREET SLO CO. ASSESSOR INFORMATION: APN: 7-011-44 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PO BOX 550 AG CA 93420 PARCEL SIZE: 5 ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ptJBLICF ACll.lTIES EXISTING ZONING: PUBLIC F ACll.ITIES ~ ~i - \5:30 ) ~ \\ f! ~~~. 08u , >- ~o o a.. Q.. u::.QWI t- I.. , t O~~ o::;~:i5 <Ii 'cr. i < <r. .VI 0 u......VI ~ - 'tl/}"z 00- VI:3 .x u..n:.m >-~...1 m 0 ~ ~ ~~ \-oVlS: _VlQ . 'i~.J ...._U<r.fI> ---. \ o CI <Ct \ (~ en \I} "'0 \I) \ !2 . ..J~ ''v ~i~ . \ @ \::) \ ~ 0 CI \ \I) u"'O . \ \ .:-: \ "f.~:I' (:-:'\ ,.: \ .. .#.".;#~. W ~) ...... .. .. <<I .. -;;;:. ~ -.... .' ~j:. ~ ..... ...... ....... ... <."..e , ... . '.!'-'-' r.-' ~ ~~ U .. '. i @~ .. .. ... .. , ',~.';. \ (.'It" '!:J .~., ,~. ..pO- :::~;-;-r.;.::;..' .f::~~~ . ~ .~ ... ':...;..:;..:. ~~~ . r;::."::~',~ '-5"" \:; ~~ ,:'t't ~ ~~~~t <.. ..... ~~:r~.:..:" ~ ~ ~ .' .,: ~$ -,r 8~ .., #",,' rt)' '.':~"':' . . "01 :r .. \!"";I )~ ~ ~~. . .t' &: ~ ~ ~ "3 -:2- YJ~'6~ ~ /" ::S' ~ ::s;::~ . , . . ATTACHMENT 3 September 5, 1997 TO: Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Director Commurii ty Development Department SUBJECT: General Plan Update with. particular reference to the Residential Estate (R-E) District REF. : (1) Ordinance No. 198 C. S.; Residential-Suburban (R-S) District; adopted Sept. 26, 1979; (2) Arroyo Grande Development Code, Chapter 9-06, in particular the Residential Estate (R-E) District; effective June 13, 1991. In 1979 the residents of the Arroyo Grande thumb region (North Arroyo Grande, approximately 46 acres) accessible from Printz Road worked with the former Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to establish a large lot residential area. This resu1.ted in Ordinance No. 198 C. S. (Ref. 1) and provided for 2~ acre min. lot sizes with many associated provisions appropriate for such an area. In 1979 the region was referred to as a Residential-Suburban District; this title was changed to Residential-Estate District in the General Plan update in 1991 (Ref, 2). The many provisions/requirements of the original ordinance were retained in the General Plan update with the wholehearted concurrence of the residents.' ....._,... ,_ Since ...~...~re. located beyond city .~terandsewer ~e~~~ .we ..., ',_,'. "~" ~ -;..i.;~", "~"fuhii'sh '''our' . ow"'w tel: - from on:';;; si te'. welis':<arid have':' oui:~oWn~' on:':' ':' .... .:..::.., .. '.:..~" ~:.: -" si te sewer systems. . Thus, for some 18 years the original ordinance and subsequent code have been highly successfull and satisfactory. We have maintained and enjoyed a very desirable area at little or no cost to the city. We strongly urge that the present ~-:,E District, and provisions/requirements, be retained as it now is when the General Plan is updated. We wish to add one f1.l#ther comment and request. As the, years go by and further city.. development approaches our area, we request that out R-E district not be impinged upon or adversely affected by traffic, commercial development, noise, large water well devel pmen ts, e t , ~"e.._~-dF 735 Printz aa {J.~n-..1Q 735 Printz Road a~ rID 783 p~lf'lrz.. .R.D ~i~'" < ". , KIRKPATRICK, NOOKER, KIRK AND WHITE SLO CO. ASSESSORP ARCEL INFORMATION: KIRKPATRICK: APN: 7-781-041 Francis 1. Kirkpatrick Tr. 737 Printz Road AG CA 93420 NOOKER: APN: 7-781-052 Eugene & Jean Nooker 747 Printz Road AG CA 93420 KIRK: APN: 7-781-012 Kirk Family Trust 735 Printz Road AG CA 93420 WHITE: APN: 7-781-053 White Family Trust 783 Printz Road AG CA 93420 PARCEL SIZE: Ranges trom 3-4 acre paracels. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE) EXISTING ZONING: RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE) --.. .'C \11 co ~ o to- ~ % . 0 <t g:.u 0:' _ (!) \ 0 t-i' o :J.'.o .b en 0 0: a..!! 0: c 3 - ~ <t " _x. ":fi . ... ..w ~ . .' · 0 ~ . . . II - ".# \\ ~:~ . (. \\ " ~. ~ . t\. . #, t,,,,, ...".-.,." . .~g. . .' ~ d . ... 0: ~ .)\ · ';'-, (g J -....r,.......... \....~" 'i 2 ~~ II! ... \ . ~l . ~1:.;. . U1 ('i\ I ~. ~ ~) I 8:, <(. " CO. ~ ~ '" - r. '" o .~ ---.1:>\ )- . Q .\() '" 0: o <::> c<) . . .,!ft, ~ ~ d ..I \0 ~.H- /1:,... " ~ ~ ~ ~ ,... :'\ -;;- ) G.. ~ .;. .. 't' ... os;. ~ <::> I \: I , ( \!! '" t .... "', f,-. u.. ~ ~ '-..:./ · ~ " . '" ;Ji ... . o ~ ~ ~ 1 . . ..<t. '" . 0 L )- c,.. (~. , '1tii ;i ~ ~~. b ~ ''''1, !i ...'" - '\ · ~./ ::1\ <ri. .! IS" o ~ 1 \:'" '" F .. .:J \ ~. !!i , .'" ~'" --- \ . ~.,-~\. 't\- co .c ::: _, ' ~'\ \ ~ '~cD~~~ v __",> .. J~ '- 'r,." \:i:\. '.. s S '" .;I I 0 " ... ..... ":;;.' )1... ~ '..... ~) ~..J 0:. ~;~i .... ~ ..... ". ,1 ~ ~ '> "._. ..\ ., - """) Ut,;,' ~ - .. ~ ..:::> · .d.,;" ., L ....L.l~~. .. '.. - ..~ ~ ~- . ...... '. "'-' . ~ " Q 0 " \ r;~ t. iT. ~'/ ~, "~ . <:::>.-- . c05 , Weiy 0/ ATTACHMENT 4 ~ 8ft P.O. Box 550 . . ,. Z14EMtBrMchStreet , '. .. . . ~ Arroyo Grandet CA934Z1 . , Phone: (805)473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. FAX: (185)473-8JM E-~aD: .dty@~y...ande.o... . ' . - , " . March 15, 2000 Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Assn. Seirin Ikeda, Trust~e 145 S. Halcyon Rd, Suite E Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE:' 'General Plan Amendment Request . Dear Mr. Ikeda: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of ,Arroyo Grande for property located on East Cherry /;t.ve, APN No. 07-621-001. In the request, you haye asked that the General Plan designation be changed from agricultural to singlefamUyresidential use. The current Draft Land Use Policy Map indicates your parcel as Single Family Residential- Moderate Density, which is consistent with your request. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00p.m.~o discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes ,thatare NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a .more intense use.. .A.separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of ~ additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final ' , General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. . . A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are available on the City's web site (http://www.arrovogrande.org) or in hardcopy from the Community'Development Department. If you have any questions or comments, please contact' the Community Development Department at 473-5420. ' S~incereIY' < . ,.~ Keny L a~ Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council . CfI":! 0/ P.O. Box 550 . ~ &~ 214 E8It Branch street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 . . Phone: (105) 473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (105) 473-0_. E-M.O: .fty@uroy._e.orl . - - . - March 17, 2000 H.E.and Sarah E. Been 1212 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs.' Been: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the properties located at 1167 and 1212 Flora Rd, APN Nos. 07-761-020 and 07-781-Q21.ln the request, you have asked that the General Plan designation. for these properties be ,changed from Agricultural to Residential use. Your request is not reflected in the. current versiOn of the Draft General Plan,as it is directly contradictory to proposed land use policy.. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the. current . Draft reflects input from ,~st year's community-wide survey. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. . You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28,2000 at 7:00 p.m. .to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes which are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a' more intense. use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan. Update will also be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site: (http://wNw.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and land Use Policy Map are also'available on ~e City's web site orin hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you 'have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. --"- Kerry . McCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~Uy 0/ ~ ~ P.O.BoxSSO 214 i:IIst Branch Street' . . .... .. .. ~ Arroyo Grande, CA'3421 Phone: (105)473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'FAX:(105)473-13U. 'E-M"': .clt1@...ro101J'8Dd~.0I'I ' March 15, 2000 , Dorfman Homes . Ed Dorfman , ,. 285 La'Cresta Dr . Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 'RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Dorfman: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the,. City of ArrOYQ Grande for properties located at Traffic Way and E Cherry Ave, APN Nos. 07-:-621.023 and 07-621-073. In the request, you have asked that the General Plan designation be,changedfrom Agricultural to, Multi-Family (40%) and Single Family Residential (600/0). Your request is currently reflected in the Draft General Plan with regards to the Single Famil}iResidential only. As you know, the General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. . The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involvingchangesthatafe NOT, annexations. or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate wOrkshop to discuss annexation requests arid changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. . All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: (httD:/Iwww.arroyogrande.org). , A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also' available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Communfty Development Department, If you have' any questions or comments, please contact us at 473-5420., Sincerely, ,/ 0" ~~ - Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~Uy 0/ P.O. Box 550 ~ 8ff~ 114 E8st Broth Street Arroyo Grande, CA '3411 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: .(805) 473-5410 F~: (805) 473-1_ E-MaD: ..ty@.rroy....nde.o... March 17, 2000 Coker Ellsworth 129 Bridge Street Suite B Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Ellsworth: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the . properties located on Halycon Road, APN Nos. 75-011-041 and 75-011-042. In the request, you have asked. that the. General Plan designation for these properties ~be .~nged. .from Agricultural to Residential use and that they be annexed into. the City. Your request is not reflected in the current version of the Draft General Plan,as it is. directly .contradiCtexy . to proposed land use policy. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the aJrrent Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted. Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.. to :discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes Which are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. . A. separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: . (http://wNw.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. _h. C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~..-._._.- -- -~~ 'if":! 0/ P.O. 80:1 550 .~,8f~ 114 EIISt Braftch Street Arroyo Grode, CA 93411 Phone: (815) 473-5420 .,' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (815) 473-03N March 15,2000 E-MaR: ..clty@ai'roJOll"ande.org Reuel D. Estes 811 E Cheny Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Estes: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande forthe property located at 811 E Cheny Ave, APN No. 07-571-017. In the request, you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed from AgriCulture to Single Family Residential.' In fact, the designation of your' property under the existing General Plan is. RR - Rural Residential, which would allow 1.0 dwelling unit per acre. Under the current version :oUhe, Draft land Use Element, your property is designated Single Family - Moderate Density, which would allow up to 4.5 units/acre. Your request isthereforerefleded in the Draft General Plan. However, you should also be aware that any development would be subject to proposed agricultural buffering requirements, since you are located adjacent to agricultural uses. You may wish to review the Draft General Plan text and land Use PolicyMap~ copies of which are available on the City's web site lhttD://wwW.arrovoarande.org) or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7: p.m. to discuss the disposition , of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes which are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. When the City Council has established a date for these discussions, you will be'notified. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft .reflects input'from last year's community-wide survey as well as deliberations of the City's long Range Planning · ,Committee. A.series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. ,All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site. If you have any, questions or comments, please contact the Community... Development Department at 473-5420. ~ Keny cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council 'ffity 0/ P.O. Box 558 . . ~ 8f~ 114 East Br.nch Street Arroyo Grande,CA '3411 ... ~OMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT Phone: (805) 473-5410 FAX: (805) 47U. . E-MaR: .ftY@atnty.....nde.org March 17,2000 Linda Fibich ...412 Emerald Bay Drive Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Reque~t Dear Mrs. Fibich: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City ofArroyo.Gfcmdefor the . properties located at 188 and 194 N. Elm St, APNNo. 77-103-017. In the request, you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed from Single Faniily Residential to Multi Family Residential. In the current version of the. Draft land Use Element, the designation of your property has been changed to Multi Family - low Density, which would allow up to nine (9) units per acre in attached units. We believe this accurately reflects the existing development on these parcels. You may wish to consult with the Department of Community. . Development regarding the predse number of units and the. acreage of the. parcels, so that the accuracy of this categorization can be confirmed. The City Coundl will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. spedfically to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural toa more intense use. Since your request has already been addressed in the General Plan Update, and this workshop is not expected to consider overall polides, there mayor may not be any spedfic dis~ssion pertaining to your parcel at that workshop. However, the General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a . final General Plan is adopted. Given. that your property borders on an area that is proposed . for Mixed Use Corridor (Grand Avenue) and also an area that is.proposed for Multi Family- Moderate Density, it is quite possible that the appropriate designation of your property may be the subject of some policy discussion. Therefore, you may wish to remain involVed and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. All. wOrkshops. and hearings related. to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the. City's web site (httD://www.arroyogrande.orgt . Page 2 March 17, 2000 . You .may wish to review the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map, copies of which are available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. . Drafts will be updated as policies are deliberated and edited. At any time during . . the process, if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. . . . . Sincerely, lth------- . Kerry nts Community Development Director. C: Envicom Corporation City Council _ ^U^._ -~.- -.---~...~------ ?!ity 0/ P.O. Box 558 ~ 8J~ 114 East Branch Slreet Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 PIIone: (805) 413-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (105) 413-0_ E-Mail: qdty@arroyogrande.org March 20, 2000 John French 3942 Hollyhock Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: . General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. French: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for properties located on Noyes Rd, APN Nos. 07-781-055 and 07-781-056. In the request, you have asked that the construction of seventy (70) residences be allowed on the 53.14 acres comprised by these two lots. The current version of the Draft Land Use Poiicy .Map indicates this area as a combination of Single Family Residential - Low Density and Open Space, which you have indicated, is an acceptable premise. The SFR-L designation would allow a maximum of 2.5 units to the acre, which in principle would accommodate the proposed devetopment; as the density calculation would be based on'the lot size and not on the district size alone (i.e., SFR-L portions only). The Open Space areas have been delineated from a USGS base map according to proposed land use policy designed to proted drainages and areas of steep slope. While we are in receipt of your letter dated March 15" and have forwarded the materials to our consultant, we have. not had time to study the conceptual plans that were included. It appears we may have a difference of perspective regarding the existence of a drainage along the East Side of Noyes Road and we will reconsider the proposed delineations after further investigation. As with other areas of the Oak Park PO, and as indicated in your communications, it should not be a problem to dedicate op~n spaces as part of a dustered development proposal, so that both private and public objectives are achieved. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests invoMng changes that are NOT annexations or a. change from agricultural to a more intense use. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted by the Council. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site: (httc://www.arrovoqrande.ora). A copy of the current Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department Versions of the Draft General Plan Elements will be updated as policies are disaJSSed and edited. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. C: Envicom Corporation , . 'ffity of P.O. Boi: 550 ~. 8ff~ . 214 E8st Bnneh Street Arroyo Grande, CA '3421 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (105) 473-54~ . 'AX:, (80S) 473-131' . - , - E-MaO: ..cl~1@arroy....nde.orl March 17,2000 - Velma Harris 677 Woodland Arroyo Grande, 93421 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Ms. Harris: you have submitted a letter to the City of Arroyo Grande regarding_the traffic signal on ... Halcyon Street at Grand Avenue and recommended that a left tum lane be Considered during the General Plan Update. This topic' is most appropriately dealt with as'part <;>fthe Circulation Element, which we are now attempting to get back on track. . Your suggestion Will certainly be forwarded to the consultant who eventually will be addressing circulationissues..-MeCinwhile, it may be pertinent to know that the Draft Land Use Element. proposes this area as Mixed- Use Corridor, which envisions enhancement tostreetscapes. and general.' promotion of pedestrian activity. More efficient intersections are certainly part of this vision. The City Council will hold a workshop on' March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes tha~ are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. Since your specific request is not actually a request for re-designation of property, -there may not be any specific' discussion pertaining to your issue at that workshop. However, the General Plan Update .. process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted, whichsttO!Jld indude a Circulation Element. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan, and we certair"!'Y welcome your perspectives, suggestions, and inputs. . . If you have not done so already, you may wish to familiarize yourselves. With the . proposed land use policies as well as the proposed mapped designations. A copy. of the Draft General Plan text and.. Land Use. Policy Map are ' available' on the City's web . site. . lhttD:/Iwww.arroyogrande.org) or in hardcopy from the Cornmuni~ Development ~epartment. All wOrkshops. and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site. Versions of. the. Draft General Plan . Elements will be updated as policies are discussed and edited. . If you have any . ' ' .' '.. " ~ questions or comments throughout the process, please do not hesitate "to contact Lis at 473- 5420. '.' . . C: Envicom Corporation City Council ---- ----- Cffit:/ 0/ P.O. Box S50 ~ 8J~ 214 East Bruch Street Arroyo Grande, CA '3421 ',CQMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (805) 473-5420 " FAX: (805)473-03U E-Man: aac1ty@arroY..nde.or. March 15, 2000 Milton Hayes 154 Traffic Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Hayes: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for , , property located east of Traffic Way and south of E CherryAve, APN No. 07-621-032. In the' request, you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed from Agncultural to Single Family Residential. Your request is reflected in the Draft,General Plan,. however, there is are questions as to whether some of the property should be preserved as open space and,. how your. parcel should relate to potential uses on the Williams property. Theseque$tions' should probably be considered within the overall context of the General Plan. Update. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft 'reflects input from,last year'$ community-wide survey as well as deliberations of the City's Long Range. Planning" Committee. A series of additional workshops and public. hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition ,of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use: A separate wor:kshop' to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future.. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has eStablished a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: ' (http://www.arroyogrande.orgt ' . A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are. also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development. Department If you .have any questions or comments, please contact. the Community Development Department at 473-5420. ..... Kerry L. ants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council , . . ~e7.o/ . P.O. Box sso . .~..~~ .214 East Branch Street Arroy~ G....., CA'3421. '. PhOne: (105) 473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . . FAX: (105) 473-I3M . , ~M"': .dty~aJToy....nde.OI'I March 17, 2000 . Walter Hollywoood 5516 Halifax Road Arcadia, CA 91007, . HE: General Plan Amendment Request ., Dear Mr. Hollywood: " You have, submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the properties located at 770 Valley Road, APN Nos. 75-001-045 and 75-Q01-Q46. -'11 the request, you have asked that these parcels be annexed into the City. . YOlirreqUestis. not. ' reflected in the current version of the Draft General Plan, as it IS directly contradictory to proposed land use policy. The General Plan Update prdcessis ongoing andthEfcurrent Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide. survey. A series of additional workshops and . public hearings will be held over the nexHew months before a final General Plan is. adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the curren~ Draft ~wolves into the adopted Plan. .. .. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at ioo p.m.to'~isCuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests .that involve ch~nges. which are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more interise use.. .A separate workshop, to . . discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near . future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the CitY cOuncil has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the Gene~1 Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: (http://www,arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site orin hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. . Sincerely, 1M. .. ~ - Kerry L. McCants Community Development Director' C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~it:I ~ P.O. Box 558 ~ 8J~ 114 i:.t Branch Street Arroyo Gr...., CA t3411 Phoae: (lIS) 473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (185) 473-G3M E-MaR: .Ity@arroy.ande.ofl March 23, 2000 Pearlie Hughes 555 Pearlie Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Ms. Hughes: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the property located at 1189 Flora, APN No. 07-761-032. In the request, you have asked that the General Plan Designation be changed from Agricultural to a .Residential use. Your request is not reflected in the current version of the Draft General Plan, as . it . is directly contradictory to proposed land use policy. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.Jadiscuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes, which are NOT annexations, or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels. induding announcement on the City's web site: (http://www.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. Si"jY'j '~J.~. ~erry L. McCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council -"-,-,....._._-------- ----- ~~.o/ P.O. Box SSG. ' '~.6f~ 214 Eat Bruch Street , Arroyo Gr"', CA '3421 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (80S) 473-5420 ., FAX: (105) 473-0_ ., , ' ' , - ~MaR:..cfty@arroy...ande.OrI March 15,2000 . . . Heather Jensen ,569 May St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Ms. Jensen: , , . You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the . property located at 400 W Branch St, APN No. 07-011-044. In the request~you have asked that the City review this parcel and consider what its best u$e ~ould be. ., Beeauseof location, surrounding uses, and access, the current Draft Land Use Policy Map designates this parcel' as Community Fadlities, which is essentially. the same a~ the existing General Plan's designation of PF. As you know, the General Plan Update process is ongoing atld a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the ne':d.fewrnonths" before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved in shaping the City's 'polides as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m:,to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving, changes ... that.. ,are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. Given thafyour request was informational in nature, and not related to a spedfic re-designation,. there. mCiY not be relevant response to your questions at this workshop, but you are mOst welcome to participate and express your own opinions about the designation of this parceL A copy of the current Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are available on the City's web site (httc://www.arroyogrande.org) or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department If you have any questions or comments, please. contact us. at 473-5420. Sincerely, _. Kerry L. c nts Communi Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council Cff":! t>f' P.O. Box 550 ~ 8r~ 214 E8st.....h Street Arroyo GnMe, CA 93421 PhoRe: (lIS) 473-5428 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (lIS) 41~ E-Mail: -adtJ@_roJOlnade.ora March 23, 2000 Alton and Linda Jones 1189 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the property located at 1189 Flora, APN No. 07-761-032. In the request, you have asked that the General Plan Designation be changed from Agricultural to a Residential use. Your request is not reflected in the current version of the Draft General Plan, as it is directly contradictory to proposed land use policy. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You fllay wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes, whim are NOT annexations, or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate 'MX'kshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: (http://www.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. Sincerely, Vv--" Kerry L. cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council ---" ---,-~ .~"? of' P.O. Box 550 '~&~ ' 114 EIIst Branch Street Arroyo Gra", CA '3411 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (80S) 473-5410 . FAX: (80S) 473-1_ . , March 17,2000 E-MaR: .clty@arroYOFande.ol'l Elmer and Elizabeth'Kirk 735 Printz Rd Arroyo Grande,. CA93420 RE:' General PI~n Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kirk: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for.the properties located at735, 737, 747, and 783 Printz Rd, APN Nos. 07-781-012, 07-781-041, . 07-781-052 and 07-781-053. In the request, you have asked for the GenefCIl Plan land use designation for.this property to remain as Rural Estate. The . current Draft Land Use Element eliminates Rural Estate as a residential category within the City. The loweSt, density now proposed is Single Family Residential- Very Low Density, which is applied to your property and the neighborhoods around Printz Road. This category would allow up to one (1) unit per acre. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey aswell as the City's Long Range Planning Committee. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, '2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss .the disposition of. all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. Given the location of your neighborhood, it is likely that Mure annexation requests will come fOlWard from within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOl) which ef)compasses Printz Road, similar to the recent Village Glen project. Therefore,you may wish to participate in those particular workshops and discussions. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussion. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: ChttD:/Iwww.arroyogrande.org). . '- A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also ~vailable on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. .If you have . any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. Sincerely, ~40- 0_.. Ke . cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council .~Uy 0/ P.O. Box 550 ...~ ~~ 214 Eat BrUch Street Arroyo Gr.Rde~ CA93421 ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (805) 47~5420 .. FAX:. (805) 47~ .E-M.n: ..clty@.rroy....nde.OI'I March 17, 2000 J. Kirkpatrick 737 Printz Rd Arroyo Grande, GA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the properties located at 735,737,747, and 783 Printz Rd, APN Nos. 07-781-012, 07~781..()41, 07-781-052 and 07-781-053. In. the request, you have asked for the General Plan land use designation for this property to remain as Rural Estate. The current Draft Land Use Element. . eliminates Rural Estate as a residential category within . the City. The lowest density now proposed is Single Family Residential- Very Low Density, which isappliedtoyourproi>erty and the neighborhoods around Printz Road. This category would allow up to e>ne (1) unit per . acre. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft..retJects inpUtfi'om last year's community-wide survey as well as the City's Long Range Planning Committee. ~ A . . series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the. next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the ' disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use.. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from -agricultural use will be scheduled in the near . future. Given the location of your neighborhood, it is likely that future annexation requests will come forward from within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOl) which encompasSes Printz Road, similar to the recent Village Glen project. Therefore, you may wish to participate in those particular workshops and discussions. As an interested party, you Will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussion. All workshops and hearings related to the. General Plan Update will also be noticed through .l1Ormal Channels,. . including announcement on the City's web site: lhttD:/Iwww.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the' City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you h~ve any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420.. Kerry cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council -~---~--- '(fit:! 0/ P.o. Box 550 ~ ~~ 114 E.t Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93411 Phone: (805) 47~!41O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (105) 473-0386. . E-I\fan: aacfty@arroy.ande.orl , March 17, 2000 James and Betty Lawler 721 Lemoore Pismo Beach, CA 93449 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lawler: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the properties located at 700, 710 and 750 Traffic Way, APN Nos. 07-631-002, 07..:s31-003, 01- 631-021 and 07-631-022. In the request, you have asked for the General Plan land use designation for these properties to be changed from Rural Residential to a use more appropriate for that area, preferably Highway Commercial. Highway Commercial is 'actually a zoning category, not a General Plan designation.' The proposed designation for these properties in the current version of the Draft Land Use Element is Regional Commercial (RC), . which would accommodate your request. At some point, once a General, Plan is adopted, the Development Code will need to be brought into conformance with the General Plan.. The first step, however, is dealing with the. General Plan and.the Update process is ongoing',.A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be .held over the n~xt few' months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. ... The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to. discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests' involving changes' that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural toa more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes frornagricultural use will be scheduled in the near future.. When the City Council has established a date for these discussions, you will be notified. Particularly in the context of potential developments on the Frederick's property and other requests in the southeast sector of the planning area, you may wish to attend ,these and/or other relevant discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: (htto://www.arrovogrande.orq). Meanwhile, a copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are available on the City's web site or altematively in hardcopy from the Commu'nity DevelC?pment Department. If you have any questions. or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. ~. Kerry nts Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council ..'--- _.~-------,- '- ~~o/ P.O. Box 550 ' ~ 8l~ .' - 214 bstBrancll Street Arroyo Gr.", CA '3421 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (805) 473-5420 . F AX: (805)473-0_ &oMan: ..clty@uroYOIfude.ora March 17, 2900 Clinton LeFevre 138A South Halcyon Road 'Arroyo Grande, 93420 RE: ' General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. LeFevre: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the city of Arroyo Grande for property located at 138 S. Halcyon Road, APN No. 77-223-041. In your request, yoU have asked that Single Family Residential use and Home Occupation be allowed within it General Commercial or Office district. The current version of the Draft Land Use'Element eliminates General Commercial as a land use category and defines. the area around .your property. as. Mixed-Use (Grand Avenue); which in principle would allow residential uses, as well as, . ,- . '. . commercial uses that might .occur within a . residential structure. ,The .,topic of Home Occupation has not explicitly been addressed-in the current Draftandyourbril')ging to our attention suggests that perhaps it should be. Note that the Development Code. is distinct from the General Plan, but that it will need to be consistent with the General Plan as adopted. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition. of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. Since your specific request has already been implicitly addressed in the General Plan. Update, and. this workshop is not ' expected to consider. overall policies (eg., pertaining to Mixed-Use), there mayor may not be ' any specific discussion pertaining to your parcel at. that workshop. .However, the General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearingsvvill be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted PI~n,and we certainly welcome your perspectives, suggestions, and. inputs. . If you have not done so already, you may wish to familiarize yourselves with theproposed land use policies as well as the proposed mapped designations. A copy of the Draft General Plan ,text and Land Use Policy Map are available on the ,City's web site , ., (httD:/Iwww.arroyogrande.org) or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. ' . . . -'-------,-,- . page 2 . G ~ p\aill.Jp03tC will b8 (IOIIO"! 1IUO"9" 1'9< VI<JIl<S\1QPS and ~s ~ to~. err: Ci~s .,.eb sileo . vers'DflS do 11>8 ora\l . no<m'" ~. indlJd"1:"~ ~ are discussed ~ edlled. ~$:::.;g. Gel""'" p\aI\ E~ WI ll\! . p<Oce5S pleBS" (\O!\, \1esiI8le to con . . . ~ nsor ~ 1IUO"9\101! e . '. ~~ .' . . .' . '5420. ~",,'.'" '~eff'J . ots ~~en\O\(eC\O< C: Eo\}\COff\ COrporat\oo C\ti couoc\\ 'flit:! 0/. P.O. Box 550 '"~ ~~ 114 Eat Branch Street Ar..oyo a......,CA '3411 COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT ~:(805) 473-5420 ' , . .: FAX: (805)47"" , . ., E-Mail: ..c.ty@.rroyoarande.OI'I March 17, 2000 E. C. Loomis and Son P.O. Box 1110 Arroyo Grande, 93421 RE: General Plan Amendment Request To Whom it May Concem: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for. properties located at 520, 522, and 528 E. Branch Street, APNNos. 07-501-005. 07-501-006. and 07-501-007. In your request you have asked for the. General Plan land use designation.. for these properties to be changed from Village Commercialto Multi-Family Residential. The current version of the Draft Land Use Element defines the Village area as mixed-use. which in principle would allow multi-family residential development on a case-by-case basis. If you . have not done so already, you may wish to familiarize yourselves with the. proposed land'use' policies as well as the proposed mapped designations. A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are available on the City's web site (httD://www.arroyogrande.org) or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. .. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00' p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests invoMng changes' that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. The General. Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings Will be held over the' next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. . You...niay wish to ..reniain involved and infonned as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed thrOUgh normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us' at 473-~20. C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~~of P.O. Box S50 .~.~~ 114 EaSt Bruch Street Arroyo Gr...., CA '3411 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Phone: (805) 473-5410 FAX: (IOS) 473-0_ : E-M"':..cfty@arro,.iude.ora March 17, 2000 Claire Martin . C/o Westland Engineering 75 Zaca Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Ms.' Martin: You have submitted a . General Plan Amendment reqllest to the City of.. Arroyo Grande .for property located on Le Point Street, APN NO. 07-191-049. In yourrequest>youhave asked for the General Plan land use designation for these properties to be changed from Village . Commercial to Multi-Family Residential. The current version of the Draft Land Use Element defines the Village area as mixed-use, which in principle would allow multi-family residential development on a case-by-case basis. If you have not. done so already,' you .may..wish to familiarize yourselves with the proposed land use policies as well as~he proposed map designations. A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are available. . on the City's web site (http://www.arroyogrande.org)or.in hardcopyfrorntheCommunity Development Department. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the . disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes. that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings Will be held. over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan: AII.workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site. If you have any questions or comments, please do. not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. C: Envicom Corporation City Council .~~~ 0/ P.O. Box SSG '.~ &~ 214 Eat Branch Street Arroyo Gra_tCA '3421 . Phone: (805) 47$-5410 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX:(805)47~ March 17, 2000 E-MaR: .cfty@...roy....nde.o... Eugene and Jean Nooker 747 Printz Rd Arroyo Grande; CA 93420 'RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nooker: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the properties located at 735, 737, 747, and 783 Printz Rd, APNNos. 07-781-012, 07-781-041, 07-781-052 and 07...781-053. In the request, you nave asked for the General Plan land use designation for this property to remain as Rural Estate. The current Draft Land Use Element eliminates Rural Estate as a residential category within the City. The lo~t density now proposed is Single Family Residential - Very Low DE!nsity, which. is applied to'YQUr property . and the neighborhoods around Printz Road. This category would allow up to ,One (1) unit per acre. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current DraftreflectsinpuHrom last year's community-wide survey as well as the City's Long Range Planning Committee.. A series of additional wOrkshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and . informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requestsinv61ving . changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. Given the location of your neighborhood, it is likely that future.ailnexation requests will come forward from within the City's Sphere of Influence (501) which encompasseS Printz Road, similar to the recent Village Glen project. Therefore, you may wish to participate in those particular workshops and discussions. As an interested party, you will be notified when ,the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site: lhttc://www.arrovogrande.org). ' A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are .also. available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council . . -------- -~--_.._-'~'~-,_....---- 'fI":t 0/ P.O. Box 550 ..,~~ ~~ 214 EMt,Bnneh Street Arroyo Grande, CA '3421 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PhcRae:,'(805) 47~54ZO FAX: (805) 473-831f , E-MaD: .~lty@...roy"",ande.OI'I March 15, 2000 People's Self-Help Housing Corporation Jeanette Duncan 3533 Empleo St ,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: General Plan An1endment Request Dear Ms. Duncan: You have submitted a General. Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo ,Grande for the property located at 205 Samett St, APN No. 06-174;'009. In your request you have asked for the General Plan land use designation for, this property to be changed fron'l Commercial to _ Multi-Family Residential: The current version of the Draft General Plan indicates this property'., within a Mixed-Use Corridor, which in principle would allow multi-family use. . Your request is therefore reflected in the Draft General Plan. , However, the' property is also withiri a Specific - " - -- " . Plan area in proximity to the Grand AvenuelU8-101 interchange, so there may be a higher- and-better use for the site. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plsn Update will be noticed through nonnal channels,. including announcement on the City's .website: (httD:/lwww.arrovoorande.org). The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000. at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. You may want to participate in this workshop and express your opinions on. the proposed .designation for your ,. property. You may also want to remain involved and infonned as the current. Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. A copy of the Draft General Plan text and the Land Use Policy Map are available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the Community , Development Department at 473-5420. , Sincerel~ Ke . McCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council Wit:! 0/ P.O. Box sse ~ ~~ 214 Eatt Branch Street Arroyo Gnnde, CA 93421 Phone: (185) 473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (185) 473-0_ E-MaIl: aadty@arroyogrande.org March 20, 2000 Don Ritter Castlerock Development 202 H3 Tank Farm Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Letter Dated 3/10/00 Commenting on Draft General Plan Designation; VTTM 1998 Dear Mr. Ritter. Item No.4 of you letter indicates that the entire area east of La Caliada.and north of James.Way should be designated as Single Family - Low Density, rather than induding some portions as Open Space/Restricted. which the Draft Land Use Policy Map currently does. We have referred your request to the General Plan consultant and will likely make appropriate edits as. the Update ..- process continues. By way of explanation. the consultant had been instructed to differentiate actual land uses, in contrast to simple designation as 'PD' which is the way the area had been shown on the previous General Plan map. Not knowing your situation, they assumed that development in this area was completed and that remaining open space areas had all been dedicated as Open Space. Other open space areas (without the 'Restricted' reference) within the City (e.g., east of Noyes Road) have been delineated according to proposed land use policy designed to protect drainages and areas of steep slope. Therefore, in your case we may prefer to take a doser look at topography and differentiate between appropriate open space areas and appropriate development areas more precisely. The main point here is that your letter indicates that a large portion of Tract 1998 will probably end up being dedicated as Open Space; so in principle your. perspective is not essentially different from QUrs, but merely so in the details. As with other areas of the Rancho Grande PO, dedication of open spaces should be integrated with the development proposal, as you have indicated it is your intention to do, so that both private and public objectives are achieved. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted by the Council. You may wish to remain involved and infonned as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site: (htto://www.arrovoqrande.orat A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are alsoavailabte on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. Versions of the Draft General Plan Elements will be updated as policies are discussed and edited. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. Keny L:. cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation ~i7 0/ P.O. Box sse. .~ 8J~ 214 ~ BraDchStreet. Arroyo Grande, CA '3421 Phone: .(105) 473-54%0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (105)473-0. March 17, 2000 E-MaO: .fty@a..royoarande.ora St. John's Lutheran Church 956 Valley Rd Arroyo Grande, 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request To Whom it May Concem: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo .Grande for the property located at 959 Valley Rd, APNNo. 75-021-040. In the request, you have asked that the property be annexed into the City of Arroyo Grande. - Your property is not currently located within the City's designated Sphere of Influence (SOl), nor within a SOl Study Area. for future possible inclusion. Therefore, the property. is not shown. on the Draft Land Use Policy Map, although it is within the Area of Environmental Concem and . thereby,. within the General Plan Study Area. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at. 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change. from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to. discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when.the City Councilhas.established a date for these discussions. The General Plan Update process is ongoing anddearpolicies regarding annexation will need to be established asa part of the Update. While the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey as well as input from the City's Long Range Planning Committee, a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan, and to add your perspective to the deliberations. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web . - site: lhttD://www.arroyoarande.orq). Meanwhile, a copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us at 473-5420.Sjncerely~ '\.Iv- Kerry . ants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council --~- ~~of P.O. Box 550 ~ ~~ _ 214 EISt Bruch Street Arroyo Gr...., CA '3421 Phone: (805) 473-5420 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F AX: (805) 473-I3U E-Mail: ..cfty@.rroy....nde.orl March 17, 2000 Sakamoto/Okui Family c/o James Michael McGillis Arroyo Grancie, CA 93421 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. McGillis: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande on. behalf of the Sakamoto/Okui family for property located on Farroll Rd, APN No.. 77-251-005. In the request, you -have asked that the General Plan designation be changed froITI_ Rural Residential to Single Family Residential. The current version of the Draft Land Use -PolicY Map indicates your property as Multi Family - Low Density, since adjacent land uses to the - south and east are duplexes, which. qualify for the same designation... The _. propOsed . residential policies may not specifically mention this, but it is common practice to allow lower densities under the umbrella of maximum densities. If you have not done so already, you may wish to familiarize yourselves with the proposed land use.. policies as well ... as the proposed mapped designations. A copy of the. Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are available on the City's web site (http://www.arroyogrande.org) orin hardcopy from the Community Development Department - The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT - - annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. The General Plan Update process. is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and-informed as. the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan..AJI workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal.. channels, including announcement on the City's web site If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 4.73-5420, Kerry L. ants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~---"--'-- -----~--'---~---,-,--- ~~o/ P.O. Box 550 '~ ~~ 214 East Bruch Street Arroyo Gr...., CA t3421 , Phone: (805) 473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F AX: (805) 473-0_ ' E-MaD: .fty@arro~...ancle.o... March 17, 2000 . Grace Stilwell 734 Myrtle Ave Arroyo Grande, 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mrs. Stilwell: You have. submitted .a General Plan Amendment request to the .City of Arroyo Grande for properties located at 734 Myrtle Avenue, APN Nos. 07-522-08 and 07-565-04. In your request you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed on APN No~ 07...522-' 08 from Single Family Residential Conditional Use to Single. Family Residential, and on APN NO. 07-565-04 from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential. The current version. of . the Draft land Use Policy Map indicates both these parcels. as Single Family - Moderate Density, which would allow up to 4.5 units per acre. This is the same density as would have been allowed under the designation you requested. Your request is therefore reflected in the Draft General Plan. - However, you should also be aware that any development would. be . subject to proposed agricultural buffering requirements, since you are located adjacent to agricultural uses. You may wish to review the Draft General Plan text (especiallylU3-2) and the land Use Policy Map, copies of which are available on the 'City's web site (htto://www.arroyogrande.org) or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more inten~e use. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey as well as deliberations of the long Range Planning Committee. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few montt1s before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. . " All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the Community Development Department at 473-5420. g:~~ Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council ~ -----~,.,_..,----.,-- -.'--"'-' "-~---- 'if":! 0/ P.o. Box 550 ." "~ 8J~ . 214EMtBrHdaStreet ". Arroyo Grande, CA '3421 . . Phone: (805).473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (805)47~ . E-Man:.clty@arroYOll'anCie.orl March 17,2000 James and Evelyn Stav8 1167 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stava: . . You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the CitY of Arroyo Grande forthe properties located at 1167 and 1212 Flora Rd, APN Nos:07-761-020 and 07-761-021. In the request, you have asked that the General Plan designation for these prdpertiesbechanged . from Agricultural to Residential use. Your request is not reflected in thecun'entvei"sionof .the Draft General Plan, as it is directly contradictory to. proposed land. use' policy. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from . last year's community-wide survey. A series of additional workshops and public. hearings. Will be held over the next few months. before a final General Plan is adopfed, You may. 'tiish to remain involved and informed as -the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. . The City Council will hold. a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., to discuss. the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes which are NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to. a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will. be scheduled in the near" future. . As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has :established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including .announcement on the City's web. site: (http://www.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and. Land Use Policy Map. are Cilso. available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420.. Sincerely, Kerry L.:. CCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council --------. ._-~-------,--------- '------ Cff"? 0/ P.O. Box 550 ..~ 8J~ . 214 East Bruch Street Arroyo Grande; CA '3421 ',COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (805) 473-5420 FAX: (805) 47U. E-Mail: ..clty@.rroy..nde.or. March 17, 2000 Victor T ose , ,295 Alder St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: ' General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Tose: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the pty of Arroyo,'C.?rande for the properties located at 267 and 279 Alder St, APN Nos. 77.;201-009 and 77-291-019. .Inthe, request, you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed. from Single Family Residential to Senior Housing. Although the category of Senior Housing has,been'eliminated from the Draft Update to the Land Use Element, the designation of your property. has' been . ' changed to Multi Family - Low Density, which would allow up to nine (9) units per aae in' attached units. Housing for Special Needs populations, such as seniors, willcontinue!o be. ' eligible for density bonuses,. although in the. future this would apply to all resi~ential areas. of the City and not merely to those formerly designated as SR. Whether this, satisfies yOUr desires or not is something that you need to evaluate for yourself. . You. may wi$h to review the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map, copies of which are available on the City's web. site (http://www.arroyogrande.org) or. in hardcopy from the · Community' Development Department. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss' the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are ,NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and a series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held 'over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. ,You' may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. All . wOrkshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site.. Meanwhile, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. Sincerely, Kerry cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City . Council '-----'-----,---,--- ~~o/ ~ &~. P.O. Box 550 214 EMf Braeh Street ,Arroyo Gnncie, CA '3421 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Phone: (805) 473-~20 FAX: (105) 473-8_ E-Mail: .Ity~.....oy....nde.orl March 17, 2000 Bruce Vander Veen 473 Hazel Lane Nipomo, CA93444 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Vander Veen: . . , You have submitted a General.Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the property located at 1273 Branch Mill Road, APN No. 07-761-022. .lnthe.reqUest, you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed fromAgriculturaltoa~.Residential use. Your' request is not reflected in the current version of the Draft General Plan; as it ISdiredly contradictory to proposed land use policy. The General Plan Update Process is ongoing ,and the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey. ASenes of additional wOrkshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a tinalGeneral Plan is adopted. You. may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop' on March 28, 2000 to. at 7:00 p.m. ,to. discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve changes, which are, NOT annexations, or a change from agriCLiltural to a more. intense use. A separate workshop. to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the. near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has eStablished a ' date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the. City's web site: (http://www.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map. are also' available on the City's web. site or in hardcopy from the Community Development DepartrT1ent. 'If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. , Sincerely.. ~ Kerry L. cCants Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation . City Council ~~of P.O. Box 550 ~ 8f~ 114 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA'3411 . - .:: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (805) 473-5410 _ FAX: (805) 473-0_ E-M.n: aacfty@arroy.....nde.o... March 17, 2000 Lawrence and Florence Vandeveer 756 Myrtle Ave - ,Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Vandeveer: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the property located at 756 Myrtle Ave, APN No. 07-565-005. In the request, yOu have asked. . that the General Plan designation be. changed from Rural Residential to Single F~mily . Residential. The current version of the Draft Land Use Policy Map. indicatesthisparcets. as' Single Family --Moderate . Density, which would allow up to 4.5 units~r acre. _ This is the same density as would have been allowed under the designation' you requested.. Your request is therefore reflected in the Draft General Plan. However, you should also be aware that any development would be subject to proposed agricultural buffering requirements, since you are located adjacent to agricultural uses. You may wish to review the Draft General Plan text (especially LU3-2) and the Land Use Policy Map, copies of which.are.available on. the City's - web site (htto://www.arrovoarande.ora) or in hardcopy .- from the Community Development Department. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT . - annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey as well as deliberations of the Long Range Planning Committee. A series' of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and.inforrned as the CLirrent Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. '. ... All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site. Meanwhile, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420 Kerry ants Community Development Department C: Envicom Corporation City Council .~"? 0/ P.O. Box 550 ~ &~ 214 EMt Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 .' .. . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .Phone: (80S) 473-5420 FAX: (8OS)47~ March 17, 2000 .. E-Maft: ..cfty@...roy....nde.o... EDA jeff Wagner 1320 Nipomo St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Wagner: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request. to the City of f:.!r:oyo Grande on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints for the pro~rtyJocated on Fair Oaks L - . .' Blvd, APN No. 06-641-018. In the. request, you have asked that the General Plan designation be changed to allow the building of a church on approximately 4 acres, with ttle:rE:!maioder of the pro~rty to remain as agricultural use. Your request is notreflected intnecUri"ent version of the Draft General Plan, as it is directly contradictory to proposed land. use policy.. .The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from last year's. community-wide survey. A series of additional workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted; You may Wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at. 7:00 . p.m.. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests that involve. changes,which ;;Ire NOT annexations, or a change from agricultural to a mor~ intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal channels, including announcement on the City's web site: (http://WwN.arroyogrande.org). A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also ~vailable on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 473-5420. Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council __,__.. ..__..__..m_____"'_____~.._ ~i7 0/ P.O. Box 550 ~ ~~ ' ' 114 East Bruch Street Arroyo Grande, CA "-111 Phone: (805) 473-5420 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: (105) 47~ ' March 17, 2000 E-MaO: ..clty@...roy....nde.o... Les White 783 Printz Rd Arroyo Grande, CA' 93420 RE: ' General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. White: 'you have submitted a General Plan Amendment request tothe City of Arroyo Grande for tha properties located at 735, 737, 747, and 783 Printz Rd, APN Nos. 07-781-912,07-781-041, 07~781-052 and 07-781-053. In the request, you have asked for the General Plan land use designation for this property. to remain as Rural Estate. The current Draft Lcind Use Element. eliminates Rural Estate' as a residential category within the City. The lowest density now' proposed is Single Family Residential - Very Low Density, which is applied to your prpperty and the neighborhoods around Printz Road. This category would allow up to one (1) unit per acre. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and the current Draft reflects input from ' last year's community-wide survey as. well as the City's Long Range Planning Committee'. A , series of additional workshops and public hearings will be .heldover . the. next, few months ' .before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the ' , current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan. The City. Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to . discuss the ' disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are NOT, annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in the near future. Given the location of your neighborhood, it is likely that future annexation requests will come forward from within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOl) which encompasses ,. Printz Road, similar to the recent Village Glen project. Therefore, you may wish to participate in those particular workshops and discussions. As an interested party,. you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will also be noticed through normal Channeis,.induding announcement on the City's web site: lhttD://www.arrovogrande.orgt . . A copy of the Draft General Plan text and Land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department. If you have any questions or cOmments, please do not hesitate to contact us at 473-5420. . . Kerry L. cCants Community Development Dire~or C: Envicom Corporation City Council w~o/ P.O. Box 550 ~ 8f~ 214 East Branda Street Arroyo Grade; CA 93421 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (885) 473-5420 FAX: (105) 473-0_ E-MaD: 8IC1tJ@arroyoarande.ofl March 17, 2000 Pat Williams 2420 Brady lane Arroyo Grande, 93420 RE: General Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Williams: You have submitted a General Plan Amendment request to the City of Arroyo Grande for the property located South of Frederick's Ranch on the East side of Highway 101. In the request, you have asked that the property be annexed into the City of Arroyo Grande. Your property is not currently located within the City's designated Sphere of Influence (501), nor within a 501 Study Area for future possible indusion. Therefore, the property. is not shown on the Draft land Use Policy Map, although it is within the Area of. Environmental Concem and thereby, within the General Plan Study Area. The City Council will hold a workshop on March 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the disposition of all General Plan Amendment requests involving changes that are. NOT annexations or a change from agricultural to a more intense use. A separate workshop to discuss annexation requests and changes from agricultural use will be scheduled in.the near future. As an interested party, you will be notified when the City Council has established a date for these discussions. The General Plan Update process is ongoing and clear policies regarding annexation will need to be established as a part of the Update. While the current Draft reflects input from last year's community-wide survey as well as input from the City's long Range Planning Committee, a series of additionaJ workshops and public hearings will be held over the next few months before a final General Plan is adopted. You may wish to remain involved and informed as the current Draft evolves into the adopted Plan, and to add your perspective to the deliberations. All workshops and hearings related to the General Plan Update will be noticed through nonnal channels, induding announcement on the City's web site: (htt.o:/Iwww . arrovoarande.org ). Meanwhile, a copy of the Draft General Plan text and land Use Policy Map are also available on the City's web site or in hardcopy from the Community Development Department If you have any questions or comments, please contact us at 473-5420. Community Development Director C: Envicom Corporation City Council Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Dorfman Homes Welfare Assn. H.E. and Sarah E. Been Seirin Ideda, Trustee 1212 Flora Rd. Ed Dorfman 145 S. Halcyon Rd., Suite E Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 285 La Cresta Dr. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 People's Self-Help Housing Corp. Coker Ellsworth Reuel D. Estes Jeanette Duncan 3533 Empleo St. 129 Bridge Street, Suite B 811 E. Cherry San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Linda Fibich John French Velma Harris 41 2 Emerald Bay Drive 3942 Hollyhock Way 677 Woodland Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Milton Hayes Walter Hollywood Pearlie Hughes 1 54 Traffic Way 5516 Halifax Road 555 Pearlie Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Heather Jensen Alton and Linda Jones James and Betty Lawler 569 May St. 1189 Flora Rd. 721 Lemoore Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Clinton LeFevre E.C. Loomis and Son Claire Martin P.O. Box 668 P.O. Box 1110 C/o Westland Engineering Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 75 Zaca Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Eugene and Jean Nooker Don Ritter St. John's Lutheran Church Castlerock Development 747 Printz Road 202 H3 Tank Farm Road 956 Valley Rd. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Sakamoto/Okui Family George Lowe James and Evelyn Stava C/o James Michael McGillis P.O. Box 1127 246 Roosevelt A venue 1167 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Ventura, CA 93003 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Grace Stillwell Victor T ose Bruce Vander Veen 734 Ave. 295 Alder St. 473 Hazel Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Nipomo, CA 93444 . EDA Lawrence and Florence Vandeveer Jeff Wagner Les White 756 Myrtle Ave. 1320 Nipomo St. 783 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 (LDS Church) ----".--------~-- Pat Williams Fred Scott Mary VanAchen Scott and Associates Jim Hale 2420 Brady Lane 1009 N. Demaree 773 Printz Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Visalia, CA 93921 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (LOS Church) FREDERICK & KATHLEEN WENDELL 737 PRINTZ RD ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420 .."._,-,_. -------,~~ ii.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KERRY McCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 11.B. - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS DATE: March 24, 2000 The attached letters were received subsequent to the printing of the Council agenda on March 24, 2000. c :\supp.memo.agenda .032400 -'- ._'-'-----'------------ --~----,-,_.._,-~~_.~ . ," March 1fWiC~ TO: City Council, Ci ty of Arroyo Grande CITY OF ARR YO GRANDE SUBJECT: Draft: General Plan Update, Febr. ~MAR~~2s06 rel Residential-Estate (R-E) category. As residents of the existing R-E area we have great interest in the General Plan Update (Ref. I). We strongly wish to maintain the present designation and associated provisions for our area. The Draft, General Plan Update deletes the R-E category. It was with surprise that we very recently learned of the intent to eliminate the R-E category and allow smaller, more dense lots. So far as we know, no one in our area was contacted about the wishes of the R-E residents. We did write to the City as long ago as 1997 about our desire to retain our R-E status) Mr. McCants did recently send us a written notification (March 17, 2000; Ref. 2 & 3). And we did respond to last years community wide survery, requesting the retention of R-E, large lots, diversity throughout the city, etc. In 1979 the residents of the Arroyo Grande thumb region (north Arroyo Grande, approximately 46 acres), accessible from Printz Road, worked with the then Planning Director, the Planning Commission, and the City Council over a period of quite a few months to establish a large lot residential area. Since this area is beyond city water and sewer services, the lot size (2~ acre) is partially determined by the need for on-site water wells and septic sewer systems. This work resulted in Ordinance No. 198 C. S. (Ref. 4) which had the many associated provisions for such an area. In 1979 the region was referred to as a Residential-Suburban District; this title was changed to Residential-Estate in the General Plan Update in the 1990-91 period (Ref. 5 & 6); original Ordinance provisions were retained. It will be noted in Ref. 7 that the R-E category has been retained in the Water System Master Plan. However, no pro- vision is made for future water or sewer service to our area. Thus, large 2~ acre lot sizes are still essentially required, particularly when other things like small orchards, swimming pools, tennis courts, large animals, etc., are desired and do exist here. For some 20 years the original ordinance and subsequence code have been highly successful and satisfactory. We have maintained and enjoyed a very desirable area at little or no cost to the City. We request t~at the present R-E category and provisions/requirements be retained. Most of the lots are 90:Z Wd *tZ WW 00 30NV(l9 OAO~~V :10 All:)03M]03H - - ~ developed but a few remain to be donB. Also quite important is the intention to "pre-zone" the Arroyo Grande Sphere of Influence to allow one-acre usage (the Sphere adjacent to north Arroyo Grande around Printz Road, Noyes Road, Old Oak Park Road) . See Figure 6 of Ref. 1 . This would seem to be premature. Such an idea would sub- stantially change the present area environment -- and most of us are here in this local region because we favor the present area environment. We do not believe that this local region can support the large number of one-acre parcels with on-site water wells and sewer systems, large animals, etc. And there seemingly have been no realistic proposals envisioned to furnish water, sewer, traffic, etc. , to such a large area. REF. : 1) City of Arroyo Grande, Draft: General Plan Update; Febr. , 2000; 2) Letter to Community Development Department, General Plan Update -- Residential-Estate (R-E) district; Sept. 5, 1997; 3) Letter from Kerry L. McCants, Arroyo Grande Community Development Department; March 17, 2000; 4) Ordinance No. 198 C. S. ; Residential-Suburban R-S District; adopted Sept. 26, 1979; 5) City of Arroyo Grande, General Plan, 1990, Consoli- dation, May 22, 1990; 6) City of Arroyo Grande, Development Code, Chapter 9-06 R-E District; June 13, 1991 ; 7) City of Arroyo Grande, Water System Master Plan, Final Version, July 13, 1999. ~')U /J t 71~ (07-781-050, 07-781-051, 07-781-052) CI~6 ot.~ GRANDE MarcH , 2 TO: City Council, City of Arroyo Grande 00 HAR 24 PH 2= 06 SUBJECT: Draft, General Plan Update, Fe br . 2000; Comments reI Residential-Estate (R-E) zone. The Draft of the General Plan Update eliminates the Residential Estate (R-E) category. We disagree with this. First, we believe that you should retain the present R-E category (R-E) fo r our area -- the approx. 46 acres of the Arroyo Grande thumb region (Printz Road-Easy Street area). We wish to retain our present lot size, on-site wells and sewer systems, and the presently permitted uses and require- ments. This R-E zone was established in 1979 (Ordinance 198 C.S.) after very extensive studies and discussions with the city staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council. The 1990-91 General Plan and Devlopment Code continued the provisions of Ordinance 198 C.S. Second, we ask that our area not be directly impinged upon by roadways through or next to our area. ~ *J/W )f). 71 ~ 747 Printz Road ii.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICK TerBORCH, INTERIM CITY MANAGE~ SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 11.B. - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 The attached letters were received subsequent to the distribution of the Council agenda on March 24th. c :\supp. memo .agenda .032800 _.'---- - --------------- '---..,-'.. LESTER WHITE RECEIVED CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 783 Printz Rd Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 00 MAR 28 AM 10: 08 (805) 489-7453 elblanco 1 @msn.com March 27, 2000 Arroyo Grande City Council On Sept 5, 1997 I signed a letter requesting the R-E remain unchanged. Today I am in agreement with the general plan amendment designating single family-very low density (SFR-Vl) a density of 1.0 unit/acre. ~~ ~jJf;;eiz Sign ture RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2000 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. -~_.,-,---~----"---"'---"._'------- March 20, 2000 TO: City Council, City of Arroyo Grande SUBJECT: D ra f t, General Plan Update, Fe br . 2000; Comments reI Residential-Estate (R-E) zone. The Draft of the General Plan Update eliminates the Residential Esta te (R-E) ca tego ry . We disagree with this. First, we believe that you should retain the present R-E category (R-E) fo r our area -- the approx. 46 acres of the Arroyo Grande thumb region (Printz Road-Easy Street area) . We wish to retain our present lot size, on-site wells and sewer systems, and the presently permitted uses and require- ments. This R-E zone was established in 1979 (Ordinance 198 C.S.) after very extensive studies and discussions with the city staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council. The 1990-91 General Plan and Devlopment Code continued the provisions of Ordinance 198 C.S. Second, we ask that our area not be directly impinged upon by roadways through or next to our area. f LV C") C) ~ C) ~ :x 0 ~ """, ):lorn S"i:) ~o Of) ::::orrt 0'- ~ -<< o~ a C) ::::0 .. )> - 5 s:- . f'11 -- --,-,----~-'---------------, March 20, 2000 RECER'VEoDGRAunE. . . .. CITY OF AR OY rw ~ TO: C1ty Counc11, C1ty of Arroyo Grande 00 HAR 27 AM 10: 02 Subject: Draft, General Plan Update, Febr. 2000; Comments reI Residential Estate (R-E) zone. The draft of the General Plan Update eliminates the Residential Estate (R-E) category. We disagree with this. First, we request that you retain the present R-E category for our area -- the approx. 46 acres of the Arroyo Grande thumb region (Printz Road-Easy Street area). We wish to retain our present lot size, on-site wells and sewer systems, and the. presently permitted uses and requirements. This R-E zone was established in 1979 (Ordinance 198 C.S.) after very extensive studies and discussions with the city staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council. The 1990-91 General Plan and Development Code continued the provisions of Ordinance 198 C.S. Second, we ask that our area not be directly impinged upon by either roadways through our area or by roads immediately next to our area -- such as t~~gure 6 of the Draft. rb oa , ci ty (P$? I~ ~f>.I C/-I-y 735 Print ad, ~~ hS 7 P/Ji/</7z RO~J CI"? ~A){l~ , &, 8? ,!J,<t.IIJT-z. J€"Aci.) Cliy ~-~ 1,,-:;;; ~.. ** r\ear city boundary, in Sphere of Influence lid!- .' 'fi,t o't~b/ 73$ t;.,;f?r RtPari firt. ~ (yUeJ- ~lI~df~Jirle-I.J pf- ~ ~ ynIW K I ('~ fh,v7 07-78(- 012.. (") g ~ :x <:) ~ 1\ >~ '" ::;on -.J ~ 0- :P> .-<< :x o~ 6 C'> .. ::0 o :P- c..- :z: e::> M March 18, 2000 TO: City Council, City of Arroyo Grande SUBJECT: Draft: General Plan Update, Febr. 2000; Comments rel Residential-Estate (R-E) category. As residents of the existing R-E area we have great interest in the General Plan Update (Ref. 1). We strongly wish to maintain the present designation and associated provisions for~ our area. The Draft, General Plan Update deletes the R-E category. It was with surprise that we very recently learned of the intent to eliminate the R-E category and allow smaller, more dense lots. So far as we know, no one in our area was contacted about the wishes of the R-E residents. We did write to the City as long ago as 1997 about our desire to retain our R-E status; Mr. McCants did recently send us a written notification (March 17, 2000; Ref. 2 & 3). And we did respond to last years community wide survery, requesting the retention of R-E, large lots, diversity throughout the city, etc. In 1979 the residents of the Arroyo Grande thumb region (north Arroyo Grande, approximately 46 acres), accessible from Printz Road, worked with the then Planning Director, the Planning Commission, and the City Council over a period of quite a few months to establish a large lot residential area. Since this area is beyond city water and sewer services, the lot size (2~ acre) is partially determined by the need for on-site water wells and septic sewer systems. This work resulted in Ordinance No. 198 C. S. (Ref. 4) which had the many associated provisions for such an area. In 1979 the region was referred to as a Residential-Suburban District; this title was changed to Residential-Estate in the General Plan Update in the 1990-91 period (Ref. 5& 6); original Ordinance provisions were retained. It will be noted in Ref. 7 that the R-E category has been retained in the Water System Master Plan. However, no pro- vision is made for future water or sewer service to our area. Thus, large 2~ acre lot sizes are still essentially required, particularly when other things like small orchards, swimming pools, tennis courts, large animals, etc., are desired and do exist here. For some 20 years the original ordinance and subsequence code have been highly successful and satisfactory. We have maintained and enjoyed a very desirable area at little or no cost to the City. We request that the present R-E category and provisions/requirements be retained. Most of the lots are developed but a few remain to be done. Also quite important is the intention to "pre-zone" the Arroyo Grande Sphere of Influence to allow one-acre usage (the Sphere adjacent to north Arroyo Grande around Printz Road, Noyes Road, Old Oak Park Road). See Figure 6 of Ref. 1 . This would seem to be premature. Such an idea would sub- stantially change the present area environment -- and most of us are here in this local region because we favor the present area environment. We do not believe tha t this local region can support the large number of one-acre parcels with on-site water wells and sewer systems, large animals, etc. And there seemingly have been no realistic proposals envisioned to furnish water, sewer, traffic, etc. , to such a large area. REF. : 1 ) City of Arroyo Grande, Draft: General Plan Update; Febr. , 2000; 2) Letter to Community Development Department, General Plan Update -- Residential-Estate (R-E) district; Sept. 5, 1997; 3) Letter from Kerry L. McCants, Arroyo Grande Community Development Department; March 17, 2000; 4) Ordinance No. 198 C. s. ; Residential-Suburban R-S District; adopted Sept. 26, 1979; 5) City of Arroyo Grande, General Plan, 1 990 , Consoli- dation, May 22, 1990; 6) City of Arroyo Grande, Development Code, Chapter 9-06 R-E District; June 13, 1991; 7) City of Arroyo Grande, Water System Master Plan, Final Version, July 13, 1999. /" ~ , I AIr 71~J, ' 1 fi'-W -/ (07-781-050, 07-781-051, 07-781-052) C") c =t c -< :z 0 :a:.. ....;::0 ::0 N )>j1i CD ::oC") ::oPi :a:.. ~~ :z O,P1 - 0 9 C) ::0 - 3> ~ ~ O. f"I1 .. , ... ... A TT ACHMENT 5 .". . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE .___'V" _" ,...m.. _... Prepared for: City of Arroyo Grande Department of Community Development 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Contact: Mr. Kerry L. McCants Prepared by: Envicom Corporation 28328 Agoura Road Agoura Hills, California 91301 Contact: Mr. Rick Harter February 2000 -......-. ~ f , DRAFT 2/22/00 THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE.. City Council Michael A. Lady, Mayor Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor Pro-Tern Thomas A. Runels Steve Tolley Jim Dickens Planning Commission Laurence Greene, Chair Nand Parker, Vice Chair Joseph M. Costello John Keen Martin London Long Range Planning Committee Steve Tolley, Chair City Council Nanci Parker Planning Commission Colleen Martin Parks and Recreation Commission Kirk Scott, Vice-Chair Traffic Commission Ira Hughes Downtown Parking Advisory Committee Heather Jensen Chamber of Commerce Dennis Donovan Agriculture Representative Herman Olave Senior Advisory Committee City Staff Kerry 1. McCants, Community Development Director Rick TerBorch, Interim City Manager CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Draft 2/22/00 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SECTI:ON I:NTRODUCTI:ON TO THE GENERAL PLAN Purpose and Function of the General Plan Statutory Requirements Amending the General Plan Purpose of this General Plan Update Elements of the General Plan Relationship Among General Plan Elements Definition of Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Measures Relationship to Other Documents and/or Planning Programs Program EIR Development Code/Zoning Specific Plans/Planned Developments Community Participation and Input Visions Workshop Alternatives Workshop General Plan Citizens' Survey Community Vision as the Basis for General Plan Update LAND USE ELEMENT Introduction Location and Regional Setting - Jurisdictional and Planning Boundaries Population Trends Identification of Issues (Opportunities and Constraints) Primary Land Use Considerations Objectives, Policies and Implementing Policies . Distribution and Pattern of Growth Agriculture (Ag) Residential Neighborhoods Single Family (SFR) Multi-Family (MFR) Housing for Special Needs Commercial Centers and Districts CITY OF ARROYO GRAN~E GENERAL PLAN UPDATE i Draft 2/22/00 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE- Regional Commercial (Rq Community Commercial (cq Neighborhood Commercial (Nq Professional Office (PO) Business Park (BP) Mixed Use Centers and Districts Village Center M Mixed Use Corridor (MU) Public and Institutional Land Uses Community Facilities (CF) Schools and Parks (SIP) Open Space (OS) Growth Management Town Character Plan Mechanisms ("Overlays" I Combining Designations) Conservation Areas (CO overlay) Specific Plans (SP overlay) . Planned Development (PD overlay) , Urban Growth Regional Cooperation and Coordination The Land Use Plan Land Use Policy Maps Land Use Classifications and Standards Estimated General Plan Development Capacity Implementation Measures CIRCULATION ELEMENT To Be Updated; Not Part of Current Documentation HOUSING ELEMENT Separate Document; Not Part of Update AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT Introduction Objectives, ~olicies and Impleme~ting Policies Prime Farmland CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ii ---- Draft 2/22/00 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. Water Resqurces Scenic Resources Biological Resources Access to Non-Urban Environment Natural Processes (Flood, Fire, Landslide, Earthquake) Cultural Resources Hillsides Implementation Measures NOISE ELEMENT Separate Document; Not Part of Update SAFETY ELEMENT Separate Document; Not Part of Update PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT . To Be Updated; Not Part of Current Documentation LIST OF FIGURES Figure LU-1Regional Location Figure LU-2Local Vicinity Figure LU-3Planning Area Boundaries Figure LU-4Land Use Policy Map Figure LU-5 Area of Environmental Concern CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE iii ~---~~ DRAFT 2(l.2jOO . INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCfION TO THE GENERAL PLAN , I Purpose and Function of the General Plan The General Plan is the foundational policy document of the City of Arroyo Grande. It defines . the framE:work by which the physical, economic, and human resources of the City are to be managed and utilized over time. By providing a basis for rational decision making, this document guides civic decisions regcuding land ~e, the design and/or character of buildings 'and open spaces, ~e conservation of existing housing and the provision of new dwelling units, the provi;sion of supporting infrastructure and public services, the protec:tion of environmental resources and agricultural uses, the allocation of fiscal resources, and the protection of residents from natural and human-caused hazards. The General Plan acts to clarify and articulate the intentions of the City with respect to the rights and expectations of the public, property owners, and prospective investors and business interests. The Plan informs these groups of the goals, objectives, policies, and development standards of the City and the expectations and responsibilities of all sectors in meeting these. Statutory Requirements Califo~a State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires that each city prepares and adopts a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for its future development. This plan must contain seven elements, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety, and must conform to the guidelines found in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. In addition to the seven required elements, state law permits cities to include optional elements in their general plans, thereby providing local governments with the flexibility to address the specific needs and unique character of their jurisdictions. California State law requires that the day-to-day decisions of a city follow logically from and be consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 656474 require that zoning ordinances and subdivision and parcel map approvals be consistent with the General Plan. Amending the General Plan In general, the City may not amend anyone of the mandatory elements of its General Plan more than four times in one calendar year. Typically, General Plan amendments are associated with privately initiated development projects. The General Plan Guidelines suggest the following criteria for General Plan amendments: . The amendment must be in the public interest; . The amendment must be consistent with other parts of the General Plan; . If the amendment necessitates other changes to the plan, those changes must be considered at the same time in order to maintain internal consistency; and . If the amendment necessitates changes in zoning or other ordinances, those changes should be considered within a reasonable time. The Guidelines also note that if a jurisdiction finds itself making frequ.ent piecemeal amendments, major defects may exist in the general plan and the jurisdiction should consider a plan update or major plan revisio~ to address these issues. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN purpose of this General Plan Update The City of Arroyo Grande's General Plan was last updated in 1990. Significant changes in the City's existing conditions and community have occurred since that time which necessitate the review and modification as necessary of the City's visions, goal, objectives, and policies and/or implementation mechanisms. These changes are related to population growth, characteristics, and needs; traffic conditions; economic marketplace; commercial trends; housing construction costs, pricing. and afford ability; and pressures for the development of agricultural lands. Elements of the General Plan The City of Arroyo Grande's General Plan includes the seven mandated general plan elements (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, ConServation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety) and one optional element (Recreation). Open Space and Conservation were combined in the City's 1990 General Plan. The title of this element has now been changed to Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation, reflecting the added emphasis on agricultural preservation policies in this updated element. Table 1 summarizes the update status of each element. ])ate.ofo,qu:rrent .'Adopt'ed ',::Bleiii.eht Land Use 1990 Circulation 1990 Housin 1990 Agriculture, 1990 Draft update element prepared, o en S ace and Conservation ublic review in ro ess. Noise 1990 Safe 1990 Recreation 1990 ess. Relationship Among General Plan Elements As a comprehensive strategy for the management of a city's diverse physical, economic, and social resources, there is a high level of , interrelationship among the topics and elements of the General Plan. The La~d Use Element provides for the types, density/intensity, design, and distribution of commercial residential and industrial development as well as public and private open space. The Circulation Element identifies the circulation infrastructure needed to support the uses accommodated by the Land Use Element. The Housing Element provides for the manner in which existing housing will be conserved and new housing will be produced, in context of the areas permitted for development by the Land Use Element. The Agriculture, Open Space, and Conservation Element defines policy for the protection of significant resources in context of new land use development. The Noise Element identifies and protects against adverse noise levels created by land. use patterns and associated activity. The Safety Element provides for the protection of humans and uses from the adverse effects of natural and man-caused hazards. The Recreation Element defines the range of services needed to support the City's residents, I businesses, and visitors. All elements of a General Plan contribute to its comprehensiveness and are considered of equal I I weight and importance under the law. Therefore, no single element - including the Land Use element -" has priority or preference, and it is important that various elements be consistent with , one another CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2 DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN Definition of Obiectives, Policies, and Implementation Measures Each element of the General Plan is made up of a set of objectives, policies, and policies and implementation measures. Some. policies are also expressed in maps and diagrams. Objectives define general future goals re\evant to the issues addressed within each element. They are expressed in the General Plan as desired end states rather than actions. As general expressions of. community desires, they are qualitative and descriptive. In this General Plan, objectives are labeled numerically within each element. For example, objectives contained within the Land Use Element are labeled LUl, LU2, etc. i General Plan policies are set forth for each objective. Two types of policies are offered in this , Plan - general policy statements and implementing policies. Policy statements guide decisions in accordance with objectives. In this General Plan, each policy statement is listed numerically according to the objective it supports. For example, policies that support objective LUl are listed as LUl-l, LUl-2, etc. Similarly each implementing policy' (policy that provides definitions or .more specific direction with regarding to implementing objectives) is listed ben~ath and labeled according to the policy it supports (e.g., implementing policies that support policy LUl-l are labeled LUl-l.l, LUl-l.2, etc.). Implementation measures are actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carries out General Plan policy. Often implementation measures support more than one policy. Therefore, a I list of these measures is provided at the end of each element. ! Relationship to Other Documents and/or Planning Programs Program EIR In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a separate document will be prepared to discuss the environmental impacts associated with implementation of this General Plan and to propose mitigation measures as required. Development Code/Zoning Zoning is one of the primary means of implementing the General Plan. The City of Arroyo Grande's zoning is set forth within its Development Code. The Code divides land within the City into zoning districts and specifies permitted uses and development standards within each district, such the allowable density, minimum lot size, building height and setback limits, fence heights, and parking. The Code requires that proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan. Upon adoption of the General Plan Update, the City will initiate a comprehensive zoning amendment to update the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the General Plan. The City's Zoning Map will also be updated to be consistent with the adopted General Plan Land Use Map. Specific Plans/Planned Developments A Specific Plan is another tool for implementing the General Plan. It is especially useful for planning large projects and sites with environmental and fiscal constraints. The City's zoning code recognizes Specific Plans as .providing an inducement to the development of large-scale mixed-use developments. Specific Plans provide detailed standards and development criteria for the subject project area, including the distribution, location, and extent of land uses within the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN 'u P D ATE 3 -~-_.._-- - .-"..- ~--"-- DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN project area and a description of the utilities and services to be provided in order .to support the proposed development. A Specific Plan is not technically part of the General Plan but must be consistent with the Plan. Any interested party may request the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a Specific Plan. Within the City of Arroyo Grande, Specific Plans are identified for portions of the Grand Avenue mixed-use corridor and other designated areas. Planned Developments are similar in that they set forth a development plan for a large area, using more flexible regulation than standard zoning to accommodate a special land use design or pattern. Planned Developments have been implemented for a large portion of the City's northwest quadrant. Community Participation and Xnput In.order to assure that the General Plan update accurately reflects the community's perspectives I and values and addresses critical issues of the community, public involvement has played an extensive role in the development of this General Plan update. Interviews with community stakeholders, a community-wide survey, public workshops, and other opportunities have been provided to maximize the input of a broad representation of Arroyo Grande's residents, businesses, property owners, and other interested parties. Community participation for this I General Plan update has included the following: I I I Visions Workshop I On February 28, 1998 a workshop was conducted to enable all members of the community to I articulate their visions for the City's future. Approximately 150 people attended the three hour I Visions Workshop. Participants indicated their ideas regarding numerous issues, including the City's vision for its future, growth of the City, land preservation purposes, potential development I of agricultural land, housing, residential neighborhoods, the character of the Village and Grand Avenue, and desirable commercial and recreational uses. The community members who attended the workshop expressed differing priorities and direction for the City with regard to I some of the specific issues raised. However, the results seem to indicate that a majority of the participants concur with respect to the following key issues: . GrCTWth Management. Some level of growth management is required to address development pressures in a way that will provide for economic benefits but will also ensure the protection of a rural/small town character. There was a strong consensus against increasing density and for attracting n~w job opportunities. . Preservation of Agricultural Lands. The participants were in general agreement regarding the need to preserve the City's agricultural lands for a variety of purposes, including food production, the provision of open space, preservation of the City's rural character, an employment base, and a buffer between the City and County. . Residential Uses. High density residential uses and tract housing were strongly discouraged, while residential uses that "fit" / reflect enviro~mental resources were encouraged. . The Village. The participants expressed a desire to maintain the character of the Village by encouraging complementary uses such as outdoor, tourist oriented and cultural uses, promoting pedestrian oriented street improvements, and rerouting bus and truck traffic. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4 ---,--.-....---,- ---,._-,_.- - DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN i I . . .. . Grand Avenue. The results of the workshop indicate a strong community desire to improve the character of the Grand Avenue commercial corridor by providing more attractive shopping; pedestrian oriented development, and a common architectural design theme. . Recreational Uses. A desire for more open space and passive recreational parks was expressed at the workshop, along with strong support for the development of a greenbelt along the Arroyo Grande Creek. Alternatives Workshop In response to the community desires expressed at the Visions Workshop, three pr~liminary, alternative growth concepts were developed. These alternatives illustrated three fundamental options for the future of the City's agricultural properties: (a) preserve as is, (b) allow conversion for low density housing in response to property owners' initiatives upon cessation of agricultural ; , activities, and (c) conversion of agricultural lands for mixed density residential villages : (containing housing; neighborhood centers, parks, and greenbelts). Each alternative illustrated I the possible development of a business park in the southern portion of the City, in response to input by 80 percent of the participants at the Visions WorkShop supporting the development of lands to a~commodate new job opportunities (though the designated location had not been previously endorsed). The alternatives were generally consistent regarding: . Retention of the Village, with new development limited to infill for comparable uses. . Expansion of the Village south along Traffic Way in the long term. . . Revitalization of Grand Avenue west of Highway 101/ with emphasis on the development of a concentrated node east of Oak Park~ improvement for pedestrian oriented activity between Halcyon and the Freeway, and streetscape and property improvements along the entire length. . Establishment of a greenbelt along the length of Arroyo Grande Creek. . Annexation of properties abutting James Way for low density, estate residential, . Development of properties south of East Cherry east of Traffic Way for housing. On June 20, f998 a workshop was conducted to enable all members of the community to review and comment on these preliminary growth concept alternatives. The attendees were given the opportunity to select one of tJ::te alternatives as their preferred alternative, to create a hybrid by re- combining elements from more than one of the alternatives, or to suggest wholly different plan concepts. Based on the public input obtained at this workshop, it wasconc1uded that there is substantial public concurrence for the following: . The preservation of existing agricultural lands. Alternatives that suggested their conversion on property owner initiative or through rezoning had very little support. . The maintenance of the Village as a community and visitor oriented place, with Will projects limited to those that are pedestrian-oriented and comparable in use and scale to those that exist. . The expansion of "Village-type" uses south along Traffic Way. . The revitalization of Grand Avenue including streetscape improvements, the establishment of a node at Oak Park, and enhanced pedestrian activity east of Halcyon. . The establishment of a green way / trail network along Arroyo Grande Creek. . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5 DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN The most significant debate concerned the appropriateness of developing properties in the southern portion of the City and expanding the City boundary to accommodate the development of'a business park. . Factors involved in this issue include the need to balance agricultural preservation goals with goals for increased employment opportunity. In the City of Arroyo Grande, these goals are t9 some extent conflicting due to the lack of non-agricultural land within the .City that would be suitable for development of jobs-generating uses such as a business park. General Plan Citizens' Survey In order to provide the public with another opportunity to provide input regarding the General Plan Update, the City distributed a "General Plan Citizens Survey." The survey included fifteen questions regarding issues similar to those discussed at the public workshops. One survey was sent to each househo~d within the City. About 1,020 surveys were completed and returned to the City. The results of the survey reiterated the community's desire to: . preserve agricultural uses, . manage growth and development, . maintain the character of the community and the Village area, . improve the character of Grand A venue to provide more attractive shoppin~ and . provide for more passive recreational uses. . Community Vision as the Basis for General Plan Update Blending the expressed community desires with a "vision" regarding the quality of life that people cherish in their community and wish to maintain and enhance, the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan has identified five general goals representing an ideal future condition toward which the community continually strives:. . 1. A "balanced" economy . that offers a diversity of employment opportunities in agriculture, retail, service, professional and other industries, and which supports family- managed and other small businesses. 2. An "affordable" community where people who work locally can also afford to live in town and integrate their professional and personal/family roles, within a range of choices in housing type suitable for varied lifestyles and stages in life. 3. A "welcoming" community where residents and visitors can find relaxation, comfort and charm. 4. A "responsible" citizenry who are understanding of ecological relationships and are willing to live within limits that protect sensitive and treasured resources, and who take into account the needs of others beyond their immediate social unit. 5. A "sustainable" community, where use of resources is measured rather than squandered, facilitating the continuity of historical legacies into a desirable future for following generations as well as the present one, on an on-going basis. These principles underlie the objectives and policies expressed in the updated General Plan elements and should inform future augmentations and revisions to the General Plan. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 6 DRAFT 2/22/00 INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN , - . . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 7 .-- . . DRAFT 2/22/00 . LAND USE ELEMENT . . I"TTY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT Xntroduction Location and Regional Setting The City of Arroyo Grande occupies 5.45 square miles (3,488 acres) of land along Highway 101 in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, as shown in Figure 1. It is immediately surrounded to the west and southwest by urban development within Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Oceano (Figure 2). County lands surround the City to the north, east, and south. Hillsides and hillside residential development characterizes lands north and southeast of the City while agricultural uses dominate the Arroyo Grande Valley that extends northeast and south-southwest of the City. Arroyo Grande Creek runs in a generally north-south direction within the eastern portion of the City. ..... Jurisdictional and Planning Boundaries . The focus of this Land Use element is to provide a plan for future land uses within the City of Anoyo Grande. However, future land use patterns within the City must be consider.ed within the context of its surrounding areas. Therefore, the General Plan addresses future land uses within city limits as well as those lands included within the City's "sphere of influence" and "area of environmental concern." . A Sphere of Influence (501) line includes lands within a city's ultimate service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). It typically includes lands Within adjacent surrounding areas. Any changes to the line must be approved by LAFCO. As shown in Figure 3, the City of Arroyo Grande's sphere of influence includes approximately 835 acres of hillside residential land adjacent to the City's northwest boundary, a 185-acre agricultural parcel along the City's eastern border, and a small area along the City's southern border .that is currently o!=cupied with a mobile home park. Areas surrounding the City that affect planning issues within the City are included in an "Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC). This area includes large areas of rural and rural residential County lands primarily to the north, east and south of the City as well as portions of Grover Beach and the unincorporated community of Oceano that border the west and southwest sides of Arroyo Grande. Population Trends The City of Arroyo Grande's population has grown from a small rural town with of population of 3,291 in 1960 to a small suburban community of about 16,000 people as of 1999 (based on the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments [SLOCOG] 1999 Regional Profile). Population growth during the 1960's occurred rapidly, some years exceeding 12 percent, due to the effects of even ~or influxes upon a small initial population size. In the 1970's, growth slowed to an average of seven percent, falling still further in the 1980s to two percent from 1980 to 1985. From 1985 to 1986, the City's population decreased by 22 people; from 1986 to 1987, growth totaled 31 people; and from 1987 to 1990, growth continued at an average of 2.5 percent per year. Annual population increases of less than one percent have marked the 1990s. Current estimates from SLOCOG project the City's population to reach 18,676 in the year 2010 and that the City will reach build~out population before 2020. Identification of Issues (Opportunities and Constraints) THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT The following summarizes significant issues and challenges associated with present and future land uses in the City of Arroyo Grande. These issues and challenges establish the context within which the General Plan is crafted, and which the General Plan attempts to address through its objectives and policies. Regional ContextjRelationship to Surrounding Urban Areas . The 'City ol Arroyo Grande is located along Highway 101, approximately midway between San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria. The US-101 corridor between Santa Maria and Arroyo Grande has been in recent years developing intensively with strip commercial and residential uses, not only within the sprawling City of Santa Maria (which is in northern Santa Barbara County), but also in southern San Lulc; Obispo County, where nodal development occurs at virtually every freeway interchange. ! For travelers heading north on the freeway, Arroyo Grande serves as a gateway to the i . I 1 "Five Cities" area, comprising Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano, and I Shell Beach. As such, the character of the City as perceived along the freeway and ! arterial streets within the City plays a key role within a regional as well as local context , ! The "Five Cities" area has begun to merge as a single urban area, with little or no signs of demarcatio.n between the communities. . . In addition to the quality and scale of urban development within the City, the relationship of built environment to surrounding natural resources - particularly i hillsides, canyons, and ridges located to the north and east - p~ays an important role in defining the character of the area and the City itself. . The community has expressed the desire to retain a small town character within the City and to avoid the types of suburban sprawl that has occurred in other locations, which is perceived by local residents as negative. The City faces the challenge of managing growth in such a way to counter predominant land development market forces that have fashioned the landscape to date. . Regional ContextjRelationship to Agricultural Uses . The Arroyo Grande Valley, comprising approximately 2,500 acres of land along the Arroyo Grande Creek, contains some of the world's most productive agrie,ulturalland. Two key factors that contribute to the sustainability of agricultural production within the Valley are the size of contiguous land area within agricultural production and the relationship of agricultural land to surrounding uses. Currently, Highway 101 and urban development within the City of Arroyo Grande divide agricultural areas north and south of the freeway. Recent development patterns within the City, particularly higher density residential developments. adjacent to agricultural land, have further intruded into agricultural areas and threaten additional divisions within agricultural areas north and south of Highway 101. . Pressure for conversion of agricultural land is a key issue within the City. In addition to local desires regarding agricultural uses, this issue must also be considered in the context of potential effects on the larger pattern of agricultural uses within the Arr~yo Grande Valley as a whole. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT I Development Pressures Within the City of Arroyo Grande . Land within the City of Arroyo Grande comprises gradual to steep uplands to the east and north and a relatively flat alluvial plain in the central, south, and western portions of the City. The Arroyo Grande Creek runs in northeast-southwest direction through the eastern portion of the City. Development within the City has historically concentrated in tl\e southwestern and central portions of the City but has recently spread to hillside areas north of Highway 101. With few vacant parcels remaining within the City and as a result of local economic conditions, a substantial portion of development pressUres within the City have fo~sed on agricultural parcels. . The preservation of agricultural uses within the City remains an important goal within the community as confirmed by the input obtained during the public participation . process for this General Plan update. The City faces the challenge of accommodating growth within the City while maintaining the goal of agricultural preservation. Land Use Planning Within the City of Arroyo Grande I . The City has achieved commendable results with regard to preserving open spaces along I . stream corridors and wooded slopes within Planned Development (PD) areas north of US-101 and with regard to implementation of Neo-Traditional design principles on in-fill projects south of US-I01. As a consequence, however, many developments have realized higher densities than former General Plan standards. Changes in General Plan standards are therefore necessary to reflect actual conditions and realities. . In order to provide opportunities for economic growth and job creation without substantially increasing densities or depleting land resources, redevelopment, in-fill, and revitalization opportunities should be exploited. Prime locations for such initiatives include areas along Grand Avenue and Highway 101. Circulation Constraints Within the City of Arroyo Grande . Highway 101 bisects the City and there is only one interchange with four-way access, at Grand Avenue. Oak Park Boulevard provides three directions of access, but two of them areoffset. Other ramps (at Brisco Road, Halcyon Road, Fair Oaks Avenue, Traffic Way, and just outside city limits at EI Campo Road) are partial, with termini that lead to complex routing on the local street system. . North-south connectivity between areas of the City. on either side of the freeway is limited. Only two roadways (Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard) provide arterial- level cross,ing opportunities, while two others (Brisco Road and Fair Oaks Avenue) provides only limited thru access on the north side of US-101. . The possibilities of engineered solutions to these features of the circulation system are limited by physical considerations and design standards as well as budgetary considerations. The constraints of the circulation system therefore need to be taken into consideration with regard to land use strategies. Historic Legacy and Tatun Character THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE LUE-3 DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT . As evidenced in the public participation process for this General Plan Update, the community of Arroyo Grande values and seeks to retain the existing character of its historic Village area. Uses that are complementary to existing uses, outdoor, tourist oriented, and pedestrian-friendly uses are considered appropriate for the Village by the community. . An important consideration for the Village is its circulation system. Internal streets must accommodate demand generated by adjacent uses, yet ~-traffic - particularly truck traffic - is incompatible with pedestrian modes and should be minimized. . Pedestrian and other non-auto modalities, which were well s~ited to the compact form of the original Village settlement, are poorly developed elsewhere in the City. Design and planning for such modalities would contribute toward' energy efficiency as well as address circulation constraints. Primary Land Use Considerations BecaUse of its geographic location and history, citizens (residents, property owners, business managers and job holders) of the City of Arroyo Grande recognize a stewardship responsibility toward three primary land use features of their community that are unique to the City and define its character in a regional context: . . . Given the fertility of its soils and historical association with agricultural activities in the Central Coast area, a responsibility for protection of its farmland and its remaining agrarian character. . Given the integrity of the City's historic downtown core, a responsibility for preservation and sensitive enhancement of the unique ambiance and character of its "Village" area. . Given its location as the southernmost of the "Five Cities" and its straddling of the US- 101 freeway, recognition of its status and function as a gateway, and a responsibility for defining the character and boundaries of urban development. These factors underlie the definition of objectives and policies within the Land Use element and should be considered as fundamental considerations in any future augmentations or revisions to the Land Use element, as well as the test of consistency between other General Plan elements and the Land Use element. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE I ! ~ ~ () "'"'-i ~ ~ ; \) I i I I I ! i \J (\ \:r) ~ . Z ! I ~ ~ () ~ ~ ~ () CJ C~ L\f(\\~ \\ o GraI\de \ . g p.,stO'l h Ot.:f L\f(\\~ \i\ ~. Beac )> // p\sf(\O C~ L\f(\\~ L Beach \ % t:J Gt'o"et' . .. -~ ........ ........ .'} ,- ........ ) I I I . .( \ ~ \ ). , /' () )0.; "'" // ~ \ Ie - )0.; \. () -, I \_0 \ - a (\ l\:GENO tt\ ~ ~ N<<f'IO (;rande Otj Umils ~ o sphere of \nftuef\Ce ~ _ofEnvi~ eoo<"'" I DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT Objectives, Policies, and Zmplementing Policies Distribution and Pattern of Growth . AGRICULTURAL AREAS LU1 Current acreage of agricultural uses within Arroyo Grande's Area of Environmental Concern maintained or expanded. LU1-1 Within City boundaries and Sphere of Influence, designate all lands currently in agricultural use, and vacant lands having been in agricultural use for at least six (6) . months within the past ten (10) years, as Agriculture (Ag). LU1-l.l Agricultural use shall include grazing by domesticated animals (ego horses, cattle, sheep, goats, etc) or other animals (ego buffalo, ostrich, deer, etc.) managed for commercial or conservation purposesj tending of animals (ego chickens, rabbits, etc.) for the commercial significance of their natural products or value (e.g., eggs, meat, fur) or for conservation purposes (e.g., wildlife refuge); cultivation of food crops intended for human or animal consumption, including products requiring substantial processing after harvest; cultivation of flowers: trees or ornamental flora, including landscaping materials; active management of orchards or vineyards; or any other activity where the soil provides an essential component of commercial productivity. LU1-l.2 Commercial value and significance with regard to agricultural use shall refer to the purpose of the activity rather than to any particular economic threshold. The criterion is whether the activity is pursued on a transactional basis (with the intent to sell agricultural products, directly or indirectly and whether profitable or not; or to qualify for a subsidy related to production or non-production of agricultural goods or services, whether through the tax system or other arrangement) or as the substitute for a transaction (with the intent to avoid the need for purchasing agricultural products, such as in homesteading). Activity pursued for strictly personal consumption or pleasure (eg., keeping a horse for family riding, a goat for household milk, or a small vineyard for home vinting and sharing with friends, etc.) shall not qualify as an agricultural use. LU1-1.3 Agricultural land shall encompass parcels with agricultural uses and one or more residential structures and/ or structures or outbuildings designed to shelter or contain animals or store agricultural products or equipment and supplies. LU1-l.4 Parcels with no agriculturai uses, of a primarily residential nature, shall be considered residential. Parcels with no agricultural uses, which contain uses related to and supportive of agricultural operations, shall be considered agricultural. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl-l.5 Vacant or undeveloped agricultural land shall refer to fallow cropland, grazing land 9r land supporting other agricultural uses as identified in LUl-1.1, that is not in productive use at the time of any designation action or re-designation request. . . LUl-1.6 Land that was entitled for urban development prior to January I, 2000, shall be designated as the land use for which it has been entitled. Parcels designated in the previous General Plan as urban use shall retain non- agricultural designation even though currently in actual agricultural use. LUl-1.7 For purposes of gauging performance with regard to Objective LUl, Ag designated acreage under City jurisdiction and within the City's existing Sphere of Influence is shown in Table LU1-1. Lowland 2 Upland 2 TOTAL . Withm City Limits Withm Sphere of Influel1ce TOTAL City + SOl 1 Acreage estimates are based upon a combination of sources. Calculations for parcels. within the Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP) Study Are~ were based upon tax assessor .records. Parcels outside the CASP Study Area were planimetered from 1:12000 USGS topographic maps. 2 See Land Use Policy LUl-3. LUl-2 Outside the City's Sphere of Influence and within Arroyo Grande's AIea of Environmental Concern, consider those lands identified in San Luis Obispo County's General Plan as Agriculture, which are currently in agricultural use or have been in agricultural use for at least six (6) months within the past ten (10) years, as Agriculture (Ag).. LUl-2.1 County designation shall be fixed as of the date of adoption by the Board of Supervisors (December ~5, 1998) of the County's Agriculture & Open Space Element, regardless of subsequent amendment or re-designation by the County. Official maps showmg precise property lines and land use boundaries are to be found in the County Planning Department. LUl-2.2 City designation of Ag, within the parameters of LUl-2.1, shall be based upon conditions of actual or former agricultural use as of January I, 2000. LUl-2.3 Should landowners of parcels m this area request consideration for mdusion within the City's Sphere of Influence and/ or annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande, the request shall be evaluated against the City's criteria for agricultural designation and zoning, and be subject to all policies and regulations pertaining to that use. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - -.- , DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl-2.4 For purposes of gauging performance with regard to Objective LU1, Ag designated acreage outside the City's Sphere of Influence and within the AIea of Environmental Concern is shown in Table LUl-2. Lowland 2 Upland 2 TOTAL Within SOl Study AIea Remaining AEC TOTAL Area of Environmental Concern 1 Acreage estimates are based upon a combination of sources. Calculations for parcebwithin the Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP) Study Axea were based upon tax assessor records. Parcels outside the CASP Study AIea were planimetered from 1:12000 USGS topographic maps. 2 See Land Use Policy LUl-3. . . LUl-3 Agricultural land shall be considered as two sub-types: Lowland and Upland. Because of soil and slope conditions, which are addressed in the Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element (AOSCE), as well as the physically linuted ":l1d inexpandable nature of these areas, Lowland agricultural areas shall have the highest priority for protection from conversion to urban uses. LUl-3.l Lowland areas shall comprise what are commonly referred to as "bottom lands" within the Arroyo Grande Valley, Huasna Valley, Cienaga Valley and Los Berros Valley. These are typically flat, irrigated, and in intensive crop production. LUl-3.2 Upland areas shall comprise what are commonly referred to as "grass lands" on hillsides and sloped areas generally southeast, east and north of the urban area. These are typically non-irrigated and support low- intensity grazing or dry-land crops. LUl-3.3 Programs to encourage and support maintenance or expansion of agricultural uses shall -account for the difference in resource value between Lowland and Upland areas. LUl-4 Encourage the expansion of agricultural land uses. LUl-4.l Favorably consider requests for re-designation of lands in urban or rural residential, commercial or industrial districts to the Agricultural district. LUl-4.2 Favorably consider requests for annexation of lands contiguous to city limits that are to become part of the Agricultural district. These include lands formerly designated other than Ag as well as those "pre~zoned" as Ag under LUl-2. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE . DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU1-S All Ag-designated lands shall be considered I Agricultural Reserve' for Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) purposes and eligible to enter into Williamson Act contracts to the extent that administrative qualifications are satisfied. LU1-S.1 Continue to directly sponsor Williamson Act contracts on Ag-designated . properties within the City limits. The City's aim shall be 100% participation of qualified Ag-designated properties that are otherwise not protected in perpetuity. LU1-S.2 Support participation in the Williamson Act program by Ag-designated properties within the Area of Environmental Concern under jurisdiction of the County. The City's aim shall be 100% participation of qualified Ag-designated properties that are otherwise not protected in perpetuity. LU1-6 Encourage lot mergers and consolidations within the Ag district, and among properties seeking inclusion into the Ag district, that would meet minimum parcel size requirements for Williamson Act participation and City standards for agricultural uses. LU1-6.l Establish incentives for lot mergers and consolidations. The City's aim s~all be 100% of Ag-designated properties to be qualified for Williamson Act participation and compliant with City standards. . LU1-7 Where lot mergers and consolidations are impractical, encourage the establishment and maintenance of small-scale agricultural uses, specialty crops, and specialized animal facilities. LU1-7.l Discourage rural residences as the primary use on existing small Ag designated parcels. LUl-7.2 Implement a disclosure procedure that would inform existing and prospective owners of substandard-sized properties in the Ag district, that city policy supports active agricultural uses throughout the district and that information resources are available regarding the creation and sustaining of agricultural productivity. LU1-S Encourage the succession of agricultural usage. , LUl-S.l Establish program(s) to provide information and support in establishing more productive use of Ag lands, including conversion to higher value crops. LU1-9 Discourage subdivision of Ag designated property. . LU1-9.1 The minimum parcel size for new land division of Ag designated parcels that are irrigated shall be 10 acres. LU1-9.2 The minimum parcel size for new land division of Ag designated parcels that are non-irrigated shall be 40 acres. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE T T rt::" 0 DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU1-10 Where land division of an Ag designated property is proposed, the resulting parcels shall be designed to ensure the long term protection of agricultural resources. LU1-10.1 Refer proposed divisions of agricultural lands to the County Department of Agriculture for review and advisory comment as to whether the proposed parcels can be expected to be sustainable as agricultural parcels. LU1-10.2 Require that resulting Ag parcels meet Williamson Act eligibility standards and enter into Williamson Act contracts if not otherwise protected in perpetuity. LU1-10.3 Require that divisions of Ag designated parcels include covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) notifying subsequent owners that they are purchasing land in an agricultural reserve and that the City supports its 'Right-to-Farm' Ordinance. LU1-10.4 Restrict the buildable area of a subdivided parcel to no more than 10 percent of its total area. LU1-10.5 Accessory buildings or structures shall be sited to minimize disruption of agricultural operations, avoid conversions of productive farmland, and take maximum advantage of existing infrastructure. LU1-11 Allow residential density of no more than two primary dwelling units on each legal parcel of 20 acres or larger within the Ag category. Allow no more than one primary dwelling unit on each parcel of less than 20 acres. LU1-12 Except as provided below, permit only farm-related uses in areas designated Agriculture (Ag). LU1-12.1 Farm-related shall mean activities and structures associated with the growing and/ or production of agricultural pr.oduc~ for income. LU1-12.2 Incidental or supplemental activities (such as roadside stands or bed- and-breakfast accommodations) may be permitted, so long as those activities are related to the primary use, a~e clearly secondary to agricultural use, and take up no more than 10% of the land area in such location that they do not impinge upon agricultural activities of the Ag district. LU1",13 If agricultural use is not economically viable or is otherWise undesirable, encourage maintenance of open'space on Ag designated parcels. LU1-13.1 Require clustered development, preserving no less than 90 percent open space in dedicated easement. LU1-13.2 Give favorable consideration to proposals involving a use that is compatible with open space in passive or natural state. The City's aim THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE _..."~ - DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT shall be to provide for long-term sustainability of habitat and scenic values associated with open space. LUl-14 Discourage conversion of land within Ag designated areas to urban uses. LUl-14.1 Establish program(s) to transfer development rights from Ag designated properties into urban core areas that are targeted for increased development density. LUl-14.2 Establish program(s) to maintain agricultural or conservation uses on Ag ~esignated properties. LUl-14.3 Cooperate with the County, service districts, and agricultural organizations/ agencies to esta~lish urban service and urban reserve lines that will protect agricultural land and stabilize agricultural uses within the Area of Environmental Concern. LUl-15 Favorably consider the re-designation into urban use ofan Ag parcel or contiguous set of parcels within City boundaries or Sphere of Influence, if and when the set of such parcels is less than minimum size and is widowed from other agricultural uses. LUl-15.1 'Widowed' shall refer to a parcel or set of parcels being surrounded on all sides by existing urban uses, such that it lacks contiguity with or connectivity to other areas of agricultural use. LUl-15.2 In cases that are considered for. re-designation, the parcel(s) shall be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be subject to environmental analysis as referenced in AOSCE Policy Agl-4. LUl-16 In considering re-designation requests, avoid the leapfrogging of parcels in agricultural use that would result in other Ag parcels being widowed by the re- designation. LUl-16.1 Consider uses within County jurisdiction as well as uses within City jurisdiction when applying the contiguity and connectivity criteria. LU2 Continued economic viability of agriculture as a specialized industry. LU2-1 Support the creation and establishment of new products and the development and enhancement of markets for .agricultural products. LU2-1.1 Favorably consider the succession of new crops or uses (such as vineyards) in appropriate areas, especially in locations that would newly establish or re-establish agricultural productivity. LU2-1.2 Continue support of the Farmers Market in Arroyo Grande on a regular basis in one or more appropriate locations that maximize produce sales and create a synergy with other commercial uses and transportation systems. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU2-1.3 Favorably consider land use proposaLs for marketing local agricultural produce that are compatible with surrounding uses and are adequately served by neceSsary infrastructure. LU2-2 Support the development of new techniques and new practices in agricultural production. LU2-2.1 Favorably consider proposals for agricultural uses and practices that are compatible with surrounding uses. LU2-2.2 Minimize the burden to agricultural operators of any review and permitting requirements by the City. LU2-2.3 Affirm the City's Right to Farm Ordinance and its extension to emergent . . techniques and practices. LU2-3 Pr.ovide incentives for landowners to maintain land in productive agricultural uses. LU2-3.1 Encourage the establishment of small-scale agricultural uses, specialty crops, and specialized animal facilities on existing small land parcels in the Ag category. LU2-4 Allow limited visitor-serVing and incidental retail use and facilities in Ag designated areas that are beneficial to the agricultural industry and are compatible with long-term agricultural use of the land. Such uses shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the primary agricultural uses of the site, and meet the criteria of LUl-12.2. LU2-4.1 Visitor-serving uses may include tourism facilities such as bed-and- breakfast lodging or indoor food-serving establishmen.ts. Such uses shall be of a small-scale nature with discrete signage; LU2-4.2 Incidental retail uses may involve on-site, area-specific or product- specific promotion and marketing of agricultural products, such as wine tasting at a vineyard. Such uses shall be of a small-scale nature with discrete signage. LU2-4.3 Locate visitor-serving and incidental retail uses elsewhere than productive agricultural lands unless there are no other feasible locations. Locate new structures where land 'use compatibility, circulation, and I infrastructure capacity is compatible with agricultural uses. . \ i LU2-5 Promote the establishment of service commercial type uses related to the support I I I of local agricultural production. LU2-5.1 Service commercial type uses may include, but are not limited to, farm equipment rental and rep.air services, veterinary services, and bulk supplies. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU2-S.2 I Locate service commercial type uses elsewhere than productive , agricultural lands. Locate such uses in commercial or industrial districts with convenient access to areas ofagricu1tural production. LU2-6 Promote the establishment of compatible industrial facilities that support local I agricultural production, processing, packing, and related industries. i ! LU2-6.1 Compatible industrial facilities shall include facilities that are fully enclosed and do not generate dust, odors or other emissions that may adversely affect urban residents or workers. Such facilities may include small-scale wineries, breweries, ice manufacturing, and other facilities as evaluated on a case-by-case basis. LU2-6.2 Incompatible agricultural facilities of an industrial nature may include poultry operations, hog farms, feed lots, feed and grain mills, meat. packing plants, food processing plants, produce packing sheds, and certain types of transportation facilities for agricultural products and supplies, as evaluated on a case-by-case basis. LU2-6.2 Locate agriculturally related industriaI facilities elsewhere than productive agricultural lands. Locate such uses in commercial or industrial districts with convenient access to areas of. agricultural ptoduction. LU2-7. Support tax and economic incentives that enhance the economic competitiveness of agriculture. LU~ Compatible coexistence of agricultural and urban land uses. LU3-1 Affirm the Right-to-Farm Ordinance. LU3-1.1 Implement a disclosure procedure that would inform potential buyers and sellers of property adjacent to agricultural uses, regarding provisions of the Right-to-Farm Ordinance. LU3-1.2 Extend Right-to-Farm provisions to new areas that are approved for addition to the Agriculture district . LU3-2 Establish criteria for buffers between agricultural and urban land uses. LU3-2.1 .Buffers shall be established on all parcels proposed for development adjacent to agricultural uses, along the property sides that are exposed to agricultural operations. LU3-2.2 No portion of any new residential structure shall be located closer than 100 feet from the site of agricultural operations on a neighboring parcel. Greater distances may be required based upon site-specific circumstances. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -----,,--,-,_._-, - rrn:; 1? DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU3-2.3 The buffer area shall be fenced and landscaped in such manner to discourage human and animal movement between the urban and agricultural ateas and to screen urban uses from dust and wind-borne materials. LU3-2.4 The buffer area shall contain a minimum 20 feet depth of landscaping. Plantings shall be' sufficiently dense and mature to provide aerosol protection within the first year of establishment LU3-2.5 Buffer standards associated with non-residential structures shall account for the type of use, building orientation and building design. LU3-2.6 Implement a disclosure procedure, similar to the Right-to-Farm Ordinance, that would inform potential buyers and sellers of property that, as part of the city's approval of a discretionary land use permit, an agricultural buffer zone has been applied to a property. . LU3-3 Land use conversions shall not adversely affect existing or potential agriculture production on adjacent lands designated Ag or in de facto agricultural use. LU3-4 Ensure that special district levies are equitable with regard to benefits, such that agricultural landowners are not disproportionately assessed -for services that accrUe to urban residents more than farmers or ranchers. Examples of such urban services include fire protection, park and recreation services and neighborhood street lighting. LU3-5 Ensure that trespassing into agricultural areas will be minimized, through signage, access restriction, fines and other available means. Establish procedures for compensation to farmers for damages resulting from vandalism, pilferage, and loss of product from domestic pet predation or other causes. LU3-6 Establish a grievance or arbitration committee to mediate disputes between farmers and non-farm residents. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -- - DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Residential land uses, ranging from large-lot single-family homes to multiple-unit apartment buildings are the predominant uses within the City of Arroyo Grande. Most of the land within the City that has been designated for residential use has been developed; however, pressures for further residential development continue. TlJ,e demand for additional residential development is evidenced by requests for conversion of non-residential designations to residential designations as well as requests to increase the density allowed within residential designated land. The challenge facing the City of Arroyo Grande with respect to residential uses is to accommodate a range of housing types and densities while maintaining the City's small town character, sensitivity to environmental resources and constraints, and compatibility with surrounding uses. LU4 A diversity of residential types and densities within the City. I Residential designations as shown on the Land Use Map are summarized within the following table: .. .....::~~:::f~!t~'~~t~7~~~?~'~!~.(i:~::... .~'fJf2I~~':' ! Single-Family Residential- Very Low Density (SFR-VL) 1.0 d.u.facre Single-Family Residential- Low Density (SFR-L) 2.5 d.u./ acre Single-Family Residential- Moderate Density (SFR-M) 4.5 d.u.f acre Single-Family Residential- High Density (SFR-H) 8.0 d.u./acre / Single-Family Residential - Mobile Home Park (SFR-MHP) 6.5 d.u.j acre" Multi-Family Residential- Low Density (MFR-L) 9.0 d.u./ acre Multi-Family Residential- Moderate Density (MFR - M) 14.0 d.u.f acre Multi-Family Residential- High Density (MFR-H) 25.0 d.u./ acre Planned Development/Specific Plan (PD/SP) NA. LU4-1 Accommodate the development of rural, very low density residential uses in areas designated as Single-Family Residential- Very Low Density (SFR-VL). LU4-1.1 Allow a maximum density of 1 d.u.j acre within the SFR-VL designation. LU4-1.2 Use the SFR-VL 'designation to provide a transition between agricultural/ open space land on the outskirts of and surrounding the City to more dense uses within the City. LU4-1.3 Permit and protect the keeping of large animals on lands within the SFR- VL designation. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -- TJfF _14L DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU4-2 Accommodate the development of suburban, low density residential units in areas designated as Single-Family Residential- Low Density (SFR-L). LU4-2.1 Allow a maximum density of 2.5 d.u.j acre within lands designated as SFR-VL. LU4-3 Accommodate the development of suburban, moderate density residential units in areas designated as Single-Family Resi~ential- Modera~ Density (SFR-M). LU4-3.1 Allow a maximum density of 4.5 d.u./acre within the SFR-M designation. LU4-4 Accommodate the development of suburban, high density detached residential units in areas designated as Single-Family Residential- High Density (SFR-H). LU4-4.1 Allow a maximum density of 8 d.u.j acre within the SFR-H designation. LU4-5 Accommodate the development of mobile home parks in areas designated as Single-Family Residential- Mobile Home Park (SFR-MHP). LU4-5.1 Allow a maximum density of 6.5 d.u.j acre within ~e SFR-MHP' designation. . LU4-5.2 Encourage the location of mobile home parks in areas having good access to major transportation routes. LU4-5.3 Allow for mobile home parks that do not adversely affect surrounding residential uses. LU4-6 Accommodate the development of attached residential units in areas designated as Multi-Family Residential- Low Density (MFR-L). LU4-6.1 Allow a maximum density of 9.0 d.u./ acre within the MFR-L designation. LU4-6.2 Require developments within MFR-L areas to provide amenities such as common open space and recreational areas. LU4-7 Accommodate the development ~f apartment buildings as well as condominium and townhouses in areas designated as Multi-Family Residential - Moderate Density (MFR-M) and Multi-Family Residential- High Density (MFR-H). LU4-7.1 Allow a maximum density of 14.0 d.u.! acre within the MFR-M designation. LU4-7.2 Allow a maximum density of 25 d.u.jacre within the MFR-H designation. LU4-7.3 Encourage development of moderate and high density residential uses in locations with good access to major transportation routes and in close proximity to neighborhood commercial facilities. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU4-7.4 Allow for apartment buildings that do not adversely affect surrounding residential uses. LUS Adequate housing for senior citizens, low- and moderate-income households, and other populations with special needs. LU5-1 Accommodate the development of housing facilities for senior citizeI\S,low- and, moderate-income households, and populations with other special needs, such as the physically challenged. LU5-1.1 Allow for development of housing for low- and moderate-income households, special needs populations, and "Independent living" senior housing within multi-family residential designations (MFR-L, MFR-M, and MFR-H). LU5-1.2 Permit "Congregate Care" and "Assisted living" facilities, which provide support services for seniors, within multi-family residential designations (MFR-L, MFL-M, MFR-H) or mixed use areas (V, MU). LU5-1.3 Permit "Convalescent Care" facilities, which provide continuous medical care, within mixed use 01, MU) or within multi-family (MFR-L, MFR-M, , MFR-H), where they are adjacent to or contiguous with commercial areas. LU5-2 Encourage the development of special needs housing in locations with good access to public transit and shopping facilities. LU5-3 Require that special needs housing projects include recreational amenities for its residents. LU5-4 Provide a density bonus for developments within MFR-L, MFR-M, V, or MU designations that reserve at least 25 percent of the total units for senior/special needs populations. LU5-4.1 Special needs housing is subject to the development standards set forth for by the site's designation. However, developments that reserve at least 25 percent of the total residential units for special needs populations are permitted a maximum density of 25 d.u./ acre. . THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - --- DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND DISTRICTS LU6 Regional commercial and employment uses located along the freeway corridor. LU6-1 Designate regionally-serving commercial (Rq uses in proximity to the US-101 freeway, where adequate access is provided to/from the freeway system.. LU6-2 . The RC category shall provide areas for businesses serving the entire region with a trade area typically exceeding 50,000 people; roughly equivalent to the Five-Cities area and beyond. Businesses allowed to locate in RC areas shall include major retail c~mmercial tenantS associated with a regional mall, "power center" or "lifestyle center". Other businesses permitted in the RC category include major office uses, such as corporate headquarters or regional service centers, research and development facilities, and/or major community facili~es. Freestanding sit-down restaurants serving the traveling public, and automobile uses of a regional nature such as dealerships, may also ,be included.. At a minimum, one or more major businesses whose individual 'footprint exceeds 50,000 square feet should be incorporated. LU6-3 Freestanding or drive-through fast-food restaurants and overnight commercial lodging facilities shall be prohibited in RC areas. LU6-4 Signage in RC areas shall be consistent with the design principles of policy LUl8- 12 and related specific guidelines in the Development Code or other operative regulations. LU6-5 A Specific Plan must be approved prior to any land division or other development approval action of projects in the RC areas. The, Specific Plan shall stipulate phasing of construction and responsibility for public facility improvements. LU6-6 Design of projects in RC areas shall include appropriate standards to establish adequate buffers and land use compatibility between commercial and residential uses or other uses on surrounding properties. LU7 Community commercial and employment uses clustered at nodes, both north and south of the freeway corridor, in proximity to intersections of major arterial streets. LU7-1 Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that support multiple neighborhoo.ds and the greater community, and reduce the need for external trips to adjacent jurisdictions, by designating community-serving commercial (cq uses at strategic locations within the overall transportation system. LU7-2 The CC category shall provide areas for businesses offering the provision and sale of general merchandise, hardware/building materials, food, drugs, sundries and personal services which meet the daily needs of a multi-neighborhood area. Typical trade area populations range from 15,000 to 20,000 people; roughly equivalent to the size of Arroyo Grande. Typical businesses in the CC category include general merchandise and/ or larger specialty stores such as hardware/ appliance outlets, building material/home improvement stores, automobile service stations, and services/offices of a community scale. This THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE , DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT : , i category encompasses agriculturally-related businesses and services that are not soil dependent, such as veterinary services and other uses as identified in policy LU2-S. LU7-3 Ensure that all projects developed in the CC areas include appropriate site ! planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by bicycling and public transit, particularly for residents from surrounding neighborhoods. LU8 Neighborhood commercial uses dispersed at nodes in proximity to residential areas. LU8-1 Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the daily needs of local residents, by designating neighborhood-serving (Nq uses at strategic locations throughout the city. LU8-2 The NC category shall provide areas for businesses offering the provision of food, drugs, sundries and personal services which meet the daily needs of an immediate neighborhood trade area. Typical neighborhood commercial trade area populations range from 3,000 to 6,000 people. Typical businesses allowed in the NC category include grocery and drug stores, restaurants and delicatessens, personal services such as laundries and beauty salons, and small-scale administrative/ professional offices such as finance, insurance and real estate. LU8-3 Ensure that all projects developed in the NC areas include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by walkirig, bicycling and public transit, particularly for residents from adjacent neighborhoods. LU8-4 Encourage distinctiveness in design such that neighborhood areas are recognizable by their commercial centers. LU9 A variety of business uses providing a high intensity of employment opportunities as well as revenue-generation for the city. LU9-1 Provide for a diversity of low density office uses which complement the character of Arroyo Grande by designating an Office Professional office (OP) category appropriately located in designated areas of the city. LU9-1.1 The OP category shall provide areas for the establishment of office-based working environments for general, professional and administrative offices, medical and health care facilities, commercial services that are required to support business development, and retail facilities that support business operations. LU9-1.2 Require that office centers be located and designed in such.a manner as to complement, and not conflict with, adjoining residential areas and convey a local neighborhood environment [Maintain a maximum floor area ratio within Office Professional areas of O.S.} THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN U~DATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT [Limit the intensity of hotel and motel uses to 40 guest rooms per acre.] LU9-2 Provide for office, light industrial and research-and-development uses in a campus setting by designating a business park (BP) category appropriately located in designated areas of the city., LU9-2.1 The BP category shall provide areas for the establishment of businesses offering heavy commercial uses, such as automobile repair and body I work, and light industrial uses, such as office/showroom, high-tech light manufacturing and other similar uses which serve the needs of a regional and local trade area. Typical trade area populations range from ; i 15,000 to 50,000 people. BP areas may also contain commercial services I i that are required to support business development, and retail facilities I that support business operations, including but not limited to sales areas for manufacturers, reproduction facilities, restaurants, and financial institutions. LU9-2.2 Allowable uses within the BP category shall not include uses. that negatively affect surrounding commercial or residential uses, or i . contribute to the deterioration of :xisting environmental conditions in ! i the area. LU9-2.3 Projects in BP areas shall be located with direct access to arterial or non- residential collector streets, and developed in a campus-like setting with standards for landscaping, building fa~ade treatments, signage, pedestrian/ employee amenities, etc., including but not limited to consideration of the following: a. siting of buildings around common pedestrian walkways and public places (plazas, outdoor dining, etc.); b. development of pedestrian walkways, arcades, and/ or other visual elements to interconnect individual buildings; c. use of common architectural design vocabulary (materials, colors, design character, etc.); d. use of extensive landscape in open areas and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; e. location of parking to minimize views from principal peripheral streets; f. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; g. use of consistent and well-designed public and informational signage; and h. installation of elements defining the key entry points and activity locations. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE I DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT I LUIO A community supportive of evolving employment conditions and workstyles. LUI0-l Permit home-based businesses in all residential areas, subject to applicable general plan policies and City of Arroyo Grande ordinances. LU10-1.1 Develop guidelines with regard to trip generation and parking. LUI0-l.2 Develop guidelines with regard to signage and advertising. . I THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT MIXED USE CENTERS AND DISTRICTS LUll The historic downtown area sustained as the symbolic functional and physical center of the City, with uses emphasizing a pedestrian-oriented commercial "village" providing for the needs of residents and tourists. i LUll-1 Designate the historic downtown area as Village Center M. The primary purpose of the area designated V is to provide for the continuation and development of commercial, office, residential, recreational and community center land use types ; that recognize and are compatible with the historic, small town nature of the original Arroyo Grande Village area. LUll-1.1 Within the Village Center designation as shown on the land use map, and subject to applicable general plan policies and Arroyo Grande ordinances, appropriate land uses shall include a wide variety of commercial uses, emphasizing retail an<:i low intensity tourist related functions. Typical uses include specialty retail (handicraft shops, art galleries, book stores, curio antique stores, flower shops), commercial selVices, restaurants, markets (limited to the fringe areas of the village), cultural facilities, financial institutions, vocational and trade schools, and bed and breakfast inns. In addition, as the site of City Hall, civic . administration functions are an important focus of the village area. . LUll-1.2 Office uses are permitted to the extent that they do not become the predominant ground floor use of the village or detract from the overall village character. LUll-1.3 Residential uses shall be limited to existing historic residential structures, I apartments in conjunction with commercial uses, and congregate or residential care facilities for senior citizens, are also appropriate uses. LUll-1.4 Emphasize uses that contribute to the vitality of the whole, creating pedestrian traffic an~ interest, as outlined in thE7 Design Guidelines for the Arroyo Grande Village. LUll-1.5 Encourage the development of outdoor dining and other similar uses which do not impede pedestrian use of the sidewalks. LUll-1.6 Ensure that all revitalization, redevelopment and new development projects in the Village include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to encourage pedestrian travel I I LUll-1.7 Prohibit drive-through commercial structures and convenience , commercial uses. i i i ; LUl1-2 Extend the Village Center M designation along Station Way and Traffic Way, east 1 , to the existing SR-l0l freeway ramps. LUl1-2.1 Maintain a distinctive visual and physical environment for the public streetscape in accordance with the Design Guidelines for the Arroyo THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE T TTr ..,1 DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT Grande Village, including the use of consistent street trees, landscape (planters), street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, news racks, etc.), street and crosswalk paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, public and entry signage, and other appropriate elements. . ; lUl1-2.2 Link individual buildings with each other through the use of walkways, , in addition to street-abutting sidewalks. lUl1-2.3 Integrate improvements into the design of individual sites and public streetscape that facilitate transit use of the Village Center, such as bus shelters and recessed access points. LUl1-2.4 Prohibit shared parking facilities from being placed along the street frontage. LU12 A revitalized Grand Avenue that has less of a strip-commercial aspect and more of a boulevard ambiance with distinct activity nodes. LU12-1 Provide for a distinctly "urban mix" configuration of commercial uses and high density residential uses sited above or adjacent to the commercial uses, by designating the Grand Avenue corridor as Mixed Use (MU). LU12-1.1 Accommodate the continuance and development of retail commercial, professional offices, eating and drinking establishments, household goods sales, food sales, drugstores, personal services, overnight accommodations, cultural facilities and similar uses. LU12-1.2 Establish a system whereby development intensities can be increased in the Grand A venue corridor on the basis of development credits transferred from Conservation overlay areas. LU12-1.3 Promote the development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage. Prohibit front yard parking by requiring that shared parking facilities be located to the rear of buildings or at remote locations not fronting on Grand Avenue itself. lU12-1.4 Ensure that all revitalization, redevelopment and new development .projects along Grand Avenue include appropriate site, planning and urban design amenities to encourage pedestrian travel lU12-1.5 Develop a Master Plan for the Grand Avenue corridor, based upon a market analysis of reasonable commercial and residential demand over a medium-term planning horizon (eg., ten years). The Master Plan should consider relocation requirements for existing businesses that are unsuitable in the redeveloped context, and ways to provide incentives for adaptive re-use of existing buildings. It should also inventory those buildings having characteristics worth preserving and possibly integrating into a design motif. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU12-2 Promote development of a high intensity activity node centered on the Cortland Street/Grand Avenue intersection. LU12-2.1 Accommodate... LU12-2.2 Pedestrian-oriented. LU12-2.3 Require a Specific Plan for the Cortland/Grand node prior to individual project approval that provides for cohesive and integrated development in accordance with the principles and standards stipulated herein and developed in the Master Plan. LU12-3 Promote development of a high intensity activity node in the "triangle" area east of Halcyon Road. LU12-3.1 Accommodate... LU12-3.2 Pedestrian-oriented. LU12-3.3 Develop a Specific Plan for the Halcyon/Grand "triangle". LU12-4 Promote a mixture of high density residential and commercial uses along Grand Avenue between Halcyon- Road and Juniper Street with substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements. LU12-4.1 Encourage the development of mixed-use structures that accommodate housing above lower level retail, office or other commercial uses. Accommodate vertically integrated housing at a maximum density FAR of 1.5, provided that a minimum FAR of 0.2 and maximum of 0.35 is developed for commercial use, and total building height is no greater than three (3) stories. Require that mixed-use structures be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses (eg., noise, lighting, security, vehicular access) and provide adequate amenities for residential occupants. LU12-4.2 Accommodate the development of free-standing multi-family<dwelling units on a minimum site area of 20,000 square feet at a density of 12 to 20 units per gross acre. Require that free-standing units be designed to convey a high-quality image. LU12-4.3 Provide an ample supply of specialized open space, such as squares and greens whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design, s~ch as in proximity to public transit stops. LU12-4.4 Public transit-oriented. LU124.5 Develop an Implementation Plan for Streetscape Improvements in the Grand Avenue Corridor, including financing strategies, that addresses elements such as landscape, street furniture, signage and pedestrian- scaled lighting. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE , DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT I ! I LU13 Automobile-related uses, including dealers1:Ups, service and repair uses, located in j appropriate places along main thoroughfares provided that their design and operations I are compatible with adjacent uses. I i I I LUl3-1 Permit the continuation of gasoline stations and supporting service fac:ilities in i I locations along major streets and highways in which they are currently located and i require that expansions or modifications of existing fac:ilities be designed to convey I I a high quality architectural and landscape character, consistent with the overall I I character and image of the City as specified in objective LU18. I LUl3-2 Prohibit the development of new and expansion of existing automobile-related uses in mixed-use districts of the CitY, (VC and MU), which are designated to promote pedestrian activity. Encourage the phasing-out of such uses in these areas. LUl3-3'Permit the development of new automobile-related uses and supporting facilities in commercial and business park districts, provided that a. the facilities are designed to convey a high quality architectural and landscape character, consistent with the overall character and image of the City as I specified in objective LU18; . I b. gasoline stations and supporting facilities are limited to a single comer of a street intersection and none are located adjacent to a freeway ramp; and c' the facilities are located at a limited number of key locations as designated in the pertinent Specific Plan. ! ! i i ! i I I . THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT PUBUC AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES A wide variety of public and institutional uses are spread throughout Arroyo Grande. Some of these facilities serve immediately surrounding residents, while others serve the general community. Although all of these uses benefit the community in some way, some of these uses may also result in localized compatibility issues, such as problems related to traffic, noise, and air ' quality. The consideration of public and institutional uses in this element centers around the supply and location of facilities in relation to existing and planned land uses within the City. The Parks and Recreation Element of this General Plan provides extensive detail regarding this subset of community facilities. LU14 An adequate supply of community facilities/public and institutional uses. LUl4-1 The Community Facilities (CF) designation on the land use map includes public or institutional uses that provide a community facility or service, with the exception of schools and parks. The uses allowed in this designation include but are not limited to the following: cemeteries, churches, City Hall, city yard, file and police stations, places of general public assembly, senior centers, women's centers, museums, sports complexes and other recreational facilities that are primarily contained within a structure. LUl4-2 Schools and Parks(S/P) are combined into one land use category on the land use map because of their potential for overlapping recreational functions. Recreational facilities that are primarily enclosed within a structure are included in the CF designation. LUl4-3 Balance the supply and size of community facilities with the existing and planned demand for the services they provide. The needs of the community shall be determined based on the General Plan Land Use Plan. Public facilities shall not be planned for a demand that exceeds that the demand associated with the buildout of this General Plan. LU23-6 Ensure that new development provides opportunities for recreation that are commensurate with the level and type of development Ensure that recreational uses are compatible with surrounding uses and with sensitive resources that may be present LU23-6.1 Implement parkland dedication/in-lieu fee requirements as set forth in Section 9-14.060 of the City's Development Code. LU23-7 Ensure that new development provides opportunities for school facilities and education that .are commensurate with the level and type of development Ensure that school sites are compatible with surrounding uses and with sensitive resources that may be present LU15 Community facilities located appropriately with respect to the population served. LU15-1 Schools and parks shall be located in close proximity, if possible within walking distance, to the residents served. , THF. rTTY n~ n~RQYQ GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU16 Community facilities planned, located, and designed in a manner that avoids and minimizes potential compatibility issues with surrounding uses. OPEN SPACE LU17 Areas of special natural, ecological or scenic value maintained as open space. LU17-1 Designate stream corridors as Open Space (OS). LU17-1.1 Open space areas shall encompass the area between stream banks and any existing tree canopy on either side of the stream. LU17-2 Designate steep sloped hillsides, especially bluffs, as Open Space (OS). LU17-2.1 Areas with slopes greater thari 50% shall be considered steep-sloped. Open space areas shall encompass the area between the toe of slope, at whatever extent serves to stabilize the slope, and the top of slope where it crests and levels. . LU17-3 Designate forested areas, especially coastal oak woodland, as Open Space (OS). LU17-3.1 Open space areas shall encompass the area of continuous forest canopy where tree density is greater than 1t per acre within a minimum area of _ acres. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT Growth Management TOWN CHARACTER The essence of Arroyo Grande's desirability is contained in its small town character and rural setting. This character encompasses a wide range of components including the scale and intensity of existing development; the rate, scale, and intensity of new development; the existence and proximity of agricultural and open space uses, including natural hillsides, Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho creeks, park lands, and rural residences; and the preservation. of historical structures, especially within the village area. As is apparent throughout the General Plan, the retention of this character is a primary focus of the people of Arroyo Grande. .' LU18 Components of "rural atmosphere" and "small town lifestyle" identified and protected. LUI8-I Recognize agriculture, natural hillsides, air quality and linear open spaces along Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho creeks as valuable components of the City's rural setting and as being worthy of preservation. LUI8-I.I Emphasize the retention of the natural environment over its conversion to urban forms. . . LUI8-I.2 Incorporate existing natural features into project design. Where removal of natural elements is unavoidable, reintroduce natural elements into project design. LUI8-I.3 Incorporate provisions of the Agriculture, 9pen Space and Conservation Element (AOSCE) into the review of land development proposals. LUI8-2 Except for narrow, two-story Victorian structures within the Village area, limit the scale of buildings within both the urban and rural portions of Arroyo Grande to low-profile, horizontal forms; design buildings to be' compatible with Arroyo Grande's small town atmosphere. LUI8-2.I In general, limit the height of buildings to no more than 30 feet. Where existing buildings are in excess of 30 feet and expansion is proposed, limit such expansion to the height of existing structures. LUI8-2.2 Utilize roofs having low, long spans made ofslate, concrete shingles or similar materials. Avoid metal and flat composition roofs. LUI8-2.3 Provide building elevations that are well-articulated in order to break up building. bulk. Incorporate one-story elements in two-story structures. LUI8-2.4 Ensure that row-type townhouses within the urban portions of Arroyo Grande are constructed such that each unit is varied in its setback. LUl8-2.5 Residential units within new single family neighborhoods shall be required to provide recognizable variations in their front and side yard setbacks. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ___.. __.__H_____>_'_____" ....,.._.__. - -- -_.'----~'----- ._'------ DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl8-2.6 Residential developments should maximize a feeling of openness by curving streets and orienting road axes to open space areas and areas of visual interest. LUl8-2.7 Use approp~te and simple roof forms, including shed, gable, and hip roofs, alone or in combination, to achieve a variety of roof lines along the"streetscape; avoid unarticu1ated fiat roofs. LUl8-2.8 To reduce architectural massing at street comers and to create congruity where a two-story structure is next to a one-story, incorporate a one- story element into the two-story bu~ding. LUl8-2.9 Design small lot single family and multiple family residential projects in such a manner as to group dwellings around common open space and/ or recreational features. LUl8-2.10 In higher intensity projects with opposing garages or carports, turn individual units and orient them to avoid the monotony of parking corridors. Alternately, stagger parking areas and provide appropriate landscaping. LUl8-2.11 Incorporate architectural treatments that enhance the appearance of the building or wall into exterior wall elevations of buildings and screen walls. . Exhibit uniform materia1s and consistent style in exterior elevations. . Use secondary accent materia1s and colors to highlight building features and provide visual interest. LUl8-2.12 Detail multi-story b1.dldings so as to reduce their vertical appearance as much as possible, except for Victorian style buildings and buildings in the Village area. . Provide a greater level of architectural details at the ground level than at upper leve1s. . Articulate separate fIoor leve1s with horizontal bands or by stepping them back from public viewing areas. LUl8-2.13 Incorporate variations In the setback and massing of the building bulk of large structures along major streets to provide variety and visual interes~ to the streetscape. LU18-3 Preserve scenic vistas and retain a feeling of "openness" in new development and redevelopment. LU18-3.1 Vary setbacks along roadways to avoid a monotonous street scene. LUl8-3.2 Minimize the installation of solid walls along area roadways unless they are needed for a specific screening, safety, or sound attenuation purpose. Where feasible, provide instead a landscaped berm or wide THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT open area with informal clusters of trees, defined by split rail or similar fencing. LUl8-3.3 Where construction of a solid wall that will be visible along a public street is necessary, provide landscaping such as trees, shrubs, or vines to soften the appearance of the wall, and to reduce undue glare, heat, and reflection. LUl8-3.4 The use of any fencing or walls should be consistent with the overall design theme of the development or adjoining existing developments. . Where they are needed, fences or walls should relate to both the site being developed and SUIl'ounding developments, open spaces, streets, and pedestrian ways. . Fencing and walls should respect existing view corridors to the greatest extent possible. . Prohibit poured-in-place concrete walls or require elimination of form marks on these walls. LUl8-3.5 Require the provision of open space and recreation areas within the urban residential portions of the City. Within the rural reside~tial portions of the planning area, emphasize the preservation natural landforms and vegetation. LUl8-3.6 Design and landscape multiple family residential projects to provide a pleasing view from the windows of individual units. . Provide a diversity of views from the windows of multiple family units, including distant open views, closer views of greenery, and some human activity. . If some windows must look out onto a blank wall, plant fast- growing vines on the wall to enhance its appearance. LUl8-3.7 Permit clustering of. residential units where the following criteria are met . The clustering of dwelling units is proposed pursuant to a specific plan (Government Code Section 65540), planned unit development, or similar mechanism. . The overall permitted density of the project area is not exceeded. . The resulting project will not require a greater level of public services and facilities than would an equivalent non-clustered project. . The result of clustering residential units is a more desirable and environmentally sensitive development plan which creates usable THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT open space areas for the enjoyment of project residents and which preserves significant environmental features. . . The project development pattern, including the net density of developed area and proposed lot sizes which result from clustering are compatible with surrounding areas. LUl8-4 Incorporate a sense of "place," privacy, and security into planned unit developments and multiple family projects. LUl8-4.l Maintain the function and quality of multi-family residential developments by orienting buildings and living spaces at right angles to each other for privacy, and by adequate provision of private open space areas such as patios and balcoroes for each unit LUI8-4.2 Provide each sub-urot of a multiple family project with some unique elements to create a sense of place and identify. . Design individual units within a project so as to be distinguishable from each other, providing them with separate entrances and entry paths. . . Design the common space of each building cluster so that the size, dimensions, grading, planting and site furniture of each are different . Provide every dwelling unit with a usable private garden, yard, patio, or balcony area. LUI8-4.3 Provide back and front entranc.es to planned and multiple fanUly dwellings which are clearly identified and distinguished from each other. Where dwellings have two doors, diHerentiatebetween formal and informal entries through the location of guest parking, sidewalk design, address identification, and pathways. LUI8-4.4 Where there is limited separation of windows from nearby public or common spaces, fencing, planting, or grade differentials should be used to ensure privacy. LUI8-4.5 Locate windows within planned and multiple family residential projects so that surveillance of semi-private public spaces and pedestrian paths is possible from frequently used rooms without permitting close-in view from those areas to the dwelling. LUl8-4.6 Units should be designed so that windows in adjacent units or in units across streets are offset. LU1S-5 Preserve significant historic and cultural landmarks. LUIS-5.l Require that new development, including signs, within or adjacent to the Villa~e area be compatible with the historical architecture of the THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE , DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT Village; implement the provisions of the Design Guidelines for the .. Arroyo Grande Village. LUl8-6 Require that residential street design be sensitive to existing landforms, and minimize traffic volumes on local residential streets. LUl8-6.1 Incorporate provisions into the subdivision code which would discourage non-local through traffic on local streets, and require maintenance of two points of access in residential neighborhoods. LUl8-7 Enhance pedestrian level activity within residential and commercial areas. LU18-7.1 Utilize "street furniture" (planters, benches, drinking fountains, newspaper racks, bike racks, trash receptacles) to create and enhance urban open spaces within commercial areas and to emphasize historical and rural architectural themes. LUl8-7.2 Commercial buildings and projects should be designed so.as to have a central plaza or main visual focus or feature. LUl8-7.3 Through the site plan review process, ensures that commer~ial facilities I are oriented to the pedestrian by -the incorporation of seating areas, I I courtyards, landscaping, and similar measures. I . Buildings should be designed and sited so as to present a human scale environment, including identifiable pedestrian spaces. ! . Uses within pedestrian spaces should contribute to a varied and i lively streetscape. . Buildings facing pedestrian ways and plazas should incorporate design features that provide visual interest at the street level. . Except in the Village area, where buildings should generally be located at the sidewalk, building setbacks along major streets should be varied to create plaza-like areas which attract pedestrians whenever possible. . Discourage wide expanses of parking lot between the sidewalk and the front of commercial buildings or provide safe, easily identifiable pedestrian access through the parking lot from multiple access points. LUl8-7.3 Where appropriate to building architecture, provide covered verandas along the fronts of commercial structures. LUl8-7.4 Establish a program of public art emphasizing historical, western, and rural themes in parks, public buildings, and public open spaces. LU18-8 Emphasize the incorporation of landscape themes and extensive landscaped areas into new development; provide landscaping and open spaces as an integral part of project design to enhance building design, public. views, and interior spaces; provide buffers and transitions as needed; and facilitate energy conservation. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE .. DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU18-8.1 Require that landscaping integrate with, complement, and improve the visual character of the natural environment of the area; require that landscaping also relate to and complement the architecture of adjacent structures. LU18-8.2 Emphasize urban planting schemes which minimize the use of water and which incorporate natural looking drifts and clusters of plants rather than highly structured, geometric schemes with trees and shrubs planted at regular intervals. LU18-8.3 Include in landscaped areas a combination of trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, flowers, and turf as appropriate and compatible with the surrounding environment and project design theme. . The selected combination of landscape materials shall be arranged in a harmonious manner. . The proportion of hardscape materials within any required landscape area may not exceed 20 percent LU18-8.4 Coordinate landscape design with drainage pl~ for individual projects to maximize percolation of surface water fTom the site. Employ swale designs in landscaped and turf areas to slow down runoff and maximize percolation. . LUl8-8.5 Emphasize the use of native and drought tolerant plantings in area landscaping. LU18-9 Encourage the provision of custom homes or homes that simulate a rural, small town, custom home atmosphere. LU18-9.1 Within the rural portions of the community (areas designated Estate, as well as low-density Planned Development areas [needs to be updated per new designations}), emphasize custom homes on large sites. LU18-9.2 If custom homes are not proposed, residential tracts shall provide a variety of floor plans and elevations should be offered as shown in Table 3. Applicants shall provide required floor plans at the time of application submittal. Number of Single Minimum Number: of . .:{.Hinimum.N~er ,of ". Family .Dwell~~gs ,:,:,:: !-;.o~;t~~f:S * '.;~::::} :E'levci:f~ons 1~~otP:r:in.:' .. ,-. . ,-' ,'.: '" .~:';:::;:":t"':~c .....~- ;>. ....... .. <10 3 2 11-20 3 3 21-40 4 3 41-60 5 4 61-80 6 4 THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE T T n= _ ~? ;, . DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT 81-100 7 I 4 >100 1 additional for each 20 dwellings over 100 * Includes reverse footprints. LU18-9.3 Emphasize the use of natural materials such as rough sawn wood, stone, stucco, and brick facade. LUl8-9.4 Emphasize building colors in earth tones and complementary accents in muted shades of reds, blues, greens, grays, and yellows. Avoid a monochromatic appearance of residential areas through the use of complementary accents. LUl8-9.5 On wood frame structures having a primarily stucco exterior, cover a minimum of 25 percent of the front facade with a complementary color and material. LU18-9.6 Break up front facades with entries andf or other recesses and projections to avoid flat fronts. LU18-9.7. Indu~e roofs wittt overhangs on all residential structures. LU18-9.8 Incorporate variations in building heights by incorporation of one story elements into two story structures, use of a combination of roof styles, and grade variations. LU18-10 Ensure that residential accessory uses and buildings are consistent with the primary residential character of the area, as well as the overall small town character of Arroyo Grande. LU18-10.1 Prohibit accessory uses or hobbies that would create additional traffic or need for signage or parking, and ensure that the primary use of garage areas is for parking cars. LUl8-10.2 Require that the design of accessory structures be compatible with the architectural character of the site and surrounding area. LUl8-10.3 Require that accessory structures be set back a sufficient distance from property lines so as not to detract from the value of adjacent properties. LUI8-11 Commercial centers shall be developed in a manner that is architecturally harmonious with a defined theme consistent with the rural, small town character of Arroyo Grande. LU18-11.1 Ensure the implementation of the Design Guidelines for the Arroyo Grande Village. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -- DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU18-11.2 Require that materials, textures, colors, and architectural detailing be consistent with the specified design theme consistent with Arroyo Grande's small town character. LUl8-11.3 Break up architectural elements such as variations in roof lines and building masses into smaller components. LUl8-11.4 Encourage the use of earth tones that reinforce compatibility with the rural character of Arroyo Grande; avoid a monochromatic appearance through the use of complementary accents in muted shades of reds, blues, greens, grays, and yellows. LUl8-11.5 Recesses, reveals, projections, architectural trim, and other elements shall be encouraged to enhance the architectural image of structures. LUl8-11.6 Shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as overhangs, projections, or recession of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings are encouraged in order to contribute to a building's character and aid in climate control. LUl8-11.7 The following design elements shall be encouraged in conjunction with the design and construction of commercial buildings: . Richness of surface and texture, emphasizing surfaces such as rough sawn woods, split face block, stucco, and facade brick. . Approximately equal building wall ratio to non-wall (e.g., window, ~cade, etc.). . MuIti-planed, pitched roofs. . Vegetation integrated with building walls, roofs and details such as trellises and espaliers. . Roof overhangs. . Regular or traditional window rhy~. LUl8-11.8 The following architectural elements shall be discouraged in conjunction with the construction of commercial buildings: . Highly reflective surfaces over the majority of the facade which is visible to ~e public. . Large, blank waIls. . Flat roofs without mansards. . Precision concrete block. . Metal or plastic siding. . Irregular window shapes and rhythms. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl8-11.9 DevelC?P specific design criteria where feasible for commercial areas not expected to develop ii$ unified centers, in the "form of conceptual approaches that integrate landscaping, driveways and parking into functionally unified wholes. [is this still applicable?] LUl8-12 Balance the need for signs within commercial areas as a means to identify businesses with the small town character arid rural setting of the community. LUl8-12.1 Design commercial developments with a precise concept for adequate signage; include provisions for sign placement and number, as well as sign scale in relationship to the building, landscaping and readability as an integral part of the signage concept. LUl8-12.2 Ensure that signs are integrated into the overall site and architectural design theme of commercial developments. LUl8-12.3 Require that sign placement, heights, size, materials, proportions, and design within the commercial areas be consistent with the low-profile nature and scale of the community. LUl8-12.4 Require that sign color be compatible with building color. In general, limit the number of primary colors to no more than two with a secondary color used for accent or shadow detail. LUl8-12.5 A void freestanding pole signs in favor of monument-type signs, wall signs, and/or secondary projecting signage. LUl8-12.6 In designing signs and sign messages, emphasize utilization of fewer, rather than more, words to create a clean, understandable message. In general, use symbols only if they are easily recognizable or represent a definable logo. LUl8-12.7 Limit the overall size and shape of signs such tha.t they do not detract from the message. LU18-12.8 Permit signs attached to the underside of a projecting canopy or protruding over a sidewalk or right-of-way as a special sign only if they provide pedestrian-scale atmosphere and enh~ce the building front. LUl8-12.9 Require that window signs be designed so as to be pleasing, aesthetically enhance shop fronts, geared to the pedestrian; and be at eye level. LUl8-12.10 Develop a community signage scheme for street corridors, public buildings and selected entrances to the community and its sub- communities. LU18-13 Provide appropriate screening for necessary "urban-style" facilities, structures, and features. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl8-13.1 Require that the placement and screening of satellite dishes, solar . systems, and other appurtenances be accomplished in such a manner that minimizes or eliminates the obtrusiveness of these facilities. Establish setbacks within the rear yard for satellite installations, as well as to establish screening standards. LUl8-13.2 Require unobtrusive placement and screening of appurtenances such as solar collectors, air conditioning units, and pool equipment. LU18-13.3 Require that trash enclosures, loading areas, mechanic;al equipment, and outdoor storage areas be screened from public view as appropriate; design enclosures and screening with materiaJs which are compatible with the project's architecture, and which do not detract from the rural, small town character of the community. LUl8-13.4 Require that on-site utilities and/ or ancillary equipment within commercial areas be located in an inconspicuous area or vaulted under ground away from public view. LU18-13.5 Where on-site utilities and/or ancillary equipment is required to be in public view, require that they be screened with a combination of materials that best suit the overall project design theme. LU18-13.6 Require that commercial loading areas be oriented away from the street and from residential edges. . If loading areas cannot be so located, require that they be screened from public view. . Access to service bays of automotive uses shall be from the interior of the site. LU18-13.7 Require that service stations, mini-markets, and other automobile-related uses proposed at comer locations be oriented away from the street frontage. . Orient rear building elevations toward the comer, and have architectural details consistent with the overall design theme. . Design access to service bays of automotive us~ from the . interior of the site. LUl8-13.8 Require that ground mounted equipment incidental to commercial development be appropriately screened with solid walls and/or landscaping. Locate equipment away from the front of the building. Require that screening material be similar or complementary to adjacent architecture and materials. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl8-13.9 Require that commercial loading and trash enclosure areas be screened from public view areas and adjacent residential developments, and be located an appropriate distance from adjacent residential structures. . LUl8-13.10 Prohibit roof mounted equipment other than television antennas and solar collectors with.in'residential areas. LUl8-13.11 Require that roof-mounted equipment on commercial structures be screened from public view. . Require that roof screens be solid and continuous, and that equipment be covered by continuous grills or louvers. . Require that roof screens be sheathed in a matching or complementary material to the exterior building material or consist of landscaping. . Prohibit the use of picket fence screening. . Minimize the rooftop location of mechanical plants and distribution networks. Where necessary, enclose such facilities with.in efficient roof-top penthouses. LU19 A pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land uses. LU19-1 Require that new developments be at an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses. LU19-1.1 As part of the development review process, treat the densities and i I intensities outlined in the Land Use Element as the maximum allowable; do not approve the maximum allowable density or intensity unless the I I proposed project is consistent with the provisions and intent of the I ; Arroyo Grande General Plan and City ordinances. ! I ! LU19-1.2 Require that adequate buffering and setbacks be provided between dissimilar uses. I LU19-1.3 Where a question of compatibility exists, require the new use to conform to the lower intensity use. LU19-1.4 Restrict new urban single family, multiple f~y, and mobile home uses to infill areas adjacent to existing developments of similar density. LU19-2 Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. LU19-2.1 As part of the development review process, new development or the alteration or enlargement of existing development should be viewed not only as freestanding objects, but also as part of a sh"eet, or neighborh~od, or as part of the ent:ire community. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LUl9.2.2 Require that the bulk of new structures relate to the prevailing or planned scale of adjacent development. LUl9.2.3 Require that setbacks from streets and adjacent properties relate to the scale of the structure and the importance of the street. .LUl9.2.4 Require that new developments be designed so as to respect the views of existing developments; provide view corridors which are oriented toward existing or proposed community amenities, such as a park, open space, or natural features. LU19.2.5 Design development projects within the Oty of Arroyo Grande to provide screening as is necessary to shield neighboring properties from the adverse external effects of that development. PLAN MECHANISMS (" 0 VERLA YS"/COMBINING D ESIGNA nONS) LU20 Appropriate use of Specific Plans with beneficial features that could not otherwise be achieved. Examples of such features include clustering houses and maintaining open spaces, mixed use, and a design that is sensitive to the site as a whole and its setting. - URBAN GROWTH LU21 Intensity of land use and area population limited to that which can be supported by the area's resource base, as well as circulation and infrastructure systems. LU2l-l Limit the number of dwelling units within the City to that which is consistent with the long-term availability of resources needed to support area population and that which public services and facilities can adequately support. LU2l-l.1 Permit new developments only where and when adequate water services can be provided, and the provision of adequate water service can be ensured by providing systemwide water improvements in advance of needs LU2l-l.2 Ensure that the approval of development proposals will not increase the traffic on a City street or roads in unincorporated areas (such as State Highway 227) above the roadway's existing capacity or Level of Service C at the peak hour. LU21-1.3 Where the construction of master planned water facilities is not practical, permit the construction of interim facilities only to the extent that the financing and construction of ultimate facilities are not jeopardized. ~-~" . . " - LU21-1.4 Prior to the issuance of commercial or industrial building permits, or the - . ,- recordation of residential tract or parcel maps, ensure the availability of adequate fire flow by requiring the testing of all fire hydrants in the vicinity of the project at the applicant's expense, and, "in the absence of adequate flows, require either the installation of on-site fire protection THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT devices or improvements that upgrade the area's water system to accommodate adequate flows. LU21-1.5 As part of the CEQA review process, ensure that adequate sewer service capacity exists or will be available in a timely manner for a proposed development LU21-1.6 Maintain current information concerning the capability of public services and facilities provided by the City and other agencies within the Oty. LU21-1.7 Monitor the impact and intensity of land uses on area circulation to ensure that the circulation system is not overburdened. LU21-1.8 As part of the CEQA review process,' the short- and long-term generation of air pollutants will be assessed using Air Pollution Control District criteria to determine the potential impacts of proposed projects. LU21-2 Ensure that all extensions of services and utilities to facilitate land use changes are accomplished in a manner consistent with the provisions and intent of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. LU21-2.1 Prior to permitting a major extension of services or utilitieS to facilitate changes in land use, conduct a thorough review of all social, economic, and environmental factors associated with that extension; require .the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures or prohibit the extension. LU21-2.2 Ensure that existing residents and businesses are not burdened with the cost of financing infrastructure aimed at supporting new development LU21-2.3 Unless otherwise approved by the City, ensure that public water, sewer, drainage and other backbone facilities needed for a project phase are constructed prior to or concurrent with initial development within that phase. LU21-2.4 Place the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all necessary infrastructure improvements (including systemwide improvements) needed to support project development are available at the time that they are needed with the sponsor of that development LU21-2.5 Require that existing public services and facilities deficiencies affecting an undeveloped area be corrected prior to or concurrent with the extension of facilities to serve the area. LU21-2.6 Review development projects for their impacts on public services and facilities including, but not necessarily limited to, roadways, wa.fJ!dwar~~ sew~r, fire, police, parks, school facilities, and libiari~s.s::traCleve1opnitJilJ:deve1 project will cause the level of public service or facility provision to fall below the s~dards maintained by Arroyo Grande and/or the standards of applicable service agencies, require that appropriate on-and off-site improvements be provided either through conditions of THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMEJ.'1T approval, development fees, or establishment of assessment districts. If such improvements cannot be provided, decline approval of the project. LU21-2.7 Work with the County of San Luis Obispo, the City of Pismo Beach and the City of Grover Beach to identify a future lahdfill site, and to el1Sure adequate landfill capacity to support planned growth within the two cities and their spheres of influence. [status?} LU21-2.8 Encourage all public service agencies to keep current information regarding their service capabilities. Conduct an annual review of user charges: development fees, and public facilities impact mitigation fees in accordance with AB 1600 to ensure that the charges are cOl1Sistent with the costs of improvement and maintenance. Utilize the service and mitigation standards contained in the Arroyo Grande General Plan as the basis for determining improvement and maintenance costs. LU21-2.9 Encourage recycling projects, not only by the efforts of the City but also by the efforts of individuals, non-profit organizations, or corporations and local businesses, as well as programs spol1Sored through the school district. LU22 Mechanisms in place" to effectively achieve the desired distribution and pattern of land uses within the City and in sunounding areas. LU22-1 Develop a Transfer of Development Credit (fDq program designed to achieve the City's objectives of protecting farmland and maintaining a compact urban form. LU22-1.1 Designate areas of Prime Farmland (see AOSCE) as "sending areas" where development credits could be transferred from. LU22-1.2 Designate appropriate areas in residential, commercial or industrial districts as "receiving areas" where development credits could be transferred to qualify for bonus development intensity. LU22-1.3 Ensure that the me program adequately reflects reasonable value for development of farmland areas under the assumption of appropriate urban intensity. LU22-1.4 Ensure that the roc program provides a strong "buyers market" for development credits in areas that can appropriately absorb the increase in urban intensity. LU22-2 ConHnue to implement monitoring of areas within the Area of Environmental Concern LU23 Changes in City boundaries that are logical in terms of existing resource availability, City service capabilities, economic development needs, social and economic interdependencies, citizen desires, and City costs and revenues, and consistent with the General Plan. . THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -~~""-'--"'-"-" - T T n; dn ------ DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU23-1 Permit the annexation of unincorporated areas Within the General Plan study area when consistent with the General Plan in limited circumstances. LU23-1.1 Require all of the following findings to be made prior to permitting annexations: . The proposed annexation will not impact the am.ount of water resources available elsewhere within the City; . Clear compatibility exists with the community's basic identity as a rural, small town community; the goals and desires of the people and the City of Arroyo Grande as a whole, and with the community's existing available resources; . The proposed annexation is consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan, particularly in regard to protection of agricultural and open space lands; . Significant benefits will be derived by the City upon annexation; . There exists a significant sodal and economic interdependence and . interaction between the City and the area proposed for annexation; - . .Adequate infrastructure and services have been or can be economically provided in accordance with current City standards; and . The proposed annexation Will generate sufficient revenues to I adequately pay for the provision of City services. I ! LU24 A well-defined urban edge that distinguishes Arroyo Grande from other jurisdictions I I I LU24-1 Establish an urban growth boundary, in consultation with San Luis Obispo I : County, which clearly maintains the permanent separation between urban and , i rural character. I LU24-1.1 Identify, establish and maintain a I green belt' to the south and east of the city limits. REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION The impacts of actions taken by the City and of actions taken by surrounding jurisdictions do not end at City boundaries. The purpose of this section is to recognize the interrelationships between actions taken by the various governmental agencies within south San Luis Obispo County, and to provide a fr~mework for interagency cooperation and coordination of planning programs. LU25 Effective coordination of land use planning programs between affected local, regional, state, and federal agencies. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE . DRAFT 2/22/00 LAND USE ELEMENT LU25-1 Include evaluation of the potential impacts of proposed developments on neighboring jurisdictions as part of the development review process. LU25-1.1 Notify neighboring jurisdictions when considering changes to the City's existing land use pattern. LU25-1.2 Cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions through review and comment on proposed changes to existing land use patterns that might affect the City of Arroyo Grande. LU25-1.3 Evaluate the impact of regional land use patterns wyhen considering major changes to the Arroyo Grande General Plan. LU25-1.4 Evaluate the planning programs of neighboring jurisdictions when considering changes to the Arroyo Grande General Plan. LU25-1.5 Cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions through review and comment on proposed changes to their land use plans which might affect Arroyo Grande. LU25-2 Support the preparation of a reasonable regional land use plan. LU25-2.1 Work with San Luis Obispo County and the cities within the County to establish a basis and program for preparing a regional land use plan as a means of coordinating countywide plaruting efforts. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ..,.....- .- DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT Xmplementation Measures CODE UPDATES AND COORDINATION WITH RELATED PLANNING EFORTS ILU.1 Revise the Arroyo Grande Development Code to reflect and implement the policies contained in this General Plan Update. ILU.2 Initiate or facilitate developer-initiated Specific Plans for areas within mixed use designations, i.e., the Village and Grand Avenue corridor areas. ILU.3 Review existing redevelopment efforts in light of the General Plan Update. Initiate additional efforts that would assist in the creation/revitalization of areas within mixed-use districts, as appropriate. ILU.4 Continue and expand, as appropriate, coordination programs between the City ; and surrounding municipal jurisdictions, utility districts, school districts, service providers, and County, regional, and State governmental and regulatory agencies. AGRICUL TURAL PRESERVATION ILU.5 Maintain a city-wide inventory on a parcel-by-parcel basis of agricultural lands classified as Lowland or Upland. ILU.6 Maintain a city-wide inventory of Williamson Act participants and easement holders.. Update inventory annually. ILU.7 As an incentive for participation in Land Conservation Act programs, provide a subsidy to the application filing fees for processing applications to establish agricultural preserves or farmland security zones. ILU.8 Amend City procedures with regard to Williamson Act contracts to reflect latest amendments and changes to the Act, including but not limited to the 1998 amendments that define ~'farmland security zones." ILU.9 Encourage owners of agricultural designated parcels to consider participation in the farmland security zone program and provide assistance in applying for the program. ILU.10 Support the recommendations of the Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP) report. ILU.ll Support the creation of a local" Agricultural Land Trust," if initiative is taken by private citizens to establish such an organization. Offer technical and logistic support, and provide encouragement to any such local efforts. ILU.12 Develop a Transfer of Development Rights (f DR) Program. This program would provide compensation to agricultural property owners for selling their development rights to residential or commercial property owners who wish to increase the allowable development density on their property. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE I DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT ILU.13 Partidpat~ in CASP-recommended organizations/bodies. ILU.14 Explore potential role(s) for existing organizations, such as the Land Conservancy of SLO County, to participate in protection of agricultural lands within the planning area. ILU.15 Provide timely and expeditious processing of land use permit applications for' agriculturally-related development on agricultural designated parcels. ILU.16 Develop a program to implement lot mergers and consolidations of agricultural properties. ILU.17 Evaluate and consider possible expansion of agricultural uses into area of 'Very I Low Residential' north of the City limits. I ILU.18 Establish a Task Force devoted to retention of agricultural uses within the City. ILU.19 Consider agricultural land uses as an important industrial category for promotion ! by the Economic Development officer. ILU.20 Encourage business development programs that consider types of support services that are important to agricultural economy. ILU.21 Administer education and assistance programs that encourage broad-based cooperation between property owners, agriculture operators and growers, agencies and organizations with the aim of assuring agricultural sustainability. NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTENANCE ILU.22 Administer programs to encourage property owners to maintain and upgrade, as necessary, the quality of existing buildings and neighborhoods within'the City. Such programs may include: funding for housing rehabilitation, self-help actions (social programs, neighborhood clean-up activities, code enforcement), provision of technical assistance for efforts such as tree plantings, surveys to identify inadequate maintenance along with notification and assistance to property owners in accomplishing resultant maintenance efforts). LIST TO BE EXPANDED UPON COMPLETION OF DRAFl" UPDATE THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Plan Land Use Policy Map Land Use Classifications and Standards Estimated General Plan Development Capacitv , - THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT 2/1.1/00 i I I I - AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT c-.,.v OF A ?. ROY 0 G?. A. ~r D E: GE:N:::RAL PLAN UPDATE .I. . . DR..D..FT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION E~~~ OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Preamble: . That resources such as prime farmland soils are highly productive whether for agricultural purposes or for natural habitat Therefore, their existence in an 'exposed' state is essential for their natural value to be maximized. An' exposed' state refers to the interaction of soil \vith sun, air and water and its reSultant ability to provide the matrix for sustenance of flora. . Resources that are irretrievable and/ or irreplaceable need to be protected in situ. . IndiViduals and the community have a responsibility to future generations as well as to non- human creatures to preserve and protect natural resources that are finite in nature. . Resources contribute to overall well-being beyond provision of basic necessities such as water, food, shelter and livelihood. (safety, health, welfare ...) Objectives/Policies/Implementing Policies: Agl No net loss of prime farmland soils Agl-l Within Arroyo Grande's Area of Environmental Concern, designate all undeveloped land having prime fannIand soils, whether or not in agriculturally productive use, as Agriculfure (Ag). Agl-1.1 Prime Farmland Soils. shall include all land: (a) qualifying as Class lor Oass n in the Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification; or (b) qualifying for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index rating. Agl-2 In addition, designate (as a combining designation) a Conservation Overlay (eN) . over Ag lands having prime farmland soils. Agl-2.1 Areas with a CN designation shall be candidates for special measures and/ or programs designed to preserve underlying resources and protect the community from their loss, including measures or programs that may be developed subsequent to adoption of this General Plan Element. An inventory of currently operative measures and programs, distinguished by City and County jurisdiction as applicable, shall be maintained by the Community Development Department as public information. Agl-3 Support existing programs and develop creative strategies to retain areas of prime farmland soils in agricultural use or in a natural, undeveloped state. Agl-3.1 Encourage Williamson Act participation by agricultural landowners. An inventory of parceJs under Williamson Act contract shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and the status of those contracts reported annually to the Planning Commission and City THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AOSCE - 1 DR.D.FT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Council. The City's aim shall be 100% enrollment of administratively qualified parcels bearing an Ag/CN designation. Ag1-3.2 Encourage dedication of agricultural or conservatio.n easements over parcels having an Ag/CN designation. An inventory of agricultural easements or other restrictions on Ag properties, and the holders of such easements, shall be maintamed by the Community Development Department and reported annually to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City's aim shall be to maintain contiguity of Ag/CN parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prime fannland soils. Agl-4 Establish ~d apply a significance criterion (threshold of significance) for CEQA analysis, as permitted by California Government Code Section 15064.7, that considers any loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. Agl-4.1 Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through disappearance (eg., erosion, excavation, etc.), cQ.verage (eg., paving, construction of buildings, etc.), or conversion to urban/suburban use (including residential yards/ gardens and active recreational areas). Mere cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallow or is allo~ed to revert to a natural undeveloped state. Site improvements that are intended to support agricultural operations - such as grading, irrigation or drainage facilities, unpaved roadS, or buildings and structures - shall not constitute loss so long as the improvements do not substantially diminish the capability of agricultural operations on the parcel or within the area. Ag1-4.2 Acceptable mitigation for loss 9f areas having prime farmland soils shall . involve, at minimum, permanent protection of prime farmland soils in another suitable location at a ratio of 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual agriculture or conseIVation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen.as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by the decision-making body. The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, seconcUy within the Area of Environmental Concern, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienaga Valley. Ag1-4.3 Since the nature of prime farmland soils is naturally-occuning and geographically specific, the only means for mitigation to less than significant is preseIVation in place in an II exposed" state. The City shall make provision for the development potential of prime farmland soil areas to be realized in more suitable urban locations. After the imposition of acceptable mitigation and consideration of alternatives to THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES the proposed action, the decision-making body may approve development on prime fannland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted by California Government Code Section 15093. Ag1-5 MIDimize loss of topsoil by encouraging broad-based cooperation between property owners, agriculture operators and growers, agencies and organizations, that will result in effective soil conservation practices. Ag1-5.1 Assure that city streets, drainage systems and other infrastructure do not negatively impact agricultural lands and that the roads and systems are properly maintained. Ag1-S.2 Actively encourage conservation of soil resources. Agl-5.2.1 Develop and implement, in conjunction with US SCS, voluntary guidelines for farming operations on erodible soils. Ag1-5.3 Minimize flood damage potential to farmland. . Agl-S.3.1 Require that urban developments incorporate adequate runoff control structures. Ag2 Continuing supply and availability of water resources for agricultural use. Ag2-1 Maintain water resources for production agriculture, both. in quality and in quantity, so as to prevent the loss of agriculture due to competition for water with urban development Ag2-1.1 Do not approve any proposed general plan amendment, rezoning or development that results in urban expansion if the development would adversely affect (1) water supplies and quality or (2) groundwater recharge capability, as needed for agricultural use. Ag2-2 Identify groundwater recharge areas that are pertinent to agricultural water usage. Ag2-2.1 For purposes of this policy, I groundwater recharge area' refers to all areas with sufficient soil permeability or appropriate geologic structure such that surface water penetrates to one or more subterranean aquifers that are currently used or could reasonably be used in the future for agricultural irrigation or agriculture-related land uses. Ag2-2.2 The location and suitability of groundwater recharge areas shall be identified in CEQA analyses and considered with regard to impacts on agricultural land uses. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AOSCE - 3 DRAFT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Ag2-3 Ensure that development projects result in no n~t decrease in groundwater recharge and .no adverse effect on agricultural water supplies. Ag2-3.1 Establish and require mitigation measures that result in no net decrease in groundwater recharge. Ag2-4 Detention, retention and recharge basins shall be intended as open space and habitat resources in addition to flood control and other functions associated with a development Their extent and engineering shall permit establishment of vegetative growth and utilization for passive recreation. Ag2-5 Actively encotJ,rage water conservation by both agricultural and urban water users. Ag2-5.1 Require water conserving design and facilities in urban development proposals. Ag2-5.2 Establish landscaping and irrigation standards. 051 Protected and visually accessible scenic resources. 051-1 Identify and protect scenic resources and viewsheds associated with them 051-1.1 For purposes of this policy, a 'scenic resource' may refer to agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridge1ines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees, woodlands, streambeds and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature or especially unique to the City. 051-12 For purposes of this policy, a'viewshed' refers to locations from which a scenic resource is visible. Such locations may be privately-controlled or . accessible to the public. Public vantage points, such as travel paths (roadways, trails) or public facilities (schools, parks, etc) are especially important to maintain. 051-1.3 Through a public hearing process, establish designated scenic corridors along public roads and highways that have unique or outstanding scenic attributes, such as views of dominant hills, mountains or canyons; views of stands of trees or wildflowers; views of the Pacific Ocean or streams. Candidate areas identified by SLO County include Highway 101, Huasna Road from Lopez Drive, and Lopez Drive from Huasna Road to Lopez Recreational Area. 051-1.4 Locate structures, roads and grading on portions of a site that minimize visual impact Locate developments below prominent ridgelines and hilltops such that they are not silhouetted against the sky. Encourage THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE J1/ic::r;: _ 1. DRAFT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELE~~ OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES architectural and structural solutions that achieve in the least o17trusive ,manner the property owner's desire to enjoy scenic views. 051-1.5 Use natural landforms and vegetation to screen development. 051-1.6 M.iI1.imize signs, especially freestanding signs, and locate them so they do not interfere with vistas from scenic corridors. Secure removal of non- confor:ming signs within scenic corridors as part of discretionary development projects, wherever feasible. [need mOTe about signs, especially along Hwy 101.] . 051-2 Identify unique landforms and designate as Open Space (OS). 051-2.1 [define 'umque landform'] [ridgelines] 051-3 In addition, designate (as a combining designation) Conservation Overlay (eN) on OS lands that contain unique landforms of scenic importance. 051-3.1 [define overlay boundary as encompassing resource; or d~e process for designation.] OS2 Safeguarded and thriving sensitive biological resources; healthy, functioning ecosystem. 052-1 Designate all streams and riparian corridors as Open Space (OS). 052-1.1 [define 'streams' and ' riparian corridors' ; include buffer area corresponding at least to floodplain e.-<tent} 052-1.2 Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural state. 052-1.3 Consistent with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan, establish a grading and building setback of 30 feet from the top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside the setback. Do not remove riparian vegetation within 30 feet of the top of stream bank. Provide for adjustments when the applicant demonstrates that ... 052-2 Identify unique or sensitive habitat areas and designate as Open 5pace (OS). 052-1.1 [define 'unique' and 'sensitive' habitat areas: designated natural area preserves] 052-3 Identify unique landforms and designate as Open 5pace (OS}. 052-3.1 [define 'unique landform'] THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AOSCE - 5 .-.'---'---....,-.,.,-.-,. --- - --------'--------~.- DR.Ds.FT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 052-4 In addition, designat~ (as a combining designation) Conservation Overlay (eN) on , 05 lands that are streams and riparian corridors, comprise unique or sensitive habitat. or contain unique landforms of scenic importance. 052-4.1 [define overlay boundary as top of bank, etc.; or define process for designation.] 052-5 Identify and protect wildlife corridors that link habitat areas. 052-5.1 Identification or designation of a wildlife corridor shall not interfere with agricultural uses on private or public lands. 052-5.2 Encourage agricultural landowners and managers of open space to adopt range and farmland management practices that will not interfere with the mo~ement of wildlife through their properties. 052-5.3 Public or private development that requires a discretionary permit or proposes a land division, shall avoid disturbance of identified key wildlife corridors, including those identified by the County or other responsible agencies and organizations, unless' there is no feasible alternative. . 052-5.4 When evaluating discretionary use proposals, consider potential adverse effects on wildlife corridors as part of the CEQA process. Identify mitigation measures that would re-establish damaged or disturbed corridors and would provide for long-term viability. 053 A well-maintained system of footpaths and non-vehicular trails that provide access to areas of non-urban environment. 053-1 [tie in with viewsheds] 053-2 Access trails should not conflict with agriculture or with environmentally sensitive resources. CNl A built environment that respects natural processes such as flooding, wildfire, land movement and seismic activity. CN1-1 Discourage urban development within areas of SOO-year flood elevation. CN1-2 Discourage urban development within 200 feet of natural vegetation that is prone to wildfire. . CNl-3 Discourage urban development in areas that are prone to slope instability or likely to contribute to slope instability. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ,\ r.c.r-r= c.. DRAFT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELE~~ OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES CNl-3 Discourage urban development in areas of high liquefaction potential CN2 Preserved and viable cultural resources that reflect the legacy of earlier human settlement. CN2-1 Identify cultural resources that should be protected. CN2-1.1 [define 'cultural resources'] 0.'\12-2 Avoid disturbance of archa~logical and culturally sensitive sites. CN2-3 Encourage acquisition of important sites by public agencies, historical or conservation ox:ganizations. CN2-4 Protect the character of significant historical features and settings. Encourage listing of historic resources. CN3 Hillside developments that do not create geologic.al or other hazards ~d do not substantially affect the aesthetic quality of a hillside view that significantly contributes to the rural character of the City. CN3-1 A project is considered a hillside development if its site includes 25% or steeper slopes. CN3-2 All hillside development is subject to the performance standards set forth in the Hillside Management section of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of th~e performance standards is (1) to assure that all development within hillside management areas is constructed in such a manner that the structure and its occupants will not be subject to unacceptable geological hazards, and (2) to assure . that hillside developments are designed so as to avoid and/or adequately mitigate adverse effects on locally important views. zmplamentation Measures rOS.1 Designate all deed-restricted open space, identified as part of a Planned Development entitlement or Specific Plan, as Open Space I Restricted (OS/R). '. rOS.2 R~designate all open space which becomes deed-restricted through voluntary dedication or in conjunction with development activities, as Open Space I Restricted (OS/R). This may include lands identified with a Conservation (eN) overlay, indicating their suitability for permanent protection. 105.3 Maintain an inventory of dedicated open space, along with specific restrictions. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE .!1 nc:::r..- _ 7 DRAFT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 105.4 Encourage private landowners to protect and maintain open space resources on their properties. 105.5 Encourage and support efforts by state and federal agencies, SLO County, special districts, and non-profit and cooservation organizatioI1S, to protect lands containing open space resources. IOS.6 Encourage application of Williamson Act programs to OS/CN areas. IOS.7 Coordinate efforts to acquire open space lands with other public agencies and cOI1Servation organizatioI1S. IOS.8 Actively seek available grants and aid programs -from state and federal agencies and private foundatioI1S to fund acquisition and maintenance of open space and agricultural lands. 105.9 Actively seek contributioI1S of land, development rights, easements, and money from individuals and corporatioI1S, both for preservation of open space and recreation land in general and for acquisition of specific properties. COI1Sider using San Luis Obispo. Parks, Open Space and Trails Foundation as a vehicle for donatioI1S and gifts. 105.10 Encourage the use of cluster land divisioI1S and cluster development that wiI1Iocate development on the least environmentally sensitive portioI1S of properties. 105.11 Where a landowner proposes a land division, the proposed parcels shall maintain or enhance the long-term protection of open space. 105.12 Park sites and recreation areas shall protect scenic and environmentally sensitive resources, and shall not coIi.t1ict with agricultural uses. 105.13 Develop a Strategic Action Plan for agriculture and open space preservation (prioritize locations, identify actions, actors, funding, timing, performance monitorin~). 105.14 COI1Sider an impact mitigation f~ program as adjunct to, or in lieu of, direct dedication I of off-site agriculture or cOI1Servation easement. 105.15 Assist in establishing a fund for the purchase of cooservation easements and in investigating public revenue sources for funding= . grants/loans from State or Federal agencies . grants/loans from private foundations/ organizations . sale of local (Mello-Roos) bonds . citywide tax or participation in countywide tax . mitigation fees (nexus) THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AOSCE - 8 .-..--......-- .-.._~.- DR.l\FT2/22/00 AGRICULTURE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 105.16 Assist in developing a public education and outreach program relative to conservation easements (personal advantages) and permitted uses and activities on easement areas. 105.17 Collaborate with the County and interested adjacent jurisdictions (eg., Grover Beach) to develop a U model agricultural conservation easement" document to be used as the basis for negotiation with individual property owners. 105.18 Establish a program whereby the City could enter into contractual arrangements with agricultural landowners to acquire U right of first refusal" with regard to acquisition when the owner becomes interested in selling a property. [establishment of a Land Trust could evolve into a ~ecl1anism for full ownership of Ag parcels and direct management of agricultural activities. Like aJPA or a special district.] . THE CITY OF ~RROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN U~DATE AOSCE - 9 ARROYO GRANDE Draft land Use Policy Map -- g Residential Commercial Agriculture and Open Space Single Family _ Regional Commercial RC _ AgricUlture AG D Very Low Density SFR-VL _ Community Commercial CC />);,';;/ Open Space OS :,-.'.'>:-".'" D Low Density SFR-L _ Neighborhood Commercial NC tHf&1!R1 Open Space I Restricted OSIA fiii~ Moderate Density SFR-M t'tkiiM 0IIice Professional OP ~~'%j.;,::'il' , CombinIng DesIgnatIons (Overlays) _ High DensIty SFR-H _ Business Park BP :.,...: Conservation ..... _ Mobile Home Park SFR-MHP I PO I Planned [)eveIopment Mixed Use I SP I SpeCific Plan Multi Family _ Mixed Use Corridor MU _ Low Density MFR-L _ Village Center V _ Moderate Density MFR-M _ High DensIty MFR-H Public and Institutional _ Schools and Parks SIP ~ ENVICOM ~ ~ CORPORATION _ Community FacHitIes CF Rev. Man:tl3, 2ODO